Misplaced Pages

Talk:Muhammad/images: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Muhammad Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:19, 21 October 2011 editLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 edits →Resolution on controversial images: r to Tarc - please explain or retract← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:23, 18 December 2024 edit undoAnachronist (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, IP block exemptions, Administrators67,273 edits →Showing FAQ 3 as a notice at the top of the main page.: we don't put disclaimers in articlesTag: Reply 
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{tmbox {{tmbox
|type=speedy
|style=border: 2px solid #B22222; background-color:#FFDDDD;
|image=]
|text='''Important notice''': |text='''Important notice''':
This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the ] page, within ]. This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the ] page, within ].
If you personally want to avoid seeing the images, you might want to read ].
*If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, '''please don't post here'''. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration.
*If you have come here to protest against how people are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Misplaced Pages, '''please don't post here'''. That is not new either.
*If you have come here to respond to those who have ignored point 1 and 2 above, please ] and post a simple link to the ] instead.
A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at ''']'''.
If you personally want to avoid seeing the images, you might want to read ]'''.


Suggestions are expected to be informed by Misplaced Pages guidelines, in particular ]. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on ] or ]. Suggestions are expected to be informed by Misplaced Pages policies, especially ] and ]. Misplaced Pages guidelines, in particular ] should be taken into account as well.


Because of disruption and trolling, the ] page can be edited only by established Misplaced Pages users. Please be polite and calm. ] or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated. Because of disruption, the ] page is extended-confirmed-protected and can be edited only by established Misplaced Pages users. Please be polite and calm. Aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.}}
{{tmbox {{tmbox
|style=border-color:#b00000; |style=border-color:#b00000;
|type=content |type=content
|image=]
|text=<div> |text=<div>
'''Important notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''pictures of Muhammad are allowed and will not be removed from this article'''''. <big>'''Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage ]. Removal of pictures without discussion will be reverted.'''</big> If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them, see ]. '''Important notice''': Prior discussion has determined that '''''some pictures of Muhammad are allowed''''' in the ] article.


<big>'''Discussion of images should be posted here. Removal or addition of pictures without discussion will be reverted.'''</big><br /> If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them, see ].
The '''FAQ''' addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior ] of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.}}

}}
The '''FAQ''' addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior ] of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read ] first.
For further information on Images Arbitration and Community consensus, see ] and ]</div>}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 25 |counter = 27
|algo = old(60d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archives|auto=short}} {{archives|auto=short|search=true}}

== Map of tribes dispute ==

I see a mild edit war going on regarding the map of Arabian tribes around 600 CE. It was originally removed with the reasoning "this isn't an article about Islam" &mdash; but neither is that map. In the year 600, that was during Muhammad's life, and Islam hadn't spread too much then. I think showing the tribes he interacted with adds encyclopedic value to this biography (and such a map for any biography would add value regardless of who the subject is). I don't see that it makes the article "Islamic" in the least. ~] <small>(])</small> 16:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

:I think there is a case for a map like this to set the historical scene for Arabia at the time. However, I don't think this particular map is very good (or readable). I'd prefer , which shows geographical relief as well as tribes. ] (]) 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
::Either of these maps is rather more relevant to this biography than the two maps currently there. Shouldn't this be on the main talk page though? ] (]) 16:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
:::I originally removed it because it made the section look very cluttered, it didn't convey the information clearly, and as my edit summary tried to convey, it seemed more directly relevant to the history of Islam rather than Muhammad's biography. The map DeCausa linked to at least has the advantage of being more clear in presentation and I'd be happy to see it substituted for the original. It would still seem a good idea to reduce the "cluttered" look of that section somehow, either by re-sizing or rearranging images. Thanks to Amatulic for bringing this to the talkpage; sensible chap :) ] <font color ="green">]</font > 17:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

::::Clutter is a good point. In fact the whole article is horribly cluttered and is really spoilt by it. The timelines and other infoboxes, which I think were fairly recently added, don't add anything, IMHO, and are responsible for much of the clutter. The worst one is the Infobox on military campaigns. It's huge and really not very useful. Also, there are far too many images. In some parts of the article they are down both sides in parallel, which I thought was supposed to be a no-no. ] (]) 17:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

:::Johnbod: I started this discussion here because it's about images. As for clutter, the particular section in question didn't ''have'' any images at all. I saw no clutter in adding one. ~] <small>(])</small> 17:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

== Edit request from Ishan7018, 3 August 2011 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Hi, would request you to remove the painting of Mohammad (saw) where it shows the reveleation of Quran from Gibrael.

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 00:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
:{{ESp|q}} Is there a reason or consensus to do this? ] (]) 01:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
::Obviously not. ] (]) 22:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think that the ideology and beliefs of every religion should be respected. Pictures of Muhammad(PBUH) offend and insult Islamic beliefs. They are also misleading and since they are not reported to have any likeness or familiarity with the individual they are representing , I don't think they have any "Encyclopedic Value". I don't know what is trying to be proved by repeatedly refusing to remove them, but I think just accepting the request for once would end a lot of problems. . ] (]) 15:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:The request was responded to and rejected. We do not cater to religious sensibilities, as that would lead to censorship. If you do not like the images in this article, you are free to not make use of this website. ] (]) 06:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

:Ok. Point understood. But I've heard there is another solution instead of "not making use of this website", according to some discussion here , you can customize your browsers. How can this be accomplished? Thanks. ] (]) 13:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
{{ec}}
:You're wrong; accepting the requests would result in uproar from the people who believe that the ''very extensive'' prior discussions have resulted in a consensus to not remove them.
:I cannot complete this semi-prot edit request, because {{xt|consensus should be obtained before the template is added}} - and clearly, there is no consensus for this edit. <small><span style="border:1px solid;background:#00008B">]]</span></small> 06:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
{{notdone}}

== Edit request from Kbahmed, 8 August 2011 ==

{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Please remove all the images of the prophet (PBUH) from this article. It is prohibited to make an image or painting of prophet Mohammed (PBUH). The editor must know that the paintings/images of prophet Mohammed (SAW) in Denmark and the facebook contest has offended the muslims around the world and there was a strong reaction to it from the muslim world.

