Archives
Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars

Good day, everyone. As you may know, BostonMA (talk · contribs) filed a request for mediation here regarding a dispute over adding this particular image to the article. I took the case. As DocEss (talk · contribs) pointed out on the case page, I expect that the result of this mediation will logically apply to any depiction of Muhammad considered for inclusion in the article.

What you should know about me

• I'm unbiased - I don't edit Islam-related articles or have a vested interest in the outcome of this mediation.
• I am an administrator, which doesn't mean anything about my mediation style except that I can easily protect the article if edit warring occurs.

My ground rules

• No personal attacks
• Assume good faith
• All opinions are welcome and encouraged; breaking policies is not.

Agreed?

Let's start by having every involved party sign below that they are on board this train. Then we'll get started!

• --Aguerriero (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• --Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC) - don't know if I'll be able to be present, always, but I'll do my best.
• --BostonMA ^talk 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC) per [1]
• ----Truthpedia 20:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds good to me. —Chowbok 23:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I'll chip in. Captainktainer * Talk 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Sounds dubious but cant harm to participating. No committing at this time though.Opiner 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Ok ... I will see if I have anything positive to contribute. Nonprof. Frinkus 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• I am in too. --- ابراهيم 09:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agus mise Féín --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• -- --Islamic 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• I look forward to seeing this issue resolved, albeit through edict while begrudgingly admitting that consensus through reason is improbable.DocEss 17:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Striver 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• BhaiSaab ^talk 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Palestine48 21:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• I find it odd that several of the editors listed above have not made a single edit to either the article or to the talk page; It would be interesting to learn what brought them here (answered below). In light of this development - a very typical one for Islam-related AfDs and other procedures - I certainly hope we do not intend to solve this by a straw poll or numerically-based consensus.Proabivouac 04:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Zora 14:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Sefringle 21:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Frotz661 08:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 13:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Striver - talk 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Frinkus - Nonprof. Frinkus 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Big Brother 1984 22:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed this question to a list because of BostonMA's comment below. Please sign below if you plan to participate in this mediation.

• AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• BostonMA (although I may often be busy in real life) --BostonMA ^talk 15:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• ALM
• Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Itsmejudith 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merzbow 18:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Frotz661 19:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Zora 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Proabivouac 09:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hoverfish Talk 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Aminz 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Aslamt 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• (→Netscott) 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 11:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sefringle 05:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Ttiotsw 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hojimachong^talk_con 01:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• futurebird

Comment

• Comment. I strongly object to this question. I think a fruitful discussion need to focus on content, not on editors. All editors have personal opinions. Asking editors to identify themselves regarding their personal opinions regarding how Wikipedia ought to function will help to focus attention on editors and what they believe rather than on the substance of arguments regarding particular content. I request that the question be withdrawn. I would suggest that the proper way to begin is for editors to list those images of Muhammad that they wish to include in the article, if any. Alternatively, a way to begin might be to ask editors to identify what they hope to get from the mediation. Sincerely --BostonMA ^talk 13:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to wait for others users reply in any of the above (Yes,No ..) and will give my reply after sometime. --- ALM 14:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • My answer to the question that was removed is no I don't think images of the subject of the article should be excluded, I don't see why the question needed to be removed because that is what we are trying to decide. Regardless of the fact that we are trying to come to agreement of policy interpretation, consensus is still important, so knowing where people stand is also important. You suggest making a list of images for potential inclusion, well shouldn't we check first if the consensus finds the idea of any image acceptable? I believe that was the purpose of the question. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, the purpose of the question was, mainly, to see who would be joining. Where those who joined stand was secondary. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 15:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi HighInBC. I would like to respond to your question regarding the deleted question in mediation. You may have different expectations of mediation than myself. One of my expectations is that it will help to resolve the conflict. In my opinion, if an editor edits according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, then it is irrelevant whether that individual has the personal opinion Wikipedia ought to be censored. I don't believe Wikipedia ought to be censored, but there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that forbids an editor from holding that as a point of view as long as they edit and behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In my opinion, this issue will never be resolved if we continue to allow the personal opinions of editors, which they are entitled to hold, to be brought into discussions. In other circumstances, making comments such as "you wish to censor Wikipedia" might be considered a personal attack. I don't think mediation should facilitate the practice of "looking at the editor" which we work to oppose in other circumstances by asking individuals to identify themselves as holding unpopular points of view. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 15:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

See my response to Boston here[2]. It is important for everyone to show where they stand. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Now they are adding picture of Muhammad in Kaaba and many other articles[3]. This mediation should address a bigger issue. --- ALM 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And as explained on the articles talk page, it has been added because it is relevant to the article, and provides the reader with additional informations. Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:NOT), and images of Muhammad can be used where ever it is appropriate, and add something to the readers understanding of the subject, that the article discuss. -- Karl Meier 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

From a practical standpoint, I think it's appropriate to at least not insert the images in additional articles until we see where the mediation evolves. - Merzbow 02:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would presume that the status quo would remain in effect until the mediation is complete. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Did we lost another mediator? Why this mediation is not moving forwards? --- ALM 11:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Whoever is generous enough to mediate this for us should first read what has already transpired.Proabivouac 11:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the part that was unarchived (archive 5 now). | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 12:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that is good enough. Now what we should do next. Should we start ourselves or should wait for you to give us direction? --- ALM 13:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi ALM; From our discussion on my talk page, I visited the library. Of eight biographies of Muhammad, three included pictures: Mohammad, by Tor Andre; Mohammad, by Maxime Rodinson; and Muhammad, by John Glubb. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh really!. Were that historical pictures? Furthermore, if that picture mention that it is Muhammad because it could be an old traditional Arab. Are the picture on the cover. I have now list of 10 books non-with pictures. --- ALM 16:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I remember, two were somewhat stylized, and one was the picture by Alexander Ross. All were on the front cover. None were labeled "This is the Prophet Muhammad." I'm not sure what you mean by historical pictures. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I search these books on Amazon but there cover did not had pictures. Can you please provide me online links because if I have to quit mediation on this point (for good) then I want to be really sure? If someone made a person looks like Arab on Muhammad book then its probably be Muhammad but also it could be an Arab from that era. That era means the period the book is about. Alexander Ross picture might be this one because this is the only picture people here are able to find specifying depiction of Muhammad published in a book so far. I will visit University library on Tuesday (I hope), I already had list of 10 books (non with picture so far) but will find all the book in University library and report fact without hiding any thing. By historical I mean something not cartoonist (to make fun), something made with some authenticity, in order to represent him correctly historically... (I hope you can understand the point?) --- ALM 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again being a Muslim I have to be man of my words hence if we had enough proof then I will stand my words to quit it. --- ALM 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I could easily provide online links. I might be able to scan the cover images, but that would have to wait and might be a copyright problem. Since I just told you the pictures are there, I don't see how much more certain you could be that the pictures are there.

