Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kaaba

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 26 July 2007 (→Poll: Consensus check: - Switching from "Keep" to "Keep or replace"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:34, 26 July 2007 by Elonka (talk | contribs) (→Poll: Consensus check: - Switching from "Keep" to "Keep or replace")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconIslam B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconArchitecture B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

2003 - June 2007
early July 2007



The need to compromise

A couple of editors seem to be saying that they must have things their way entirely. The image must stay; the caption link to Depictions of Muhammad must go; the show/hide option is unacceptable; and the warning must go too.

This isn't reasonable. Neither side can have everything it wants. Therefore, please continue discussing which compromise is best. I've protected the article again in the meantime. SlimVirgin 23:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The point here though is that any compromise is not rational because it is not what has been done in other articles repeatedly. This same issue has been discussed before and resolved in the only possible way - according to Wiki policy that does not allow censorship. A warning is ridiculous - why don't you try to propose a policy to place a warning at the top of every article that contains something potentially offensive and see how far that flies? Why should this article be any different from all others? If it's offensive then so be it. There is no policy against offensive material, if fact the tendency of Wiki has been in favor of its inclusion - ie the use of certain pornographic images and profanity. As long as it does not violate standards of inclusion that are already established, this discussion is pointless and interrupting progress that we could be making on the article. --Strothra 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite the inconsistency with WP practice elsewhere, I'm not opposed to a warning in principle. My question is, will it really keep the potentially offended from reading on, or will it only cue them that there is something in the article to vandalize? If the actions of active editors are indicative of what readers will do - I doubt they are, actually, but as this premise of "representation" is the only justification for this debate to begin with - the editors who've expressed the most offense don't avoid these pages at all, but hang around them looking for different ways to blank the images and keep the debate alive long past its rightful shelf life. It seems not anything about the visual appearance of the images themselves (cf. Kryptonite,) but the fact that they are being displayed that is causing the offense; this is plain in BYT and ALM's objections, at least. If so, then this message will cause the very same offense (per BYT, communal humiliation/provocation) to any who read it.
If, on the other hand, the appearance of this warning means that editors who then continue through the article are individually responsible for what they see, for whatever reactions they might have to it, and most importantly for whatever disruptive behavior the might then undertake, then this warning is a small price to pay.
In sum, a compromise that contributes to stability and prevents disruption is worthwhile insofar as it does, but one which unintentionally encourages disruption and/or facilitates vandalism is undesirable. To take another example, were all these articles placed in a Category:Articles with depictions of Muhammad, vandals could simply stroll through the Cat membership. The same might be true of filter tags, depending on how these were technically accomplished.Proabivouac 01:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
How do you compromise on the issue of censorship? Cut the image in half? Photoshop a new head on Mohammed? Wiki policies are in place to address this question. The policy is WP:CENSOR and says that we dont censor based on the objections of being offended. However I'll answer on how you compromise. You compromise by showing only noteable, informative images in a respectful manner.Dman727 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We do have the show/hide option. SlimVirgin 02:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Have those desiring the censor of the image expressed ANY support for the show/hide option? I'll support it with a default show if they'll agree to stop trying to censor wiki on the basis of Islamic taboo. So far the only option I've seen from the pro-censor folks is the complete removal of all Mohammed images for anyone and everyone. Naturally there is an option for those afraid of the image..simply change their browser to a different web page.Dman727 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The show/hide option is pretty silly. If the default mode is "hide", then this is censorship; if the default mode is "show", then people who are supposed to be offended by this image will see it and get offended, negating the very purpose of the show/hide option. The current applicable disclaimers state plainly that people use Misplaced Pages at their own risk; if someone has failed to read them before reading the article, then it's not our problem. Beit Or 21:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BYT, could you say what your view is of having a warning at the top of the page? Is it worth the trouble, will it be helpful, or is it likely only to inflame? SlimVirgin 01:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A supermajority has already made a decision during the debate on the Muhammad page that it is indeed acceptable to include images of Muhammad, with no censorship and no warnings/apologies. The image that we are going to include here is also both highly topical and valuable to the article, and the consensus is to include it and not to censure it. -- Karl Meier 09:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's another option for a compromise. There is an altered version of the Muhammad image, where the face has been digitally blanked out. Let's use that image here at the article, and provide a link in the image caption, to the unaltered image. Would that make everyone happy? --Elonka 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The short answer is no. As a member of the ArbCom mentioned when responding to a request for arbitration that was filed regarding Muhammad: "Misplaced Pages is not censored - not even when you really, really want it to be." -- Karl Meier 20:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, blanking the face out would be a perfect example of censorship and violation of WP:NOT. Please also note that adding a warning to the top of the article is blatant violation of commonly accepted guidelines - ie Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles. You must realize that people use Misplaced Pages at their own risk and that Wiki contains objectionable content, but does not provide disclaimers. Seriously, the inclusion of this image, as is, is perfectly in-line with policy. Any form of so called "compromise" here is unacceptable and violates the spirit and word of Wiki policy. --Strothra 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles covers this issue perfectly. Any "compromise" in the form of an inclusion of some sort of warning would be a violation of the applicable guidelines. Beit Or 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, no, we dont want to use altered images. You're willing to give in unreasonable demands. Thats wrong. You should understand this: there is no point in a compromise which results in the violation of Misplaced Pages policies and if you want to read detail on that, read this. Stick to policies and ignore everything else or you'll end up in a messy or chaotic place because then every other rule can be violated too on the basis of a "compromise". We are fine now. This matter should be considered closed and hopefully not reopened like it was here. Further recurrent removals of Mohammed images should be dealt swiftly with semi-protections and warnings and if necessary, blocks. I mean, we're sorry but these are our policies and if anyone doesnt respect them, they need to be blocked. --Matt57 21:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt57, no one should be blocked; that would be unfair, insensitive and wrong. What should happen is that all affected pages should be either semi-protected or fully-protected into the indefinite future, and open-ended mediations should be initiated for all affected pages, which end if and only if and when there is a consensus to remove all depictions. Remember, our goal here isn't just to "create an encyclopedia": it's to prove we're not discriminating against anyone. Not everyone understands this. At the end of the day, readers and content are just not all that important compared to the religious sentiments of editors to this talk page. Keeping this debate alive - even if there is no purpose per se - is the very least we can do to show that we're listening.Proabivouac 09:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, for whatever reason I was thinking there were more than two editors complaining here. My mistake. Support solution proposed by Matt57 above.Proabivouac 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that's the only way this farce can end. --Strothra 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, there is nothing to add. Beit Or 18:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Views from other scholars on the image issue

