Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 11:03, 2 February 2023

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

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. If you wish, indicate your (FIRST CHOICE) as I have done... futurebird 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong no images

no human depiction images in the article at all, even at the bottom, even with a veil. Only links to images. (Just sign, no comments please.)

• Itsmejudith 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• Aslamt 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• Merzbow 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bless sins 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• ITAQALLAH 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• 60.52.46.24 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This "user" has been tagged with {{newvoter}} template, and I suspect an act of puppetry. Please disregard this vote-stacking. --Hojimachong
• ALM 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• VirtualEye 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Almaqdisi 07:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• Omar 180 07:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nil Einne 13:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• — Indon (reply) — 15:39, 27 (UTC))

Only one image, not at the top

Calligraphy at the top and at the bottom one image with a veil. (Just sign, no comments please.)

• Itsmejudith 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aslamt 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merzbow 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Zora 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bless sins 00:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• ITAQALLAH 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hoverfish Talk 08:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• ALM 09:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• VirtualEye 14:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Shenme 08:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC) (first choice)
• ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nil Einne 13:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• BYT 22:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• DavidYork71 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• — Indon (reply) — 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple veiled images, not at the top

Calligraphy at the top multiple veiled images. (Just sign, no comments please.)

• Itsmejudith 22:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aslamt 22:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merzbow 23:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Zora 23:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bless sins 00:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• ITAQALLAH 01:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hoverfish Talk 08:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• ALM 09:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 12:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nil Einne 13:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• DavidYork71 01:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• — Indon (reply) — 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple images, some unveiled images, not at the top

Calligraphy at the top, multiple other images, with and without veils, but not at the top. (Just sign, no comments please.)

• futurebird 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• Sefringle 22:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Aslamt 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (LAST CHOICE)
• InBC 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Acceptable, so long as "not at the top" refers only to the lead.Proabivouac 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• per Proabivouac. · AndonicO 00:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• Ttiotsw 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• Nonprof. Frinkus 05:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nil Einne 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• DavidYork71 01:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Veiled image at the top, multiple other images, some unveiled

(Just sign, no comments please.)

• futurebird 21:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Sefringle 22:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Alecmconroy 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (BEST image at top, which could be veiled)
• Hojimachong_con 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• InBC 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• per Alecmconroy.Proabivouac 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• · AndonicO 00:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

* Liberal Classic 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Tom Harrison 05:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (BEST image at top, which I think would be a veiled image)
• Ttiotsw 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (SECOND CHOICE)
• Tewfik 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (best image)
• DavidYork71 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• This is a second best solution to end this conflict but only if the veiled image is not accompanied by a calligraphy. It must either stand alone or alongside an unveiled image. Str1977 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

human depiction with no veil at the top AND multiple other images

Who feels we should have an image right at the top that is a human depiction of some-kind with no veil

• Sefringle 22:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)(first choice)
• Chowbok ☠ 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Alecmconroy 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (BEST image at top, which could be unveiled)
• Kittybrewster 10:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• per AlecmconroyProabivouac 22:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Hojimachong_con 22:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (FIRST CHOICE)
• InBC 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Frotz661 23:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• TharkunColl 00:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

* Liberal Classic 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Tom Harrison 05:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (BEST image at top, which might conceivably be one that is not veiled)
• Ttiotsw 05:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (THIRD CHOICE)
• Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nonprof. Frinkus 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Tewfik 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) (best image)
• Matt57 21:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (first choice)

.128.193.238.6 01:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weregerbil 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (first choice)
• DavidYork71 01:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Arrow740 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Corporaljohnny 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Arkon 20:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• JGHowes 2 March 2007
• FOo 11:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC) (Do whatever makes the best encyclopedia article. In this case, we have a wealth of historically significant images, and it would be wrong to leave them out.)
  • Problem is that including images on the top with Muhammad shown make it a less good encyclopedia article. It is because it gives wrong impression to the end reader. --- ALM 12:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree. There's no problem for the reader who comes to the article with a reasonable amount of good faith and can read the caption discussing the general proscription against depictions of Muhammed in human form. Including unveiled images (not necessarily at the top of the article) made by Muslims at times and places when this was possible is informative to the reader and opens doors to an understanding of the complexities of the subject. (Apologies for placing comments here) Corlyon 19:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
      • First you say disagree and then you say not necessary on the top. Both of these things are opposite to each other. If they are down the article then even I am fine with them and we are on the same page. Problem is WP:NPOV#Undue weight which say position and quantity(of text, images) should be proportional to its importance and it is a part of policy too. --- ALM 19:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry for any confusion. I disagree with your assertion that placing the pictures at the top makes the article somehow "less good" because it somehow gives a wrong impression to the reader, as I have faith that most readers have enough intelligence to see the pictures in their proper perspective. In my view it would still be a fine article with pictures depicting Muhammed at the top, provided that the captions explain the common proscription against such images. However, I am also reasonable enough to acknowledge that having such images "not at the top" could also result in a perfectly workable article as long as they're not being deliberately buried at the bottom. I actually like the way the article is set up right now, with calligraphic image atop the pictorial depiction, but other approaches will work too. Corlyon 23:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
          • But WP:NPOV#Undue weight is a policy and do you wish to go against policy to please yourself? Did it mention changing caption to adjust undue weight? NO. If going against policies is allowed to please yourself and then I wish to have no picture at all. However, I wish to go with the policies around and want to shift the picture down per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It says Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. --- ALM 10:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• ProtectWomen 20:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Karl Meier 20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• ThuranX 01:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Benne _(talk) 13:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC): no special treatment should be tolerated here.
• This is the norm on WP we should implement it here too. I am also fine if this is accompanied by a calligraphy. Str1977 15:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• No doubt. Misplaced Pages biogrpahies always start with an image when one is available. Beit Or 20:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• As it is customary with any biography. Where it is missing, it should be added. --tickle me 13:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oreo Priest 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)--
• Canar 07:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please put all other comments this poll here

My view - most explicit image at top with attribution and references to sections in the biography dealing with:

1. reliability of depictions, history and range of depictions of him

2. references from hadith and biography relating the characteristics of his appearance and dress (these exist)

3. traditions of aniconism (at which place show veiled portayals and calligraphy)

DavidYork71 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't most people who would visit a biographical article about this person want to know about the description of his physical characteristics and how how he is/was portrayed?

DavidYork71 01:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try and avoid gerrymandering. I.e., rigging the questions to try and split the opposition, or in some other way to distort the results. TharkunColl 00:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope that I have not done that. futurebird 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle, do you have a first choice?futurebird 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah. I added it now.--Sefringle 22:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

My point of view doesn't fit nicely in the categories given, so I'll just summarize. I don't much care about whether Muhammad is veiled or not-- what's primary in my mind is what the images do to illustrate the subject of the article. We should neither prefer veiled images, nor insist upon images just for the sake of their being unveiled. In my mind, the three images that are most useful to the reader are Teaching, At Kaaba, With Black Stone. A caligraphy image also seens worthy to accompany the discussion of depictions of Muhammad, but it would be out of place at the introduction to the article since it doesn't convey any information about Muhammad himself. The Persian minature lack clarity-- at thumbnail size, it's not an image, it's an abstract painting-- I suggest it be replaced with one of the other images. --Alecmconroy 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I do care if he is vailed. I would prefer not vailed, but I am willing to compromise now that this is taking so long.--Sefringle 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I said multiple images, not at top, I think only two or three images are merited. Perhaps the two 'best' veiled images and one unveiled image. However even if we settle on 6 or 7 or whatever I think that would be okay (although not my first choice) provided the lead image is not any representation Nil Einne 13:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Observation

Although some people are still voting, I think it's clear, now why we can't seem to get anywhere. Rather than having a region of overlap we have a sharp split. This is why the proposed compromises have not worked. Although, there are quite a few people who agree with putting an unveiled image at the top. The majority do not. This makes me think that mediation will not be able to work. I'm starting to think that arbitration is the best option here. Unless, of course more people are willing to compromise. futurebird 00:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to my earlier comment on gerrymandering. By phrasing the questions in a specific way, you can obtain any result you like. TharkunColl 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How so? futurebird 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Like this: Here's another vote. Vote "yes" if you want a picture of Muhammad, or "no" if you don't. Just yes or no, no further comments please.