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
:see ]. Regards.--<span style=font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'><font color=orange>]</font></span><sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 17:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

:As noted, this will not be done. While it is true that some branches of Islam forbid the creation of images of Muhammad, Misplaced Pages is not governed by Islamic law. your being offended is not a valid reason for the removal of content. ]] 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


Why not make a poll and let people vote and based on the result we'll determine whether the photos should be removed or not? What do you think? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Misplaced Pages is not a democracy.] The strength of the argument and the corresponding consensus among editors has a higher value than numbers. --] 02:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

== Why is WP:FORUM not being applied here? ==

This is an unusual page. Very few of the comments here have anything to do with actual concrete improvement of the article Muhammad. Yet I don't see the any of the usual "Misplaced Pages is not a forum" notices (]) that you see on any other talk page to a controversial subject, or even the standard template at the top of the page. I see continual discussion regarding people's beliefs on the idea of censorship in total violation of the anti-forum policy on both sides of the debate. Can someone explain to me why this particular talkpage is a discussion forum unlike any other on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 20:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:This page, IIRC, was specifically set up for such things - which is why it is separate from the standard Muhammad talk page. So, I believe such discussions are expected here, since that's the purpose of this sub-page. ;-) <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>&#124;<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 20:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
::That's about right - the issues that readers bring up about the images are raised so regularly that a consensus developed to "split off" such comments to a separate page, in order to keep the main talkpage from being overwhelmed by the exact same arguments day after day. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 20:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:::I raised this issue a few months ago, but it went nowhere. All this page serves as is a gutter to collect the waste that people don't want to see clutter up the main talk page. 99% of it is "OMG REMOVE PICTURZ NAO!!!!!" from one-off IPs that never come back to engage in any meaningful dialog. Honestly, this sub-pages should be deleted and any image removal requests on the main page should be removed without response. ] (]) 21:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

But other pages like ] or ] don't have gutter image pages, and from perusing the archives I see they both get a lot of complaints. Why is this one different? On other talkpages, off topic conversation is archived or removed. Why is this method not used here? If you are going to make an exception against policy, why not just make an exception of ] for the Muhammad page and remove the images that create this page in the first place? ] (]) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
:Because (1) the conversations aren't truly off-topic - they simply are based on the wrong premise (that we'll censor Misplaced Pages in observance of someone's individual religious beliefs), and (2) there have been some who ''do'' come back to discuss the image "issue" - though yes (as Tarc alluded to) they are few and far between. There's no reason to be "rude" (which is what it would look like - even though I know that's not your intent) by simply deleting such things with no response. If ''every'' person who posts that request could be labeled undeniably as a troll or such, I'd consider it - but not everyone who has (or will) fit that category. I'm not willing to be (or appear to be) rude to a few simply because they fit the minority in actually coming here to discuss this, regardless of their reasons or perspectives. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>&#124;<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 21:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
::Realistically, it seems that this page exists because a large enough number of people went more insane than usual over this issue, and people seemed to decide that giving them a place to vent would prevent serious problems in the future and, perhaps, the sheer weight of the archives would help dissuade some of them from even trying to force us to do things we're clearly not going to do.—] (]) 02:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
:::] was getting so cluttered with edit requests and discussions about the images that discussion about the article itself took a back seat.This was detrimental to its health and hence was split off --] 02:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

== Prophets images ==

I challenge you to find the differences between the current article and the following articles:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Jesus
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Gautama_Buddha
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Guru_Nanak_Dev
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Confucius
*http://en.wikipedia.org/Zoroaster
et cetera.

My point: even the those prophets who do not have a painting or an exact picture of them have an image in the upper right corner of the article, even if their likeness is imagined (i.e. Jesus); this article is the exception... why? are we trying to appease someone? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I think the difference is that the most common image used for those people is a painting of them, whereas paintings of Muhammad are rarely used and the stylized calligraphy is the most common image. Nevertheless, I like standardization and would choose a painting as the lead image if I were an administrator. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Luckily, administrators don't make decisions like that: all decisions are made by consensus. 199... is correct: the infobox should contain a common representation of the person, one that captures how they are usually represented. So, for example, a modern sports star is usually represented with a picture of them actually playing their sport (or, at least, dressed for playing). Muhammad is almost always (like, 99+% of the time) represented via calligraphy. Our article should match that. This significantly outweighs the idea of inter-article consistency. ] (]) 01:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' - with Qwyrxian for reasons cited. If we say our standard is "most common representation" - then it would be consistent with our article standards to represent Muhammad with calligraphy. If the Muhammad article then appears different from other biographical articles, that's OK since the biographical subject is also rather exceptional. ] (]) 01:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
:Think about what you're suggesting. These talk pages have, time and again, for literally years now, rebuffed any effort to remove images from the Muhammad article. If using the calligraphic image was an attempt to appease someone, it would be a pretty lousy attempt. The demand is for the images existence, not their location. —] (]) 03:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The pictures being in a different location is not going to make anyone feel better.The attempt to appease also makes the community a bit weak.When all the other religious figures have pictures at the header,why shouldn't Muhammad.this is setting a dangerous precedent.Muhammad is represented in the Muslim world by a calligraphy,no arguments there.But a historic figure is best represented by a picture.The calligraphic form was popularized as depictions of Muhammad were prohibited.A picture has more encyclopedic value as it better represents the person. --] 02:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
*'''Agree''' - I thought we'd just concluded this conversation elsewhere... No matter. Agree based on above, and as also discussed elsewhere, most other such figures have a consistent visual representation (such as Jesus; European, long hair, beard, etc), whereas, Muhammad does not. '''Sam:''' you mean ''oppose'' - you may wish to re-read what Qwyrxian said. The precedent has already been set to use the most common visual representation of the figure. In Muhammed's case, that's the calligraphy in the infobox and not an image. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>&#124;<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 02:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