As another point of view here... I was attending an academic conference (on games and society) this weekend, and had the opportunity to go to a talk on "Computer games in Islamic culture." Which has nothing directly to do with this particular debate, but I did get the opportunity to meet some Muslims there, and I asked them about our current issue. The people that I talked to were generally Sunni, well-educated, highly-literate, and their views relatively liberal (it was, after all, a gaming conference). For example, despite the ban on "images of living figures," they were okay on taking photographs of family, seeing animated figures in computer games, etc.

They had heard of Misplaced Pages, had a positive impression of it, and were interested when I brought up the idea of articles about the Kaaba and Black Stone. Through all this, they were nodding and smiling and engaged. Then when I got to the point of mentioning "some 14th century artwork of Muhammad lifting the Black Stone into place," they actually recoiled like a physical blow. One woman laughed nervously, and said that if she were to see such an image, she would feel as though she had just committed blasphemy. I asked her to try and better explain the issue, and she said that part of her prayers are to keep her mind free of any particular image, and just to focus on the indefinable concept of God. But if she sees an image of Muhammad, or any prophet, that it would change the nature of her prayers, and her thoughts would then unwillingly form the image of the painting she had seen, even if she did not wish it. And that since the painting could not possibly be a true image of Muhammad, it would then somehow corrupt her own thoughts. It was startling to me, to see how this highly-educated and very open-minded woman, a trained engineer, suddenly became so distressed.

Her reaction, and those of the other scholars I spoke to, are making me rethink my position on this issue. I did bring up to them the quandary that we have about how we want to provide a source of knowledge, but we also do not want to offend, but neither do we want to censor. None of them had a good answer. Some, as librarians, grudgingly agreed that it's important to keep access to knowledge, and that it's wrong to simply remove books from a library simply because someone may find them offensive. Some had ambivalent feelings about the "show/hide filter" option, saying that even then they would be uncomfortable with knowing that the image was on the page, even if it was hidden from them.

The discussions gave me much more insight into the problem, and my own feeling now is that at a very minimum, we must post a warning on the page, to give a good-faith heads-up to those who are reading a Misplaced Pages article, that there may be an image further down that they might find as shocking as some of us might find the images on a shock site such as goatse.cx. I personally still believe that it's important that we provide the images here on Misplaced Pages for those who wish them for scholarship, but we must be responsible in how we provide them. --Elonka 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you were correct when you said that this was not relevant. Please restrict your discussion here to being about the article. Personal matters are better expressed via e-mail or editor discussion pages. --Strothra 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright. And where do we draw the line? Do we put a warning up on Xenu saying that L. Ron Hubbard says that anyone that learns of it before their time will die of pneumonia? Do we put warnings up on pages that criticize religion, on the ground that someone might find it offensive? See Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer. To be blunt, it's not our job to protect people from themselves. --L 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, thank you for your post. It's a very interesting perspective, and what the woman said about prayer certainly makes sense. I wonder whether we could encourage some of our Muslim editors to write an essay about it for Misplaced Pages that explains their feelings. SlimVirgin 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM has done it already here. Either the images stay or they move out, we have to decide one way or the other. We cant keep debating on this forever. This has to be decided once and for all. Or are you saying its okay to debate every time someone removes a picture? --Matt57 03:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
As it happens, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a grievance theater. Beit Or 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, Thanks those are some interesting insights. I cannot agree though that we should modify the image. Technically I don't see how it would make a difference, after all you'll still be able to see his body and I suspect that it won't satisfy the offendees objections.
In terms of compromise, well compromise is not required with those who would do wrong and by wrong I mean blantant censorship (in this case). If the 9/11 terrorist had came to us and told us they were going destroy two towers, we would not reach a compromise that says they can destroy just one tower simply because its their religious duty. Sometimes wrong is wrong. In this case, Islam is wrong about censorship and its simple as that. For the entire rest of the world to embrace censorship because of a handful of objectors is wrong. Still...I'm sympathetic to the non-radical Muslims who feel offended by the picture, but thats as far as it goes. Free Speech and open knowledge is a blessing and for those who feel otherwise that is their problem to solve or get over, not everyone elses.
I'll support language at the top of the page that indicates a Mohimmed picture is below(but not a "warning"). Also would support a show/hide option with a default show. As I said, the problem with Mohammed pictures lies with offendees, not with the rest of the word. Dman727 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Elonka for your understanding. I am always open for compromises. If we can hide those images so that Muslims do not see them and one has to press a button to see them. Furthermore, we put a warning on the button. Then it can be accepted by me. We should give reader option to choose. I have list of people who come and leave wikipeda because of those images. We should solve this problem. --- A. L. M. 08:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but your list includes several transparent sockpuppets and otherwise disruptive editors. If anything, it is evidence that we are not losing anyone valuable, and may not be losing anyone at all.Proabivouac 09:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
When I joined wikipedia, I also reverted few times on OBL. I had recieved WP:3RR warnings and I was also near to leave. My case was just like them. However, then few poeple compromised on the change I wish to introduce. Hence I stay here. Although, I do not edit as much as I should here (because of lack of time), but we could save many people by solving this pictures dispute. May be they have more time then me and they help wikipedia much better. --- A. L. M. 09:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM, you've double listed editors who are sockpuppets of one another.Proabivouac 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I have also not added many editors. However, could you change listing of those editors who are socket puppits in one line instead of as sperate editors. Thanks in advance. --- A. L. M. 09:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, wait a minute: Just the other night, I was wondering whether Matt57's mention of Osama bin Laden in the proposed policy page wasn't just a little off-key…but now you're repeating it. you're saying that these reverts on OBL () are somehow similar ("My case was just like them") to blanking depictions of Muhammad?Proabivouac 10:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know if I understand you? However, I wish to say that he is alleged to be involved in 9/11 attacks. I successfully able to change the article after some discussion and that make me stay here. I strongly believe that if we are able to compromise on image issue we will be able to have few more editors creating new article and improving wikipedia. Hence my case was at that time was like them. They need someone to listen to them, like I needed. --- A. L. M. 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If blatant censorship is going to encourage more editors to join wiki, then I have to question whether we really want those editors to join at all. The last thing we need is more people who want to censor and hide knowledge for the entire rest of the world based on their own particular views. Respectfully, we need less pro-censor editors, not more. Dman727 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
You do not know what you get until you get it. I have enriched with meeting (making friends) atheist, Christians and other. I understand my religion and world around me, much better by discussions with them. If you (or anyone else) wish to have one type of people in wikipedia then it will be an extremely bad place to be. It will be colorful when many people from all sides join with different ideas. --- A. L. M. 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
wiki is not a discussion group. Its an encyclopedia project and most could care less what an editors religion is. I stand by my suggestion that the last thing that Wiki needs is new editors bent on censorship - at the same time that you suggest that censorship is what would attract them. I'll let you have the last word on this as we've drifted off topic and are now into WP:SOAP. Dman727 14:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad images policy

