Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 2

Archive 2

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

STATEMENTS

Okay, let's get this rolling. First, I'd like to say that the issues here are obviously well-known. From reading all of the background information, I surmise that that no editor is alleging that a Wikipedia policy is being broken by either including or excluding the image in question (bear in mind that Wikipedia:Profanity is a guideline, not a policy).

Having said that, I would like to collect concise statements of position from anyone who cares to give one. State why you think the image should be included or excluded, as well as whether your position extends to all encyclopedic depictions of Muhammad (for more on what makes an encyclopedic image, see Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedicity). Do not repeat sentiments already expressed by another statement. In other words, if someone has already summarized your position satisfactorily, you don't need to make a statement. The number of people having a position holds no bearing here; the purpose of this is to get all of the positions out on the table. Concise means not verbose or rambling. 2-3 sentences max. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have also said - please do not use your statement to rebut statements of other editors at this time. We are just getting the statements out on the table. If your statement is not concise, I may message you asking you to edit it. Thanks --Aguerriero (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will allow for statement for around 24 hours more, to get anyone who might have been gone for the weekend, etc. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC

I think it is important for a major biographical article to have an image of the subject clearly visible. I think what while acting contrary to others religious beliefs can offend them, I don't consider it necessarily offensive behavior. I am open to a compromise, and do not wish to snub anyone. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would like to see from this mediation is, if it is decided that an image can be used based on a set of criteria, that an attempt be made to choose a specific image that fits the criteria. That way if there is a giant arguement later as to if an image meets the criteria, then there will atleast be one picture we know we can use.

I do hate to see a major article without a picture of it's subject. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DocEss

I think any and all images ~~should~~ could be included in any and all articles (to the point of expediency and reason, of course). This includes images of Muhammad in the Muhammad Article. I believe images should be included because doing so helps to illuminate the subject matter, to deepen our understanding of the subject, to satisfy the human mind's insatiable need to put a name to a face, and to act as a scornful snub of distasteful attempts at religious-based censorship in an encyclopedia (a more egregious affront to truth I cannot imagine). I believe images are benign by nature and this applies to all encyclopedic depictions of any subject.DocEss 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-professor Frinkus

I hope this was not already covered: I believe, if the image is clearly relevant to the article, it should be included. If people find depictions offensive for any reason (regardless of size of that group), that should not be a consideration beyond ensuring that the image has some historical/informative value before being used. For example, if people do not like images of a particular person, one should not source a recently produced generic image just for the sake of including an image; however, images that adds something relevant to the article is fine regardless of other objections. This would apply to all controversial images. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BostonMA

I think that images of Muhammad should be included in a given article only if they are informative in the context of that article. I subscribe to the position that "including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." I believe that scornful snubbing the sensitivities of others, whether or not such sensitivities have a religious backing, is not part of Wikipedia's mission.

I believe that in particular, the Maome images is not informative with respect to the subject matter of the Muhammad article. (It is informative with respect to the subject matter of other articles). In particular, the question has been asked repeatedly for a brief statement of of exactly what the image informs us. No such statement has been offered other than it is informative about some Muslim art created long after Muhammad's death. As a depiction of Muhammad, it is quite atypical.

I believe that Wikipedia benefits from editorial decisions which are based upon aesthetics as well as informative content. However, aesthetic concerns are secondary and must be weighed against other secondary concerns, such as offensiveness.

--BostonMA ^talk 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chowbok

Despite nobody knowing what they actually looked like, the articles on Homer, Jesus, Alexander the Great, Zoroaster, Socrates, William the Conquerer, Moses, and Genghis Khan all have images at the top of the page. Clearly, this means that adding an image to the top of the Mohammad article wouldn't be done simply to antagonize Muslims; it would just be in keeping with standard Wikipedia practice. On the other hand, were we to not include an image on the Muhammad page, the only reason we would be doing it would be to capitulate to a vocal minority. We don't let people remove appropriately-included profanity or nudity from articles, why should we let people remove an unquestionably appropriate image? If we agree to leave the image out in this case, or even to push it to the bottom of the page, we might as well completely throw out WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored. —Chowbok 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver

BostonMA sums up my view. Pictures of peoples perception of Muhammad (pbuh) belong on articles related to that. We do not have pictures of Muhammad. Nude pictures are relevant to articles about that form of nudity, not to some related article just to make them pretty by some subjective standard. Muslims are over 20% of the earth pop, that is not a minority. --Striver 21:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irishpunktom

Ok, firstly, there is no breach in wikipedia this is not a policy issue. Considering Images are offensive to a substantial amount of people (and I have seen no-one dispute that, so i presume it is agreed all round?), surely we need a good reason to include any images into the biography article? . Knowing that such images of Muhammad are offensive has been used as a tool to attack Muslims with; Images that no-one knows a thing about are being added with no context, false attribution, and an ignorance of the artist; added solely to offend; Wikipedia should not gratutitiously offend. The majority of art surrounding other religious figures is art created by artists who adhere to the religion associated ith that person, and the majority of Islamic art concerning Muhammad is calligraphy, of which there is a shortage in this biography. -- Irishpunktom\^talk 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IbrahimFaisal

I do not support any picture of Muhammad in the Muhammad article because: no picture exists that has resemblance or related to Muhammad. All early surviving biographies were written by Muslims and they do not have any pictures of Muhammad. The oldest picture we found so far is of 13th century that is 7/6 hundred years after Muhammad death. Yes these might be historical but how could be they related with Muhammad biography directly? ALL Sunni Muslim (90% of total Muslims) do not like Muhammad picture of any kind and many Shia too (if not all). There are alternative, for example pictures not showing Muhammad but only events and calligraphy pictures then why to offend other people? By including Muhammad picture we discourage Muslims to contribute in Muhammad article as well as in wikipedia and we are NOT improving the article quality too by some imaginary picture. -- ابراهيم 16:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patstuart

Wikipedia, and for that matter, other encyclopedias, have good precedence for showing the pictures of ancient historical figures; it's already been said that we have pictures for many of the above. As I mentioned on the talk page, we don't really know what most of them looked like, but the picture is there for help with all of them anyway (e.g., Plato, David, Jesus, Paul).
WP:Profanity is a guideline, but yes, it is a guideline, meant to be used. It is not meant simply to be ignored, certainly not just because someone becomes offended (indeed, the very point of the guideline is to say "if you're offended, too bad if the pictures/content is appropriate". The oft-mentioned example of penis is another one; I can't possibly see how the pictures provided on that article add any more to it than the pictures provided here for Muhammed.
Any other statement I would speak has been said above.
I hope there is a possibility for mediation. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captainktainer

I believe that the Muhammad article, along with all biographical articles, should include pictures and depictions of their subjects. I believe they should include those depictions, even if those depictions are not 100% accurate - before the advent of photography, no paintings or pictures were ever 100% accurate renderings of their subjects. The illustrations, depictions, pictures, paintings, whatever are there to help the reader understand what a subject has been historically considered to have looked like, with as much accuracy as the limits of the medium or, in the case of Muhammad, divergent interpretations of the subjects' likeness permit. Human beings are visual creatures - it is helpful for us to be able to visualize something in our minds. Now, Sunni Islam has a long-standing prohibition against images of Muhammad; I understand that. But to claim that we should censor depictions of a biographical subject because a minority of the world's population might be offended - despite content disclaimers plastered over every single page on Wikipedia, telling users not to use Wikipedia if they're concerned about being offended - is an abrogation of Wikipedia's mission to serve as a useful repository of all human knowledge.

Furthermore, in the case of the image that led to this whole brouhaha - Maome.jpg - the constant assertions that it tells us nothing about its subject are quite false. We know that it refers to the prohibition against intercalation of the calendar at one of two dates, for which sources have been provided - even a walkthrough for the purpose of verifying it for oneself. We also know the provenance of the image - it was either painted or collected by Al-Biruni, in roughly the year 1580. This is on top of its general usefulness as a visual model of a subject. Captainktainer * Talk 19:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BhaiSaab

I generally agree with what Ibrahim has stated. I'd also like to note that even though "Wikipedia, and for that matter, other encyclopedias, have good precedence for showing the pictures of ancient historical figures", I have not seen pictures of the Prophet in the articles on him in Encarta, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, or Britannica. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TruthSpreader

I believe that the picture under discussion does not have any informational value but it actually gives wrong information. According to hadith literature, Muhammad used to sit with people and it is also reported that when someone from outside used to come, it was difficult for him to find the prophet because he used to mix with others in a cordial fashion. What the author of the picture is implying, just simply doesn't pass NPOV. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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