The Ross picture is the same one you mention. The other pictures are somewhat abstract (one more than another) in a style I associate with the sixties. They are not intended to make fun. They are not pictures of people in modern-day dress. I can't say if the dress, or beard style, is accurate for Muhammad's time and place. Their presence tells me the publishers found them suitable for publication on the front cover of a biography of Muhammad.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I am going to quitting mediation based on Tom reply. I have said that few times that if someone can show 5 books with Muhammad picture than I will quit mediation. That might be a wrong decision but I should stand by my words. Tom provided 3 books with picture and I guess 5 could be provided with search too. Having said that, I still deeply wish that you people do not add picture of Muhammad in that article. I have learned that secularism is a horrible system. Islamic state would be much better than that because it will be based on respecting all religions (unlike secularism which is now against religions). --- ALM 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Where secularism doesn't kill people based on religion, islamic states do, and there are numerous terrorist attacks, death penalties for minor things like Apostasy, homosexuality, adultry, theft, criticism of islam, etc. and numerous other things throughout history to prove of that. I don't know how anyone can claim an islamic state is better, unless they are OK with the killing of people for minor issues.--Sefringle 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify that that view is largly brough on by the press, and, although most middle eastern countries are dangerous, its an exageration. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 10:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please add your opinion on the matter below, explaining why you take that position. If possible, name a policy or guideline that you believe supports your opinion. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think we shouldn't include a repesentation of Muhammad here or in other articles pertaining to Islam. If it is for purely informative reasons that we include it, has anybody ever depicted Muhammad (or even Jesus for that matter) in a way that conveys their actual historical appearance, or is it some artist's imaginative point of view? It may be that policy and guidelines do permit its inclusion, but I am affraid that doing so would be like criticizing or opposing Islamic values as such. I really wish this wouldn't be a problem to anyone, but in this case I think we would be fueling an already aggravated situation and will endanger alining Wikipedia with one side of the (cultural?) conflict. If this is indeed our purpose, I too will be involuntarily taking part as a contributor to this encyclopedia. Thank you for your attention. Hoverfish Talk 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see above, is that you have two main concerns. However, keep in mind that any concerns you have, must be looked at from the perspective of *every single article* on the Wikipedia. Therefore:

1) whether or not the pictures of Muhammad are accurate or not

Accuracy has never been possible for articles referencing pre-photographic eras. Artists of varying calibres have painted historical figures since humans could draw or sculpt. None the less, the Wikipeida (and other encyclopedia reference material) do continue to provide images of "best guesses". If you want to keep pictures from this article on the basis above, then the Wikipedia should immediately remove any images that are as uncertain. Likely, we are referring to thousands upon thousands of articles. Since this is not Wikipedia policy, and I sincerely doubt that such a policy would be valid, this tact should be dropped now.

2) concern over offending a specific faith.

It is unfortunate that a specific faith takes objection to a picture of a certain person. However, this is utterly meaningless in this discussion. One could literally find equal objection by differening groups to thousands of Wikipedia articles. None the less, accuracy and robust knowledge in an article, is not something that should be dictated to the whole, by the few. I reference the Scientologists as one, and even articles on political figures. I am sure the GWB would like to have an article free of anything that displeases him, but none the less the Wikipedia strives for NPOV. Also note that pictures of Muhammad are available all over the internet, in libraries, in articles, and will not cease to be dependant upon the stance that Wikipedia takes.

I also include here, my original response to this, from the main Muhammad article:

There is no valid reason for not having a picture in this article. It does not matter what those that practice this religion believe, as this is not an article written solely by such individuals, for such individuals. Further, every article I've ever seen on Wikipedia has an image depicting the person in the article. The only _real_ reason people keep removing this picture, is because of a religious belief... which while fine while practicing their own religion, is not suitable to enforce others to follow.

This is a very slippery slope. If this article must be written to specifically not offend people, or to not present views and images for that same tact, then every other article will be in danger of NPOV. One might consider how badly scientolgists want to change their article, removing valuable information solely because it disagrees with their worldview.

In short, Wikipedia standards and NPOV require an image. I simply don't even see what the discussion is about. I will wait a few hours, and then restore the image. At that point in time, I would assume that no one would revert it, without first discussing the matter here...

Brad Barnett 00:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it best to wait for the opinions of others before readding the picture. You can participate in the discussion if you like. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 00:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This mediation has been going on for over three months now, since November or earlier. There has been no consensus in that time. This mediation is at a standstill, with no decision rendered either way. I would be happy to wait, if there was some sign of closure, but that won't be happening it seems. So, I will do my best to continually re-add the picture a couple of times per day, until such time as a consensus on way or the other is reached. Brad Barnett 00:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The guideline WP:Profanity states that:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

The Maome.jpg image is informative about Persian art, and about a certain branch of Muslim art. The image thus belongs in the encyclopedia under those topics. The article in question, however is about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and not about Persian art. The images adds no relevant informative content to the Muhammad article. --BostonMA ^talk 02:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe we should include an image of Muhammad. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion, opposing islamic values is not a reason to not include something. This image is informative about Muhammad, because it is a picture of Muhammad. This image serves the same purpose here as an image of any other person, past or present, would. It gives people a face or an idea of what somebody had looked like. It need not be completely accurate, because no painting is. An image here is just as valid as an image on the Jesus article would be.--Sefringle 02:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing of note. BostonMA has already indicated that his primary motivation is that this image offends Muslims. He has continuously offered other reasons and arguments against this image, when that primary reason failed. His statements above return again to how it might be offensive. Put another way, this image is relevant, it does add content to the article, and whether or not it offends particular faiths has already been deemed an unworthy argumentive tact. Brad Barnett 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Some remarks in response to Brad Barnett. NPOV requires that all points of view be fairly represented according to the weight that they carry with experts in the field. I fail to see how NPOV would require an image which is basically a work of the imagination of the artist. It is incorrect to state that "Accuracy has never been possible for articles referencing pre-photographic eras." There are many pre-photographic era paintings of individuals which are, if not photographically accurate, at least "more or less accurate". Photographs do not exist of either George Washington or William Shakespeare. Nevertheless, we know that is a better representatation of Washington than it is a representation of Shakespeare. Conversely, we also know that between and , the one that looks most like George Washington is the first. The situation with the Maome.jpg image is quite different. We do not know which of the individuals in the painting looks most like Muhammad, nor do we know whether any of the individuals in the painting is a more reasonable likeness of Muhammad than of Abraham.