I've attemped to wrap up this Muhammad images issue once and for all and left a note on the Muhammad page here. --Matt57 03:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. -- A. L. M.

This dispute can only be solved with a understanding on part of everyone whether Muslims or Non-Muslims.The Muslims have to realize that non-Muslims have to be given an impartial and non-radical insight into an issue of such nature to make them realize the impact of such critical issues on the people who have little or no knowledge about such issues. The non-Muslims have to bear in mind that whatever is contributed of religious importance (related to whatever religion) then it should at least be in accordance with the basic principles, values and practices of that particular religion. This will ensure authenticity of content present on wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.249.34 (talk • contribs)

That's absurd, we're supposed to grant censorship to Muslims when we allow pornography on Wiki against the wishes of feminist and religious groups? Why does this one group deserve special treatment? --Strothra 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree that is absurb unreasonable. There is zero reason why everyone else should be held accountable to Islamic taboo. Dman727 15:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, 124.29.249.34, you have offered us some useful wisdom. And Strothra and Dman, please review WP:CIVIL and try to avoid characterizing other editors' good faith suggestions as "absurd." If you disagree, fine, but disagreeing in a rude way is not going to help us find a middle-ground here. --Elonka 15:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can see how absurb could be construed to be uncivil. Nonetheless, the suggestion is unreasonable. I will amend my remark according.Dman727 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I told you before Elonka, there is not going to be a middle ground which violates Misplaced Pages policies. --Matt57 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Anon, the issue is simple. Misplaced Pages policies cant be compromised on to reach middle grounds and understandings. Thats not what this site is for. Its not about Muslims or non-muslims, its about rejecting censorship and adhering to policies. --Matt57 16:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then "unreasonable." Either way, this whole discussion is a violation of WP:POINT. No compromise can be accomplished without violating existing policies and guidelines, thus certain editors seem to be interrupting the ability to make progress on this article in order to pursue this point. --Strothra 03:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that a reasonable compromise would be to use an image of the Black Stone, instead of the one with Muhammad. --Elonka 18:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
They're completely different, and not substitutes for one another at all. We can use both of them (and we would be already, had my ill-fated merger idea gained any support.) One is a 1) contemporary 2) photograph of 3) the black stone in its setting; the other a 1) medieval 2) illustration of 3) the Quraysh raising the stone before the Kaaba. That anyone would suggest such an equivalence shows how far afield we've drifted from thinking about content.Proabivouac 19:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the old consensus?