It seems as though the "Unveiled image at top" option currently has the most votes, Futurebird. Though this does change rapidly... --Hojimachong_con 00:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I know. I can't understand why I'm being accused of gerrymandering. futurebird 00:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Nor do I. --Hojimachong_con 00:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Because there is just one option for those who don't want an image, but five different options for those who do, split between different versions. Right or wrong? I don't know, but it would be possible to rephrase it in a multitude of different ways to get the required answer. TharkunColl 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, "no images" is a pretty solid view. You can't really have more than one type of image on a page without images. On the other hand, there are many different options for where to include pictures, if any. I think it represents the debate quite well. --Hojimachong_con 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is, however, worth noting that straightforward support for WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not censored is not, in fact, an extreme position, despite its location in the layout above.Proabivouac 00:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In the context of this debate, though, it is on one end of the spectrum. Is there a suggestion that is even more supportive of images? --Hojimachong_con 00:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is only on one end of the spectrum because options as extreme as "no images at all" were not presented; e.g. "include every possible image."Proabivouac 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Gren's proposal is that it was/is very heavily weighted to one side, hence produces a result very similar to what one might have obtained by proposing no depictions at all. Though I can't speak for everyone, I believe it is really the aniconists who are unwilling to compromise. For example, were an upper limit of six depictions proposed, none in the lead, with a prominent warning on the talk page that this is a sensitive subject, and be very certain to establish the notability and appropriateness of the image before adding it (the last of which, at least, I support), these would be extraordinary provisions not applied to any other article (excepting perhaps Baha'ullah, which is clearly censored); however, I've a feeling this might not be enough.Proabivouac 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Futurebird that this issue is unlikely to be successfully mediated-- at least if a successful mediation is all parties agreeing. You have the most fundamental ideals of two different cultures at opposing interests-- if ever there was a case that is going to be easily compromised on, this is it.

How to break the deadlock? Obviously I'm far from neutral here, but it seems to me that in the absence of any strong consensus that "Muhammad" should be treated differently than other biographies, Muhammad shouldn't be treated differently than other biographies. Which is to say-- in a normal biography, we want MORE images of the subject, not less. If this article is going to be the exception to the rule, it seems like the "burden of proof" would be on those those who think it's an exception. Until such a consesnsus develops that images are to be avoided, we should go about our business as we normally would.

Or alternatively-- perhaps we could obtain a clarification from the community by proposing a policy clarification and seeing if there is a consensus for it. A substantial block of editors feels that a correct interpretation of Misplaced Pages policy is that Misplaced Pages should not include images of Muslim holy figures on their biography pages. We could propose a change to policy that explicitly says this conclusion. If the change passed, then Misplaced Pages would have an explicity "statutory"-as-it-were stance on the issue. Policy proposals get more views than a typical talk page dispute, so perhaps that would draw in others who could help resolve the situation. Does anyone thing that would be a worthwhile approach? I'd be willing to go through the steps to file such a proposal, unless people think it would just be a waste of time. --Alecmconroy 00:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people hold WP:NOT as sacred (pardon the religious connotations of the word, totally non-intentional), as it governs a large part of Misplaced Pages. Even if editors were up for a change, the big man himself would probably shoot it down. I (sadly) feel like arbitration may be imminent. --Hojimachong_con 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a very good idea. I'm fairly certain that, were it put to the community as a whole, we would probably obtain a strong consensus to include. An impartial method of involving more voices may be the key to breaking what might otherwise be a deadlock.Proabivouac 01:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to link this poll at RFC? Or will that just bring too many nuts to this page? (I mean "nuts" in the most loving way, and I admit I may be one of them...) It's just at this point I'm done talking about the issue, because everything has been said. I'm more interested in finding the compromise that will result in the fewest people pushing this all the way to the arbcom. I think it would show maturity on the part of all parties involved. futurebird 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This may have to be decided by arbitration if this mediation fails to come to consensus. I would support such a course. InBC 01:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think FutureBird's RfC idea might be good, along with Alecmconroy's idea of floating this on relevant page (WP:NOT; however I'd like to hear moderator's stance on these ideas.

Here, we might simplify the issue summarily dismissing options which run afoul of current policy (e.g. veiled images only), which would likely create a clear majority, and possibly a consensus, for "Multiple images, some unveiled images, not at the top." Additionally, I propose that a message be placed atop the talk page acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue and asking that editors verify the notability and topic-appropriateness of depictions on talk before adding them.

That is a good idea about the warning message. InBC 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In any event, as this is a content dispute, it is preferable that this be decided by the community.Proabivouac 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

What do people think of this going to arbitration? Or, to put the question another way, do you think this mediation, or any other attempt to resolve this dispute will succeed in a reasonable amount of time, or ever? InBC 01:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the ArbCom doesn't usually accept cases surrounding content disputes, I think that this case goes beyond a mere "content dispute". (→Netscott) 01:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, this is more about interpretation of policy. For example, the claim that an image needs to be historically accurate is not supported by the images of the English Monarchs. I don't think we will get any sort of volunteer consensus about this. InBC 01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

We might well obtain a consensus if the issue is brought to the attention of the community as a whole. It's at least worth a try.Proabivouac 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. InBC 01:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see if people are willing to change their vote to support options that might lead to a consensus. If we still have a split in a few days we're going to arbcom, clearly. I'm also all for opening this up to the community. 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think going to ArbCom is the right solution now. If anything, I agree with Pro that this issue should be brought up to the wider community first, perhaps via some special process and widely-advertised process. This may be something that will eventually have to be decided by a poll. - Merzbow 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if arbitration applies here or not, but I don't see this as a simple content issue. I observe also, that as a result of edit warring, the main article is locked with an unveiled Persian image on top. Persian culture in Iran is in a very delicate position after the Islamist revolution. My guess is that this depiction, apart from being intimidating towards Muslims, creates an additional pressure against the Persian culture. I don't suggest that anyone knowingly is trying to create tension between cultures in Iran, but I hope we take under consideration the delicate nature of the issue. We are a 💕, but freedom is also the freedom to decide how we behave towards people who see a depiction of Muhammad on top of the Muhammad article as a sign that "we" (the West, the English Wikipedians) are inconsiderate and unkind towards "them" (Muslims, Islamic community). This should definitely open up to Misplaced Pages's community, as it doesn't only concern the editors involved in the core article or those of us who decided to take part in Mediation. It is something that places Misplaced Pages as a whole in relation to Islam as a whole and it includes issues that involve minorities that find themselves within the Islamic community. Hoverfish Talk 09:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also a question of how "they" should behave towards "us", wouldn't you agree? "They" are free to establish (and have established) "their" religiously-censored forums. "Our" (the West's) tradition - more to the point, our (Misplaced Pages's) tradition - is to oppose censorship by followers of "our" predominant religion, Christianity. The only thing that is being proposed here is to treat Islam exactly as Christianity is treated: as a personal choice, not as a public mandate.Proabivouac 09:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hoverfish here. This is a big question. It seems that in some contexts (ie movie spoilers) "common sense" and "being considerate" matter, but in other contexts they do not. I suppose I feel very strongly about this issue because I think it is important to show that we are willing to take "friendly" actions for other sets of values. If we can "censor" an article because "It could ruin the whole movie experience for someone!" It seems grossly hypocritical and even deliberately provocative to insist on putting an objectionable image right in people's faces at the top of the article.

