Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 18

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.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Illustrations of muhammad

number of depictions of Jesus in Jesus article:15 number of depictions of Muhammad in this article:1

Is wikipedia biased or what? I think wiki should be objective, secular and above all these religious "laws" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.230.33 (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I counted 6 in this article. It's not the quantity, but the overall quality of the pictures. They are there to help the flow of information, as well as to add to the overall informational quality. That's all; it's not a competition. Jmlk 1 7 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but what an idiotic argument is this? If two things aren't alike in the real world, their coverage on Wikipedia will be and should be unalike in a corresponding fashion. Christian artistic tradition abounds with depictions of Jesus, while depictions of Muhammad are comparatively rare in Muslim artistic tradition. It is therefore completely in order that this asymmetry is also reflected in the presentation on Wikipedia.

Number of depictions of Earth in the Earth article: 14. Number of depictions of Makemake at Makemake (dwarf planet): 2. ZOMG WIKIPEDIA TERRESTRIC BIAS!

Or wait, perhaps there simply are more (interesting, encyclopedic) pictures of Earth available? --dab (𒁳) 14:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

New image suggestion

I noticed the French version of the article uses this image. I think you should use it (maybe removing another image if you have too many) because it depicts the keystone event of the subject's life, plus it's a nice looking image for something so old. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a nice image. It fits nicely in the section that discusses Muhammad's revelation, without removing the image that's already there. I added it for others to evaluate the position in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

No! This image is insulting, and a misrepresentation of the religion itself. Beside having drawings of Muhammed, and Gabriel, the picture depicts Angel Gabriel as a female. Giving gender to Angels has been criticized by the Quran itself! The picture might give the viewer the impression that Muslims believe the Angels had a gender and were female, where in reality the very Quran criticizes Other religions for calling the angels "women". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look female to me. thx1138 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ndteegarden. The angel does not look female. Jarkeld (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the images from that book, I concede that the angel might be female. However, the rule against female angels does not apply to Wikipedia any more than the rule against images of Muhammad. If the artist was purposely trying to misrepresent the event by making the angel female, there would be an argument against the image, but Rashid-al-Din Hamadani is a respected historian, so the image is probably accurate of the era's perception of the event. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This is remarkably absurd. You somehow manage to oversee the majority of Muslims, and the entirety of their scripture and somehow "stumble" on the things that insults them and misrepresents them. No this is important, you want to talk about Islam, talk about Islam! We can also nitpick and find some stray uninformed view about a "Christian" author who says knows Jesus's human father and perhaps draws him, or a white American burning the American flag and post his picture, where in reality Christians believe Jesus was born without a father, and Americans are very loving of their country. This is just absurd and tiring. You truly can find any view you want if you are out for mischief. This is just ridiculous. Where do you find those stray authors and works. Just unbelievable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, give it a rest. The image is fine. Eik Corell (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"but Rashid-al-Din Hamadani is a respected historian, so the image is probably accurate of the era's perception of the event." Read a little history please, and learn what the Muslims at the time thought of this "great historian". If my memory serves me correctly, this man was finally executed for the damage he did to Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources that say that Rashid-al-Din Hamadani he is not reliable, please add them to our article about him, because right now it is fairly positive. Even if you do have sources, I should point out that being unpopular with one group, or being executed (if he was executed), does not by itself sugest that his views were not accepted by anyone. In fact, many people executed for heresy are killed because their views are popular. I'm not exactly sure what our criteria for image inclusion is, but since the image looks nice and represents what is being discussed, I think you would have to argue that the slightly feminine features of the angle are misleading enough that they make the image unencyclopedic. In my opinion, that would be a difficult argument to win given that the angel's gender is trivial to the point of the image. And by the way, we do have articles that discuss whether Jesus had a father and images of the suposed father. Check out Virgin birth of Jesus#Epistles of Paul, Adoptionism, and Saint Joseph.—Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Number One, the fellow in question was executed and moved to a jewish cemetery, and even the Jews claim he is jewish, i.e. non-muslim. Number Two, regardless of "Number one", the fact can not be changed that the Quran itself denounces assigning genders to angels. I know this is a concept difficult for many Christians to understand, but Muslims take their religion from the scripture only. If religion is be taken from anyone who claims to be "enlightened" by God then religion becomes nothing more than a tool to control the people. It can also no longer claim to be monolithic. In other words, even a Muslim Scholar, no matter who he is, still needs to prove whatever he says from the scripture. Number three, among millions of people you will find people who have virtually any opinion you want; I can find among the millions of Americans those who are communists, but are Americans communists?!! Why ignore the countless evidence from history and the present, and only pick those rarities to represent the majority! This is clearly hostility, whether you mean it or not. One can easily walk to any mosque and ask any Muslim about this topic, yet one opts to argue out of ignorance. It is just absurd. Let me add that I never once posted in an article related to Christianity, or even wrote anything in said article's talk page because simply I am not Christian, and with all due respect this is how any honest person behaves. Look my friend, I wish to argue with you no further. I will only say to you now what the Quran said: "Say: "O People of the Book! come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say ye: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)." (003.064 translation of the Quran by Yusufali) May God guide us, and guide you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.101.166 (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Imranak123, 6 October 2010, Paintings of the Prophet

Already covered at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images explains how not to view the images. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please remove the pictures/paintings of the Prophet on this article. It is causing a great deal of anger among believers. I am making this request with regard to the fact that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and nothing it has on it is supposed to be objectionable to a particular race or religion.

Imranak123 (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Won't be done. Please see Talk:Muhammad/images and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 22:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy anywhere, written or implied, that says Wikipedia is not supposed to be "objectionable to a particular race or religion". In fact, to have such a policy would violate its aims of being a neutral encyclopedia. Reso lute 23:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The first line of Wikipedia is not censored says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer)." Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are so prone to idol-worship that you risk worshiping a thumbnail image of a crude painting in an encyclopedia article, I sugest that you talk to your imam about getting some more self-control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.83.59 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

i would thank Wikipedia for

Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.

plz remove the images of Muhammad, strictly prohibited in Islam to draw and represent.. plz consider this point!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umar1996 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read the Koran (or the above links regarding images) and notice that the Koran does not forbid these images, but the Koran does say that what is not forbidden is permitted. Rklawton (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if the Koran forbid it we are not compelled to obey the prohibitions of any religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The images depicting muhammed's physical appearance should be deleted

Already covered at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images explains how not to view the images. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why? First, Islam is very different from Christianity because, unlike Jesus is to Christians, depictions of Muhammed don't play any role in the religion, neither spiritual nor cultural.

The point of wikipedia is to depict an idea or theory or subject according to what it is. Not to give a skewed, westernised perspective on the subject. For instance, would you write an article on the Einstein's Special Relativity and then depict things that he never mentioned nor intended? You are messing with history.

True to sticking to the lack of ANY images in the religion of Islam, we should also not show images of Muhammed here. Whats the point of showing examples of images of Muhammed that are, first, clearly clearly totally based on the artist's imagination, and second hold no value in telling people who Muhammed is or what he did.

Showing images of Jesus on his page is acceptable. Because, he is depicted in hundreds of ways around the world in the various forms and out crops of Christianity. Like some african Christians have a black Jesus. So, the images inform the reader about how cultural background skews the imagery of Jesus and also how the image of Jesus plays an important role in Christianity it self. Like people wearing crosses with mini-jesus's on or the church windows with Jesus and his halo.

But, ALL the examples of Muhammed's images are just the rare random image some artist decided to paint. Its far too sideline a thing to be considered to show people for any educational purpose.