Does anyone know the link for the old consensus formed which agreed to have the Muhammad images? I want to close this affair once and for all. --Matt57 11:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Here it is . I also post it here below
page flooding redacted, see link as providedProabivouac 22:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Next time there's a question on the article Muhammad, we'll all know exactly where to look. BYT 12:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This is consensus for a small question. I'm talking about a general consensus for keeping Muhammad images in. --Matt57 14:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That small question is answer to this dispute. I do not know why you are declining to close the issue now once for all? -- A. L. M. 14:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Why didnt BYT link to this debate, which came later? The Poll BYT linked has this: Caution: the above summary has been substantially qualified/altered since the poll was opened. and has a link to the next poll which I just linked. --Matt57 15:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
That's right, Matt57, the description was altered after the signatures were placed. It's meaningless except as an example of how not to conduct a poll.Proabivouac 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change. Though I appreciate the good-faith nature of the discussions from last year and stretching into February, I see that most of those editors aren't even involved in the discussion anymore, and we have many new voices. Also, please keep in mind that mediation is never binding. It is a way for the participants to try and find an acceptable compromise which they can 'voluntarily choose or not choose to follow. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation. It's not something that can be decided upon by one group of editors, and then used as a club to beat up anyone else who comes along. --Elonka 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
So you think we should keep debating on this issue forever and get into a long discussion every time a Muhammad image is removed? --Matt57 16:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, many of the editors involved in discussions back then (including myself) simply grew tired of participating in endlessly repetitive and draining argumentation, and went off to work on other articles. the mediation discussion itself was highly geared towards the situation on the Muhammad article. i haven't observed the discussion on this article at any great length, but the image does appear to be topical. that doesn't mean we cannot employ one of the measures suggested above (such as the warning, which would parallel use of {{spoiler}}). ITAQALLAH 16:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I should add that a warning atop the page is not censorship. It may be unencyclopedic (as are spoiler warnings), it may violate Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles, and it may not help anything (I doubt it will), but it isn't censorship, and it wouldn't make the article any less informative. This is the only proposed compromise of which this is true.Proabivouac 23:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can certainly change. However in this case I have not seen evidence that this is the case. Rather I see some new faces supporting the original consensus (such as myself), and those opposed to the original consensus repeating their arguments. Consensus can change is certainly something that needs to be taken to heart, however its not meant to be a license for continuously repeating the same debate until the other side gets what it wants either. This is a well worn and well debated topic and frankly, nothing fundamental has changed that indicates a new consensus is on the horizon. Dman727 20:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that the show/hide option is reasonable. It still makes the image available in an uncensored form, but removes it one simple mouse-click away. As for the Depictions of Muhammad page, I don't think that would be a good solution for that page, since the title clearly states that there will be depictions, so the images should be left on the page. But for here at Kaaba, I would support either using SlimVirgin's show/hide solution, or replacing the "Muhammad placing the stone" image with a simple image of the Black Stone itself, and then linking to Depictions of Muhammad via a "See also". --Elonka 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Elonka, hiding something in plain brown wrappers behind the counter is of course a form of censorship, even if what is inside is preserved intact. As such, it violates our policies, which expressly forbid censorship. Besides the fact that this solution is supremely unlikely to achieve consensus here, local consensus cannot override core policy.
More to the point - and this is the point of the policy, after all - it makes the article as displayed less informative, just as it would if we adopted a similar solution for controversial text. If we are to facilitate anyone censoring their own displays, that's fine, but when this becomes hindering the displays of others, it's unacceptable. We need to show some respect for the sensibilities of the majority.
Were an image not notable, topical and informative, we wouldn't hide it, but remove it altogether. The fact that we're talking about hiding it concedes that we are no longer concerned with our mission to inform. We need to show some respect for the goals of the academic enterprise in general and of this encyclopedia in particular.
From a scholarly perspective, there is nothing at all disreputable about this historic image, or about others like it which are curated, disseminated and displayed by the very most prestigious libraries and universities.Proabivouac 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes the show/hide option is censoring information and its a usability issue. To me this is as bad as not having the image. --Matt57 23:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have redacted the pasting of a cherry-picked section of the mediation. Otherwise we might be tempted to paste such sections as this and this, and eventually this talk page becomes unusable.Proabivouac 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Proav, it looks like the majority consensus was for "human depiction with no veil at the top AND multiple other images". Thats what we've agreed with here too. --Matt57 23:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Even so, there's only one image containing Muhammad, and there's no reason to have it at the top, where a current photograph is most appropriate. The ones I've seen where Muhammad is veiled are of lesser antiquity, do not depict any particular story and show the Kaaba in much less detail.Proabivouac 02:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry yes what I meant is, most editors agreed to have multiple unveiled images of Muhammad. I agree with you there. The placement is a smaller issue. --Matt57 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

we all know that wiki's primary objective is to provide authentic knowledge. This knowledge should be totally free from baseless facts not in total accordance with the topic about which this knowledge is being provided. secondly the effect of this knowlegde on its consumers is another important aspect which cannot be totally overlooked. what the viewers / consumers want is authenticity. Authenticity can only be gauranteed when contributers of knowledge make only those contributions which comply to basic principles of that particular topic. In this case contributers of this article know that they are providing information about a building which is held in the highest esteem in one of religions.This makes it all the more important that the content of this contribution should at least be in accordance with the basic principles of that particular religion to make this contribution authentic enough. Because viewers take this article as authentic and of importance so providing them the true image of facts should be the prime focus of article contributers / editors. The image in discussion has no authenticity what so ever. The contributer of this image must have seen its source and contributed it without seeing if it is authentic enough in context of the article topic it is suppose to support. why a compromise is not being reached on this issue merely shows the mis understandings between both the suppoters and offendees alike. The supporters are not ready to accept the significance of this issue, its impact and the confusions it is going to create or has already created among its viewers. To them the policies of wiki are more significant and rigid / unadaptable as compared to the basic principles / values of any faith or religion that articles of wiki project. The offendees want that knowlegede related to any faith should be in total accordance with its principles and values.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.250.2 (talk • contribs)

I am not certain what you mean by "authentic." Misplaced Pages does not aim to be an authentic Islamic site, actually; quite the opposite, as that would violate our neutrality policy. There is no requirement that "contributers of knowledge make only those contributions which comply to basic principles of that particular topic." Let us avoid such generalized discussions, as they go nowhere - you have stated that what is purported to be a 1315 illustration of the Kaaba is inauthentic. Here we do have a standard definition of "inauthentic" to work with, and that would be a compelling argument, were it true. Do you have any evidence to that effect? Below the image is a description of its provenance. Is that description inaccurate?Proabivouac 06:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
124 Anon, no, what you said is wrong "content of this contribution should at least be in accordance with the basic principles of that particular religion to make this contribution authentic enough" - Misplaced Pages doesnt do that. It doesnt "bow" in respect to any article. Its there to provide information on all articles and treat them the same. --Matt57 14:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What is gathered from this and above discussion is that at one end wiki's contributers and editiors are not bothered about authenticity of the content and at the other end claim that wiki is a source of knowledge. At one time wiki's policy is to be neutral and on the same time it is depicting something in form of image supported by the claim that shia scholars have no objections in this regard-arent shia scholars muslims? dont they follow islam? if yes then religion is being brought in support of argument by wiki itself to form basis for supporting its content. Now if someone else from Islam religion points out a fact supported by vast majority of Islamic scholars then this point is rejected on the basis of being too much radical and religious in nature. Regarding the source of this image, something that happened almost 700 years before this image or painting was made, is an indicator of in-authenticity in itself. If anyone on wiki reads about this event in detail then they will come to know that this picture is an in-accurate depiction of facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.250.2 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
That purported "inauthenticity" is your original research. One might as easily observe that the story it depicts is "inauthentic:" both would be inauthentic eyewitness accounts of Muhammad's life, which neither claims to be. Like the story, the image is attributed to a specific source and date; that is the only claim we are making here. Additionally, even were the illustration of the story wildly inaccurate (I can see no contradiction between what is shown and what is alleged to have occurred), the illustration of the Kaaba is verifiably not, and is the oldest and by far most notable image on this article.Proabivouac 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