The slippery slope argument would make sense if the image in question had some informative content appropriate for the article. If we begin removing information from Wikipedia to avoid offending people, then we truly would be censoring. But we are not removing information from the encyclopedia (the image exists elsewhere in the encyclopedia) and we are not removing content that makes the Muhammad article more informative.

Wikipedia policy does not discriminate on the basis of faith. We aren't trying to avoid offending any one specific faith, or any particular faiths. Wikipedia's mission is to be informative, even if the information is offensive. However, it is not Wikipedia's mission to be offensive unnecessarily. --BostonMA ^talk 02:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

--- You have already stated above that your primary motivation is that this image may offend Muslims. All of your other arguments are tacts taken to find a method around the assertion that offence is not a condition for removal. You are, literally, grasping at straws. You are engaging in cyclictic tactics. One point is argued against, you return to another. That is argued against, you return to the original.

The images we plan to include are images that are known depictions of Muhammad. They are quite literally, as accurate as any other images we have of historical figures. After all, painters and other artists are well known for presenting their works in the "style of the time", as even photographs of celebrities and political figures today are sometimes significantly touched up. Images of Muhammad are based upon legend, older images, and written descriptions.. whatever influenced the artist. SINCE THIS HAS NOT STOPPED SUCH IMAGES FROM APPEARING IN OTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES, THIS TACT OF YOURS IS VOID AND NOT LOGICAL. Again, if you are going to argue a point, MAKE SURE IT WILL APPLY TO ALL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES!! If your statement above (that only images known to be very accurate) be initiated, there are thousands of articles on thousands of Wikipedia articles that would have to be removed.. including depicitions of villages, scenery, and even renditions of things such as hypothetical dinosaur drawings.

As for point number two of yours, again.. this has been discussed. Other articles about individuals have images, therefore this article should have images. It adds to the article, otherwise you would not see the same on virtually every other well rounded article about individuals in the Wikipedia. If you do not think that images about a person adds to the article, then there are again perhaps millions of images that should be removed from Wikipedia articles... Brad Barnett 02:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more.--Sefringle 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I drop my tactfulness, or diplomacy, or whatever it is, on the issue. I agree with both the critique on the executions in islamic states given by Sefringle and with the NPOV argument. I know this will create edits wars, frustration, anger, complaints, but so long as someone wants to keep this polemic going on, he is entitled to do so. I will not repeat myself or interfere any further. Hoverfish Talk 09:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Brad Barnett argues that I (BostonMA) am:

"engaging in cyclictic tactics. One point is argued against, you return to another. That is argued against, you return to the original."

The reality is that the WP:Profanity guideline has two criteria that must both apply for an image to be considered inapprorpriate for an article.

• First, the image must be offensive
• Second, the image must not be informative with respect to the article.

I have argued both points because it is necessary to consider both points when applying the guideline.

Along the same vein, Brad Barnett has claimed that I:

"have already stated above that your primary motivation is that this image may offend Muslims."

Since there are two standards that must be considered in the WP:Profanity guideline, I have considered both. Neither one is Primary and I have never stated that one was primary, nor do I believe that I have stated any motivations, let alone stated an [alleged] primary motivation.

Brad Barnett further argues that:

"if you are going to argue a point, MAKE SURE IT WILL APPLY TO ALL WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES!! If your statement above (that only images known to be very accurate) be initiated, there are thousands of articles on thousands of Wikipedia articles that would have to be removed.. including depicitions of villages, scenery, and even renditions of things such as hypothetical dinosaur drawings."

Applying the WP:Profanity guideline, in my opinion, results in some images of Muhammad being inappropriate for a Wikipedia article on Muhammad. Brad Barnett expresses the concern that applying this guideline would result in other inaccurate images, of villages, scenery and dinosaurs being removed from Wikipedia article. That truly would be a terrible thing. However, the WP:Profanity guideline would not apply in any of these cases. Again, there are two standards in the WP:Profanity guideline that must be met in order for an image to be deemed inappropriate per that guideline. One standard is that the image must be offensive. That would pretty much exclude images of villages, scenery etc. If an image of a village or of scenery was offensive, say for example by overemphasizing negative aspects of a village, then that image should be replace by a better image. Images of dinosaurs might be offensive to some of those who disbelieve in dinosaurs (or not, I don't know). However, images of dinosaurs are very informative in articles about dinosaurs. So the second standard of WP:Profanity would not be met in this case.

Additionally Brad Barnett alleges that images of Muhammad are accurate. He argues that although the images were not created in the era of Muhammad, they are drawn from previous depictions of Muhammad, either pictoral or oral. Such a claim would require evidence, otherwise it is mere speculation. However, there is a problem for this claim. The various images of Muhammad that have been proposed do not look like one another.

--BostonMA ^talk 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BostonMA above. All available depictions have no basis and do not resemble each other. They are just artistic imagination of one person or another that would perhaps have a place on a page about that artist, but not on a page about the person depicted. Pictures of dinosaurs have been constructed carefully from evidence provided by fossils and such. I really don't see what evidence there is behind these depiction of Prophet Muhammad. Far from adding any information to the article, they bias the article toward what a particular artist imagined him to be. That coupled with the fact that they are offensive in and of themselves to a lot of people should be enough to exclude them. --Aslamt 18:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

But then again, pictures of Jesus don't always resembe one another. See Depictions of Jesus. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 22:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And...? --BostonMA ^talk 22:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point has been made quite clear: an image has to be both uninformative and offensive to be excluded from an article. If there is a depiction of Jesus that is both unauthentic and offensive, by all means it should be removed. The fact of the matter is, these so called depictions of Muhammad do not contain any information about him, because no one knows what he looked like apart from some verbal descriptions. And no offense to any artist, but I don't care what a Persian artist thought he looked like. So it should be quite clear that an image based on nothing does not add to the richness of the article, it only adds someone's POV to it that we don't care about here at wikipedia. The second point about it being offensive, I believe, has already been explained many times. It doesn't matter whether someone finds the fact that Muslims find it offensive to have a picture agreeable or not. I am sure there are people who don't find nude pictures the least bit offensive, but we still don't have them posted all over Jenna Jameson's page. In fact, one could argue that hers is a case where they should be, because that would add useful information to an article about a person who does that for a living (not that I am supporting that argument, but it could be made). --Aslamt 22:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have already contributed my point of view: that there is no encyclopedic purpose in including purported depictions of Muhammad, simply because there are not any depictions of him. It's been said that no picture is 100% accurate but we have none that are 80% accurate or 50% accurate or even 10% accurate. BostonMA has given good examples of pictures of historical figures, not photos but posed portaits, which can be supposed to look something like their subjects. Another very well known example is the paintings of Henry VIII of England, by which we can see his degeneration from an active young man to a bloated monster. If you think a picture would add information to this article ask yourself what effect it would have if we took a picture intended to be Jesus, labelled it Muhammad, and stuck it in the article? If you think that would be unacceptable, then why exactly? A youngish man of Middle Eastern appearance... (Sorry if this sounds offensive but I'm trying to get a serious across.)Itsmejudith 23:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this brief description displays many points of consistency with the individual depicted in Image:Maome.jpg (noting that all the heads are depicted out-of-scale,) beyond just being a "man of Middle Eastern appearance." It's unlikely that these are coincidence; instead the artist must have been familiar with the traditional descriptions and depicted him accordingly, and reverently. (Re the robe, intercalation was prohibited in Mecca, 631CE.)