We are a community and we have norms of civility that also apply the the ways articles are presented. Especially after this cartoon controversy, using an image in this way has a new meaning. We seem to be turning a blind eye to that fact if we insist, in the name of "free speech," on putting the face Muhammad right at the top of the article, in doing so we are also making a tremendously one-sided statement about what this community is and is not willing to respect. I do not understand what the difference is. And no one here has provided a satisfactory explanation.futurebird 13:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are not censorship - indeed they are quite the opposite, enabling the article to reveal outcomes etc. Str1977 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Futurebird-- you raise some excellent points. This is a debate I always have within myself-- should an author work towards "making the best work possible" or should an author work towards "making the world a better place through his work". Which is to say-- let us assume that if it did not offend those of us who are Muslim, we would instantly and without a second thought put a Muhammad image at the top of the article, just as we do for every other article. Since this practice works so well for us in other articles that it is employed almost universally, I would say "Image at top" is an example of how we make "make the best encyclopedia possible".

On the other hand, suppose we knew, for a fact, that "Image at top" would have some negative consequence on the world. That our putting an image at the top would result, somehow someway, in greater oppression for a Persian minority in Iran. That our putting in image at the top would inflame the already tense relationship between Islamic and Western cultures and would result in one more death somehow.

The "Really Big Question", to me, is-- if we knew making the encyclopedia that much better would make the world that much worse-- should we still do it? Or should we go the other way-- an try to construct an encyclopedia that would make the world a better place, and if the end result isn't as good an encyclopedia, that's okay.

I go back and forth on this dilemma in my mind all the time. But I'm comforted by the fact that this dilemma really can't come up in practice. We can all agree, at least in theory, on what makes a useful encyclopedia-- we could, for example, show different articles to a 1000 people each and then give everyone a test, and see which article did the best job. In contrast, we're never going to be able to agree on how to make the world a better place. Perhaps putting Muhammad at the top will make the world a better place by showing to internet-enablled muslim youth in a bold way that there is a whole world out there where censorship doesn't exist and they'll be inspired by it. (don't snicker, it could happpen :) ). Perhaps putting an image of Muhammad at the top will send a clear signal to our readers that Misplaced Pages regards non-censorship as THAT important, and that it will inspire others to not be intimidated by societies into self-censorship. Or perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps it will inflame passions and do nothing but upset people. Or perhaps there really is a god who actually has prohibited images of Muhammad, and by including them, we are committing an offense against God. When we start trying to calculate what effects our actions here at Misplaced Pages have and what constitutes a "good world", we're never going to agree. There isn't going to be a consensus on it. We don't even have a chance.

So, in my own mind, I've acted according to the assumption that the best thing to do is to just try to write the absolute best encyclopedia we can. To focus simply on the goal of getting information from our minds into the readers', and let them do with it what they will. (And I like to hope, along the way, that maximizing the information available to people is, in fact, the solution that will best tend towards making the world a better place in the long run. But who am I kidding-- I can't actually know for a fact that that's true).

--Alecmconroy 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal proposal

I'm inclined to propose, "Multiple images, some unveiled images, not in the lead" with the added provisions that they be 1) carefully selected, 2) moderate in number relative to articles for religious figures of comparable significance 3) accompanied by notable calligraphic representations of the name "Muhammad" to fairly represent the practices of aniconistic Muslims 4) captioned to specify "an artist's depiction" or the equivalent, and 5) a message will be placed atop the talk page acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue and asking that editors verify the notability and topic-appropriateness of depictions on talk before adding them.

If there are any other provisions which can be added to acknowledge and respect strong feelings on this matter without violating WP:NOT, please suggest them.Proabivouac 02:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This is fair.futurebird 02:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

One veiled and one unveiled is absolutely as far as I'm willing to go. IIRC this was the status quo for a long time until recently. - Merzbow 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If the page were in that condition, I would not change it. Tom Harrison 05:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The top image was the only one edit warred over anyway. The editors never bothered reading beyond the first page !. Stick a calligraphy image at the top and 99.5% of the vandalism would disappear (using the made-up statistics adopted by some posts to date). The remaining 0.5% who remove all the images before they go back to their sectarian edits on other Islam related pages, can be fixed with reverts and 3RRs. Ttiotsw 05:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. · AndonicO 12:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree futurebird 13:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking back through my posts in this mediation, I believe I mentioned something similar to your suggestion, Proabivouac. I have said before I am willing to compromise on a portrait of Muhammad veiled as the lead-in image. I also believe that a calligraphic representation of Muhammad's name should follow in a subsequent section. I am of the opinion that the caption should clearly cite the source of the portrait as being Muslim in origin, and that this was an acceptable representation in certain cultures. I agree with your suggestion for the talk page, and I also suggest that a comment block of code should be inserted to notify editors to make a comment on the talk page before removing the portrait.Liberal Classic 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

i intend to look at this proposal more closely in a while. ITAQALLAH 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Another vote (yawn): Let's keep it simple

Please vote either yes or no (without comments) to the following question: Should we treat the article on Muhammad any differently to that of any other historical figure? TharkunColl 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• No. TharkunColl 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yes. Every topic deserves its own unique treatment depending on what the sources say. (I'd answer yes to this question for any article.) But, to be honest, I don't understand what you're asking. futurebird 12:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• No. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, just another subject. InBC 17:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• No hence I have put cartoon image in Muhammad article because it is most notable image I know of. I wish to have bigger version of it. --- ALM 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  ALM, your last edit to the Muhammad article is unhelpful and violates WP:POINT. Liberal Classic 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Why? Do not you agree that wikipedia is not censored and also that this are the most notable images we know. Then what is the problem? --- ALM 17:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  I believe that edit creates an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, as per Misplaced Pages:Civility. Liberal Classic 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Once again wikipedia is not censored. Hence stop censoring it. These are the most notable image of Muhammad around. Do you agree with it or not? --- ALM 17:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think ALM is making a good point. If notability is the criteria then by all means use the cartoon. If civility = censorship then we must' use this graphic. I agree with this edit and the important point that is being made here. How and where do we draw the line? futurebird 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  Because the cartoon image tells us pratically nothing about Muhammad himself. I may be wrong, but my feeling is that the image of Muhammad there is being used more as a "symbol" for the Islamic world, rather than as a form of criticism about Muhammad himself. It's not a question of incivility that keeps it out of the article-- our biography often feature negative information about the subject of a biography. It's just a question of usefulnesss to the encyclopedia. I don't think we learn much about Muhammad the person by seeing the cartoon. If that weren't the case, then I'd be all for its inclusion, regardless of how offensive people find it. --Alecmconroy 04:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  We also learn nothing with the picture you people are presenting. Think like that Muhammad used to wear dark blue clothes and Sahabah used to wear red clothes etc are wrong. They are even against Islam principles. --- ALM 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  It is a good point. The cartoons are unquestionably the most notable images of Muhammad at this time, and including them somewhere would be perfectly in line with policy. --Hojimachong 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - a loaded, unhelpful question. If I wanted to violate WP:POINT I would answer No and then insist that all historical biographical articles be exactly 70kb in size, because otherwise they would be treated differently. - Merzbow 19:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  Can you justify why Muhammad's article should be treated any differently to that of any other historical figure? Length is a non-issue by the way - the more that is known about a person, and the more important that person is to history, the longer the article. This issue is about pictures, which are not censored from any other article. TharkunColl 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  I don't see how it is loaded or unhelpful. It is very relevant. InBC 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

  I see it as very loaded. Most people argue 'treated differently' meaning on whether or not you show images. I believe they should be treated the same in representing traditions which will create different outcomes (fewer pictures in Muhammad, calligraphy which really doesn't belong in Jesus at all, etc.) I argue to use the same methodology of choosing on different historical figures will yield different results. gren グレン 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• No The subject of the article should not influence the way the article is written, outlined in WP:NPOV --Hojimachong 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