When the issue is so contentious, why not remove the image in question for good, especially when offensive to the majority of the Muslim population and the probable readers of the article. --Altruism 09:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it would deprive our readers of topical information.Proabivouac 09:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If your post is in reply to mine, then: What topical information would this sole picture convey? Absolutely nothing which can't be conveyed by words. --Altruism 10:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I invite you to write here the summary of that image in words, neglecting no detail whatsoever, such that a reader could duplicate the image from your description alone. There is a definition of information, actually.Proabivouac 10:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not something which is most needed, without which the article would be violated. The picture only conveys a minor part of the history of the Kaaba. It was repaired several times, including the recent one by Muhammad ibn Ladin, if 'm not wrong. Most importantly The religion of Islam, whose sub-article this is, explicitly prohibits the depiction of animate forms, the exceptions being for science and research etc. but is even more stringent when in the case of Prophet Muhammad, with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. --Altruism 11:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not a "sub-article" of Islam. This article is about an actual building which existed (and still exists) in history. This building was important before there were any Muslims, and would still be important even if Islam were no longer practiced.Proabivouac 12:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, note that Islamic texts are not completely opposed to the depictions of Muhammad. It depends on who and what you consult. Sunni Muslims are generally against the practice whereas Shiite Muslims are more lax and have created many pieces of art including his likeness. --Strothra 01:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant: "Isn't the article a part of Islam or WikiProject Islam?" Please have a look at the top of the page. Its included in that category.

Yes this is basically a black stone, believed to have come from heaven, during Prophet Ibrahim's (Abraham) time. He along with his older son, the Prophet Ishmael, made it a symbol of monotheism, may be under the direction from God. Did you know that there was a pre-Islamic practice of people circumambulating around the Kaaba in the nude!!! A year or two before Prophet Muhammad's death, the Prophet's dear friend and father-in-law Abu Bakr Siddiq announced that the practice was being prohibited. Christians and Jews were still free to worship near the Kaaba!!! This was how liberal the Prophet and his companions were!!! The Kaaba was repaired several times. One of it happened to by the Prophet Muhammad, who before the revelation of the Qur'an to him, was chose as the best person in town (perhaps, all of Arabia) to do that, due to his qualities.

Do note that at least 95% of the Muslims vehemently oppose the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. There are authentic proofs (Sahih Hadith) quoting the Prophet himself!!! The Prophet explicitly prohibited his depiction, to not make him another object of worship, as was unfortunately done, in the case of some of the earlier prophets. Even the Hashishiyaan (the Assasins) were a Shiite sect!!! Where do we draw the line. Not everyone who calls himself a Shia becomes one. Paintings may have been introduced by some such people. Anyways WP is definitely no place for offensive images, slander etc.

The World Book Encyclopaedia states "Even non-Muslim scholars do not doubt the sincerity of Prophet Muhammad in his mission." "The prophet was promised power, wealth.... by the pagan Meccans for stopping his preaching, but would have none of it." These statements go on to show how simple and humble the Prophet Muhammad was. Little wonder that he wanted people to worship none but God. Thanking You, Altruism 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


wiki itself claims on the "Depictions of MUHAMMAD (Peace Be Upon Him)" page that SOME shiite scholars are lax about images/paintings rest the majority is strictly against it. Here in this regard wiki is supporting its content on the basis of a small minority of a specific religion and on the same time rejecting the view of majority of scholars and followers of that same religion. Also when religion has no room in wiki (as claimed by those who support having this image) then why the opinion of a minority of shiite scholars is being given weight and importance on this issue. moreover the most significant Rebuilding of Kaaba was by PROPHET ABRAHAM (May Peace Be Upon Him)which is authenticated in the Holy Quran itself. This particular picture is related to only one of the many renovations undertaken during different times. so why is this controversial image and contemptuous issue is being given so much importance in this article and much more important re-building being brushed aside.Ghulam muhammad21 05:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Your claim that the picture is included on the basis of " small minority of a specific religion" is simply false. The paiting is included on the basis that is is topical, noteable, historic and a tasteful painting. Furthermore, the majority of the worlds population, and the typical wiki reader is not offended in the slightest. We do not look to Islamic law on when to include wiki content. We look to wiki policy. See WP:CENSOR. Dman727 06:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not topical and being just a one-off case doesn't merit its inclusion here. The Kaaba was repaired several times, one among which happened to be by the Prophet Muhammad. Why does anybody insist on placing this image, but for the sole purpose of hurting sentiments. What is important here is that this is a niche article in Islam, which is highly unlikely to be read by non-Muslims. The minor bone of contention can be dealt with best, by removing it. --Altruism 08:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"…which is highly unlikely to be read by non-Muslims."
Where did you get that idea?Proabivouac 08:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Its an idea. OK I'll re-phrase At least 80-90% of the readers (detailed readers) are likely to be Muslim. --Altruism 08:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sole desire to hurt sentiments? Come on. I could make an equally compelling case that some want to censor it just to hurt sentiments. Neither is true imo. The article is written to inform and educate. I'm sympathetic that you find this very old and yes, topical painting offensive, however it is not practical nor possible to write an encylopedia that adheres to all the worlds religions and individual sensibilitys. On a personal note, there ALOT of things on wiki that I find offensive. For me, when I find something offensive I avoid it..I don't try to destroy it for everyone else. Dman727 08:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"At least 80-90% of the readers (detailed readers) are likely to be non-Muslim."
Right. It's the English-language Misplaced Pages, so what else would you expect?
There are no "niche" articles in the sense you'd intended. Articles don't belong to any religious or ideological community, no matter what they're about.Proabivouac 08:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What else do I make of the insistence of some users to include the image, come what may? Yes, the article and Misplaced Pages's policy's to inform and educate.This topical painting would be offensive (to most of the potential readers). And, at a time when the feeling of compatibility in both the worlds is at its trough, why do we need to hurt their sentiments? I agree Misplaced Pages may not exactly suit all our sensibilities and tastes. But when something is possible why can't we be a bit flexible instead of deliberately offending religious sentiments? --Altruism 08:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! Just corrected my sentence to "80-90% are likely to be Muslim." --Altruism 08:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Yes, articles here don't belong to anybody or any religion, but most or all articles definitely concern one main topic. It is the "WikiProject Islam" in this case. --Altruism 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