But we can keep the images of the cave or other images like his name written in arabic. But that image showing the Angel Gabriel visiting Muhammed has got to go. It gives people false information that A) Muslims 'agree' that angels look like humans with wings and B) that Muslims create or endorse images depicting so called 'famous' events in Islam's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk) 08:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many articles where we have images of people who never had portrates made during their lifetimes. For example, see Abraham, Romulus and Remus, King Arthur, and Socrates. Our policy is to include later paintings of these people anyway. To change this policy, I think you'll have to take your argument to a more general forum, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from annonymous, 16 October 2010

Already covered at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images explains how not to view the images. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 18:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{edit semi-protected}} hi i am requesting to have the pictures containing prophet muhammed S.a.w pbu as they are highly offensive and could insight racial hatres as it is not allowed for muslims to draw pictures of the prophets pbut and muslims become upset when other draw theese type ofpicture there is already a group on facebook dedicated to getting theese pictures deleted it will not leave any gaps in information as all the main information is in writing it is just this little thing that could cause uproar against wikipedia and the person who made the article if more people come to know about this as happened when a newspaper tried to do a similair thing their was protests and riots against that newspaper so thank you for reading i hope you will lissten to my advise as it will benefit wikipedia as a whole and stop any unwanted effect

regards anonnymous

ps i wish to remain anonymous

12:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. Jarkeld (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you plan to make any more implied threats, please read WP:Harassment. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Continued family tree discussion

Md iet: No, actually, I would like to see this discussion ended. There have been what, 8 people now who have commented? And none of them have supported inclusion of this image. That seems like a consensus to me. Rather, it is you who keeps insisting that the image be included without anything to support your position except for your own assertions. You haven't addressed the objections. You have only asserted the "truth" of this image, backed up by... nothing. This applies to all articles in which the image exists.

I agree that an explanation the Islamic belief concerning Muhammad's lineage with other prophets is appropriate for mention in this article. It is not evident that such an explanation needs a confusing image such as you have proposed. A biography article should focus on the life of the subject. The beliefs people have about that subject are tangentially relevant but need not be over-emphasized.

I think I and other participants in this thread would agree to a compromise: Propose an improved image, one that isn't ambiguous about the timeline (remember, not all readers are familiar with your religion), and backed up by reliable sources that you must provide. You have not yet met this burden.

For example, I just made up the picture to the right. It is pure original research on my part. I used no reliable sources to make this image. I have no intention of proposing it for this article. I created it to show that it is possible to convey the information with a timeline. I make no claims about the correctness of the relationships. Indeed, the Nabi article shows many more prophets of Islam, and does not say Mary is a prophet, as this illustration implies. So there are likely many things incorrect about it. That is the problem. Md iet created a family tree that we have no way of knowing is correct; Md iet has only asserted correctness and never once offered reliable sources. The tree may have missing elements (are all the family relationships shown?) or it may have extra incorrect elements (such as Mary not being a prophet). Without reliable sources, there is no way to know. Therefore, it should not be in any article.

If anyone wants to improve upon it, and provide actual sources backing up the relationships shown, I am happy to share my original PowerPoint file. But right now, neither Md iet's tree nor mine would enhance this article without solid evidence that the tree depicts exactly what reliable sources say. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,Dear, This is the thing actually I expect from a real value additor, a wellwisher of Wiki. There can be thousand problems in a issue, but there are many thousand solutions also exist.We should work on the line and give the chance for improvement, then there will miracle everywhere.I also agree that we have to work under guide line of Wiki,to keep it's sanctity,but somewhere we have to begin. I really appreciate your efforts in value addition of tree . As I mentioned above that there is published booklet of well known Rukkaya Mosque, Damascus, which has depicted complete genessis and I have quoted the exact edition. Preliminory source is available,there is backup of other wiki articles and inline further citation will be available as further reader contribute to it. Hope we can begin with tree you proposed.--Md iet (talk) 03:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Md, the image Amatulic added was an example of original research -- He made it up, not using any reliable source. I think you need to read his reply again. Eik Corell (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Corell, I understand, we all need to help and let's move together & assure ,how to achieve the target.--Md iet (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC) The tree with reference available included in the article with request to add further inline citation, hope to begin with, the step is acceptable to readers.--Md iet (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not acceptable. You have clearly not read what I wrote about this new image above. It is original research, containing problems I described above, those problems have not been addressed. Therefore the image is not acceptable. There is NO agreement anywhere on this talk page for including that or any similar image. Md iet, your actions have become disruptive. Please do not restore this or any other similar image. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I still say that the premise of the image might be too silly for an encyclopedia article. In the 1290 years between Abraham and Muhammad, there must have been some overlap of the family trees. Muhammad (along with most other people in the region) is undoubtedly descended from both Issac and Ishmael. It must be made very clear that either we are talking about Muhammad as being some kind of heir of Ishmael, or that the image is more mythological than historical. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Md iet is convinced that the family tree of Muhammad is "great" and "true", which is why he thinks it should be in the article. So he will say stuff and then put it back in because of its "greatness" and "truth". Too bad for him that Wikipedia works by consensus, not one person's convictions, however fervent. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Great,no doubts about intention ,but doubts on policy,procedures? Muhammad is supposed to be heir to Ishmael.Now I recollected the photo place below of photo frame publicaly placed in Ruqayya Mosque,Damascus,which will clarify all doubts on whether original research and on reliable sources.

Hope this clarify that,The figure depict one point of view of readers connected with topic, on very important aspect,well published,and have full justification for inclusion as per Wiki policies. The format presented by me may need some modification to correct the time scale as suggested by Amatulic.Hope now we can work on the line,can be acceptable to all.--Md iet (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to cut off additional information from Amautulic tree. Now the tree given below depicts information available in order of time and matching with solid evidence exactly what reliable sources say.

May pl. comment further on the issue.--Md iet (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How do we know that the timeline portrayed in that mosque isn't original research as well? Eik Corell (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear, some where every thing is original if it is to be truth. Once it published or presented somewhere in public than it will treated 'not as original research' for Wiki ,as far as I understand.Hope I am correct?

The tree differentiating direct Vs indirect descedent is given ~~below;~~ at right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md iet (talk • contribs)

That tree doesn't agree with the picture. Relationship between Jacob and Moses is different. I have changed the caption accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mosques and churches are not reliable sources; They are not experts in genealogy. In fact, their only expertise is on their holy books, so them having published a chart/graph/whatever like this, is not notable. This also presents another problem: Promoting a religious point of view is the main purpose of churches and mosques, so now bias enters into the equation.

Basically, the problem here is that this is just another picture. We don't know what it's based on, we don't know the credentials of its author(s), it's not verifiable. Again, it might very well just be more original research. Eik Corell (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Erik: It may not be OR if the picture represents a viewpoint accepted by religious scholars that the relationships are as described in religious texts. But you're right, we need something better than a picture. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no end for improvement,no one can deny or doubt on the source provided.As correctly pointed by Amatulic this is one view point,Wiki is not a judge for wrong or right.It just provide different view points of different sources to readers.The link shown between Jacob and Moses is same as depicted in picture. Picture shows it in dotted line,meaning indirect descedent,same being shown as curved arrow in the tree and explained.Hope there is no further issue,we can leave some scope for other readers for adding further reliable sources .--Md iet (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It is also not a just picture, it is a picture in photo frame prominently placed at a famous historical, religious place visited by the world.It is also published in there publication of 2008. If there is ambiquity on individual genesis history then we could have further doubted on intentions of mosque/church as pointed out by Erik. Now the question is only to fulfil wiki policy term to have full proof source for 'a & B then c' where all three a,b,c exist, is fulfilled through this source. Now I think there should not be any doubts on the accepting one of view point(which is also a fact ,depicted by so many sources)for the wiki,for its readers.--Md iet (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is just a picture, no matter where it is placed. It has no attributions as far as I can see. Who made it? What is it based on? Who decided, among the many Nabi, that these particular individuals should be included to the exclusion of others? You need to provide better sources than this. One would think, after so many centuries, that there would be countless scholarly books and articles that show agreement with the relationships and the timelines depicted in the picture. It is revealing that you have failed to provide even a single one. Furthermore, you have yet to convince anyone that an image like this enhances the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As I concluded above, I think you have decided not to convince yourself. It would be immaterial how many counter I provide. Please think that what harm this can do to society. If this can be of little use which I listed then what is the problem in inclusion. There is provision available by Wiki for improvement.Many further sources can come. Let the mass viewer decide ,if they will have the problem this will not last long, I assure. Rest I can only say Thanks to you for time being.--Md iet (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

To satisfy you further,the reliable sources with comprehensive tree showing individual links in details is ;

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/do-believe-that-prophet-moses-jesus-muhammad-are-descended-from-abraham/question-1012159/ http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/islam-christianity-judaism-origins.php/ Do believe that prophet Moses, Jesus & Muhammad are descended from Abraham ?

Is it OK?--Md iet (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusions about the motivations of other editors are irrelevant, and incorrect.

You have been asked to provide sources. Above you provided a blog (unacceptable) and a site that quotes the Qur'an, which is fine, but which also does not support the specific lineage you show in your picture, and does not support the selection of Nabi shown among all the Nabi available. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The site http://www.islamic-dictionary.com/islam-christianity-judaism-origins.php. depict complete tree of all prophets and also support the specific selection of prophets as these are also shown as prominent ones.As in our tree, the link are also clarified for indirect descedent then there should be any issue if all the names in between are not shown ,as these does not affect,mislead or distort information conveyed in any way.Please elaborate if any further specific issue.--Md iet (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Amatulić, it isn't clear what you are disputing. Of course Muhammad is considered a descendant of Ishmael in Islamic tradition, along with all other Arabs. That is perfectly unexciting. This doesn't make Ishmael a historical individual, this is just religious tradition. Wikipedia isn't about "truth" it is about notable facts, and it is a notable fact that biblical and quranic tradition derive the Arabs from Ishmael son of Abraham.

But this is irrelevant for the Muhammad article, because it is a point that concerns all Arabs, and can be covered at the Arab article. For the purposes of the Muhammad article, it is sufficient to state that he was an Arab. If the Ruqayya Mosque, mosque displays some particular "Nabi family tree", we can always report this at Nabi or at Ruqayya Mosque. I fail to see what this has got to do with the Muhammad/images talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 17:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Dbachmann, it may not be clear what I'm disputing because the previous part of this discussion has been archived already, and there I outlined several problems point by point. In a nutshell:

Nobody except Md iet has agreed that Md iet's family tree image is appropriate for this or any other article in which it appears.
Md iet's tree can mislead the reader about timeline. I posted an alternative that corrects this problem (see the top of this section), with the caveat that my image was based on pure original research and still isn't appropriate for the article.
Md iet's sources to support the depicted relationships (and I'm not disputing that Muhammad descends from Ishmael) are blogs and other images. I'd like to see a scholarly reference that describes the relationships depicted. I'd be more amenable to including some sort of religious tradition family tree in the article if I knew where the information came from.
Md iet refers to his image depicting the relationships among the Nabi aka Prophets of Islam, yet fails to explain the discrepancies between the image and that article, which mentions many more individuals and excludes Mary, who is included in the image.

This conversation hasn't had any activity for a couple of weeks, so I thought we had moved on from it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Antagonization

I'm sorry, but I can't read some of the back-and-forth on this page without getting the impression that some editors are motivated more by a desire to antagonize Muslims than by a desire to inform the the reading public. Delia Peabody (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The editors here do need the occasional reminder about WP:CIVIL. This page can sometimes make wikipedians a bit hot-headed because it is very prone to people trying to make unencyclopedic edits, such as censoring images, adding honourifics to the text, and reporting mythology as history. The best thing to do in these cases is politely point people to the relevant policy pages. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but aren't you simply using jargon to defend editors who are motivated more by a desire to antagonize Muslims than by a desire to inform the the reading public? I think the most appropriate policy pages are IAR and NOT. Our purpose here should be to inform, not make WikiWar against Islam. --Delia Peabody (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is need to defend anyone against your incredibly poor assumptions. Nobody is making "WikiWar against Islam", nor is any regular editor here showing a "desire to antagonize Muslims". You might want to be careful as your comment borders on becoming a pesonal attack. Reso lute 15:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it somewhat differently then. I see no reason why we cannot have an "encyclopedic" article about Muhammad without adding images or doing other things that offend Muslims. As an example, I would offer the version that appears in Encyclopedia Britannica, which describes Muhammad in its lede as the "Arab prophet who established the religion of Islam."[1] Delia Peabody (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the archives, where this has been debated repeatedly. But, in short, to do so would violate numerous of our policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. This is not an Islamic project and it is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and we are not required to follow the viewpoints of either. However, as has been noted many, many, many times, we do offer a means by which those who do not wish to see the images because of their religious beliefs the means to hide them on their own browsers. They can then follow their beliefs, and those of us who do not are still free to make our own choice. Frankly, if we gave in to every special interest group's beliefs, Wikipedia would be reduced to one article, and all it would say is "Water is wet.^{[citation needed]}" Reso lute 19:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I, and many other people, find censorship of images for religious purposes highly offensive, so all that you have done is switch from offending one group to offending another. Wikipedia can be configured to hide image so by having them here, people who are scared that the images will lead them to idol-worship can choose to block them. Furthermore, I see this as a huge slippery slope issue. If we set a precedent for hiding content for religious reasons, we would have to hide all images on the articles penis and vagina, because there have been many requests to block those for religious reasons. We would probably have to replace the word "God" with "G-d" in every article, because some people believe that it's offensive to write His name. Come to think of it, some people think that it's blasphemous to say anything negative about Him, so articles like Evolutionary origin of religions and Sexuality of Jesus would surely have to go. While we're deleting articles, it's illegal in North Korea to say anything negative about Dear Leader, so that would have to be cut down too. I see no way of removing images from this article without offending other people and creating precedents that would hurt the encyclopedia in the long-run. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Sexuality of Jesus article is not in the same as the Jesus article. Perhaps we should consider moving these images to a separate "Images of" article, especially if people are finding these images offensive or distracting. And this won't be censorship, as these images will be available in another article linked from this one (again, similar in status to the Sexuality of Jesus article). I can also see some similarities to WP:FRINGE. If most scholarly materials don't see any value in adding these images to their articles, but you think they should, then surly you're adopting a minority view. A separate article for the images would better represent this minority view. Wiqi - talk 22:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer? No. More detailed answer? See links at top of talk page. Then keep in mind that your perceptions of WP:FRINGE may not be those of the worldwide community as a whole. As an example, there are northern European countries that are 80%+ atheist. That aside, what you suggest, at least to me, still sounds like censorship, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Very strong agreement with Arctic Gnome above. An an expansion upon his post. Creating such a precedent, besides the doors AG mentions would be opened, we'd also have to get rid of almost all scientific knowledge, as there are religious sects who find any such content (that describes anything their god is responsible for doing) as blasphemy. Attitudes of that nature already show in the content disputes and edit wars on various scientific topics, such as evolution - as well as various societal topics, such as atheism. This'd be a very small encyclopedia if we set that precedent. But it creates another problem: the only way walking down that road would work is to pick one religion and stick to that one (and it's beliefs), which we couldn't do, because there will be other religions that forbid us to talk about that chosen religion. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Sexuality of Jesus article was not branched off from the main article to avoid offence, it was branched because having all of the articles about Jesus on one page would make that page far too long, and Jesus' sexuality is not important enough to keep it on the main article. In this case, the images are importent enough to keep on the main page because the illustrate the subject performing the acts for which he is most notable. If there is a policy reason to move the images, they will be moved, but if the only reason to move them is to avoid offence, then we would still be censoring by burying the content. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The pictures are not intended to "antagonize". They are a small and inoffensive selection from the more numerous images discussed at depictions of Muhammad. Yes, there have been attempts to transclude images discussed under Depiction_of_Muhammad#Depiction_by_non-Muslims and Depiction_of_Muhammad#Recent_controversies in this article, and consensus was that this would be undue and needlessly antagonizing. The current consensus is perfectly sane and moderate, neither going to the extreme of complying with random demands to observe Muslim aniconism, nor with attempts to abuse this article to antagonize Muslims by plastering it with the "Turban bomb" image and similar. --dab (𒁳) 16:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

agreed with the OP's point that the discussion on this talk page can get polarized. That the images will be on the article and one can either choose to be offended by them... or not... is established. That proposals on the talk page to censor the article are unlikely to gain traction... is also established. People will still come to this talk page to propose otherwise based on their worldview. Doing anything other than responding civilly and in a respectful tone doesn't advance either parties' goals.Cander0000 (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Images violate WP:OR and WP:FRINGE on the Muhammad article

I think you're just being assertive about the Sexuality of Jesus article. We don't really know for sure (unless we carry an editing experiment). And I beg to differ with regards to the importance of these images. They were painted hundreds of years after the fact, and most likely without the least attention to realism or historical scholarship. Besides, most (if not all) books written by Atheist and non-Muslim historians about Prophet Muhammad never include such images, nor refer to them, nor give them any weight as primary or secondary sources. Furthermore, if we apply Wikipedia policies on itself, then including these images would be a violation of WP:FRINGE, since these images carry very little weight in other scholarly works. Wiqi - talk 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Many images on Wikipedia fit those same categories, including (most or all of) the ones of Jesus. Also, I would suspect that Wikipedia does not need to follow any biases or mollification attempts some book publishers may use when discussing Muhammad. Anyway, this is all covered in the FAQs at the top of the page. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that there is a reasonable argument to be made that we shouldn't illustrate articles about historical figures with images created after their deaths. However, if we want to have that debate, then we should take this conversation to WP:VPP, because such a policy would affect many articles beyond this one, including Socrates and Joan of Arc. As for your second argument, the fact that other publications made an editorial decision to self-censor is not a reason by itself for us do to so; we need to know why they made that decision and see if the reason applies to us. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanations that have been offered. The question I would raise, on a case by case basis, is the following: is the offensive material an unavoidable requirement for the proper explication of the article subject, or is it gratuitous? Delia Peabody (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no offensive material in this article. YMMV. Reso lute 01:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about at what point in the last few years images of Muhammad changed from being a risk for idol-worship to being offensive. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If we were to introduce a policy designed to weigh potential offensiveness against encyclopedic importance, those rules should probably be codified, so I think you should go to WP:VPP and propose your policy change there. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to establish new policies, as the issue at hand can be tackled on image-by-image basis, just like how we're dealing with text. You do realize that some images that were painted posthumously are worthy of inclusion, and either have been linked to their figures since hundreds of years ago, or considered accurate by historians. On the other hand, this is just some page from some obscure old book being given undue weight. It's a clear-cut case of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE (beside being offensive and distracting for some folks). Furthermore, no one has cited any sources that claim that such images carry any scholarly or historical value to merit an inclusion. It's just an unsubstantiated minority POV, or the type of POVs that are suitable for a "Sexuality of Jesus"-type-of-articles (i.e., an "Images of" article). Wiqi - talk 01:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a clear-cut case of FRINGE. The fact that other encyclopedias were willing to self-censor images of Muhammad does not make the images a fringe theory, it makes them an often-censored image. I also disagree that we are giving UNDUE weight to the images. Every other historical biography article uses the best available copyright-free images to show the subject, whether or not the images were made during the life of the subject. If you want to remove the images here but not remove the ones at Socrates and Joan of Arc, which were likewise made long after the death of their subject, you have to give a reason why. If your reason is that they are offensive, then you do need to go to WP:VPP because current policy does not make editorial decisions based on offensiveness. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) (directed towards Delia Peabody's comment and similar) Entirely skipping whether the material is offensive, to whom and/or why, I will admit I am a big "fan" of history. As such, I never find any such material gratuitous. My rationale applies as follows: (a) as a picture, I am interested in what the subject looked like, as well as thusly how it applies in their day and age, (b) in a portrait painted of the sitting subject, much the same, in addition to any artistic license taken is of interest to me (in which case, I'd love to see more than one such portrait to note differences), and (c) in the case of portraits painted after the subject is dead, I am interested in the way that history itself (of the time) portrays the subject for all the reasons above, plus it often speaks of the time period (that the portrait was painted in) as well - as a for instance, there are numerous portrayals of the middle-eastern born Jesus as European. (no, I am not trying to open a debate on the reasons why, I am saying such things interest me, as I think they are all relevant to history as well as to the subject itself). And thusly, in this case, I am very interested in the various portrayals of Muhammad in the article, as I suspect others are as well. I do find the removal of material of historic relevance to be very very (did I mention very?) highly offensive, btw. History should never be buried. Ever. We cant learn from history we choose to hide or ignore. That begs the question... who being offended is more important? People like me or people who think having the image(s) is/are offensive? The answer is, Wikipedia cant choose to care. So, there you have my opinion - I find the pics to be a requirement of portraying the history, and I find it offensive to remove such.

Related note though, anyone, simply by looking at the FAQ linked to above can ensure they never ever see the pictures on this (or any other) page. That's the key thing. The solution WP has provided allows the best of both worlds. I can continue to view such images here, and you can follow the FAQ instructions to ensure you never see them. We both win. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiqi, are you trying to argue that there must be something proving the scholarly value of an image for it to be included in Wikipedia? If so, that's a lot of images to delete in a lot of content from BLPs as well as dead people - which is a rationale I do not agree with. We aren't discussing determining the relevance of a sentence in an article about a subject. We are talking about a picture/portrait of the subject itself. I haven't ever seen scholarly value used in that fashion before, but as you deem it's important, it's possible others may as well. I'd discuss it at the Village Pump as suggested above. If your point has merit though, I suspect it will take ages to thoroughly cleanse the millions of articles on living and dead people of their non-scholarly images - or a really darn good bot. So... I'd give it a try over there at WP:VILLAGE and work on suggesting such policy. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We have actually discussed the use of several images used in this article in the past - both their use and their placement. If you feel the need to rehash that again, Talk:Muhammad/Images is the place to go. Reso lute 02:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Side note, for anyone offended by these images, please go here[2] and look at Q3. Follow those instructions and you will not see the images. Hope that helps. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Arctic Gnome, your claim of "self-censorship" is not pertinent to works written in the first-half of the 20th-century. If Orientalists who studied Muhammad never gave any historical value to such images, never studied them in any depth, and never dealt with them in any scholarly fashion, why are we doing so in Wikipedia? We're basically giving undue space to some images when no historian of Muhammad ever did. This is exactly what WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:OR are all about. In other words, these images shouldn't be in a major article about Muhammad.

And I have already given two reasons why not all posthumous images should be dealt with in the same way. Read my last message again if you will.

RobertM, it's sometimes necessary for an encyclopedia to provide reliable sources for images, since these depictions (many centuries after the fact) may contradict the more reliable primary sources. For example, if primary sources say that someone was a poet, and you find a contemporary depiction of them doing mathematics, then it should either be sourced or deleted as unreferenced material. This is relevant for images in this article, since there is no clear indication of which accounts of Hadith or Sirah literature they're based upon. This means that as far as scholarship in Islamic history is concerned, these images cannot possible convey any true information about Muhammad, which explains why no historian has ever used them for that purpose, and neither should this article. Wiqi - talk 10:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is that the images of Muhammad used in this article are much more obscure than the images used in other articles with posthumus images? That sounds more like an WP:OR issue, and if true, it certainly is a concern. I'll have to do some more research on the topic, but after a very quick search I found some other uses of the images. For example, the article about the Jami' al-tawarikh has multiple citations and many hits on Google Scholar, and Encyclopedia Britannica uses a 16th Century image of Muhammad. After a preliminary search I don't see evidence that these images are more obscure than posthumous images of Socrates or Joan of Arc, but I'll keep reading about the topic. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering this matter further. Yes for your question. And not just obscure, but also conveying false information that are contradictory to accounts found in primary sources. Moreover, those interested in the history of his depictions can still go to the specific article mentioned in the FAQ. But this is a general article about Muhammad, and thus we shouldn't make far-fetched claims about his looks (height, clothes, etc) without citing reliable sources, or else we'll be violating WP:OR.

Also the use of these images as portraits is misleading, considering that each one depicts Muhammad with completely different features. Another problem is that some of the features and events shown contradict accounts found in more reliable sources. So basically we're sacrificing accuracy just to embellish this page with some images.

I think we should just follow WP:OR and WP:FRINGE and move those images to the more specific article. From then on, we shouldn't add random images found on-line unless we know that such images do not claim anything contradictory to reliable sources (i.e., just edit what you know, and follow common sense and wiki policy).

Incidentally, the book you mentioned is obscure when it comes to studying Muhammad. The author lived more than 600 years after the fact, was a late convert to Islam, and some sources even mention that his lack of knowledge about Islam was a cause of ridicule among his peers. His contemporaries also accused him of plagiarizing most of this book (see his entry in Encylopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed). Wiqi - talk 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alwiqi, sadly without some proof of OR, I'd be hard pressed to support your stance. Also, I must sincerely apologize for my inability to believe these are the sole reasons for your objections; but the chronology seems to indicate (to me) that after failing to get the images removed because they are offensives, that you have decided instead to try to use Wikipedia's other rules (that I do not agree apply) as grounds. So, with that self-admission in mind, I will go on to say that if you can prove the images are OR, then I will support their removal, right alongside you. Regardless of the appearance (to me) of your reasons for wanting them removed, if you are correct in your application of Wikipedia policy, then you are correct.

But... the problem is this: your opinion that they are OR, however rational it may seem is in and of itself OR. Find an expert on the subject in a peer reviewed setting, that makes the claims and rationale you do, and I'll be glad to review it, and offer my support (for whatever it's worth). Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I just want to clarify:

If you are correct on the WP:FRINGE issue, I suspect an RfC or message at the Village Pump may be more suited, as there are tons of images all over Wikipedia in articles on historic people that should be deleted.
But regardless, the claims you make indicating such is deemed by the historic community still fit as your own original research until you can provide citations proving such is actually believed by said community.
I still think there is historic value in seeing how (just like a European Jesus) history portrays someone.

Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I will add, and I have said this before, that whatever offends you is your personal choice. Some Muslims choose to be offended by the images. Other Muslims choose not to be offended. Either way, it isn't Wikipedia's problem. Wikipedia is not responsible for, and need not accommodate, the personal choices made by its readers. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Robert. Please read WP:OR more carefully. There is no such a thing as "proof" of original research. The "Reliable Sources" section states that the burden for adding something to articles is to provide references once asked. In this article we find a synthesis of historical material that considers such images to be important for the study of Muhammad. However, we need reliable sources (i.e., opinions of actual historians) as a source for this synthesis. So far no one has cited any sources that claim that such images carry any scholarly or historical value to merit inclusion. According to WP:OR, if you can't provide references once asked, then unreferenced material and syntheses should be removed from articles.

Also please assume good faith on my behalf, as I did refer to WP:FRINGE from my first edit, and I was merely suggesting to follow WP:UNDUE which states that minority views (whether offensive or not) should have their own separate articles for being irrelevant to the study and scholarship of the main article. To me this is strictly a matter of implementing wiki policy, and there is no point in assuming otherwise. Wiqi - talk 14:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It is you that needs to read WP:OR more carefully. It is a policy related to describing original thought or drawing conclusions from material as opposed to reporting conclusions made by others. It doesn't apply to selection of images in articles. The beliefs of a religious group are completely irrelevant to the selection of material. I'll repeat that, because it seems to be confusing you: the beliefs of a religious group are completely irrelevant to the selection of material. The selection of images for an article on Mohammed follow precisely the same rules as those for temple garment, Jesus, Presbyterianism, or Pop-Tarts. It doesn't become more stringent because of a religious prohibition. We are obliged to mention a religious prohibition, but we shouldn't make any effort to honor it.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alwiqi, I was assuming good faith: "I can also see *some* similarities to WP:FRINGE." (emphasis mine) has turned into a long debate on *definite* WP:FRINGE claims. And I apologized in explaining what I saw - but perhaps it was your choice of wording that was at fault instead? That aside, You don't seem to understand OR. I did not ask for proof of OR, I asked for you to prove your ideas were not OR'. I then explained that if you are correct, this is the wrong place and you need to go elsewhere to resolve your issue. On the other hand, if you are not correct (cannot find citations from RS's that prove your theories are not OR), then the conversation is moot.

Hope you understand my point. (1) if you are correct, and can find RS's that support your claim, you're in the wrong place and need to go to the Village Pump - because current policy interpretation & implementation disagrees with how you want them applied. and (2) if you cannot find RS's to support your point, then there's nothing to discuss, because it's just your opinion/OR (though, again Villiage Pump to try to revise the policies is an option).

BUT, either way (option 1 or option 2), this is the wrong place and there is nothing any of us can do to help you. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 15:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kww, referring to your first 2 lines, there is no other in this discussion, as no historian has ever thought that such images are relevant to the study of Muhammad. This is just some Wikipedians finding primary sources with a google search (e.g., historical drawings that are obscure and full of factual errors) and adding them to articles without citing any sources. Your other point concerning "beliefs of religious groups" is irrelevant to what I'm saying.

Hello, Robert. Thanks for the pointers. But I'm not sure why policies need to change, as opposed to them just being implemented. But I promise to learn more about wiki Bureaucracy and inconsistencies if you please. Also just to clarify, I did call the inclusion of these images a "minority view" in my first message, and did use strong language to describe it as such. I also compared it to most scholarly works about Muhammad who tend to not refer to such images, in direct contrast to this article. Wiqi - talk 16:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Alwiqi, there is no policy or guideline requiring that third-parties have found images relevant for any article, including this one. It's a matter of editorial judgment. WP:OR is completely irrelevant to the discussion.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

(Alwiqi) Ah... I think I see the final bit of confusion that remains on this. Hopefully this will point you in the right direction:

You are mistaking the situation as WP:FRINGE not being properly applied - the actual situation is that WP:FRINGE doesnt apply, thus it cant be applied. I believe you will find the discussion relevant to that (you are far from the first person who's brought it up) in Archive 21 or 22.
Because it was deemed that WP:FRINGE does not apply, the only method that allows WP:FRINGE to be used is if the policy was changed.
To change the policy, one should do to WP:VILLAGE and "present their case" (so to speak). Then IF the policy is changed, it then will apply - if it's not changed, then it still doesnt and wont apply.

Hope that explains things a little better, and hope you now understand why I'm pointing you elsewhere... unless WP:FRINGE changes, it cant be used - and this talkpage isn't the place to try to get it changed. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Kww, not quite so. WP:OR clearly states that Wikipedia should NOT publish "any analysis or synthesis of published material to advance a position not advanced by the sources." In this article we're publishing a NEW analysis and synthesis of those images never published by any historian (i.e., no historian has ever used those images in the context we're using them here: to tell something about Muhammad's looks or surroundings). Unless you're claiming that images do not convey any information (which is the opposite of what the FAQ claims), this is a clear case of OR.

We can also find even more OR if we examine the criteria of inclusion mentioned in the FAQ, where each image was supposedly examined (by a Wikipedian) for notability (they are obscure actually, and we need a historian's definition for what's notable in this context), or that they were drawn by a Muslim (the attribution of some sources used here is very problematic, according to EI2, and what about the Russian artist?), or that "they illustrate the topic [or event] effectively", but they're full of factual errors and anachronisms that if you examine them closely you would learn LESS about Muhammad, which explains why no historian has ever used them in the way they're being used here, etc, etc.

Thus for each image we need a source that proves it suitable to the synthesis being presented here. We also need sources for some of the claims made by the FAQ about such images. Otherwise, we're just misleading readers and violating WP:OR.

Robert, didn't find the discussion you were referring to. Any direct links? Wiqi - talk 00:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

You're wasting your time. This has been discussed exhaustively, and the consensus is not going to change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying that wiki policy is no longer relevant to this article doesn't really affect the arguments presented. But I still find it funny that the current long-standing consensus actually violates a wiki policy or two, and that the often-quoted FAQ contradicts the content of the article and presupposes that OR is OK. Good stuff. Wiqi - talk 01:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a reasonable request. If we cannot find any reliable sources saying that a given image (1) is intended to be an image of Muhammad, and (2) is representative of some artistic style's or some community's perception of him, then we probably should not keep that image there. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"In this article we're publishing a NEW analysis and synthesis of those images never published by any historian (i.e., no historian has ever used those images in the context we're using them here: to tell something about Muhammad's looks or surroundings)" Could you show evidence of that? Near as I can tell, we are simply showing depictions of Muhammad, precisely as we do for other historical figures who pre-date the age of photography. i.e.: Richard I of England. I see no way that a reasonable person could interpret such depictions as having a guarantee of accuracy and no such claim is made. We've been over the "you can't prove he looked like this" fallacy many times as well. If you want to reinvent OR to reflect this argument, it will have to go through VPP, because you are talking about removing ALL such images, not just the ones here. To do otherwise would very blatantly break our no censorship policy. Reso lute 02:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

AlWiqi, please, stop. Please. The policy isn't no longer relevant, it never was. Not unless Arctic Gnome's criteria is met. "If we cannot find any reliable sources saying that a given image:"

is intended to be an image of Muhammad, and
is representative of some artistic style's or some community's perception of him

Both #1 and #2 have been covered and cited for the two images that offend you - thus the policy does not apply. So, please go to Village Pump. I am now exiting this discussion (unless directly referenced in later conversation), as nothing you keep rehashing will change what is - your only chance is to go to Village Pump. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolute, and everybody, there is a fundamental difference between Muhammad and the depiction examples you mention. Those examples, like Joan of Arc, Socrates, King whatever, have lived in cultures with plenty of Plastic arts. The act of depicting them accurately is a matter of getting their face right or wrong, since many visual aspects of their times/location/culture are well known. The chances of error are minimal (wrong nose, fuller lips, etc). However, in societies with no Plastic arts whatsoever, it becomes incredibly hard to get anything right. That's why these depictions of Muhammad are full of factual errors and anachronisms. It's not only the "face" that is wrong, but almost everything else is wrong too. Including them here becomes contrary to the goal of informing readers about Muhammad.

For example, if a kid writing a report about Muhammad tried to learn anything about him from such images, she will most likely be wrong. Take the first image as example: the Kaaba did not look like that at the times of Muhammad, that's a blatant anachronism (for how it looked back then, see the many documentaries on early Islam, or even The Message movie). So we should warn the reader about that. This is just one example of errors being included in the article. Other images also contradict Montgomery Watt's account of Muhammad's looks (Watt claims that he had a thick beard according to authentic sources, contrary to what is shown in the second image). There are other errors too. If we can't explain all these errors to the kid, then we shouldn't really be using such images, unless a reliable source gives them any value.

So let's try to reflect and summarize reliable sources about Muhammad, not necessarily to find depictions. If scholars who spent their life studying Muhammad never used such depictions for anything, not even when they wrote about his looks, then editors of this article should just follow suit (i.e., no WP:OR). See for example Watt's account of Muhammad looks [3], based on verbal accounts, not on any of these images. If new theories about his looks became more prominent in Academia, then we should reflect that too. Otherwise, it's all WP:OR and WP:FRINGE now.

I'm also NOT asking for the removal of such images from wiki, and I'm against censorship myself. So VPP seems irrelevant here. I only think that the current images are off-topic and contrary to the goals of THIS ARTICLE (they're full of errors, 600+ years after the fact, etc). But I'm perfectly OK with them being in the "depiction of" article (they're on-topic there). Wiqi - talk 06:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So the image captions need to clearly say who's vision of Muhammad they are representing, just like how in the prose when there is disagreement about his life we should say who's version of history we are discussing. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alwiqi,

Are the images intended to be images of Muhammad? and
Are they representative of some artistic style or some community's perception of him?

If so (and we do know the answers are "yes" and "yes"), please go to Village Pump and discuss the changes you wish to make to policy. Or please read the talk page archives where this has been covered numerous times. I found the entries, I am sure you can too. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 09:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Arctic, right. And we need to comply to normal everyday wiki policies, like WP:OR and WP:V (i.e. citing reliable sources). However, this should not only be applied to the captions, but also to what the FAQ claims about each image:

* Notability for the study of Muhammad: we need a source.

* Drawn by a Muslim: we need a source.

* "they illustrate the topic [or event] effectively": we need a source.

* etc.

We're dealing with problematic primary sources here, and thus we need actual historians (with access to such manuscripts, published work) before we assert anything in the article. Wiqi - talk 16:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

~~sorry, but why isn't this on the "images" talkpage?~~ We have a long-standing consensus that Wikipedia illustrates its article with relevant imagery, and that the "Muhammad" article is no exception. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "WP:FRINGE". Saying that this exact arrangement of information has never been published before is pure WP:POINT. Of course it has not, otherwise we would be violating copyright. WP:SYNTH covers undue synthesis. If you wish to discuss Wikipedia's guidelines for illustrating articles in general, please pick any article that isn't plagued by bigotry and political noise. This is the worst possible article you could pick for this discussion. Unless, I might add, you aren't really concerned about subtle violations of "WP:OR" across Wikipedia at all and only wish to add to the trolling of this particular article. It is the most salient characteristic of Muhammad that he is venerated in Muslim tradition to the point of hysteria. Otherwise, Muhammad would just be some random desert-dweller of the 7th century, just like Jesus would be just another wandering rabbi of Roman era Judea if it wasn't for his role in Christianity. What makes Muhammad notable is one thing alone, the religious veneration afforded to him. The images are an expression of this veneration, just as the current-day hysteria surrounding them are. This makes them perfectly relevant to the topic. Of course we can only use historical artwork that is identified and discussed based on scholarly references. All of the images of hisorical artwork shown in the article satisfy this perfectly. --dab (𒁳) 16:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is never about Muhammad images, as they are perfectly suitable in other articles. It's about their current status (lack of citations, OR, bad assumptions, etc) in the Muhammad article. You've basically moved this discussion to the wrong page, based on not reading the discussion. Also considering that you claim knowledge about wiki policy (and Muhammad too?), perhaps you should try to assume WP:FAITH, as your accusations are baseless. I have applied said policies in many other articles, plus asked for citations, quotes, and verified sources. There isn't a policy that states that I can't do the same to the Muhammad article, or is there? The point is: we need to be more careful when dealing with problematic primary sources and shouldn't make (false) assumptions in the FAQ (which claims that said images have met some criteria without citing any sources).

The link to WP:FRINGE is simple: I had assumed that said images were added on the authority of a historian. Knowing that most historians had never claimed these images as saying anything of value about Muhammad, the opinions of a lone historian would be considered fringe, and thus violate WP:FRINGE. To quote form WP:FRINGE: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea ...". Now that everyone has failed to cite a single source to support the use of these images in the Muhammad article for the purposes stated in the FAQ, WP:FRINGE is more of a WP:OR.

And these images do not in fact satisfy anything. The claim that some of them were drawn by Muslims, for example, is actually disputed. To assert that with any certainty, as does the FAQ, is an error that needs to be fixed. Wiqi - talk 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a widely held consensus on this talk page that the images are exactly as claimed. You may dispute that all you like, but you will need to bring something to the table to support your claim if you hope to change that consensus. Your word alone is not good enough. Any more than my word alone would be if I was in opposition. So far you have brought nothing that convinces me of a need to change. Certainly not your irrelevancy about the lack of "plastic arts" in Muhammad's time - which is completely irrelevant. Once again, I would remind you that no claim is made or implied anywhere that a depiction of an individual that precedes the age of photography is guaranteed to be accurate. That is why it is called a depiction. And yes, your argument is about far more than the Muhammad article. To try and claim it is relevant only to this one makes it pretty obvious this is really a censorship issue. Reso lute 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolute, please consider that WP:V states: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research,". I'm only asking where is this reliable published sources that proclaimed such images as "notable", or "done by Muslim", or "illustrate the topic [or event] effectively", and hence giving justification for including them in the Muhammad article (as noted by FAQ). To see how sloppy the rules are, one of the included images was done by a Russian Orientalist (most likely non-Muslim). It's pure and simple OR when someone is asking for reliable sources and all he gets is a "widely-held consensus in the talk page". Also other depictions have been used by historians in the context they are being used here, some of them even considered accurate and influential. Moreover, no one is objecting to them on grounds of containing anachronism or blatant errors (see the kid report example above, and compare to scholarship by actual historians, like Watt, which completely disregard such depictions). I'm also not aware of this "far more than Muhammad article" meme. I've clearly stated that I'm perfectly happy with such images being included in the "Depiction of" article, and I'm glad to see the scholarship about such images being tracked and summarized on Wikipedia. But I, and given the lack of citations by actual historians, just don't find such depictions relevant or containing any useful knowledge about Muhammad himself to merit inclusion in his article. Wiqi - talk 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alwiqi, it says "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research," - it does not say "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, and whatever extra rationale Alwiqi wants to add to this as justification "

It has already been proving via citations that the images are attributed to reliable sources and not original research. If you want that rule to have extra qualifications, go to the Village Pump and propose it.

ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me make it a little plainer - maybe that will help:

First, read the talk page archives for this page and the Muhammad page
Note that a half dozen admins and around two dozen editors have covered this subject before and all disagree with your interpretation of the policies
Re-read the policies you keep citing and see if they apply without you reinterpreting them to say the additional things you keep claiming
Provide reliable sources for your claims that the usage is invalid
Recall that your rationale applies to almost every (if not every) image in the article and tens of thousands of others - in which case, this is probably the wrong venue, and you should file an RfC and get a LOT of editors involved to delete tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of images from numerous articles.

If you cannot go through those steps before re-posting the same argument (with no proof and an incorrect understanding of the policies and how they apply) I am pretty sure that some (most? all?) of the other people involved in this discussion will begin to suspect this is truly simply (a) a censorship issue and possibly at this point (b) trolling.

If that is NOT your intent, as you claim, then I'd suggest you stop creating that impression and give my suggestions above some serious thought before you post again, because, quite honestly, if you don't, we'll be forced to keep telling you that the images wont be removed because your rationale and understanding of policies is incorrect and improperly being applied.

One final related note: one does not need to have a cite a citation - which is essentially what you are asking for in multiple cases.

ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 23:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

'Imaginary' images

I have reverted the last edit by Alwiqi, which added the word 'imaginary' to the image captions. The interface was playing up and it hasn't left an edit summary - I want to confirm that I have not reverted this as vandalism, but because I do not believe there is any consensus for adding the word 'imaginary' (per the several discussions on the images subpage). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

They are "imaginary" in the sense of trying to depict a culture lacking any plastic or visual arts. Therefore, it's not just the "face" that is right or wrong, it's everything else too (including surroundings, race, etc). That's why no historian has ever considered such images as useful or relevant for the study of Muhammad, for they lack any historical truth about him. Wiqi - talk 14:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing "imaginary" with "historically inaccurate", there is actually a distinction. We have the same problem with Jesus; Jesus was most likely not white-skinned as he's portrayed in most of the paintings. It doesn't matter if they're accurate or not, their significance is underscored by their cultural and historical value. That's an easy way of looking at it, so that's the one I choose. Eik Corell (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You're partially correct. But in this case, unlike the ones of Jesus, these depictions never acquired any cultural or historical value. They are just a few pages in 3-4 obscure books that were never famous for those depictions. They are of no value at all to the study of Muhammad, except to represent the imagination and styles of the artists that created them. Wiqi - talk 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You are already losing that battle on the images subpage, no need to re fight it (yet again) on this one. Reso lute 15:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a pretty low bar for how iconic something needs to be for use to use it as an example image; not every image has to attain the cultural significance of the white Jesus. I once again would like to use our images of Joan of Arc as an example. There are no paintings or sculptures made of her during her life, and there is only a very vague agreement between artists about what she is suppose to look like. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning the Joan of Arc example, many elements in her depiction is considered accurate, including her clothes and military equipment and race. And all of that had been studied and compared to a surrounding culture with plenty of visual arts. In these depictions of Muhammad, NOTHING is considered accurate (he is shown resembling Chinese + Mongolian culture, Kaaba is shown with an Ottoman era clothing, etc). The use of "imaginary" is just to warn readers about such depictions, also considering that no historian has deemed them useful or accurate or influential or anything. Resolute, saying that 3 of the depictions are not known to be drawn by Muslims (contrary to how the FAQ is misleading readers) is nothing like a "battle". I just have a real interest in the subject as a field of historical scholarship, and I thought the overblown censorship battles have already been won (now that we have a "depiction of" article). Apparently, not. Wiqi - talk 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you restarting the same argument from the images sub-page? Now, maybe you don't intend on taking things down this road (though it seems that way), but if you get us to agree with your rationale (the same as before - just coming at it from a different road), then it opens up the door for you to get right back at your same end result as before - deleting the images. Because then you will (think you) have one more piece to the puzzle to prove the images shouldnt be on the article. You are now trying to create the scenario you claimed existed before (through wording changes and the cite tags you've been adding).

So, until you come up with something truly new as a reason to delete these images, maybe you can lay off these images here for a bit. I apologize to you for one thing - I am now at the point where I am not sure I can any longer assume good faith in your actions. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I don't see anything wrong in trying to justify an edit. Also having a different opinion than you do is no ground for bad faith. I also have no secret motive or anything. I happen to be neutral to the censorship battles (although I would've been on your side if there weren't a "Depiction of" article, make no mistake about it, I even asked for it in my first edit). I just don't see a need for these images in this article anymore; and knowing what we know, their presence here does not reflect the content of reliable sources. I'm sorry if anyone thinks that adopting this very valid view, IMO, is offensive or dishonest. Incidentally, I wouldn't mind adding these images back to the article if 2-3 historians elevated their status, or considered them accurate or relevant to Muhammad. But this hasn't happened yet, despite me repeatedly asking for reliable sources that say so. In any case, I've already fixed some errors of attribution that have been in this article for months, if not years. So the readers at least will now be more informed. Perhaps you should look at what I do from their perspective. Wiqi - talk 23:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiqi, you seem to have a very fundamental misunderstanding of the “Depictions of Muhammad” article. It does not exist as an adjunct to the main article about Muhammad, nor is it simply a place to put depictions of Muhammad so they don’t have to appear in the main article. The “depictions” article exists because it is a topic notable enough to warrant an article of its own. It would exist as a separate article from Muhammad in a completely image free, text only encyclopedia, so the fact that there are images on that article is irrelevant to the question of whether images should be included in the main article about Muhammad.76.102.230.52 (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

76.102.230.52, I agree with you actually. I only refer to the "Depictions of" article to show that the overblown battle of censorship is now over. This article should no longer be used as a tool to fight censorship. It's just another article where people with real interest in the subject try to represent and summarize reliable sources, which tend not to refer to those images. Also these images convey fringe theories that depict Muhammad as living in Ottoman surroundings, or that he resembled Chinese+Mongol heritage. Images conveying fringe historical theories should not be given the space they occupy right now in a main article. Quite simple really. Wiqi - talk 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I have tried to look at it that way. But fact is, you were told your rationale was wrong (how many times?). You were told your thoughts that we needed to cite actual citations was wrong (how many times?). And yet, you still went ahead with edits, that regardless of what you claim the motivation is, in actuality, push things closer (to the casual observer) towards your end goal of removing the images for the wrong reasons. I will only assume your actions as evidence of your intent from this point forward. You cannot rationally, in any way, expect otherwise.

Eventually, I am guessing that someone will deem your edits disruptive. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Stop replying to this thread. It's not going anywhere. The consensus is firmly established, which is why we have an FAQ at the top and a subpage. This is a waste of everyone's time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree if it weren't for the recent edits that are designed to create reasons to remove the image, even after the lengthy discussion on the Images talk page. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask about that FAQ at the top. Is it normally Wikipedia policy to enshrine what may be a temporary consensus in such an announcement on the talk page? I have not been involved in editing this article, but the authoritarian tone of many comments on this page disturbs me. I can't ignore the fact that this debate at Wikipedia is occurring during a period of intensive demonization and scapegoating of Muslims, and it is difficult to believe that the "inclusion" faction is based simply on opposition to censorship and an interest in historical trivia. Delia Peabody (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, first (and once again), there is NO attempt at demonizing Muslims. Please don't imply other editors here are doing such. You can follow the instructions that have been posted numerous times (and in the FAQ) to ensure you don't have to view the images. Second, regarding the FAQ at the top: this is not some "temporary consensus" - Wikipedia is not censored - that's not an arbitrary or temporary consensus, it's one of the foundations Wikipedia is built on top of. Hopefully, that will explain why the FAQ is there, and why you keep reading the "authoritarian tone" in the messages you see. It's nothing directed at your beliefs or anything similar. It's really simple: it doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else asks for the images to be removed due to your religious beliefs - it won't happen, because, Wikipedia is not censored.

I do understand that the FAQ box on the top may imply that it's a consensus preventing the removal of the images, but the reality is it's because Wikipedia will not be censored for one specific group's religious or personal beliefs. So... apologies if you misunderstood that because of the way the FAQ box is worded - but I was pretty sure we'd covered that in depth in the conversations above and on the Images Page

Now, if you (or anyone else) don't want to see the images, go to the FAQ Page and look at Question 3 for instructions. Regardless, please don't take anything anyone says as a personal attack or demonizing of Muslims simply because they keep saying the images won't be removed. Hopefully you can now see why everyone keeps getting the same answer, and gets a little tired of people who've read the FAQ still asking, as if it will change one of the cornerstones Wikipedia is built upon. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 12:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest Delia, the Muhammad article is not all that special. There are several articles where people have, and are, attempting to remove images based on their personal beliefs and the percieved offensive nature of such images. In every case, the result has been the same. We do not censor images based on anyone's beliefs. Not yours, not mine, not the Queen of England's. The only thing you accomplish by repeatedly accusing others of acting in bad faith is reveal that it is you who are acting in bad faith. Reso lute 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the FAQ is full of errors and original research (see Q2). But Resolute, could you give actual examples of an article where many images are being used that you and other Wikipedians are refusing to remove despite:

Them being obscure and irrelevant to history.
Never referred to by historians studying the subject.
Contain clear anachronisms.
Show the historical figure as a member of a different race.
All at the same time.

It seems that Muhammad is special in this regard. Thanks. Wiqi - talk 19:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The rule against original research applies only to article space. Nothing wrong with it being in talk, or in a sub-page of talk.—Chowbok ☠ 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alwiqim, thanks for repeating the same argument again (and again)[4][5][6][7][8](should I go on?). Sadly, (1) it doesn't change anything (including your incorrect interpretation of the rules), and (2) to dispel a myth you have, you cannot cite "other articles have/dont have..." as a reason for censoring this article.

With that said, on to the article at hand. Number 4 applies. As it does in many other articles like the one on Jesus (as irrelevant as comparing it to another article is). As for the images being obscure (#2)... here's a few things that may help you with that one:

the more obscure such images are, the greater their historical worth.
A large number of people have been going everywhere trying to get such images deleted, which makes them more obscure (because of all the places that bow to censorship requests). Which then gives certain people grounds to claim they should be removed because they are obscure images. Odd, isn't it? And a bit duplicitous. The interesting thing is, for sites that don't bow to censorship, it actually makes the images even more important (see #1 of my post). So... even your #2 not just doesn't apply, but is all the more reason for including the images.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure you can keep repeating the exact same argument forever - or longer - and it still won't change things. Good luck though. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Alwiqi, one question though. With the basis you are using for your arguments, why are you removing cite like info from images in the article??? You removed this "found in a 17th-century Ottoman copy of a 14th-century (Ilkhanate) manuscript (Edinburgh codex).]]" from an image in the article[9]. You may wish to put it back as it makes it look like you're trying to remove the very information you claim isn't in the article. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, isn't that the second time you've tried creating such a situation? The first being with your insertion of a cite tag to try to get an image removed - for an image that's page had all the info you were claiming wasn't there? I have no doubts anymore that your actions are becoming disruptive. Please take this as warning that continued removal (by you) of the exact type of information you're trying to claim isn't there may be considered as disruption or vandalism (uw-delete). Efforts to get the images removed do NOT include vandalizing other parts of the article so editors are forced to remove the images. While surely you didn't intend it as such, you've now been warned what such actions really are. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, sorry, I was being brief. But the FAQ assumes that original research is OK when adding images. To avoid repetition, see the last section above starting from "We can also find even more OR if we examine the criteria of inclusion mentioned in the FAQ..."

Robert, you have missed point 5 on my list. Also your two points are already covered by the "Depiction of" article, which has nullified all censorship claims. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate anti-censorship efforts, but here I just find such efforts disruptive and redundant. Consider this: we are not allowed to reduce or delete images even if reliable sources completely disregard such images. In other words, we have a valid view based on reliable sources which we're not allowed to represent in this article no matter what. Isn't this censorship too?

Nevertheless, I don't edit articles to create a "scenario". My edits are meant to improve the article. Most readers are not interested in endless manuscript location details in captions (often found jumbled and incomplete). That information is already available with a mouse click on the image page, and in full form with a more readable format. In captions we should emphasize the period, artist, and style (i.e, what most readers would want to know and expect in captions), and correct any errors along the way.

Concerning that fact tag, I have already explained why it was added both in the summary and in your talk page. No need to be suspicious about it. Wiqi - talk 11:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the two because you put the fact tag in for the exact opposite reasons you removed a bunch of info this time. Both of which support your erroneous rationale to remove the images. You cant have it both ways. Day before yesterday, you were demanding the images to be removed because that info wasnt in them. Now you claim you're improving the articles by removing such info. You spent days on the talk pages here claiming you wanted the images removed because the info wasnt there - something you fulfilled (the lack of info) by you personally deleting the info., Three days before you were claiming that there were no cites to support anything for the images. All your arguments and actions all go back to you wanting (as you've made clear) the images removed. That, btw, more and more (due to those actions) is bringing me back to your first statement where the bigger reason was (you wanting) censorship.

Also, I didnt miss #5. You missed the links we have all left you that explain the policies and guidelines you are trying to misuse. All I can say is this:

Any repeated attempts to remove information (as you just did yesterday) that you have claimed already wasnt there, as justification to remove the images, will earn you a vandalism warning.
Repeating the same erroneous claims (and understanding of policy here) will not change anything.

I've got nothing else to say that I haven't already said earlier. I will not assume good faith on any action you perform on this article. I will (if someone doesnt beat me to it) issue a warning each and every time you (against every consensus reached on a total of over 35 talk page archives) remove information. Your misinterpretation of the rules does not trump 35 pages of discussion. I may not have made that clear in the past, so hopefully this time I have. Assuming I have, you will probably find a bunch of other editors who will take this as a warning given, that warrants warnings (or worse) for each and every time you do a disruptive and/or contentious and/or vandalism edit to the article. So... why not spend your time at Village Pump recommending that the polices get changed? ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 11:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert, please note that we're speaking of different types of information. I didn't remove the artist name or book title or period (I even added that last one following my discussion with Arctic Gnome, who noted that "captions need to clearly say who's vision of Muhammad they are representing", and I agreed). These are the types of information I consider essential, which I have added and maintained. Other exuberant information about manuscript locations I find redundant and often incomplete compared to the one's found in the image pages. Some of which even contain errors and inconsistencies that have been here for years. But You haven't really explained why we need to duplicate such information. Perhaps you should have suggested to add a line or two that you thought important. Try to look at my edits more carefully, as you will see that most of your assumptions are baseless and made out of haste. Wiqi - talk 12:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Alwiqi, please, the page history and the conversations here all say otherwise. I'm the one who had to add a citation to an image you were trying to get removed with a {{fact}} tag because you felt the captions should represent that information. You're the one who has been arguing that sufficient information isn't there/needs to be there (where the image is from to prove it's from some RS or historic source) while arguing we should get rid of the two images you object to - and then remove the exact same information you claim is needed in order to keep the images. I'm hoping you find someplace else to help out the project. Also, be aware you are coming very close to edit warring on the Islam article. The conversation with me on this is over. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 19:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Muslims reject these images

You must delete the images of the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him —Preceding unsigned comment added by الشبح العربي (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia is not censored and the FAQ on Muhammad about why the pictures will not be removed. JanetteDoe (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)