==Infobox image, revisited==
]<!--Non free file removed by DASHBot-->
I refer to this past short discussion: ]

As folks here may recall, on 13 May 2011, the original lead image that graced this article for a long time, ], was deleted from Commons as well as Misplaced Pages due to an uncertain copyright status, discussed at ].

We all agreed it was a superior calligraphic representation compared to what we have now, which in my opinion is a poor substitute.

I note that the image still exists on Misplaced Pages as shown on the right. The copyright rationale seems OK, and nobody has complained. It seems to have been around for a long time. What say we restore it to the article? Or is this one at risk for deletion too? ~] <small>(])</small> 22:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
:I haven't paid as much attention to the image rules for Misplaced Pages as I should have, but, presuming the use of this image is allowed, I say add it in. It is superior to what we've got. —] (]) 03:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

::I also like that image, but the copyright claim makes no sense to me. It says it was published in a book in 1934, but claims public domain status under the "author + 100 years" rule. I mean, I assume the image itself is much older, but are we sure it didn't re-acquire copyright through novel use in the book? I'm thinking that especially because of the checkered background, which does not seem to be a part of the original image.
::Having said all that, not only am I not a lawyer, I barely have a basic grasp on obvious copyright issues...when we start dealing with reprints, old documents, and non-US documents, I could just as easily be right as wrong. But if others are comfortable with the copyright claims, I also agree with switching the images. ] (]) 05:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I looked at the deleted version, and it contained the same copyright claim, so perhaps the issue remains.
:::Personally I find the rationale for deletion questionable, perhaps a too-cautious response by some who think they know enough about copyright law. Had I seen it the discussion, I would have participated. The entire rationale hinged on two things: (a) that it was deleted from Commons, and (b) the "publication date" of this image came from something recent.
:::If a book displays a picture of an ancient painting, how is that any different from me going to the museum and taking a picture of that painting? Neither the book publisher nor me can claim to have created the work. That would be like me creating an image of an album cover and claiming that I own it because I performed the scan. ~] <small>(])</small> 19:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Yeah, in my entirely non-legal understanding, that makes sense to me. Does anyone know of an image copyright expert editor who could provide us with some sort of input? ] (]) 04:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::The most obvious name is Moonriddengirl, and if she doesn't know she'll probably know someone who does. ] (]) 17:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::Another option is to ask someone at OTRS to ask the publisher of the book if they would be willing to state that this particular image from their book is public domain. It may not be fruitful though, because it's already established that it's public domain in Turkey. That's the problem: If it's PD in the country of origin, why wouldn't the US respect that? ~] <small>(])</small> 18:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Hi. Images are not my primary focus; ] is one of the people who would come to mind, and she has found you on her own. :) --] <sup>]</sup> 13:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Some clarifications: this image was not published in 1934. Rather, we have a book from 1988 that prints this image. It is a book collecting the works of ], a calligrapher who lived 1871-1934. (The book also notes that a different artist did the gilding on this particular illustration, but set that aside for the moment.) The book gives no clues as to the original date of publication, but we can't really assume that 1988 was the first publication, because the book is a retrospective about a notable artist. Who knows when it was first published. (It definitely isn't an "ancient painting" though--it's the work of an artist who lived not that long ago.) The two routes to PD would be: 1) first publication before 1923; and 2) first publication after 1978 (because only then does the 70-year rule kick in ). The problem is that we can't prove this image wasn't first published between 1923 and 1978, which would make it still copyrighted in the US. (The US doesn't follow the ], for better or for worse, so the copyright status in Turkey is irrelevant.) If we wanted to ask the publisher/author anything, it would be very useful to know when this image was first published. (And I agree that a Turkish publisher commenting on US copyright law would be pretty pointless.) ] (]) 20:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks for that Cornell link. Actually it seems pretty clear from the sections about publications abroad:
:*As you said, if it was published before 1923 it's PD anyway.
:*If it was published between 1923 and 1977 without compliance with US formalities (which seems to be the case), and in the public domain in its source country as of 1 January 1996 (which it is), then it is also PD in the U.S. The special case about adhering to the Berne treaty after 1996 doesn't apply to Turkey.
:*If it was published on or after 1978 and it's been 70 years since the death of the author, it's PD.
:I don't see the problem. ~] <small>(])</small> 20:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
::Wait, how was it public domain in Turkey as of 1996? ] says it's 70 years after the death of the author, which would have made it PD in Turkey as of 2004, as far as I can tell. ] (]) 02:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::You're right, but that wouldn't matter due to the third point, assuming the book the image was found in is the only one to be found: After 1 January 1978, if published either with or without copyright notice, and '''not''' in the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996, then it's public domain 70 years after death of author.
:::So I guess this all hinges on an uncertainty about when the ''first'' publication took place? ~] <small>(])</small> 14:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, exactly. I would guess, considering that he's decently famous, that the work was first published in his own lifetime. It would be like having an undated image in a Picasso book released in 1988. Maybe public domain, maybe not, but we certainly wouldn't assume that 1988 was the first publication. ] (]) 17:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::If an image of a Picasso painting was first published in 1988 (say it was held in a private family collection and not shown to the public until donated to a museum &mdash; I've actually seen this in the case of Monet), isn't it kind of ridiculous that such an image would ''not'' be public domain? There's a certain amount of common sense to be applied to these copyright laws, no?