There is lack of understanding among people who are supporting this image. some say it is topical. some cite minority shiite scholars to form basis of having this image. on the other hand the offendees are all of one view that it is prohibited, not very topical as it was one of the routine RENOVATION as compared to RE-BUILDING which actually took place at the time of PROPHET IBRAHIM (May Peace be Upon Him), and offensive to all Muslim viewers. Then what is the sense of having this sub-topic at all. People who say that it is related to Kaaba, well lots of other things are related to Kaaba as well. why choose this particular sub-topic just to offend people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghulam muhammad21 (talk • contribs)

"Then what is the sense of having this sub-topic at all."
Are you saying that the coverage of the episode itself is assigned too much weight in the text?Proabivouac 19:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, we need to have this sub-topic. The coverage of the issue that we are discussing about is scant, only a para, and was only one of the several repair efforts that took place from the time of the Prophet Abraham. --Altruism 06:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True this sub-topic is of general relevance but the main point is why a renovation (just one of the several) is being given much weight then the actual re-building done by PROPHET ABRAHAM (May Peace Be Upon Him). Also when the general consenous is that this picture is offensive to the Muslim viewers then why there is so much support for it. While Britanica (which is supposed to be most authoritative) is quite reserved on image issue. Then why is wiki being such vocal and explicit about this issue. About the source of this image, i am looking for the actual book itself to find out the facts. What has already been gathered about this book from different sources is that this image might not even exist. same goes for many other images.124.29.250.2 07:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The image "might not even exist?"Proabivouac 07:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

i happened to meet some learned shiites and when asked about this picture, they were as surprised as we all are on this blasphemous issue. According to them no shiite scholar whether old or new has allowed any leverage on such issues of pictures related to HOLY PROPHET MUHAMMAD (May Peace Be Upon Him and His Family). they also clarified that painting such pictures was a part of pre-Islamic persian culture, and after advent of Islam in persia, such works were strictly forbidden. so here wiki is actually supporting an in-authentic and truly blasphemous work whose reality is not really known whether it is actually depicting the captioned subject or not. it has already been said again and again that the source of this picture is shaddy, the picture itself is offensive and blasphemous, it provides no valuable knowledge but still people are supporting it. when it is said that this picture is un-Islamic, some say shiites support it(when in truth they dont) and support keeping it neglecting the vast majority against it. some say this article is general not related to Islam but related to architectures. If yes then why doesnt wiki paste pictures of tower of pisa on the statue of liberty page. why because wiki's contributers know it is irrelevant and wrong information. Now in this particular case, wiki's contributers are delibrately insisting on providing a blasphemous wrong and shaddy picture which has very little relevance to the actual topic and the issue it is claiming to portray. IS THIS NOT DOUBLE STANDARD ON PART OF WIKI. bringing religion in discussion whenever wiki wants and negating it when someone else mentions it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.29.250.2 (talk • contribs) (05:13, July 23, 2007 (UTC)