For several reasons, this image cannot be Jesus: he is too old, and is wearing the wrong clothes. The age problem will pop up in every instance, will it not? On top of all this is the fact is that it depicts an event in Muhammad's life, just as most images of Jesus depict events (real or mythical, in both cases) of his life.Proabivouac 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

People are bringing up the Jesus argument. IMHO, the comparing Jesus and Muhammad are a little silly. There is a big difference. Most Christians, indeed most people living in the Western world have probably seen many depictions of Jesus throughout their lives. Many of these are almost definitely extremely inaccurate but that is kind of irrelevant. What is relevant is that the depiction of Jesus is a very significant part of him because many people, especially those who are highly interested in him (i.e. Christians) have seen and can probably imagine him. However the situation is Muhammad is that most Muslims, and indeed most people have never seen a depiction of Muhammad. Most Muslims I presume have no desire to ever see one either or imagine one. An actual depiction of Muhammad is therefore a far less significant part of who Muhammad is. The fact that depictions are rare and frowned upon by most Muslims is perhaps an important issue for the article to cover but IMHO an actual depiction is far less significant to who he is. I'm not going to argue against including a depiction per se since I've never bothered to consider the matter in depth but I do think we need to consider the matter properly and not use analogies and considerations which are IMHO inaccurate. N.B. It's important to remember here that AFAIK what we're here isn't whether to include depictions in wikipedia, I don't think many people are still trying to remove all depictions; rather we're considering whether we should include one in this article Nil Einne 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, back to the same arguments.

Primarily this time, it is WP:Profanity. The claim is that images of Muhammad will violate this rule, because it triggers BOTH of these conditions:

1) it offends 2) the pictures do not add to the article

At least, this is the argument provided above. However, the true case is that WP:Profanity does _not_ state this. It does state:

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."

Let's examine this above, a bit. First, and most important, we hgave "typical Wikipedia readers" above. _TYPICAL_. Whatever you might try to talk this word's meaning into, typical certainly does not indicate a minority of users. Typical would, by its definition in fact, have to indicate a _majority_ of users. So, on that premise alone, the entire WP:Profanity argument is absolutely null and void. It is a non-starter, so if you want to argue that point, you'd best start with explaining how a minority of users equate to the typical user. Naturally the word "typical" is exceptionally important, because for virtually everything you see posted to the Wikipedia, there are going to be words or images that are offensive to someone. So again, you must explain how the WP:Profanity argument equates, in this case, to the TYPICAL Wikipedia user.

You can't, and so again, your entire line of reasoning is null and void. Since I and other have already described why the images also add to the article, there is no other reason to prevent its inclusion... Brad Barnett 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "typical reader" in the WP:Profanity guideline was recently added. I have reverted to the long-standing version. --BostonMA ^talk 20:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

--- Of course. If the rules don't fit, let's make new ones! Yes, I'm half serious here.

BostonMA, the word "typical" has been in the Profanity guideline page for years.. almost since the earliest revision of the page. It was removed in 2006, at which point several people got together, noticed it, discussed it, and decided it was wrong to leave "typical" out.

My comments on the Profanity discussion page:

"Typical" has been in Profanity since 2003/2004. It was a recent edit that greatly changed the spirit of this section, removing "typical".. and making this ruleset entirely too broad. This guideline can not be applied because one person out of millions is offended, or even if a minority out of the majority of users are offended. If so, then this Profanity ruleset will (and is) being used by special interest groups to dictate to the whole, what article content should be. This is unacceptable, reverting to pre BostonMA's change."

With the removal of "typical", effectively the entire Profanity ruleset is a joke. It is too arbitrary, and can be applied literally to every single article. Put another way, without "typical", millions of Wikipedia articles could literally be reduced to skeletons. Certainly, articles about people (again, let's take politicians or celebreties) have many things in them, that are offensive specifically to the individuals discussed, and their friends and families. If we go down this path, everything must be weighed against every single person that an article could possibly offend. Then, those articles would need to be utterly and completely stripped to the complete bare-bones. Brad Barnett 22:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As a thought experiment, let's assume a previously unknown naked painting of Muhammad by a well-known artist is discovered and scanned into Wikipedia. Would you support its inclusion in the Muhammad article, and why (not)? - Merzbow 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This image, currently found on God, violates Islamic doctrine far more unambiguously and universally than do depictions of Muhammad, as we have not only a naked prophet (Adam is equally a prophet, the depiction of whom, to the best of my knowledge, is equally prohibited by aniconistic interpretations) but also a depiction of God himself, which would be prohibited under any interpretation at any time. The notability of the artist is, as your comment suggests, a compelling reason for its inclusion; had Michelangelo painted a similar depiction of Muhammad, it would be a crime not to include it.

We might then ask if the image on God (as well as those on Jesus and others whom Muslims consider prophets) is a problem? If so, then this mediation is but the beginning of a very significant change across a great number of religiously-themed articles, obliging us to consider the precedent we set here in light of these. If not, the question poses itself: why should different standards be applied to Muhammad than to these other articles? The answer, I believe, is an ongoing and unadressed collective violation of WP:OWN: to wit that Muhammad belongs to Muslims in some way that God (or Pokemon for that matter) does not.Proabivouac 07:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of prophets like Adam falling under the same pictorial taboo in Islam; even if they do, the level of offense is far less, since Muhammad is a far more important figure in Islamic culture. But anyway, the point I'm trying to get you to concede is that there is a line into perceived offensiveness that should not be crossed, and that line is the point where offense trumps relevance. I'm sure that even you wouldn't advocate including the infamous Muhammad cartoons prominently in Muhammad, even though they are arguably far more relevant today to the subject than are some absurd European depictions of Muhammad in Renaissance clothing? So therefore our disagreement is not a disagreement of type, but of degree. My position is just that the line should be moved a bit farther back, which will give up only a small bit of relevance for the much larger benefit of not offending Muslim readers. - Merzbow 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to insert a response here, but I felt it was needed. Please note that not all Muslim readers believe that images of Muhammad are profane. Only certain sects do. Further, it's delusional to think that of those sects that "officially" find it profane, that every Muslim of that sect thinks or finds it to be so. Brad Barnett 23:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Those cartoons are more relevant for an article on criticism of Islam and Muhammad, therefore they wouldn't be included here. Do you have a more historically accurate portrait of Muhammad? Frotz661 20:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

--- It is indeed a slippery slope, and a picture should definitely be incuded for these reasons... as well as dozens of others. What I'm wondering is, WHERE ARE THE MEDIATORS, and HOW CAN WE GET THEM HERE FOR A VOTE? Brad Barnett 16:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind "it would be a crime not to include" the picture of God by Michaelangelo. This encyclopedia is, at times, a thing of beauty and we should all drop our natural feelings of ownership towards articles and immerse ourselves in a wider appreciation of creation. Similar feelings of wonderment can be engendered by looking at Islamic calligraphy or at Western art.Itsmejudith 21:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you seek to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. Encyclopædias are about explaining what is currently best known as fact or closest to it. They are not meant to be popularity contests or pleasing to all. Shame some discussion here misses this key point. Nonprof. Frinkus 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more about notability and being representative. Even paperless encyclopedias have limited spaces (in our main articles) and there are far too many 'facts' to include. It's easy to find 'facts' but its' hard to be judicious in which ones to portray. We have thousands of 'fact' images respresenting Muhammad in many forms of calligraphy, miniatures, etc. and we must not include a thousand of such facts but be judicious in choosing the most notable among the bunch. Be it pictures or calligraphy or a combination of the both--it is for you to decide. But, just because pictures add something does not mean that they belong. They must add relatively the most that an addition can add in regards to accurately representing the subject matter. gren グレン 21:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the image should be relevant, not just adds a tiny bit to an article. Nonprof. Frinkus 06:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that these depiction of God and Jesus of of strong interest & relevance to a large number of people who are interested in God and Jesus. They are a big part of who Jesus and God is for certain people. There is no similiarity when it comes to Muhammad IMHO as I've explained elsewhere in the mediation. The depictions are not a big part of who Muhammad is. Therefore these are not comparable and bringing up slippery slope arguments is IMHO a little silly. Note that the depiction of other prophets is also frowned upon, one of the reasons shows like Passion of the Christ and that Moses cartoon was banned in some Muslim countries. However given the differences, I think you'd find people who are oppose to including a picture, and people like me who are somewhat leaning against including a picture would strongly oppose any attempts to remove relevant pictures from God and Jesus. Indeed IMHO this whole thing is a bit of a strawman situation Nil Einne 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uncivil comment removed[4]. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A discussion is beginning at Wikipedia Talk:Profanity which may directly impinge upon this mediation. Participants in this mediation may wish to take a look. --BostonMA ^talk 00:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain in a couple of sentences what you would do if you were allowed to do exactly what you want to, without other's opinions in consideration, as well as what you would do considering their opinions.

• BostonMA:
• Tom Harrison: I would include images wherever they would be included in any other biographical article. I think two would be appropriate: one Persian or Ottoman at the top or with a relevent section, and another, maybe Image:Maome.jpg, at the section on depictions. I care not so much about the result as about how we get there: I would not support basing on religion any decision about page content, here or anywhere else. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• HighInBC: I would include at least one image. If there is one image that history agrees is accurate then that is great. If not, then it is appropriate to show a few different interpretations of his likeness. Just because the image may not be photo accurate, it still represents how people viewed the subject throughout history. As for the religious prohibition on this image, I don't think it is germane to an academic project that works with a neutral point of view. I would support the same if I was taking into considerations other people's opinion or not. NPOV is one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and cannot be overrided by consensus. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Itsmejudith: Do not see any encyclopedic reason for depictions on either informational or esthetic grounds. Informational grounds: no images resemble the subject, who did not sit for any portraits. Esthetic grounds: there are available calligraphic representations that are some of the most beautiful artworks ever created, so there is no need to include depictions. If it is objected that Persian miniatures are also artistic creations of the very highest quality, that is true, and they can be displayed and explained on their own page. If for consensus there are to be depictions then follow Gren. Itsmejudith 13:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merzbow: Agree with gren below... I think one face-covered image somewhere on the article is best (not at the top). Those who are willing to view additional depictions can follow the link to the depictions sub-article. - Merzbow 18:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Frotz661: The leading picture should be one of Muhammad, not calligraphy. The current lead picture is a bit too busy, so if someone can find a good head and shoulders picture of Muhammad, then that should be used instead. The article should be semi-protected to prevent random people from vandalizing it with image deletions. I fully agree with Proabivouac's words below. No one group should be given special consideration on Wikipedia. Frotz661 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Zora: I would go back to the compromise that worked for more than a year, I think it was, before the Muhammad cartoon controversy: one picture, near the bottom, the lovely Persian miniature with the veiled face, and the link to the Depictions of Muhammad article. Zora 19:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Proabivouac: I would include images wherever they are encyclopedic; that is, where they are historically notable, topical relative to associated text and of a tone and character appropriate to a serious article, in reasonable proportion to the length of the article.Proabivouac 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hoverfish: If I was to do exactly what I want to do, without other's opinions in consideration, instead of including any depiction I would state that no depiction of how Muhammad really (or approximately) looked like exists that we know of and that all depiction made later are based on the artist's imagination or speculation, and since even speculative depictions of Muhammad are not considered acceptable by (or are offensive to) the vast majority of Muslims, Wikipedia kindly abstains from including any in this article, but I would give a link (with a warning that it may be offencive to some) to an article with speculative depictions of Persian and Ottoman traditional art. Now, considering others' opinions I would accept the compromise that Zora mentions above. Hoverfish Talk 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aminz:Well, I have two points. 1. It is best to fix some standard and then commit to it. If the pictures of Muhammad are not pleasant to Muslims and they have to be included, so should the article include the information which are not pleasant to other groups. For example, we should also include the statement that the west, today, has a deep-seated prejudice towards Muhammad(This is sourced to one of the most renowned historians of Islam in west). Similarly there are several scholarly sources saying that the recent studies of Muhammad shows that he wasn't deliberately decieving people. 2. If we are going to include a picture, it would be best to include those drawn according to the Muslim traditions of the graphical description of Muhammad (as explained here [5] for example). These pictures could be easily found (illegally) in Iran. So, it is best to use one of those images rather than putting up some random picture. --Aminz 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aslamt: Leading image should be a calligraphic piece because calligraphic renderings of his name have always been the more prevalent form of depiction used for him. In addition, the second most prevalent (and far more accurate) form of depiction has been textual. So if necessary, a verbal reference from an agreed upon text as to what he looked like (such as from the USC-MSA database that was referred to in the above discussion) should be included. By all standards, such a depiction would be more accurate than any given pictorial depiction; and as alluded to in the discussion above, verbal description are loosely the basis for most pictorial depictions anyway. If the consensus is to include a picture at any rate, it should at least be restricted to some standards of conformity with the textual description. Images of a renaissance-style Muhammad or a blond Muhammad don't have any encyclopedic value and should be avoided at all cost. --Aslamt 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Netscott:

• gren: I believe there should be one Persian image of Muhammad with his face covered on a page with text possibly like this one but preferably with more text halfway down the page. The top image should be a piece of calligraphy since more often reverence is given in that manner. Reasons: 1) the Persian tradition most often represents Muhammad with images. 2) the tradition more often than not represents him with his face covered. 3) and possibly most importantly, Muslims representations of Muhammad are almost universally from within texts and to properly represent the tradition we should follow suit. Wikipedia is not censored but we are trying to accurately represent traditions of prophet depiction. At times Muslims have been content with reading texts with pictures of Muhammad in them and it is a notable enough strain to represent on Muhammad--not a sub-page. However, in doing this we should represent Muhammad in a way that accurately shows tradition--thus the three stipulations.

Considering others: I would find it acceptable to have two images if we found some good examples of calligraphy to help balance them. We must not forget the importance of calligraphy even though we tend find it comparatively boring. I would also accept an image of Ottoman drawing since they sometimes depict Muhammad but I think the Persian tradition is more important. With two images one must have face covered--possibly both. I would not concede having an image above the first piece of calligraphy since it is on the whole more important. "Informative" is based on Muslim tradition and to display that tradition accurately by not crowding article with non-representative images is not censorship but the most scholarly way possible of representing Muhammad in light of history. gren グレン 23:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Frinkus: If I could do anything regardless of others, I would show the first decent image I could find. Considering sensitivities to this, I would make darn certain that image was historical and relevant. An image with a face covered kind of defeats the purpose of any image … why bother putting in anything at all. If only people thought with minds first, hearts second, but alas, I am just a isolated whack. Peace all.  :-) Nonprof. Frinkus 20:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sefringle: I would include the Image:Maome.jpg image, because it gives people a visual of what Muhammad probably looked like. This image is historical an relevant in my opinion, and is of good quality, and although it may not be completely accurate, it is a good representation of what Muhammad probably looked like. Consitering others opinions, I would include it if and only if it was historical, famous, and relevant.--Sefringle 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Netmonger: I would not include any image of a person in any of the biographies if it is not proven that it correctly represents the person. For argument sake; I have not seen how the editor Sefringle looks like but if I say he looks like below image, would it be correct? Wouldn't it be offensive? The point I am trying to make here is that historically Prophet Muhammad was never drawn until the time of the ottoman empire, so none of the artists who drew him had ever seen him, the image in question contains many men in the picture now which one of them is Muhammad? What is the source of the picture? who is the artist? The chances are that the claim of it being an historical picture may be a complete lie, unless proven. It is not fit for an encyclopedia article (a core article) to include an image that raises so many questions.

BTW the image [to the right] is a self portrait of David Levine ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 11:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• VirtualEye: I would NOT include any picture in an article which is false and does NOT add any additional information. Given that the picture of Muhammad be included then it validates the inclusion of fake pictures in thousands of wikipedia article with same point of not giving any additional information.

Now behold please:

• A lie involves the use of conventional truthbearers, (i.e., statements in words or symbols) and not natural signs. Intentional deceit involving natural signs, such as wearing a wig, shamming a limp, or wearing a fake arm cast, is not usually classed as "lying", but as "deception".
  • Deception involves concepts like marketing, propaganda, distraction and concealment. Fiction, while sometimes manipulative, is not a deception unless it is portrayed as the whole truth; not to be confused with half-truths.

After reading the above two definitions, it is not difficult to infer what kind of act is the inclusion of fake picture in an article. Muhammad is NOT a fiction nor Islam.

Now I come to the point made by respected wikian sefringle, he says:

I would include the Image:Maome.jpg image, because it gives people a visual of what Muhammad probably looked like.

My comment: If you carefully think then opposite is also true, i.e. I wuld not include the Image:Maome.jpb image, because it gives people a visual of what Muhammad PROBABLY NOT looked like.

I would answer the (honest or dishonest) arguments of people that since the fake pictures of God, Jesus and others are shown on the pages so the fake picture of Muhammad should also be displayed. Here it is:

About Picture of God:

Since nobody has seen God and there is no clue that God looks like human, displaying the fake picture of God is purely a personal imagination and not a Universal Truth and hence manipulating as well as directing the thinking of reader to conclude right in first glimps if God has been seen by the content authors/painters.

Now the argument comes: Picture of God is painted by Michelangelo.

My answer: Has Michelangelo seen God? No, then why manipulaing the reader's observation as if this is the picture of God?

I know people will disgree to the above argument about God. I would just give a general argument (not directed to anyone), If you (in majority) want your mother to be shown naked on display, does that mean I should also show my mother? or does that mean you will forcefully make naked pictures of my mother and publish?

While considering others Please never take things for granted.

I mean no offese from above example and it is not directed to anyone.

Now I would like to answer the expected argument: The picture is titled as michael Angelo's depiction....

My Comment: Human observation is usually thematic. They visit the page and then its not their duty to read each an every line to correct the manipulation which they got at first site. i.e

• 1- First visit the page and get manipulated.
• 2- If you read a small font below picture carefully then you correct you misconcepton, Otherwise stay decieved from your glimps at the article.

This misperception is same as writing the price of something like 99.99$ and writing the dollars part to be microscopic and decieving the observer if the product is only for 0.99$.

It is NOT the duty of observer to go check everything for correctness but the duty of content provider to not to decieve the observer and direct his thoughts to falsehood.

If picture of God is not justified (because it abuses the different believers) then how come you can justify the manipulations of brains of the readers by showing fake picture? As far as Muslims are concerned, they niether depict God nor they depict Muhammad, nor they depict Jesus or Mary. The offense is only once sided in most of cases related to depiction.

VirtualEye 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple of sentences please :)

• Ttiotsw - It is not our role to prevent Idolatry in the minds of the reader but to build a encyclopaedia. Pictures for BIO pages add verisimilitude to an article. It's more relevant for living people and certainly more relevant if we have a contemporaneous depiction. AFAIK there are no contemporaneous depictions of Muhammed and so we do not really need any image at the top for verisimilitude as it adds no more "truth" to the article. Truthfully same reasoning apply to any BIO-style article with an "image" at the top which wasn't taken/drawn/painted contemporaneous to the person's life. That there are images (non-contemporaneous and of good providence) is important but not to develop the person, Muhammed, but to develop how people perceived him later. The images are important as they reflect various styles of depicting Muhammed and there is a story behind the style which the article should capture. It is thus logical that the images (if any) are further down the article. The only grounds for exclusion is if the image has no story behind it or it is of a generic person of the time and not Muhammed. As with other articles we can flag the section with some "spoiler" tag if that is the consensus. Ttiotsw 06:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is obvious that the picture should stay, but with an altered caption. It is somewhat unfair that we lead people to think that is a literal image of exactly what Muhammad looked like. The caption should read along the lines of "An artist's representation of Muhammad". However, according to the Chewbacca Defense tactics of some pro-image-deletion editors, the image is false due to it being a non-photographic visual representation. I would like to point out that no historical figure before the 1820's had a photograph taken of them, and according to this logic, all of the images on these figures pages would need to be deleted. It is also somewhat humorous that the debate could have surfaced on any of thousands of other articles, but inevitably found its way here.. --Hojimachong^talk_con 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• futurebird: I would not include any image, no matter how well sourced it may be especially at the top of the article or in and "in your face manner" the images would be behind links so that people who want to avoid them have the choice to do so. Including images will limit the people who can read and edit this article, some of those people may have some of the best information the wiki could have. Not including and image inline, is informative since by not including the image we are illustrating just how important this rule is to some people. Not having an image may be more informative than any image we could ever find.futurebird 23:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Big Brother 1984 - Keep the images. Some people are desperately scrambling to find legitimate encyclopedic reasons for removing these images, but they aren't fooling anyone. We would not even be having this discussion were it not for the rather odd traditions of a particular religious sect. That being the case, it is important to note that the Hadiths don't just ban pictures of Muhammad -- they ban all pictures. [6][7] Allowing Wikipedia’s content to be regulated by irrational religious dogma is a slippery slope that should be avoided at all costs. -- Big Brother 1984 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose a solution that would minimise offence. Would it not be possible for the main article to have an icon (forgive the religious pun) indicating that a click upon it would lead to an image? There are all sorts of topics that could benefit, not just Muhammed. Many people would prefer to gain information about a distressing topic through words and not images -- car crash, for example, or starvation. Others would like to read about human anatomy or diseases without having to look at the evidence -- not just genitalia, but internal organs can be considered "private parts"! Some modern art installations can fall into this category too. So if there's a fair chance of an image offending readers, why not include it on a separate page all to itself, just one click away. No censorship; lots of civility and consideration. BrainyBabe 17:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This seems like bowdlerising to me. I once suggested that, and neither side would accept it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fine idea. futurebird 23:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I am wary of it, but I would accept it because of (similar) precedent at Bahá'u'lláh. It's also only a partial solution because it doesn't solve issues such as which image and other academic details that need to be sorted out. But, maybe it would stop random users inflaming the situation and make the working condition better. gren グレン 23:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The wikipdea isn't, as many have said, beholden to the laws of any religion, but the wikipedia is a culture (of sorts) and we do uphold ideas of etiquette and civility. So while it would be wrong to exclude the images from the database all together, or pretend that they do not exist, we can, and should make small changes that simply make the article readable for everyone, especially when the changes cause no loss of the informativeness of the wikipedia. There are precedents for doing this in the Spoiler warnings for the plots of movies and in the Bahá'u'lláh article that you and others have mentioned. I think it will make a big difference that the article shows that we have thought about this issue and know and acknowledge the importance of the issue while still holding to true the idea of including everything, even offensive material. I think we have an obligation to include offensive material, but there is no obligation that we go out of our way to offend people with that material. As, I've said before, it upset me to see the image right at the top, it's "in your face" and, well, uncivil to to do that. I'd also be annoyed if I went to the article on Jesus and saw Piss Christ-- I think this analogy is a good one because the man who made Piss Christ says that he did it out of reverence for Jesus, but many christians are bothered by his artwork. I think the same is true of the images that we have here-- they are not "Quintessential Muhammad" indeed no image could be.

The images do need to be sourced more clearly, I'd also like to see dates, if they can be found. futurebird 23:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct, we do have a tradition of self-censorship--lolicon being a prime, but also other bodily parts. I chose not to argue from this direction because I think there are clearly reasons why we need to limit the number of images and use calligraphy above the first image. gren グレン 23:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

futurebird, I feel that the "Piss Christ" comparison is somewhat different. Jesus was oft-depicted in his time, as well as after. He did preach against visual interpretations of himself, and therefore is a much more well-documented figure, with most people agreeing fairly closely on what he looked like (something like this), even though we know these images are probably not accurate (Jesus was from Nazareth in northern Israel, and definitely had a much darker skin tone). Additionally, the artist of the "Piss Christ" image has said he was deliberately testing the limits of free speech. I highly doubt that the artists of the proposed images of Muhammad were deliberately setting out to test the limits of a law, and that they were genuinely attempting to depict Muhammad truthfully. Therefore, I think we should find an image that most closely represents the hadith description of Muhammad. I do not have a specific place to look, but there is undoubtedly a solid description somewhere, if not in the Qu'ran. --Hojimachong^talk_con 00:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jesus was oft-depicted in his time", eh? "is a much more well-documented figure" ehh? "with most people agreeing fairly closely on what he looked like" ehhh? I know this isn't exactly on topic... but... I think you're wrong on three counts. To bring this back to Muhammad, the reason the Jesus images are important is because they are closely associate with Jesus. We have no reason to think that Jesus was a meagerly clad skinny white guy with a UFO over his head but when we see that we say "that's Jesus". Not because they "look like him" but because that image is so strongly associated with him that it has become him. That is what is important for Muhammad images and a good reason not to use Image:Maomé.jpg if we use an image but instead something like Image:Miraj2.jpg or Image:Muhammad at Kaba.jpg (if it can be sourced) which are at least images highly associated with Muhammad. gren グレン 03:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to defend my statements;

• "Jesus was oft-depicted in his time". Muhammad forbid (or preached against) people making an image of him, because he feared it might promote idolatry. We know many Muslims take idolatry very seriously (see Buddhas of Bamyan). Correct me if I am wrong, but Jesus did not preach against people making images of him. This is how it is interpreted in Christianity.
• Jesus "is a much more well-documented figure". By the people who would be able to depict him the best, yes. I would assume (nobody can know for sure, due to the length of time since Jesus was alive) that people who had actually seen Jesus in person created some images of him. Conversely, we do not know of too many images of Muhammad created by the religion that would know him best, Muslims. Jesus would likely be best depicted by Christians, and Muhammad would likely be best depicted by Muslims.
• "with most people agreeing fairly closely on what he looked like". I really do think that most, if not all, people with mental images of Jesus would describe something like this: Tall, thin, modest, and bearded. Wears plain clothes, has some shoulder-length, brown hair, and a crooked nose. Meanwhile (and correct me if I am wrong), there is no set mental image that most people have of Muhammad. If there is, then why are we not proposing its use on the page?

Regardless, if a picture is included, it should most likely be a picture created with Muslim influences, such as the images you link to, gren. Thanks for taking the time to read (and put up with) my comments. --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This picture, not similar to the Muhammad (SAW) does not imply that there exists a picture of Muhammad (converse is not true). why? Has anybody seen Muhammad and drew his picture? NO. Does any picture drawn by 'any' artist similar to even the basic characteristics of Muhamamd? NO. Why is that? Because Islam forbids drawing pictures of the alive, so those painters were obviously those lost deserters who did not have knowledge about Islam except the vague one.

Had they been knowing how Muhamamd looked like had they been aware of the very very common fact that Islam does not allow painting the living things yet painting the picture of Muhammad was the gross Sin to be considered. Simple is that, those people claimed to be painting Muhamamd's picture were not even aware of the knowledge of Islam nor about the order of Islam about not to draw the pictures of the alive nor about how Muhammad looked like except they knew very basics such as : Muhammad had beard and he used to address people as prophet etc. (I have seen many painted pictures which are associated to Muhammad, no picture even resembles a single bit, except that the person has beard and our prophet also had.). If I hear that a person called John who was clean shaved and was addressing the people in the church, that does not mean I draw any picture of a person addressing people and put in the article about this person and claim that picture to be his. Any cleanshaved person addressubg the people in the church is NOT John. Any person having beard and addressing some people is NOT Muhammad. Same applies to the paintings of Jesus, but people idolize the painters and do not think the otherway. The falsehood and the possibility of abuse to the sacred Jesus is not important to the people but what is important is that the painter like davinci painted him. Davinci is greater than Jesus for Christians? I wonder what kind of self deceptions people are advocating and are forcing others to be self decepted to.

Any picture drawing to depict Muhammad (SAW) will always remain disputed, as every person has the right to disagree 100% rightly that the picture depicted does not reflect Muhamamd as the painter did not see him. There is not even 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% probability of an imaginary picture to match the real one if we have not seen the real person.

The coming of the idea that a picture should be depicted because Christians and other religions do that, is absured. If other religions depict, Muslims are not offended because its nonmuslims headache, so no problem in wikipedia too. But why forcefully dumb this idea of depiction and making it a rule that there is a need of picture in every article even if we dont have?

The picture claimed to be of Muhammad, is ONLY and ONLY the imagination of ONE person(painter). Please dont dump that ONE person's personal imagination to the billions of brains.

Wikipedians supporting picture: "Hey, if you dont want to think like that ONE painter, then move aroud buddy!!! Because we aint gonna remove it, bucause we have already have a picture of single person's(painter's) imaginated 'BLONDE Jesus with a UFO on his head' dumped in to the brains of people and they did not resist, so you also better shut up and accept the ONE person's imagination to be the picture of Muhammad, thats it."

Wikipedians supproting the picture the other way: "Hey, we have to mention the cruelty of Nazis even many many people dont like, because we have to be fair and no matter many people dont like but we have to show the facts. But in case of Muhammad, we will show the false picture of Muhammad even there are many people opposing it, because we are fair and the false picture of Muhammad is (not) a fact. So if you dont like our Policy thingy then move around"

No offense. Is this the way to workout????

VirtualEye 14:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth noting that historically, artists have had a massive influence on world politics and the way people perceive things. Since there is no real picture, we need to come up with the best one. I didn't say that the hadith had a picture, but that we should find one that most closely matches the description given in the hadith, since that would be the most accurate picture available. --Hojimachong^talk_con 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, again, no one is saying the picture looks like Muhammad (well, almost no one). The point is tradition and you have it stuck in your head that "Islam does not allow representations of humans". You must understand that Islam has many diverse and contradictory views over history. We are not claiming that any of these are right just that there is diversity. It is clear that some groups have had no problems with the images--does this make then notable enough? you decide. However, because they weren't drawn while he was alive and don't reflect his actual existence is not a valid argument: see the reasons explained many times in relation to other historical figures depicted long after their death. gren グレン 16:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll go on the record as saying that I think the Maome picture does not depict Muhammad properly. --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The moment I told Hochimajong about 'hadith' the moment he started talking about him. I think first he should learn it in detail.

Hadith is about picturing the way of life of Muhammad (SAW), his prophecy, his encounters, his character. Muhammad is known for his character. Hadith is not even 0.001% about the physical appearance of Muhammad, yet this wikipedia article is emphasizing about the 'looks' right at the top of article and even that with a fake picture. How miserable way.

Good people look for what a person did. The people who only have opthalmic obsession, look for how a person looks physically. And for the moment there are more such people aroud. If you want to accomodate such people then you might put that fake picture to solace their thirst. If you want to help the decent people and serious learners then no need of fake picture, they will like to know what Muhammad stands for.

VirtualEye 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

VirtualEye, I would like to quote you in regards to the hadith depiction of Muhammad:

"FYI, our Prophet Muhammad (SAW) did not wear any luxarious clothes but ordinary clothes having patches. He did not use such kind of seat made of carved woods, insead the Mosque he built in Madinah had the roof made of the leafs of "date trees" and the pillars were the stock of the "date trees" and the floor of the mosque was not paved. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as well as his companions used have very little amount of food and were in very weak condition financially. They had to suffer a lot of hardships but only bowed in front of Allah." [8]

You are the one who brought up the hadith idea. So... would you like to defend it?

Also, please don't insinuate me as "stupid". I don't think that there is one editor here who does not have some strong personal opinions on the matter. I could say many things, but I as an editor am showing restraint, as are most others. --Hojimachong^talk_con 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at my comments at the end of This page VirtualEye 06:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have created User:Grenavitar/mimages to catalog some outside opinions on images of Muhammad (no images on the page in case anyone is worried). I think they are relevant to if or how we have a picture but also importantly, what kind of picture we would have (a subject widely ignored on this page). If you have relevant quotes feel free to add them... not from online sources which you can link to here but from harder to access ones.

Some things I want to note about the type of image: Persian is mentioned multiple times. First recorded images of prophets 1300s, not veiled... veiling and flames come later 1450s-1500s. 1600s tradition starts to die out in most places other than Iran. gren グレン 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, that is very productive to this mediation. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)