:::::I notice you re-tagged that image with a fair use rationale. Would that be a path to using it in this article? While there may be equivalent calligraphic representations of the word "Muhammad" (a poor substitute is being used now), there's nothing we have that matches the beauty of this one. ~] <small>(])</small> 18:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::No, I just wanted to slap some tag on it indicating that it's non-free, so that I could start the orphan clock running without deleting it right this instant. (There's no rationale there, and it would be impossible to write one--the only almost-but-not-quite-valid way to use it would be on ] as an example of the artist's work, but we should be other confirmed free images by the artist given his birth/death dates.) Just because it's prettier than other images we've found so far doesn't justify using a non-free image. I'd try doing some research to find another attractive image of Muhammad in calligraphy, which might require doing some digging at a decent library. ] (]) 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::That has been done; see the archive linked at the top of this section. The dissatisfactory result is the reason for re-opening the issue here. ~] <small>(])</small> 19:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I mean go to a physical library (probably a top-tier university library would be best) and page through old books on calligraphy... I don't see that that's been done. A Wikipedian could also take a photo of public art (at a mosque, perhaps?) in Egypt, India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Tunisia, or Turkey, where there are liberal freedom of panorama laws. Of course "prettier than existing images" fails ]8, so the effort expended is irrelevant. But I can't bring myself to feel too bad about the relatively unattractive image here unless there has been a significant effort to find something better, which doesn't seem to have been done. ] (]) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::Just realized I missed your response about Picasso above. My point was not about the copyright status of smoething published for the first time in 1988 (based on Picasso, this would still be copyrighted btw). My point was that if you saw a 1988 retrospective book about Picasso, it would be contrary to common sense to assume that something undated in the book ''was being published for the first time''. It's reasonable to assume that most works by famous artists were published during their lifetime. ] (]) 20:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Examples from other wikis, hopefully free:
<b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 20:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:I like the first one, but the second one is worse than the stark representation we have now.
:Hey, that first one is on commons! ]. It's apparently an original work by the uploader, but I like it. I'll put it in the article to see how everyone likes it. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
::That one is definitely a copyvio (found clip art source), and I seriously doubt the second one (also on commons ]) is self-made. Low-resolution professional-quality arabic calligraphy by a user from Ireland? I'm skeptical. ] (]) 18:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
:::There are plenty of Muslims all over the world, including Ireland, so I am not skeptical. It may not be original, but it's definitely derivative. If derivative, it seems no different from a photograph, which would be acceptable. Also, that image you linked (not the second one Wiqi55 linked) has been in use in the {{tl|Muhammad}} template for ages. ~] <small>(])</small> 16:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
::::I know there are Muslims in Ireland, but very low-res artworks raise red flags. I assume that relatively few people (even among Muslims) can create professional-quality original calligraphy like this. And typically someone creating an original artwork will have some sort of history of uploading that gives a clue into his background and/or will upload a higher-resolution file than this. (The low resolution is a good indication it was probably taken from the internet somewhere. If he had uploaded a ginormous png or vector version, I wouldn't be saying this.) And--assuming it is derivative of calligraphy elsewhere--unless we know what it's derivative ''of'', we can't determine its copyright status. If it is derivative of a modern roundel, then it would be a copyright violation. ] (]) 20:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


:Can someone translate both of the above images for me? Section by section? And perhaps point me to someplace where I can read up on what changes in stroke width and length may do to the meaning? I can whip up something I'd be willing to put in the public domain. No, I am not good at calligraphy (in the standard sense). I am good at creating new visual representations of line art, vector art and calligraphic art. Various of you have probably seen some samples of my work 10-20 years ago or so at Barnes & Noble, from the round calligraphic-like seal to the line-drawn "photos" of various authors. Various of those were small high res drawings to film and drawings to plate that I vectorized or modified and vectorized or used to create works matching other works. I'm willing to try, if the image everyone's currently selected does not meet fair use or PD. (So, I guess this question doesn't need answering yet). Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>] </small>&#124;<small> <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small></span> 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
==Resolution on controversial images==
The foundation recently passed ] on the use of controversial images which likely applies here. To quote:<blockquote>''We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.''</blockquote>where the 'principle of least astonishment' means that media should conform to the readership's expectations of the topic. Since it is a general practice in the Muslim community ''not'' to depict the prophet, and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual or necessary to article content, they likely ''should'' be removed as contrary to this resolution. --] 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:This may come as a surprise to you, but Misplaced Pages does not cater exclusively to Muslims. ]] 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:Common practice in the Muslim community shouldn't create any expectations on the contents of an encyclopedia.&mdash;](]) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:(ECx2)What you (Ludwigs2) describes may be the "general practice in the Muslim community", but Misplaced Pages ''is not'' a Muslim community. We follow standards and practices that are common in academic communities and educational institutions throughout the Western world. There is no English speaking country (and this is en.Wiki) where it is standard to censor biographical images for religious reasons. Furthermore, your argument contains false assumptions: that all readers of this article are Muslim, and that all Muslims are offended by images. Neither of those assumptions is true so your reasoning is false. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::I certainly found them quite informative, and I was impressed that Misplaced Pages refused to cave in to the demands of a minority in the interest of being informative. That was something which convinced me to stay here. No one has the right to walk through life unoffended and demand everyone feel the same about what's "offensive"; I certainly don't have any problem with the images. But further discussion really should go ]. ] (]) 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::I am not comfortable with the prejudicial tone of the above responses. We may not cater to Muslims, but we do not go out of our way to offend them, either. Please try to adopt a more sensitive approach in future posts.

:::That aside, there is a flaw in the logic you've presented. It is common knowledge even among non-Muslims that Islam does not approve of images of the prophet; it is an established fact that there are no known-to-be-accurate depictions of the prophet from any source whatsoever. The images being used (if I remember correctly) are all from a long-defunct period in Muslim history and were never intended to be informative or accurate depictions of anything (they were artwork). in other words:
:::*There is no overriding encyclopedic reason to use images of the prophet here, since they are not critical to the content for any reason.
:::*People of every race, nation, and culture would find it astonishing that Misplaced Pages deliberately offends the sensibilities of ''any'' minority group - much less those of a major religion - for no readily apparent reason pertinent to the development of the encyclopedia.
:::In fact, this astonishment has been registered by numerous editors over the history of this article; it cannot be denied. Unless we can come up with a valid reason why these images are sufficiently necessary to the page to justify that astonishment, the pictures should be removed. --] 19:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::::What you need to demonstrate is that there is a general expectation that an encyclopedia would conform to Muslim views. I certainly have no such expectation. Quite the contrary, in fact: I expect encyclopedias to give no credence to religious perspectives and sensibilities. I'm of the impression that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the "astonishment" registered on this page is from Muslim editors.&mdash;](]) 20:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} I have found them to be informative on how Muhammad has been depicted historically, and how artists have tried to convey what they believe he looked like. That to me should answer your question of the encyclopedic value of the pictures. ] (]) 20:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::@ Kww: please read the resolution again. This is not a question about 'conforming to Muslim views' (and in fact, raising the issue in that way seems to violate ] and ]; are you asserting that Muslim views are intrinsically bad?). The question to be answered is whether readers - assumedly readers naive to the editorial context on wikipedia - would generally be surprised or shocked to discover that the encyclopedia included the material. As I have said, most people (including Christians, Jews, Atheists, and etc) are aware that the Islam has a proscription against images of the prophet, so they would undoubtably be surprised to find that wikipedia is displaying them so prominently. Further, most people (including Christians, Jews, Atheists, and etc) would not find the images particularly informative, since they do not accurately or realistically depict any event in the prophet's life (or the prophet himself).

:::::I am talking about the general readership; your repeated attempts to argue that "It's just those Muslims and they don't count" doesn't impress me as reasonable or supportable under policy.

:::::@Singularity42: You are welcome to start the article ], and include all of these images (and more) over there. I will not object to any of these images in that context (and in fact would have no grounds to do so even if I wanted). ''This'' article, however, is not an art history article, and art history rationales are not sufficient to overcome the resolution or related policy. --] 21:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::In any other article about a historical figure, we would include at least one or two pictures of how that figure was depicted historically. The only reason not to include such pictures in this article is because it would offend members of certain Muslim communities who believe any depiction is blasphemy. However, moving them to a different article (whether or not that was appropriate, and I think removing all pictures is inappropriate) would not solve the issue. The same religious objections would apply to the "historical depictions" article. So ultimately, nothing really gained, and the encyclopedia is ultimately less off by not including in the this article at least some image of how he was historically depicted. So I would not agree with such a proposal, and would instead support the current status quo. ] (]) 21:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::: I haven't argued that it's "just Muslims and they don't count", I've argued that religious beliefs don't count in terms of determining encyclopedia content. Anyone's. No one should expect an encyclopedia to conform to any religious perspective, and I don't think that many people ''do'' expect an encyclopedia to conform to any religious perspectives. You assert that people would be astonished to find these images, and I assert that it would be ''more'' astonishing for people to find a secular encyclopedia whose editorial control included religious perspectives.&mdash;](]) 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::::We have a ] article if anyone is really that interested. Ludwigs2, while I agree with your assertion that non-Muslims might very well know that Islams don't allow pictures of Muhammed, I disagree that they would conclude wikipedia wouldn't show these images. They may conclude that none really exist, and thus be surprised to find them, but I don't think that this sort of surprise was in the spirit of the foundation resolution. ] (]) 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::As much as I have opposed a number of the images, and I still think the number here may be excessive, and I still think the first image needs to remain the calligraphic one, I have to agree with the majority above who say that the "least astonishment" principle actually seems to imply that we should keep, not remove, some of the images. That being said, I believe that the problem will be solved anyway, since the resolution also directed the creation of image filtering tools. Thus, at some point in the future (hopefully not too long), there will be a way for viewers who are "astonished" (i.e., offended), by the Prophet's images may simply choose to not see them. I am very glad that such tools will exist, as it does exactly what we should do: censor little (beyond that required by law), but make it easy for people to control what they (or their families, or their customers, or whatever) do or don't want to see. ] (]) 00:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

::::::::(e/c)
::::::::@Singularity42: on an article dedicated to historical depiction, NOTCENSORED would apply properly - images of the prophet would be protected there because they would be central to the topic of the article. They are not central (or even needed) on ''this'' article.

::::::::@Kww: You have, in fact '''explicitly'' argued that. You said: ''"...the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the "astonishment" registered on this page is from Muslim editors"'' and used that as the reason why the 'astonishment' should be ignored. Other editors have been even clearer on the matter, such as resolute's assertion that ''"Misplaced Pages does not cater exclusively to Muslims"''. I am willing to believe that you are in fact working from a general principle (as you say, that: ''"religious beliefs don't count in terms of determining encyclopedia content"''). Unfortunately, you regularly focus on the repressive argument that we should not let Muslim views dictate page content, and never address the positive logic which would explain why these images are needed in the first place. As the resolution suggests, if there is something central to article content that requires these images, we should of course use them, but if they aren't required, and we decide to offend Muslims regardless - well that's astonishing, isn't it? If in fact you truly believe that religious views don't count, then they should not count either way: anti-Muslim sentiment should not dictate content any more than pro-Muslim sentiment. As of now, however, anti-Muslim sentiments are being indulged.


== Portrait of Mohammed ==
::::::::Again, let me be clear: the astonishing thing in this is that Misplaced Pages dismisses and snubs the beliefs of a major world religion ''with negligible benefit to the encyclopedia''. Insisting on images of the prophet on this page - where they have no particular meaning and no particular value - is effectively one giant middle finger to anyone who holds those beliefs.


Why isn't there any attempt to at least put a portrait of what Mohammed might have looked like? I know it's a hard topic for Muslims because they are forbidden to draw any imagery of the prophet or God but this is a neutral article right? ] (]) 09:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::::@Chipmunkdavis: If I understand your argument, you're saying that most people (non-Muslims, anyway) probably wouldn't care all that much that the images are being used. I'd probably agree with that. However, I'm not sure that's relevant. The point-of-astonishment here (again) is that Misplaced Pages would take a stand on the issue for no particularly good reason. By choosing to show images of the prophet ''the project as a whole'' is explicitly telling Muslims their perspective has no place on this article. That would be explicable (and thus far less surprising to everyone) if there were valid reasons why such images were ''needed'' on the article. However, there are no such compelling reasons, and the project's choice to display such images regardless is mystifying. Why would we do such a thing? It's the one question here that no one has ever answered satisfactorily. --] 00:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:Not sure what exactly you had in mind but the article currently has 8 pictures of Muhammad. Did you miss them? ] (]) 10:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:If you mean as a ], there has absolutely been attempts. A few short comments on that at ]. Most depictors seem to have guessed that Muhammad had a beard. ] (]) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. And all the portraits available today not depicts how he exactly look like. <span style="background:#444;padding:2px 12px;font-size:12px">] <span style="color:#FC0;letter-spacing:-2px">❯❯❯</span> ]</span> 17:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I agree that the calligraphic representation should remain in the infobox. ] (]) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
:::Also agree with current consensus. ] (]) 10:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024 ==
:::::::::Note the quotes around "astonishment", Ludwigs2. They aren't "astonished", they are ''upset''. They normally quite explicitly identify their objection as being based on religious beliefs, and religious beliefs are irrelevant to making decisions about content in an encyclopedia. I've argued that LDS religious beliefs are irrelevant in the presentation of images of ]s; that Christian beliefs are irrelevant in discussing the historicity of Jesus; that Moses, Abraham, and Joseph Smith cannot be presented as being prophets in fact; etc. Religious beliefs are irrelevant to the construction of an encyclopedia, regardless of the faith in which they are grounded. In this particular article, the objections center around the religious beliefs of one Islamic sect, and those beliefs are irrelevant. That doesn't make them better or worse than any other sects beliefs, simply irrelevant, and nothing I have said can reasonably be construed as meaning otherwise.&mdash;](]) 00:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
{{moved discussion from|Talk:Muhammad|sig=] (]) 22:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)}}


{{edit extended-protected|Muhammad|answered=yes}}
::::::::::Kww, you're misrepresenting my point (for the third time now). why are you doing that? You force me to shout:
] (]) 20:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::'''AVERAGE EVERYDAY PEOPLE WOULD FIND WIKIPEDIA'S PUGNACIOUSNESS ABOUT VIOLATING MUSLIM CUSTOMS FOR NO REASON ASTONISHING'''
I would like to change the picture
::::::::::I hope that's clearer, thanks. --] 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


:Like it says slightly above, you need to much more specific. ] (]) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::: You seem to be alone in impugning the motivation of Misplaced Pages editors, Ludwigs2, and alone in you interpretation of what would most astonish our readers. I hear you quite clearly, and I believe you to be incorrect. Those are different things.&mdash;](]) 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::You can read it however you like: I was merely pointing out that I was saying "A" and you were responding as though I said "B". You can worry about your own motivations; I'm just concerned about your hearing. --] 16:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
::Ludwigs, you have been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know that this site is not censored. Especially for reasons of "I don't like it". You have not presented a single new argument that has not already been rejected a hundred times in the archives. The only argument you have is "everyone would be surprised to find images of Muhammad on this article", which is absolute nonsense. Nobody would be surprised to find images of Muhammad. That is, after all, how every article on historical figures is treated. The surprise would be if we censored this article to suit religious views. For Muslims who choose to be offended by such imagery, we already offer suggestions in the FAQ on how they can hide the images for their own use without degrading the quality of the article for everybody else. ]] 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


== Add pbuh after mohammed (S.A) name ==
:::Resolute: I'm sorry, but I cannot accept an interpretation of NOTCENSORED that effectively reads ''"neener-neener-neener!"'' NOTCENSORED does not mean that we get to put any darned thing in the encyclopedia that we feel like and tell everyone who objects that they can go stuff themselves. NOTCENSORED is designed to protect valuable material from being removed from the encyclopedia when and where it would make articles less informative; it is not intended to support editors indulging in petty interfaith bickering. These images serve no particular purpose, the article would be no better or no worse with or without them, their absence would relieve the page of mounds upon mounds of endless conflict: any common sense approach would have removed them ages ago just because they are a senseless bother. and yet here you are arguing that we should stick by them and all the problems they cause because… wait, why was that again?
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 5}}
Add pbuh after mohammed (S.A) name
It disrespectful if we won't say pbuh or (S.A)..After taking his name.. ] (]) 22:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


:::Ah, yeah: ''"neener-neener-neener!"'' wunnerful. --] 00:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC) :Read the ], please.<span style="color:Purple">''' - '''</span>]<span style="color:Purple">'''. '''</span><sub>]</sub> 22:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Remove illustrations images ==
::::Wow. So many false assumptions crammed into one paragraph. I counted six. If you can't see them for yourself, perhaps you should pause a bit to try. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
{{collapse top|title=FAQ No. 1}}
There shouldn’t be any illustrations images on this page. Can this be removed? Calligraphic images are okay. ] (]) 12:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)


:See ]. ] (]) 13:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Other articles about historic figures have images,don't they? Its purpose isn't just clutter.Images are quite useful in an encyclopedic article. This isn't some random collection of kittens and bunnies.(Although that would be epic!)The pictures here are historic depictions of the Muslim prophet,Many of them by Islamic artists.It's removal would make the article less informative.Ps,I think this particular argument was brought up before.Might wanna check the archives. --] 02:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:And ]<span style="color:Purple">''' - '''</span>]<span style="color:Purple">'''. '''</span><sub>]</sub> 18:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:There should totally be illustrations on this page. Illustrations are a standard feature of biographies on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 00:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}


== Showing FAQ 3 as a notice at the top of the main page. ==
::::::Amatulić, please list out any false assumptions you see so that I can clarify them for you - I don't see a single one (well, with the exception that I doubt resolute is ''actually'' thinking ''neener-neener-neener…'' - that was more in the vein of sarcasm). I'll put money on the fact that you can't find anything justifiable. --] 14:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::You aren't even trying. My purpose in suggesting you try to see them for yourself was to gauge whether it's even worth my effort to continue this debate. If you honestly don't see a single one (and I wasn't counting the snarky neeners), that's an indication that I shouldn't bother to engage further. I'll be happy to answer your request if you honestly can't answer it yourself. ~] <small>(])</small> 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::You made the claim, I told you I don't see it. If you have a point to make, make it; if you don't, please retract the comment. Seriously, I'm always open to personal critiques and willing to admit I don't see something, but I don't have much use for the ''"maybe you should go think about that, young man"'' game. I mean, if you want to reduce this discussion entirely to the realm of emotional rhetoric I can go there, but that would be fairly pointless, don't you think? --] 16:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
::::You reveal your own inability to maintain NPOV, Ludwigs, and the fact that you view this as some kind of religious war ("petty interfaith bickering") is amusing. I care about no religion save for the historical existence of them. Unfortunately, because of your own bias, you are unable to accept that this isn't an article about religion. It is an article about a 7th century individual who had a significant impact on world history, in part by founding a religion. And when I look at historical figures, especially ones of such importance, I very much expect to see examples of how said individual was depicted. As I said, for people who choose to see offence in their existence, Misplaced Pages has provided a means for you to remove them for your session. These images are valuable to those of us who prefer to preserve rather than destroy, alter or censor history. ]] 14:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


So I stand with Misplaced Pages's neutrality, and understand that showing images is important in any encyclopedic biography, but rather than causing un-necessary topic creations on the talk pages by people who might not have looked at the FAQ, I ''suggest'' that we can show a similar notice to the one on this talk page on the main page, something along the lines of "This page contains depictions of Muhammad, and while such depictions are prohibited in Islam, Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, and if you are a Muslim who wants to hide these images, you can refer to FAQ3 on how to do so."
:::::What bias are you referring to, Resolute. Do you think I'm Muslim? You probably do, at that…


Also, for anyone talking about "if we do this similar notices should be added to other religions", I don't really mind, I just don't know of any others. I'm not even Muslim myself, I am just ''suggesting'' a proposal on how we could potentially mitigate this topic that is often brought up on this talk page, and I completely understand if you don't implement this, but I'm just bringing the idea to the board. ] (]) 16:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I ask a very simple question - why are we offending the principles of someone else's faith for no particularly good reason - and you respond by asserting that no one's faith matters. Well, your personal atheism aside, faith obviously matters to a lot of people, we have an obligation to our readers to be respectful, and randomly disrespecting their faith for no gain is not sensible behavior. I assume you do not walk around at work randomly dissing Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, or whatever (or if you do, I assume you are called to account for it regularly); Why do you advocate for behavior here that you would shun in your own workplace? --] 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:Why does it need further mitigation? It would be raised even if there were warning plastered in every location... ] (]) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't go around calling black people ]s either. What is worthwhile to an encyclopedia is not the same as what is appropriate for the workplace. And on that same vein, your simple question is irrelevant. In a free society, we don't mask history on the basis of giving offence. We don't remove our articles on Nazi Germany because modern Germans find the subject touchy (and I apologize for Godwinning the thread). We don't delete the article on the ] because a sizable portion of Japan wants to pretend it never happened. We don't hide the existence of the ] because China isn't too keen on it being remembered. I'm sorry my friend, but a large part of history is offensive to any number of people or cultures. That is no valid reason to remove material. ]] 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
:We don't put disclaimers in articles, if that's what you're suggesting. See the guildeline]. The bottom of every page on Misplaced Pages already links to the general disclaimer, which in turn links to the content disclaimer: ]. Any disclaimer we would put in the Muhammad article would be redundant with the content disclaimer. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::''Lovely'' straw man you've got going there. Unfortunately, it is nothing more than a straw man. Consider the following two actions:
:::::::* Doing something that offends people because it is necessary to do it to give a complete and accurate description of a topic
:::::::* Doing something that offends people because it is pretty/fun/cute
:::::::If you do not see the difference between these two actions, then I have no choice except to question your ] as an editor. These images are decorative, not informative (N.B. that might be a debatable point with a couple). This is not akin to trying to excise Tiananmen Square, Nazism, or racial prejudice from the encyclopedia; It's about avoiding the use of images that have ''no particular value'' in the spirit of peace and goodwill. --] 17:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
*This entire proposal simply reeks of bad-faith. Ludwigs, who do you think you're trying to kid here, twisting a foundation resolution to serve your own bias? We are here to present an encyclopedic treatment of Muhammad, a biography that, yes, includes historical images. That some are unreasonably hateful of such imagery is just too flippin bad. For the rest of the civilized world, it is not astonishing or surprising in the slightest that an image of the subject appear in a wiki article on the subject. There is no part of that resolution that is applicable here. ] (]) 17:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
*:again, Tarc, what bias is that. If you are accusing me of a particular bias, you had best identify what it is, otherwise that is simply a ] which I will ask you to remove. --] 17:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:23, 18 December 2024

Important notice:

This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Misplaced Pages talkpage guidelines. If you personally want to avoid seeing the images, you might want to read How to set your browser to not see images of Muhammad.

Suggestions are expected to be informed by Misplaced Pages policies, especially Neutral Point of View and Verifiability. Misplaced Pages guidelines, in particular Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles should be taken into account as well.

Because of disruption, the Muhammad page is extended-confirmed-protected and can be edited only by established Misplaced Pages users. Please be polite and calm. Aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that some pictures of Muhammad are allowed in the Muhammad article.

Discussion of images should be posted here. Removal or addition of pictures without discussion will be reverted.
If you find Muhammad images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser or use your personal Misplaced Pages settings not to display them, see the FAQ.

The FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents prior consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

For further information on Images Arbitration and Community consensus, see Arbitration remedy and appended Community discussion


Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Portrait of Mohammed

Why isn't there any attempt to at least put a portrait of what Mohammed might have looked like? I know it's a hard topic for Muslims because they are forbidden to draw any imagery of the prophet or God but this is a neutral article right? RickyBlair668 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you had in mind but the article currently has 8 pictures of Muhammad. Did you miss them? DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
If you mean as a WP:LEADIMAGE, there has absolutely been attempts. A few short comments on that at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Muhammad_images#Question_2:_What_image_should_appear_in_the_infobox?. Most depictors seem to have guessed that Muhammad had a beard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. And all the portraits available today not depicts how he exactly look like. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 17:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the calligraphic representation should remain in the infobox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Also agree with current consensus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

Moved from Talk:Muhammad – Left guide (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to Muhammad has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kuwait.5 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC) I would like to change the picture

Like it says slightly above, you need to much more specific. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Add pbuh after mohammed (S.A) name

FAQ No. 5

Add pbuh after mohammed (S.A) name It disrespectful if we won't say pbuh or (S.A)..After taking his name.. 106.200.188.225 (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Read the FAQ, please. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 22:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Remove illustrations images

FAQ No. 1

There shouldn’t be any illustrations images on this page. Can this be removed? Calligraphic images are okay. 2605:8D80:13B1:541F:91DC:8278:4AB3:7C70 (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Some1 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
And FAQ question 1. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 18:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
There should totally be illustrations on this page. Illustrations are a standard feature of biographies on Misplaced Pages. 203.211.104.189 (talk) 00:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Showing FAQ 3 as a notice at the top of the main page.

So I stand with Misplaced Pages's neutrality, and understand that showing images is important in any encyclopedic biography, but rather than causing un-necessary topic creations on the talk pages by people who might not have looked at the FAQ, I suggest that we can show a similar notice to the one on this talk page on the main page, something along the lines of "This page contains depictions of Muhammad, and while such depictions are prohibited in Islam, Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, and if you are a Muslim who wants to hide these images, you can refer to FAQ3 on how to do so."

Also, for anyone talking about "if we do this similar notices should be added to other religions", I don't really mind, I just don't know of any others. I'm not even Muslim myself, I am just suggesting a proposal on how we could potentially mitigate this topic that is often brought up on this talk page, and I completely understand if you don't implement this, but I'm just bringing the idea to the board. Sleet827 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Why does it need further mitigation? It would be raised even if there were warning plastered in every location... Alssa1 (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
We don't put disclaimers in articles, if that's what you're suggesting. See the guildelineWP:NODISCLAIMERS. The bottom of every page on Misplaced Pages already links to the general disclaimer, which in turn links to the content disclaimer: WP:DISC. Any disclaimer we would put in the Muhammad article would be redundant with the content disclaimer. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)