Poll: Consensus check

Could everyone with an opinion on whether or not the 1315 Muhammad painting should be included at the Kaaba article, please weigh in? I'd like to see one opinion per editor, stating where you currently stand on this issue. Thanks, --Elonka 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep or replace Replace the painting with a photograph of the Black Stone. We use the painting on other articles, it doesn't have to be on this article, and providing a photo of the Black Stone seems like a reasonable compromise. Alternatively, we could use the show/hide option. --Elonka 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Changing my opinion from "Replace" to "Keep or replace". I do not personally find this image offensive, I find it beautiful and respectful, and see it as showing Muhammad in a positive light as a peacemaker. But I do understand that some good faith Muslims are uncomfortable seeing any image of Muhammad, even if a positive one, and feel that it is blasphemous. However, per Misplaced Pages's policy on No censorship, the general consensus of Misplaced Pages editors is that images should be included if they are relevant to a particular article, even if some editors might find them objectionable on religious grounds. I support that policy. In regards to this particular image on this particular article though, I have to say that though I do support the use of this image on some other articles at Misplaced Pages, such as Black Stone and Depictions of Muhammad, that in the specific case of using it at the Kaaba article, I think that the image is of less relevance. We don't have to include it -- there are other images which would probably work better, such as an actual photograph of the Black Stone. This Kaaba article also has clear links to the Black Stone article, where the image is used. We're not trying to hide it, and it's not necessary to include the same image on every single article that it is related to. This is why I would support replacing the image here on the Kaaba article. However, having said that, I also have to state that I believe strongly in another Misplaced Pages policy, that of Consensus. And the consensus in this poll clearly appears to be that in respect to the Kaaba article, the image should be kept. I still have respect for the editors who disagree, but it is clear that we will never reach a unanimous decision on this one issue. As such, I am willing to change my opinion to at least a partial "keep", to show that I acknowledge the consensus and will support it. Perhaps in the future Consensus can change, but for now, I think it is best if we try to put this one issue to rest, at least for a few months, and move on to other debates. --Elonka 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Elonka, how can one "replace" one image with a totally different one? If we need a photograph of the black stone, then add one. However, as I've observed and suggested we fix, the article as it is says almost nothing about the Black Stone, devoting more space (for example) to the story depicted in the 1315 illustration. It is very strange to me that you'd not see fit to move text about the Black Stone, but seek to "replace" this illustration with a photograph from the Black Stone article (where both appear). How can a photograph of the modern (broken) Black Stone better depict the events described in the relevant section of the text?Proabivouac 21:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Its topical, noteable, tasteful and respectful. The issue of censoring one of the most noted images of the black stone based on Mohammed depictions has been hashed, rehashed and decided. I see no reason to backtrack on this issue. I do find that that using the show/hide option IS viable imo, with the default being show. This will allow those who find the the image taboo an easy way hide the image for themselves, without affected everyone else. Dman727 18:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Enough polling already. Keep. There are policies which address this situation quite clearly; these enjoy the overwhelming support of the WP community. Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not is the right place to propose exceptions.Proabivouac 21:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Due to the image's encyclopedic nature and the fact that policies do not allow for its removal based on its potential offensiveness.--Strothra 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Elonka, please stop trying to stretch this affair longer and longer and giving it more attention that it deserves. As Proav said, enough polling. Valueable unique image, very relevant, no copyright problems, keep. --Matt57 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace: This image is irrelevant since it is offensive, blasphemous (to majority of its muslim viewers), provides no credible knowledege, is source of more confusion then knowledge and its source is highly questionable. In its place an image of actual black stone is more appropriate in context of the topic. Ghulam muhammad21 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
  • Replace or Remove: Plz. remove the picture immediately as it is beyond doubt a highly offensive image, which explains very little about the article "Kaaba." The picture is only of one particular step in the many restorations of the Kaaba. The adamancy of some to retain this picture goes a long way in further aggravating the highly deteriorated relationship between Christianity and Islam. Thanking You, Altruism 05:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

*Replace: Because of few of wiki's editors personal egos, this issue has been dragged for so long. It deserves all the attention because of its importance to topic it is related to. In fact this sub-topic should be "Re-building / Renovation of Kaaba" with information about all such occurances which are well documented alongwith a picture depicting the evolution of this structure from Prophet Adam (Be Peace on Him) to modern times. There should be general emphasis on re-building rather then detailing any one particular time of history. Picture of black stone should remain where it is in the Black Stone article.--Tiere Rod 05:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Mpatel, do you mean to say that the associated text isn't relevant to the article?Proabivouac 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If by the associated text you mean A story found in Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (as reconstructed and translated by Guillaume) shows Muhammad settling a quarrel between Meccan clans as to which clan should set the Black Stone cornerstone in place. His solution was to have all the clan elders raise the cornerstone on a cloak, and then Muhammad set the stone into its final place with his own hands., then I don't see what the problem is - if the text is there, there's no need for a controversial picture. The caption text for the picture can stay with a show/hide option; nothing wrong with that. MP (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You've turned the standard for image inclusion on its head: usually we ask that what is depicted is a part of the text. Here you say that if it is, then the image is no longer needed. Hence any image anywhere is either 1) off-topic (unrelated to text) or 2) unneeded (as text already covers it).Proabivouac 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that I said controversial picture; not every picture in WP is controversial. Note that text has priority over any images, unless the images add more meaning understanding etc. to complement the text. MP (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It is a picture of one of the most significant figures in history doing something that was important than, was important enough for Ibn Ishaq and Rashid al-Din to record it, and remains today a highly significant event in the history of the article's subject. Tom Harrison 11:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    This we called original research here. Why to give that reason using original research when you also support picture you know nothing about Image:Maome.jpg. Or do you have any source telling you what it depict? --- A. L. M. 13:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should also have a vote at Isra and Mi'raj, since you removed the picture there as well. We could vote on every article once a month, and then have or not have images that month depending on how the vote went. Or, it might be better to draw in the larger community and determine the wider consensus. Then maybe we could craft a policy reflecting that consensus that would apply to the whole project. Tom Harrison 13:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not mind that picture sepcially because it face is veiled. However, I do not know why you have restored it when someone else has removed it? I just wish to support that poor fellow against you. Once again what you know about Image:Maome.jpg, what event it depicting? ---A. L. M. 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I at least appreciate your candor. But why are you asking about Maome.jpg? Nobody wants to include it here. Our article on Depictions of Muhammad says it is an "Illustration portraying Muhammad preaching to his early followers." The reference is to the French National Library, but my proficiency with French is limited. What is your point about Maome.jpg? Tom Harrison 13:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
p.s. - as with the caption for the 1315 Kaaba image I'd fixed earlier, that article had it wrong: Muhammad is not with his early followers, but in the last years of his life, forbidding intercalation after the conquest of Mecca.Proabivouac 21:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you do not need to present that original research about most significant event in Muhammad life that you have presented above few times. You can say that you support including images of Muhammad, even if you do not know anything about them at all. Because you (and others) have been supported including Maome.jpg (and many other such pictures), when you do not know anything about it (Other then that they are in abc library or abc book cover). Hence please be honest at least. --- A. L. M. 13:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
A.L.M., do you mean to say I am less than honest? Tom Harrison 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know but you are supporting many images which are only notable because they are old and saved by some library. Otherwise, we do not know anything about those images. Anyway, I do not wish to spend any more time here. --- A. L. M. 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tom et al. This is the worst kind of cynical, bad-faith forum-seeking behavior I have seen on WP yet. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, ever so reluctantly, only because there appears to be consensus for it. Personally, I believe it belongs in another article, and it's my firm conviction that these and similar pictures are simply not worth the trouble they inevitably cause. Utterly indiscreet. Sad but true: If we had a few more editors worthy of the name, I would change this vote. As it stands, the point to be made is that we have had this discussion. BYT 03:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
BYT has mentioned before that he did not find the image offensive. --Matt57 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tom. Arrow740 08:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the only reason this discussion exists is because certain groups of people find the image blashpemous. Given that blasphemy isn't part of any WP policy, this is irrelevant. If this were any other image on any other article, there would be no debate. Oli Filth 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesnt anyone (who supports this particular image) realize the significance of this issue. OPEN BLASPHEMY IS BEING DONE on the pretext of knowledge. where has all the sense gone. why is this picture being compared with other in-significant pictures. why just two ancient scholars being quoted in its support and a vast majority being negated. EITHER PEOPLE DELIBRATELY WANT TO COMMIT BLASPHEMY AND HURT THE MUSLIMS OR THEY WANT TO SPREAD BAD KNOWLEDGE AND IGNORANCE FURTHER DEFAMING ISLAM. scholars have been consulted. offendees have mentioned all possible rules and regulations regarding such depictions but it is falling on totally deaf ears.124.29.250.2 05:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rules and Regulations? The applicable and regulations that apply here are wikipedia rules and regs. Islamic policy simply does not apply to most of the world and certainly not wikipedia. The very presence of wikipedia and indeed the Internet offends the amish..however you do not find them attempting shutdown the Misplaced Pages. It is impractical and impossible for an encyclopedia to conform to all the worlds religions. Sincerly, I am sympathetic that the picture offends some. There are things in wikipedia that offend me as well such as Cleveland_steamer. However censorship is the enemy of knowledge and wikipedia is about knowledge. I suggest that you do as I do when it comes to articles that offend you - avoid them. Dman727 05:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me correct some misconceptions here. Islam encourages its followers to gain and share knowledge. There is an authentic quote from the Prophet Muhammad, who encouraged Muslims to gain knowledge even by going to China!! Misplaced Pages is definitely an effort in the right direction, but for some profanities here and there. So is the internet with a wealth of information (and filth). Its for the users to use the Internet constructively and in the right direction. Thanking You, Altruism 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This image is the depiction of a minor event in the history of the Kaaba. It is nothing but prejudice to say that the image is irreplaceable. The insistence on retaining the image only smacks of gross distrust and misunderstanding of Islam. Thank You. --Altruism 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Misplaced Pages is not censored. Make sure you read this. --Matt57 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Matt's (familiar) mantra. Altruism, I agree with your points, but I believe the only way to edit for the long term is to attempt to build consensus and acknowledge when it exists. The key is to stick around, particularly on a page like this one, and encourage others with a functioning conscience to do the same. Consensus can change. BYT 13:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You've said yourself before that you dont find the image offensive, yet you agree with Altruism? On top of that you just voted a Keep in this poll. Can you please clarify your Keep above by repeating that you dont find the image offensive? --Matt57 14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Questionable copyright for image