*No The subject of this encyclopedia entry is about a man. It is reasonable to expect to see a portrait of a man.Liberal Classic 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, generally speaking (as I believe the question was intended.)Proabivouac 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, but it's safe to say we will still disagree on the outcome. We should not treat him differently just to satisfy a constituency which does not want images. But, using the same method of how to write a biography article not all biography articles will be the same. gren グレン 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"We should not treat him differently just to satisfy a constituency which does not want images" - this is exactly what this mediation has always been about. Further differences can be solved after the questions which gave rise to this mediation are settled.Proabivouac 10:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

But, no. You feel that such a statement means images will be kept and will not realize that I have no urge to satisfy Muslims but to create an encyclopedic article. I am unaware of the exact motive (you seem to imply that it is to satisfy Muslims) used in the request for mediation but I do not feel obliged to agree with the motive to discuss the issue. You make the a priori judgment that excluding images is being done to satisfy Muslims when I believe it is a way to satisfy neutrality instead of delegitimizing a mode of representation that historians of Islamic art find to be immensely important. If we end this mediation agreeing that "Misplaced Pages should not attempt to create articles to satisfy constituencies" without agreeing on the state of images we would have another mediation in no time because you believe that not having images is only to satisfy Muslims--I do not. gren 16:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• No--Sefringle 04:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, and an absolute one at that. Nonprof. Frinkus 05:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• No --Alecmconroy 08:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• No -- Karl Meier 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yes we should do that for all historical figures.Bless sins 21:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question doesn't make sense Nil Einne 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• No -- The fact that the image of Muhammed is offensive to some Muslims should have no consequence. There are many Muslims who find this acceptable.--Matt57 21:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment -- Re: a parallel rhetorical trick to TharkunColl's. One could also ask, "Are some terrorists entitled to special, euphemistic treatment in the encyclopedia that protects them from identification as 'terrorists,' using that word?" I predict a landslide for "weasel word orgy here." See King David Hotel Bombing -- there are a dozen sources that identify this historical event as clearly terroristic in nature, yet we must not call a spade a spade. So yes, WP avoids offending the sensibilities of sensitive constituencies all the time, with no feathers ruffled and no mediation necessary. BYT 22:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, Misplaced Pages strives to be a neutral encyclopaedia. While I respect the ideals behind those who would keep images out, I question where this enterprise would end up if we began running it according to various religious precepts (and their varying interpretations). Tewfik 05:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• Nonsensical question - as pointed out above, the question is visibly loaded. we treat all articles the same in that we apply the same policies and guidelines to them. however, due to the various differences relating to topic (the subject itself, opinions and academic discussion on that subject, the history of that subject and so on), editorial judgements from one article to another will naturally vary. ITAQALLAH 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• No Arrow740 18:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• No Arkon 20:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• No JGHowes 2 March 2007
• No, if what you mean is subjecting this article to special censorship. Removal of notable facts or useful information, including images, from an article in order to meet someone's political or religious opinions is always destructive of the goals of the project. --FOo 11:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• No way Beit Or 20:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• No. --tickle me 13:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• A common sense No Str1977 13:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I cobbled together a possible compromise article in my sandbox

I cobbled a possible compromise position and put it in my sandbox. I make no claims this is perfect, but I think it represents a compromise which may be acceptable to those people who believe a portrait is appropriate, while respecting Muslim sensibilities about unveiled images of Muhammad. The lead-in portrait is veiled, and a calligraphic representation follows in the subsequent section. The veiled image from the section on the Miraj remains. At the bottom in the section about depictions of Muhammad, I have placed the unveiled portrait next to a photograph of some contemporary calligraphy from a mosque. Additionally, I have removed some of the other images. This is done primarily to reduce the number of images in the article, and secondarily because the images were not directly related to the paragraphs they were next to. An image of the Green Dome could be reinstated with a link to an article on Muslim holy shrines, for example.

It seems a fair compromise, and as such I would accept it. TharkunColl 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See the section above "Veiled image at the top, multiple other images, some unveiled" and do not waste other people time by keep moving in loop. We know where each one of us stand then why to start this useless thing again? --- ALM 16:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I expressed support for the above suggestion in a spirit of compromise. Personally, I think Al-Biruni's picture is much better and far more notable. TharkunColl 16:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be civil. I am not trying to "waste time" with "useless things". It is difficult to get a feel for how the article would look just through discussion. That is why I put an example in my sandbox. My point is that those of us who believe a portrait is appropriate for a biographical article are not blind to Muslim sensitivities. Liberal Classic 16:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is a waste of time. InBC 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no compromise here. This has three pictorial images just like the version of Muhammad we've been warring about for six months. - Merzbow 19:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but bear with me. As an added guesture, I have removed one of the veiled images. This version contains only two portraits, with the veiled one in the lead and the unveiled one at the bottom. Additionally, it contains a calligraphic representation in the middle. Can anyone claim I am not trying to reach consensus in good faith? Does anyone claim that there is no compromise here? Liberal Classic 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to direct everyone's attention to my sandbox again.

This page contains a total of four representations of Muhammad.

• Two are portraits, and two are calligraphic representations.

• One portrait is veiled. One portrait is not.

• One calligraphic representation is a bit-mapped image, the other is a photograph from the Hagia Sophia.

• The illustrated calligraphy and veiled portrait are prominently displayed together at the top of the article.

• The unveiled portrait and photograph of calligraphy are near the bottom of the article.

(I have removed all other images, for the purpose of making these four images easy to see within the article. Other appropriate images should be included in the article, but I have pulled them from this demonstration in order to highight the images under dispute.)

Is this an acceptable compromise measure?

I am trying to be as fair as possible to both sides. Of the four representations, in only one is Muhammad's face shown. Fifty percent of the representations of Muhammad are calligraphic in this version. The portrait in which Muhammad's face is shown is not the lead image. The lead image is calligraphy, but a veiled portrait of Muhammad follows immediately afterward. The effect is a combined lead-in graphic. The other two images are in proximity to the section on depictions of Muhammad, and so associated with that issue. What more can I do? How can I be more fair to both sides?

Liberal Classic 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer a calligraphy over picture compromise so I can maintain the illusion that we are actually trying to be representative. I still think an image should be lower down but... this is Misplaced Pages... not Grenapedia or Scholarapedia. :O Of course, we probably wouldn't use a German word or a picture of Layla and Majnun... but, you get the point. gren グレン 01:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I could try sticking them together. Give me a few to experiement with thumnails. Liberal Classic 01:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, that doesn't look half bad. Gren, I have tried putting both representations together as a combined lead-in graphic. Liberal Classic 01:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You would have to use Image:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.jpg or, someone skilled could remove everything outside of the circle and make it transparent... since the other image is not... good. gren グレン 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I follow what you're saying. The edges of the circular calligraphy should be the transparent color, in order to blend nicely into the background. My default background is white, as is the image's background color, so for me the effect is nice. I looked at the image you linked, and while it is attractive, it has so much detail that when it is thumbnailed it doesn't look quite as good. Aesthetically, I like the circle over the square, instead of two squares stacked. Also, I don't have a lot of experience with wiki frames and tables, and the alignment is a little off. Ideally, the circle should have the same centerline as the square. Liberal Classic 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Now we are approaching a compromise. Like gren I still think the veiled image should be lower in the article and not smack in the lead. I notice the "Part of a series" box is probably too low now. How about keep the calligraphic where it is, but move the veiled image below the "Part of a series" box? - Merzbow 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The sticking point seems to be the lead-in graphic. I think a combined graphic may be the only compromise acceptable to enough people on both sides. If you take the portrait and move it downstairs, then you lose everyone who believes a portrait should be prominently displayed at the top. If you move the calligraphic representation downstairs, you lose those people who believe calligraphy is the "correct" representation. Liberal Classic 02:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've uploaded Media:Transparent Muhammad Calligraphy1.jpg; I do not know how to make the background transparent, however. Is that image close to what you had in mind, gren? --Hojimachong 02:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Moving the veiled image directly below the series box is still a prominent displayal, I'm not talking about moving it to the middle of the article. - Merzbow 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the current effect is aesthetically pleasing. I'm going to leave my sandbox alone for a day or two so everyone can get a chance to look at it. Liberal Classic 03:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's far more aesthetically pleasing to sandwich the series box - here's how it looks in my sandbox. - Merzbow 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not looking bad, either. Liberal Classic 04:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Aziz efendi-muhammad alayhi s-salam.png is what I had in mind... gren グレン 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a wonderful image, but it is so ornate that when it is thumbnailed, it loses a lot of detail and it looks fuzzy. The image from the current article has the advantage that it is not so baroque, and is about the same scale (or the exact scale) as the thumbnail. In any event, this is a trivial matter compared to getting the consensus to sign on to some sort of compromise plan. Liberal Classic 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not trivial to me... mostly because a user created image does not belong at the top of this article. It would be rather hypocritical to challenge others on the relevance of their images and then be lax on mine. As it is, I need to look more into the exact types of calligraphy that are important. But yes, as a matter for getting it agreed upon it's not as big of a deal. gren グレン 06:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The veiled image should not be at the top, and the image from the miniature of the placing of the Black Stone is a blown-up detail, which is dark, muddy, and a distortion of the original. What pictorial tradition there is, in Islam, consists of miniatures in books, illustrating stories from history. They did not do simple portraits of Muhammad, so far as I know. This is distorting the Islamic tradition to make it parallel to the Christian tradition, which has no qualms about portraits, icons, scripture cards, medals, statues, etc., all featuring Jesus. Furthermore, making it half pictures and half calligraphy is a distortion of the Islamic record, which is more like 95% calligraphy and 5% pictures. I would be OK with the one veiled picture, lower down. Zora 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but the point of compromise is displeasing everyone equally. ;) Making the lead-in graphic half-calligraphy and half-portrait fits this idea perfectly. It's not an ideal solution, and it doesn't please everyone. I do not claim that it is the perfect solution. It is not exactly what I want, and it is not exactly what you want. Nor is it exactly what Gren or Merzbow wants, and it is not likely to be what Tom Harrison or Proabivouac wants. However, it gives something to those folks who wanted calligraphy first. The calligraphic representation is first. It gives something to those people who wanted a portrait for a biographical article about a man. When you load the page, the second image you see is of a human being. It is a bodily representation but the face is veiled, out of respect for Muslim sensibilities. Included is an unveiled image, but it is lower in the article associated with a section topic that addresses depictions of Muhammad. Nobody gets everything, but everybody gets something. Lastly, it has the added benefit of not being totally awful page layout. This is something rare in art design, that a design by compromise would turn out to be relatively pleasing to the eye. Liberal Classic 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be making the assumption that I would accept the proposal I mentioned. Can we have calligraphy on the page while not treating Muhammad differently? No other person save Mahmud II seems to have it... gren グレン 04:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply your endorsement, but I do believe it was a constructive suggestion and I thank you for it. Liberal Classic 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Maomé.jpg

I see no reason for the removal of Image:Maomé.jpg.Proabivouac 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't either. However, I am trying to drive towards a compromise measure of some shape or form. Liberal Classic 03:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include Image:Maomé.jpg, but maybe a little bit lower, like not in the lead, but I am willing to compromise, so I will accept the version.--Sefringle 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Maomé image is better sourced than the Kaba image I am using. In that sense it is definately preferable, because it has verifiablity. I think the Kaba image was cropped from another Persian miniature, but I don't see a citation for it. Liberal Classic 04:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I can get you a source... it's in a few Islamic art books I've read. It is problematic that it was cropped (I should get a better scan for Misplaced Pages) but verifiability of the individual image shouldn't be the main focus here. gren グレン 04:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, verifiability is important. Especially because some people are so edgy about this issue. The image must be verifiable and come from credible sources. Showing a detail of an image is not so problematic, in my opinion. Liberal Classic 04:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that verifiability isn't important. Just, on most of these images we can find the sources with a little effort... so, it shouldn't be an issue in choosing images. As for showing part... it depends on context. Artists often focus on Jesus alone. Most art of Muhammad is in important scenes from his life. The emphasis is very different and that's important in how he is scene. If you make him the only object then you are changing intentions. But, I don't think most of you have a real sense of context or placement and Islamic art--or you dismiss it. gren グレン 05:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Gren, I freely admit that I am not an art historian, however, I do feel that condescention such as the above comment is unhelpful. Liberal Classic 05:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not supposed to be. The prevalent argument is that physiognomic images are used in most other articles and thus they are relevant here. The argument attempts to make any knowledge of Islamic art irrelevant to this whole debate. I will freely admit I find the idea to be preposterous but I don't find it condescending to say that you don't have a sense of Islamic art when you don't even find it to be a relevant subject. gren グレン 06:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some other comments on the Maomé image. I really like the image, and even if it is a minority representation of Muhammad, it would add so much to the article. The colors are vibrant, the texture of the robes is beautifully done, as is the detail of their turbans. And there are architectural features to observe, as well. Particularly the tiling pattern shown on the wall. We still see in mosques today. Frankly, it is a shame that so many people object to that painting. Liberal Classic 05:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to the image, in fact, it's my desktop background--quite nice. But, that doesn't make it good for the article! gren グレン 05:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It depicts a real event in Muhammad's life, it shows him doing exactly what he is most famous for doing (which none of the other images do,) it summarizes his political and military accomplishments (triumphant in Mecca,) was evidently created with hadith's descriptions in mind (funny for all the talk of "accuracy" how no one has noticed that hadith say nothing about him wearing a veil,) we couldn't ask for a more notable artist...what's the problem with it being in the article?

We know exactly what the problem is, because it's right there in the request for mediation.Proabivouac 07:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a portrayal of supposed events of his life, yes. Most of the other images are of him doing something famous. Taking the black stone at the kaba, his ascension into heaven. Please don't argue that this is more real than any silly religious fantasies unless you are of the belief that he and his friends walked around with a gold halo around his head just so they'd look good for future images. This is all religious iconography and none of it is more real. It's all hagiography as any religious tradition is. It is not understood as a representation of true events that truly happened, but it is a religious interpretation of events meant for the purposes of veneration of the good days when the prophet and the word were fresh. Attempts to remove it from its traditional context to make it seem that this is a representation of reality is just legitimizing hagiography as truth. My argument is that we represent the tradition, I have never talked about tradition having an accurate representation of reality... it doesn't, it's a religious interpretation just as any notable image, calligraphy or otherwise, of Muhammad will be. Religious figures are rarely represented in a secular manner, and when they were they rarely gain the notoreity of the religious images. gren グレン 08:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly mythology that he preached in Mecca in 631, forbidding intercalation among a number of other pronouncements. And no, there is nothing he did for which he is better known than he is for preaching the Qur'an. This is the only image I've seen proposed here which shows him doing this.

Meanwhile, the one image that seems most acceptable to aniconists and their sympathizers depicts a relatively marginal element of his biography, known to hardly any non-Muslims, one in which his appearance blatantly contradicts hadith (didn't wear a veil or have a featureless white head) and which, excuse me, almost certainly did not occur:Image:Miraj2.jpg.Proabivouac 08:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The veil is a device used to set him apart that the Persian iconographers developed. It is no more unrealistic than the halos in the Maomé image. Neither are the hadith to be taken accurate sources of evidence. They are traditions. gren グレン 08:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely you will at least concede that 1) he is most famous (by miles) for preaching the Qur'an, and that this is the only image proposed so far which shows him doing so, and that 2) it is generally believed by Muslim and secular scholars alike that he preached in Mecca 631, and 3) Al-Biruni is the very most notable source of all discussed so far.Proabivouac 09:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the difference between a halo and a veil is that I think most viewers are aware that a halo is a religious symbol being used by the artist-- not a material object surrounding the head of the wearer. In contrast, I think that a typical reader might assume a veil in an image represents a literal veil worn by Muhammad. I think that mentioning the veil in the caption effectively solves the problem, but it is worth pointing out that all things being equal, unveiled is more accurate than veiled. --Alecmconroy 09:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that, for Muhammad at least, the halo, like most everything else about his depiction in this image, merely follows hadith, a number of which claim that his face "shone like the full moon."

In contrast, there are no hadith that I know of which claim that Muhammad was ever on fire as is depicted in two of the relatively less controversial images.Proabivouac 09:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously now we have to look at the pictures. Hence we have found a new fact that hadith forget to mentioned that he used to be in a fire. We have to present that new fact to Muslim scholars who have not seen this picture painted more than 700 years after Muhammad death. Proabivouac what else these picture tell us that hadith forget to tell us. Please elaborate on them too. ALM 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the renowned Muslim scholar Al-Biruni the creator of this image very consciously and conscientiously adhered to descriptions of Muhammad as given in hadith, while the occurence of the event depicted is not in dispute (whereas even Islamic scholars debate the reality of Isra and Mi'raj.) If accuracy is a serious issue, and we are to include only one image (we shouldn't include only one, but if we do,) Image:Maomé.jpg is far and away the obvious choice.Proabivouac 09:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is the worst picture we have around. But obvious choice? Al-Biruni was a scientist NOT an islamic scholar. --- ALM 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote "Muslim scholar," not "Islamic scholar." He was serious and learned man, neither careless nor a fool, and would not have/>whodid not make the sort of ignorant mistakes some would have us assume.Proabivouac 10:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My recent publication list are now reached to 9. I consider myself only a scientist and not a authority on religion. However, do you consider me also a Muslim scholar now or may be in next few years? Should I start drawing pictures now? --- ALM 10:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• Muhammad used to wear Blue clothes and his Sahabah used to wear red clothes. These colors are not preferred to wear by Muslim male and Muhammad used to wear white/black clothes mostly.
• Women used to sit in the crowd of Muslims.
• Muhammad was male. (Obviously it is a useful information and one has to see picture for it)
• Muhammad used to have Mustaches. One thing that differentiate Jews from Muslim is that Muslim unlike Jews have no or very small Mustaches. There is a Hadith about it.
• Muhammad used to sit above people. Wrong, instead he stopped people standing up for him and He used to sit wherever there was a place available in an assembly and never sought a prominent or elevated place.
• We know not enough about the picture. For example:
  • Which one is Muhammad. Why it is not one sitting down?
  • Who are the people in the picture. They look notable enough people.
  • Who is the women in the picture?
  • What time it represent? One year after Hijra or before Hijra. After conqest of Mecca may be?

We already know what time it represents: it is in the year 631, in Mecca after its conquest, where Muhammad is forbidding intercalation. Re the robes, see this link which states, "On rare occasions, he would put on costly robes presented to him by foreign emissaries in the later part of his life."Proabivouac 10:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been around since long time. I strongly encourage you to read WP:OR now. --- ALM 10:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no original research here at all. See image description: "16th century illustration depicting Muhammad prohibiting the intercalation of the calendar."Proabivouac 10:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Who has written that desciption and what is its source? Furthermore why Muhammad is the one sitting on top and not otherwise. Do you have any prove about that too? --- ALM 10:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The source is right there if you care to follow up on it; courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

You'd mentioned women, but I see only one figure which might be either a rather masculine-looking woman or a beardless man, as the figure closest to Muhammad appears to be a child.Proabivouac 10:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Truth vs Verifiability

From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source."

That being said, I would like to say that whether an image really resembles Muhammad is not relevant, as it is not the job of an encyclopedia to determine truth. Rather, and encyclopedia reflects that which has already been said by reliable sources. Thus, if a reliable source says "This is a depiction of Muhammad" then that is all we need.

The current image(Image:Maome.jpg) at the top of the Muhammad page has such a reference, verifying that it is:

1. A depiction of Muhammad
2. Drawn by Al-Bîrûnî
3. Made in the 15th century
4. Is of Arabian origin

All based off of this reference: Le Prophète Mahomet Al-Bîrûnî, al-âthâr al-bâqiya (Vestiges des siècles passé). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)

If another reference is found that provides contrary information, then text can be added to the caption to show that there are differing points of view.

I am not pretending this addresses all of the issues in this debate, but I certainly think it addressed one of the main ones. Verifiability over opinion. InBC 15:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The cartoon pictures also have the reference and we know much more about them. Why not to have them on the top because they have more information. -- ALM 17:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They are not really on topic though are they? They were created as satire or mockery, declared as such by their authors. They are not historical depictions, nor were they meant to be. Also I think you already know all of this. InBC 18:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No I did not know them already and wish this thing to be debated properly by creating a new section. Who thinks that they are created for mockery? Their authors says that they are there for expressing freedom of speech just like you and other here says. Show the reference where there authors says that they are created for mockery. If they are cartoons then so is the picture you are varifying above. See both becasue to me both looks same kind of drawing. They are notable enough as compare to any other picture you have presented. Al-Bîrûnî is even not listed in the list of Islamic scholars but still he become notable. Here people revert all the references I have provided in Islam and science when a big Islamic scholars had no knowledge of science and a big scientist with no religion knowledge. How can you consider a person who as not a religious authority notable to include picture of Muhammad? Is he qualify WP:RS in this case. How? --- ALM 18:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is NOT censored? Really?

• Child has no nude picture when men and women has.
• Child pornography have no nude pictures when pronography has.
• How in Bahá'u'lláh they have agreed to have picture at the bottom. It is against wikipedia rules? No?
• Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy they voted to have or not have pictures. Vote was against policy? At the end they decided to have a smaller version in the article. Against policy again.
• Lolicon they have stupid picture and search the web to find real non-censored one. Against rules again?

Should I give more example or above are enough for argument to start. Do you really think there could be a society in which we have absolute no censorship? Think again. --- ALM 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not censor historical and legitimate works of art. TharkunColl 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

and where they have mentioned historical and legitimate works of art in the policy? --- ALM 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, because Misplaced Pages is most assuredly not censored by considerations of religious dogma. TharkunColl 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

More ways to deny the result of the mediation. I've bolded the relevant wording;

• girl does NOT have nude pictures, though woman does (typo ?). Islamic countries have a problem with nude women anyway (and Gays, Jews, beer, Atheists, wine, Christians, bacon sandwichs, Bahais, seafood, UNHRC...),
• The consensus on Child pornography reflects the reality that "its production and possession are illegal in most jurisdictions, although details of local statutes vary."
• Muslims hate the Bahais (at least in Iran they do) - but anyway the consensus was that Bahá'u'lláh has a photograph where it is. Spot the difference; photo issued with guidelines on it's attribution verses artists impression made many years ago.
• Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy had a consensus. This is so meta anyway as the cartoons were written about how Islam causes self-censorship. The ironic and so predictable response.
• Lolicon as with all Manga is quite simply weird and the image is perfect for that genre. I guess it is a consensus.

I think the problem you have is with what consensus is. These new sections seem somewhat petulant.Ttiotsw 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop attacking on Muslims. I will simply love to have Jews friend. Now you have attack on me and I owe to say that you are non-neutral and here with agenda. Stop spreading you agenda of hating Muslims. --- ALM 19:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't see any consensus. there is still significant dispute over the number images, the location of the images, as well as the selection of images to use. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't point an accusing finger to Muslims in particular for preoccupations. There are preoccupations the whole world around. It's just that each one tends to take his ambient preoccupations for granted. Also many of our western cultures have gone through circles of relative liberality to extreme conservatism and so on. - On the issue of censorship: is the BBC consicered as a particularly censored website? Here is what I found just toady: and I get no feeling of any oppressiveness because of the lack of depictions of Muhammad. Actually, please, browse a bit in the Religion & Ethics section and see if you get any feeling of censorship. Hoverfish Talk 15:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is probably worth noting that Misplaced Pages has to abide by the laws in Florida, because that is where the Wikimedia foundation is based. Child pornography is illegal, and Misplaced Pages's definition of censorship is not the same as illegality. If you would like to use these two arguments, you would have to change U.S. Federal laws (since child porn is a federal offense). --Hojimachong 22:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it is about laws of Florida and U.S. Federal laws then please stop goraning that wikipedia is 'uncensored' and stop claiming it can include everything freely without censorship. The claim of 'no censorship' is joke when you have to confess that there 'are' actually some laws censoring the wikipedia.

P.S. ALM just mentioned few topics. There are many articles which are very very popular but do NOT have pictures due to the restrictions of Law. And restriction implies 'censorship'.

VirtualEye 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So, in order to be fair, not just Florida law, but also Islamic law must be taken into consideration.Proabivouac 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason: Mediation without solution

There are two kind of people that making this mediation impossible to end.

1. They have 0 edits on Muhammad article
2. They have hundred of edits on Muhammad article but all edits are related to picture warring.

Both of these kind of people even do not know who was Muhammad really. They say Jesus and Muhammad articles should be treated equally and it is not their fault when they have never read about Muhammad. They have not added a single reference in the article. Ask them which reference you have added. Remove these all people and then have votes and we will have solution. Check contribution using Page History Statistics Page History Statistics. --- ALM 19:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

By the same sort of logic, we should also remove all those people who have an agenda based on religious dogma, i.e. Muslims. TharkunColl 19:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes and anti-Muslims too. --- ALM 19:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are there any anti-Muslims here? TharkunColl 19:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes all those who think there are people with based on religious dogma. --- ALM 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So the prohibition against pictures of Muhammad in Islam is not religious dogma? What on earth is it, then? TharkunColl 19:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense and against the spirit of WP:AGF. I see no difficulty with the mediation. The consensus seems to be to have images though we are negotiating the captions. Learn to live with that instead of denigrating editors. All contributors are equal in Misplaced Pages though we all admit that some are more equal than others on some 'votes'. Ttiotsw 19:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

See the VOTING above. Where did you find consensus. People never have any contribution and never will has nothing to do with this mediation. --- ALM 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and nobody owns articles. Nobody needs to have any amount of editing to become involved in the editing at any time, nor are there votes. Polls are sometimes productive, but that's a seperate issue. WilyD 21:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Promise me to tell truth. How much Ttiotsw and TharkunColl really know about Muhammad and how many references you have added (if any at all) ? --- ALM 19:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

My concern is to prevent the degradation of Misplaced Pages by religious censorship. I have a perfect right to express my opinion and vote. TharkunColl 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How can you vote when you have no idea who is you voting for. When you do NOT know basic of Muslim history and Muhammad then how can you justify with the article/decision? Then you will say Jesus and Muhammad are same because of you lack of knowledge. What is our fault who seriously wish to contribute here in the article? --- ALM 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with ALM here. Usually mediation is over some point of contention between relatively established editors on a given article. My only reservation is over the "image" editors or not. I don't think that matters much if the "image" editors have been involved with the article for some time prior to the mediation. It can look at bit fortuitous for those supporting displaying the image if suddenly there's an influx of previously uninvolved editors supporting such a POV. (→Netscott) 23:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that all the editors here look familiar (well other than the recently created editors or IPs who say the pictures should be removed) ? Could it be that we have crossed paths on Islam pages before or is this just some random coincidence ? So what you are saying is that if we haven't added stuff to a specific page then we cannot have a say on that one page; that's page ownership by another means. I have deliberately avoided the core Islam pages (e.g. Muhammad ) for obvious reasons: Muhammad had a great idea to help destroy the older tribal gods and borrowed the Judeo-Christian myths he probably heard from Waraqah ibn Nawfal and others: it doesn't make any of what he said true or that the record we have is accurate. I usually edit on the edges e.g. where Muslim POV tries to remove Bahá'í Faith references or where Islamic pseudoscience interacts with science or where Muslim POV edits hits "apostate" BIOs e.g. Wafa Sultan or Ibn Warraq where Muslim POV vandals hit articles they don't like e.g. Faith Freedom International which is where I've come across ALM, VirtualEye, Sefringle, Arrow740 , Truthspreader, Itaqallah and others on both sides of the fence. So far hundreds of edits without a single 3RR. I think this a way of discounting editor contributions which is against the spirit of Misplaced Pages though I do welcome the implicit invitation to edit Muhammad. Ttiotsw 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all fortuitous: the appearance of religiously-motivated censorship has attracted people who otherwise might not show much interest in Islam-related articles. The fact that editors with a wide variety of religious beliefs and interests and no particular history of collusion have appeared to support inclusion of depictions, in contrast to the relative (with a few notable exceptions) homogeneity of those who seek to remove them, is one reason I'd encourage any course of action which fairly brings this to the attention of the wider community: it may well achieve a strong consensus for upholding WP:NOT by retaining the images. I am still curious to hear the opinion of our moderator on this idea.Proabivouac 07:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, violates WP:OWN. Trying to silence opinions because of frivolous reasons such as this breaks that policy (not a guideline, a policy). This also goes against the entire point of Misplaced Pages; that anybody can contribute, and other people will come and fix what they wrote, if it is malformed. Third, how can anybody prove expertise about a specific subject in the guise of Wikipedias general anonymity? --Hojimachong 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me to get lost, ALS. In light of Nescott's comments above, and the message ALS left me on my talk page, I'm withdrawing from this discussion. Liberal Classic 03:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM, this sort of behavior is not at all appropriate.Proabivouac 03:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. It qualifies as WP:POINT in my opinion. State your point, don't play games with us to try to minipulate the results of the mediation.--Sefringle 03:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

See also this.Proabivouac 03:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Other language's wikipedias

I looked through these this afternoon. I can't say much about the text, but several have pictures we might consider. Tom Harrison 21:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. This article in particular is admirably uncensored: . Perhaps these will also help us in our search for notable examples of calligraphy.Proabivouac 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow-- impressive article those German-speakers have there. It seems they hit upon the same solution that's been proposed here, of putting a caligraphy at the top, with a large image right below it. --Alecmconroy 07:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seven depictions total, two of which are veiled, including all four we've discussed here.Proabivouac 07:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I dare say, that article's use of images is a good example of what we should be shooting for-- an article that uses images wherever they can help illustrate the subject. --Alecmconroy 13:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(Note: above user never edits on Muhammad article at all. --- ALM 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

• Nobody owns articles - please stop trying to assert otherwise. WilyD 14:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation usually have parties already in dispute not everyone wishes to piss Muslims comes and join in. --- ALM 14:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A joke I thought better of While true, it's entirely irrelevent. Misplaced Pages is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and as an editor acting in good faith you should welcome input from uninvolved editors - hell, you should be begging for it. In any event, even if this isn't clear, you have no grounds to tell other editors to leave because they have less involvement with the article. You don't own it, and they have as much of a right to edit it as you do, and as much of a right to be involved in a "content dispute" as you do. You don't gain any authority by editing the article, or even knowing more about the subject. WilyD 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In particular, I thought some of the pictures in the German and Spanish articles were very good. Tom Harrison 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you Tom Harrison. I was actually a bit surprised to see the Danish article illustrated given all of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy hoopla. (→Netscott) 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, ALM, mediation is open to anyone who wants to be interested in the topic. InBC 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case there are many people who are interested Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Islam. --- ALM 14:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if they are interested they will come here. InBC 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Drawn by al-Biruni?

No, the picture some of you want to include was not drawn by al-Biruni. That's NUTS. The picture was found in a hand-lettered, hand-illustrated copy of one of al-Biruni's works. Unless we have solid info on the creation of that copy, all we can do is guess. The picture was probably created by some ill-paid artist hired to decorate the book, either by a bookseller (creating a copy on speculation) or by a patron. Zora 20:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...I suppose you must be correct, given the date according to BNF (16th century.) Good call, Zora, and accept my apologies for not having noticed this discrepancy myself. Will you likewise agree that this is the only image proposed thusfar which shows him doing that for which he is most famous, and that it depicts (purports to depict) a real event in his life? What I've seen so far is that bad points are responded to, while good ones are met with a change of subject.Proabivouac 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the illustrated manuscripts show both veiled and unveiled figures (and there's no way of telling which are most common) I would prefer to use a veiled figure. Out of kindness. In this one particular context. I also support the right of cartoonists to mock Muhammad and Islam. In another context. Any religion is the better for a little mockery. (For a wry take on my religion, Zen Buddhism in the US, try the book Tofu Roshi.) Zora 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are we to value kindness to aniconistic Muslim editors over the informative mission of this encyclopedia? And why only on this page? That suggests to me that you would concede that they "own" Muhammad - in my opinion this remains the core principle of this mediation, that Muhammad must be "Islamic" in a way that Depictions of Muhammad, Jesus, Women, Pokemon, etc. are not.

I also would like to reiterate that objection to the provenance of Image:Maomé.jpg (unlike kindness to an arbitrarily-designated group of "owners"), like topicality (which it satisfies completely,) is in principle a completely legitimate objection to its inclusion; in this spirit let us remove Image:Muhammad callig.png, which appears to have been created by an editor to Misplaced Pages (unless you happen to know differently) forthwith.Proabivouac 20:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Patricia L. Baker talks about how in earlier Persian art (1300~) everyone was drawn the same and the 'holiest' wasn't apparent. However, over time you (1450~) in a gradient you got more of the fiery halos, veils and other means to explicitly mark the significance of the character. It seems to make sense with Maomé since the veneration is rather clear in the halo circling the head. If I had to judge I'd say the most important strains was probably in the ~1300s era under the Ilkhanate which stands to reason because after the Mongols settled in they became large patrons of the arts and they weren't nearly as firmly rooted in aniconistic tradition (you do, however, see their shift to accepting Islamic practice to a great extent because the Mongols, like the Arabs in 600s weren't exactly known for their vibrant culture; they were known for making war. This is why the art books talk about Chinese influence in some of the images).

Proab, you may also notice that Zora did not say 'over the informative mission'. She believes there are two equally acceptable ways of showing Muhammad and that within a range of acceptability you try to act kindly towards Muslims. That is not an argument for dumbing down the encyclopedia. I think we should all realize there is no one True way that will perfectly represent Muhammad and that we do have leeway. I don't think she is relinquishing control the the Moorish hordes which she hath so valiantly fought many a time before. ~_~ I tend to disagree that we can't know which is most prominent. I think the Ilkhanate patronage seems to be a major theme in the iconography from the sparse material in the books. Yet it still is not nearly as prevalent a tradition as calligraphy and... really remains rather marginal. gren グレン 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think she is relinquishing control the the Moorish hordes which she hath so valiantly fought many a time before." Somewhat off-topic, but it seems to me mainly Persian and Shi'a POV that Zora combats, not Islamic bias generally. Aniconism is rather consonant with this approach.

Gren, I appreciate the knowledge that you bring to this discussion. The policy-compliant compromise I'd proposed above was intended to acknowledge the validity of your approach in moderation. I find it acceptable so long as it remains practically, rather than only rhetorically, distinguishable from religiously-motivated censorship. Additionally we should recognize the inherent limitations of Arabic-language calligraphy, both in interpretability to English speakers and informational poverty relative to information-rich images, per Alecmconroy's excellent presentation above; all other things being equal, depictions are strongly preferred. Representativeness is only one of many valid criteria to consider, and the only reason calligraphy should be included at all. Again, the first step here is not to remove any depiction, or to arbitrarily limit their number, but to identify and add quality images of calligraphy.Proabivouac 23:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Given this new information that ALM was kind enough to provide us, a discussion as to a change in the citation is taking place on the main talk page. Since the page is protected right now a consensus will be waited upon for a little while before the change is made. InBC 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is also no reason to give the name in French... gren グレン 22:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that is the name of the source. InBC 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Try this: Image:Maomé.jpg I'm not certain why we need two of them.Proabivouac 02:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Proabbivouac, that should be deleted and the one on the commons should be used. HighInBC, Le Prophète Mahomet is just "The Prophet Muhammad" and is the title the French museum gives it... no real relevance to anything in an English language article. It's just a label given by the French museum... I saw this image in some book, maybe it gives a title or what manuscript it was originally from. gren グレン 02:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It is from an illustrated manuscript of Al-Biruni's Vestiges of Centuries Past and has been labelled by the Bibliothèque nationale de France as "muhammad interdisant l'intercalation" (Muhammad prohibiting intercalation.) Place the title under Légende and click "Chercher."Proabivouac 03:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue of the intercalation is an important point; in another article (Qur'an and Sunnah) I'm trying to work out what calendar was used prior to Islam as the article states that "The Prophet Muhammad used to retreat annually to a cave at the top of a mountain near Mecca during the Month of Ramadan where he meditated in seclusion. In 610 AD he was visited in the cave during his sleep ....etc etc etc" but according to Ramadan article it was established in the year 638. An obvious discrepancy. Ttiotsw 06:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternating between the two versions while consensus is not achieved

Since we are still discussing this issue and no consensus has yet been achieved, it is reasonable to alternate between the version with image, and the one without image. The article was locked in the version with image for around 3 weeks. I suggest we remove the image for three weeks unless some consensus is achieved here. This idea also prevents edit-warring if everybody agrees with it. --Aminz 09:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think it works that way. The encyclopedia has decided on many other articles that we will include images of this type. Images of this type have been included included in many other language Wikipedias. One of the most fundadmental principle of Misplaced Pages is not censored, which prohibits us from deleting the images just because some people find them offensive. Another is NPOV, which requires us to treat Muhammad as another historical figure, rather than as one unique individual who cannot be pictured. Now, if there were a strong consensus to delete the images, then perhaps we might let that local consensus overrule these policies and take the unprecidented step of deleting all the images of the subject of a biography. On the other hand, perhap these are fundamental policies that require a consensus of Misplaced Pages as a whole in order to change-- not just a few editors on this article. But we're certainly not going to start going against policies and purging images from the encyclopedia without even a local consensus.

If we were just going to start changing the article without consensuses, I'd be inclined to add all the images from the German encyclopedia-- it seems like they have operated without religious objections, and so their entry is a good example of what the entry should look like if we were only concerned with writing an informative article. That said-- obviously, that would be a controversial change, so it's not one I'm going to make in the absence of a consensus. People who want to delete the images should likewise stop trying to do so without a consensus. --Alecmconroy 13:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed the point... there never was consensus for the images. It caused edit warring and this whole process. You are once again making the assumptions that no images is necessarily censorship which is just annoying at this point. You can disagree with me. You can say that tradition isn't an important matter. You can say that Islamic tradition warrants an image at the top. However, you cannot say that my view is censorship. But, back to the issue at hand. There was never consensus so neither images nor images is the consensus version. However, Aminz, we really have no precedent to engage in swapping of articles. I'm not sure it has ever been suggested nor do I think anyone will adopt it. Freezing the page by a neutral admin under whichever version they happened upon to stop edit warring is just how it goes... although, they normally don't expect a page to be protected for so long. gren グレン 13:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we have a couple different POVs involved, so who I'm arguing against in any given post is a nebulous thing. It's clear that many (most?) of the people arguing for the deletion of all images are doing so strictly out of a personal religious objection to the images. Then there's a whole faction of people arguing for using images because "that's what we always do in a biography, and to do otherwise is censorship". Meanwhile, people like your and futurebird find yourselfs in the odd nether-region of partially agree with the iconoclasts, but presumably not out for the same reasons. So, when I pound the anti-censorship message, it's not really directed at you and future personally-- it's just clear that the major impetus for the "delete all pictures" proposals comes from some people's personal objections to them. I think it's clear that some of the editors here, if it were up to them, would delete all Muhammad images from Misplaced Pages and indeed from the internet. That they happens to find themselves in alliance with more reasonable individuals is just a complication i usually gloss over. :)