The illustration in a folio in the Oriental Manuscript Section of the Edinburgh University Library, Special Collections and Archives, could be a duplicate.

Where does it state that the original version's (date unknown) copyright has expired? The illustration could have been made even in the 21st century! Can you contest this with credible evidence?

Where does it state that this image is a part of the Jami' al-Tavarikh? Please present evidence to that effect? The image is also non-compliant with WP:GFDL. Please refer WP:CP.

This image has copyright problems, at least temporarily until the necessary permissions from the claimed owners are obtained. Thanking You, Altruism 09:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to nominate it for deletion. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yea, nominate it for deletion now that you cant remove it from the page. From the Commons page, see Amazon has the book from where the image was taken from. The pages are 100-101. Are you going to suggest that the uploader lied etc? You can start challenging all the millions of refs on this website then which refer to a book and page number. Also the same image (warning may burn your eyes.. ayee) is found on this very respectable looking website with the same description. Here's the link to the university which has the archives. Also see another book by Rashid Al Din. Also see these references to the image, which I'll reproduce here:
  • Patricia L. Baker. Islam and the Religious Arts. London: Continuum, 2004. LoCC: N6260 .B345 2004
Images of Prophets
The Jami al-Tawarikh manuscript (Blair 1995), probably produced in north-west Iran around 1310, and now divided between Edinburgh University Library and Khalil Collection, London, contains some of the earliest, perhaps the earliest, known representations of quranic prophets, including Muhammad. It includes images of the Prophet Jonah being disgorged by the 'whale' and Ibrahim being catapulted in the the fire, while Muhammad is shown with his companions, riding into Battle or replacing the Black Stone in the Ka`ba shrine in Mecca, etc.
Does this satify you now? Also see , --Matt57 13:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also see this reference from the University of Haifa to the image. It was drawn by Rashid al-Din (bottom right corner). --Matt57 13:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
About ALM's removal, how is this image copyrighted? It was made in 1315. I've written to the same lady asking her this question. --Matt57 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please ask her. But until then do not add it on the page. --- A. L. M. 15:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to nominate other pictures from that library too. Using her email. --- A. L. M. 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
ALM, the only thing you accomplished is a confirmation that the image does come from their collection, so thanks for that. --Matt57 15:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note asking about it on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Tom Harrison 15:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this flagged on ANI. No COI in this article since I've never edited it. I have a background in information science and have to dispute the claim made by the university library that it holds copyright on this image. What a bizarre notion. Coldmachine 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Original research caption

What caption say currently has no association with the image. If the library say that this image represent that event then we can provide a reference. Otherwise we cannot use an event and ourselves say that image represent same event. It is original research. --- A. L. M. 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats original research in this caption? Point it out. --Matt57 12:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
All of it, unless you present reference from the book that have the image. Or some other book point that image to event. -- A. L. M. 12:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Which part specifically? The image coincides with the description. When are you going to let go of this issue? Also, see above. I've put the reference there. --Matt57 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: