Talk:Muhammad/images

Important notice: This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines. If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration. If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here either. That is not new either. A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you personally want to avoid seeing the images on that page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images Suggestions are expected to be informed by Wikipedia guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Because of disruption and trolling, this page can currently be edited only by established Wikipedia users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.

Problem with "Non-Consenting Viewers" Argument

The argument goes that there should be no image of Muhammad because a reader may unwittingly stumble upon it and view it as one would stumble upon pornography. The reason this argument doesn't work is simple. We can break all the page's viewers into two groups: Group One, which consists of those who think images of Muhammad should be postable and Wikipedia should not be bound by Islamic law, and Group Two, which believes that it is sinful to produce images of Muhammad and that Islamic law should be followed in the public domain. Anyone from group one will not have a problem viewing Muhammad's image because they do not consider it to be sinful, regardless of whether or not they knew the image was present prior to viewing it. On the other hand, anyone from group two will undoubtedly have a problem with the image being present, but will not consider their actions of stumbling upon it sinful because they were not aware of its presence before they saw it. This is not different from the sinfulness of a pornographic pop-up to a Christian viewer who had no control over its presence - he may have rather avoided it, but his action certainly does not constitute sin because he did not purposely view the pornography.

The catch here is that, even though the "non-consenting viewers" argument is nonsensical as explained above, such a viewer will automatically feel compelled to put an end to the display of the illustration. This is because the sin in their eyes does not come from accidentally viewing the image, it comes from moving on without doing their best to have the image removed. This is why so many here are attempting to have all such images taken down, because if they do not, then they are sinners in their own eyes. Knowing this, it becomes far easier to understand why they debate this issue so fervently, and it becomes immediately obvious that there really is no logical debate behind it at all. How far Islam requires them to go in their effort to have the image removed, however, is another debate altogether... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.211.28 (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue can be sorted by NOPV rule. Because Wikipedia guidelines clearly said that all articles has to follow NOPV, but publishing or not to publish these images argument represent extreme left and extreme right. So I think the middle way is to only keep illustrations in which face is covered with Vail or white washed. --82.12.121.230 (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's censorship. TharkunColl (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

IP 82.12.121.230 you are incorrect, although I respect such a viewpoint. As I explained above, the whole phenomenon can be properly understood when one considers the perceived sinfulness of a Muslim who chooses to leave an image of Muhammad unchallenged. The accidental viewing of such an image carries no burden of sin, but the failure to correct it (have it removed) would. Thus, Muslims who see pictures of Muhammad on the internet are duty-bound to demand you to take them down, and possibly go even further depending on which ones we are talking about. Thus their demands are a natural and logical reaction to the image's existence, but harbor no moral or ethical obligation on your part to comply. As long as the Muslim keeps asking, their moral obligation is fulfilled. To say that the presence of such a picture represents an "extreme" point of view bears no weight or evidence, and is therefore not grounds for censoring the image. Those things which are not lawfully forbidden have an expectation to be provided in a scholarly document, particularly when controversy surrounds them. It goes without saying that this is also a matter of pride when it comes to the West's concept of civil liberties, and I have no doubt that such pride in Western freedom is why many want the pictures up. This kind of pride is far from "extreme," and if you continue to believe it to be so, I think it is time you took a long, hard look at exactly what it is you are then espousing. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No sir, you are incorrect. Our core policies include our not being censored. This isn't a pride issue at all. It's a censorship issue. Simply because an outside group disagrees with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will not change them. Wikipedia is not an Islamic site, is not bound my Islamic customs or laws, and is not obligated to bow to external pressure, no matter the source. Muslims are more than free to continue to demand the pictures removal, but I see no reason why demands for an unacceptable move would ever be met... ever. Pride is a deep issue (as you and I can certainly agree), but there is a fine line between pride and overbearing upon those who disagree. Jmlk17 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Simply because an outside group disagrees"... "not an Islamic site." This is the unsolved conondrum that the long debate circles around over and over. It is interesting you argure that people "outside" Wikipedia can not influence decisions, yet you accept that people outside Islamic oriented cultures can decide what pictures are included or not on this page. Why don't you treat this subject the same way you treat people "inside" to Wikipedia? You say the site is "not bound" "not obligated to bow" by Islamic customs or laws, yet the site attempts to portray something central to these customs. Why treat the complaint as someone dictating something? Why not take it as an insider advise? Something to think about...thanks...Rtwise (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Jmlk17 and future responders please take the time to actually read what has been posted. Jmlk17, we do not disagree on the basic issue. 76.177.211.28 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No issue here then. Jmlk17 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do realise the whole non-censorship thing but does that mean that there'll be images of sex in a page marked sex? (I haven't looked at any of the pages I mentioned so don't ask me). Does that mean that I can post an image up of me murdering someone in a page titled 'Death', 'Murder' or 'Kill'? I'm not too sure about your definition about censorship but I know it certainly will not allow me to put an image up of someone being murdered. But why? Because it is illegal and wrong. Now, please, put yourself in a Muslim person's shoes as it is illegal and wrong for them.

It is not extreme. I am seriously annoyed by that term and by the term "Repression" Those two words are what represses Muslims -- anyway not getting of topic... Also I did not quite understand what you mean by the "insider" and "Outsider" people of Wikipedia? I truely hope that isn't discrimination against certain groups of people because as far as I am aware Wikipedia is everyone's encyclopedia and if it everyone's encyclopedia then shouldn't we show respect to everyone? Besides can I ask; does it make a huge difference to you if you don't see the images? No it doesn't, it doesn't change anything, but for Muslims that is an entirely different story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.37.215 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the difference is murder is illegal everywhere. A third-party view of a man's face's legality is not illegal everywhere. Since Wikipedia is everyone's encyclopedia, we don't conform to any set groups' ideology(s). Sexual intercourse does have depictions of that exact topic. Murder does have depictions of that topic. Hence, Muhammad has depictions of that exact same topic. Jmlk17 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to address a point you've raised. Our articles on various sexual activities indeed contain pictures and drawings of those sexual activities. I will provide you with a few links, looking at them is obviously at your own discretion: cunnilingus, fellatio, anal sex, 69 (sex position), etcetera. Our article on hanging contains pictures of people who have been hung. You can find a lot more examples of disgusting/offensive images at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#Isn't censorship already employed on Wikipedia? (Don't worry, you won't see the images themselves if you click this link, you will only see links to the images. The image titles make clear what they show). Aecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not "everyone's" encycopledia. It is "anyone's" encyclopedia. There is a difference: "anyone" is anyone who has an internet connection, and who agrees to accept Wikipedia:Disclaimers, including Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. If you don't accept the disclaimers, Wikipedia is not for you, neither for editing nor for reading. It's as simple as that. Anything beyond that will be a legal question of Wikimedia as a foundation under Florida law, and as long as displaying images of Muhammad isn't outlawed in Florida, this is really the end of the discussion. dab (𒁳) 08:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, having read all this, I have some thoughts. 1. You can not put 1.5 billion people into "an outside group". Muslims are a part of Wikipedia as much as Christians or anyone else is for that matter. 2. Media/Journalism is free in today's world, good. But have we forgotten the "Ethics of Journalism" Which clearly advice us to "not to defame" or make fun? And yes, displaying "cartoon representations" of a Prophet is downright insulting. 3. If this is freedom, how many people would like me to have their family pictures for me to display and make fun of it? 4. If a Cannibal Corpse album cover, or any image showing Christ or Moses in a funny manner, NOT acceptable to Wikipedia, why is the image of Mohammad(PBUH)? Why the double-standard? 5. Prophet Muhammad's picture was never drawn, no one is sure if he looked like he is portrayed in these images. It not only hurts the muslims ego, but MISDIRECTS anyone who reads the article into creating an image of him in his mind. Which has no authenticity and no foundation as to being the true image. 6. Finally, I would like to say, "Media should be free, but not unbridled." We should start respecting other people's views and not make fun or paste images that are looked upon as blasphemous or fall out of the decency level. All of us would know the difference between freedom and decency, I assume. Akeeq (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not a publisher of news, so point 2 is irrelevant to us - we have decided on our own content rules. --Fredrick day 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought this also fell in the category of "Cyber Journalism". Even if it doesn't, isn't decency and ethics a part of anything that is supposed to be meritable? As for the "our own rules" does those rules exempt wikipedia from any sort of decency? What rules are you talking about to begin with? Any international set of rules? I'd like to know. :)

Akeeq (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to point #4, do you mean images like the one on Piss Christ? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC).

I don't see any cartoon representation of Christ, let alone, a totally irrelevant picture of him. Not that I agree to it. Besides that, I'll like to have an answer for point # 5 too. Thank you.Akeeq (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, if the idea of having an image of how he looked like, so important, it can always be presented in words. And the whole issue be put to an end.Akeeq (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Or better yet, we could have primarily textual descriptions of the prophet, and then just one or perhaps two examples of pictures of him -- which is exactly what we have now. 86.132.209.99 (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Textual representation leaves it on the reader to make an image of him in his own mind. Whereas these images, which were made centuries afterwards have no authenticity to them, and would mould a readers image. For instance, I portrayed him differently after having read the textual represention, to which the cartoon representation drastically differs. Encyclopedias usually do NOT give references to pictures of people made hundres of years after their death. That too, cartoon ones.Akeeq (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of having the images is not an attempt to determine what Mohammed or Mahomet looked like, but instead to show historical representations of him, including Islamic ones. I'm sure the Islamic artists who depicted him didn't intend to offend or insult people. Twalls (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical "cartoon" representations? I don't find it very "encyclopedia" like. Which encyclopedia shows cartoon representations of Christ/Mohammad/Moses? I'd like to know. Only 50 countries in the world have "Code of Ethics" does this mean Wikipedia will go with the majority? Akeeq (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? The images are artworks of Muhammed, similar to artworks of Jesus or Buddha or John Smith. And as an interesting aside, I can honestly say that after reading some of the textual descriptions of Muhammed from the hadith (that some people so vehemently tout as being infinitely better than any mere visual depiction) that these images portray Muhammed pretty accurately for medieval art. At least as accurately as any similar depiction of Jesus or Buddha or John Smith. Lor (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, my point is those images were not made in his lifetime, if I make a portrayal of ADAM today, does that authenticate it? Would the image be considered valid? Just because someone made it hundreds of years later? As for the depiction, I know it's not intended to make fun, and I agreed to it earlier on.Akeeq (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not referring to the Danish cartoons, Akeeq. I'm referring to historical Persian and Ottoman art which does show him, tastefully and respectfully. I would agree that the cartoons don't belong in the main article, but they aren't in there in the first place. Unfortunately, I think many otherwise well-meaning people labor under the same misunderstanding, not even looking at the page out of fear they'll have to look at them. Again, the act of showing these historical representations on Wikipedia is not an attempt to "try and find out what he looked like." I understand your rationale for leaving things to peoples' imagination, but it really doesn't apply here. I think people are smart enough to realize the ones in question are pieces of historical religious art and not some kind of provocation, and that none of the faithful are in danger of venerating the image over the Mohammed. Twalls (talk)

Alright, this does make sense to me. See after going through the depictions, what I have found out is that obviously these images are not there to make fun of the prophet or anything of that sort. There obviously is a religious censor to NOT to make his images, which wikipedia downright refuses to acknowledge. On the other hand, I still don't find it very important to show any artists portrayal of the prophet, there is no need for it. Even then, if the depiction was drawn in his lifetime it would've been more plausible.Akeeq (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed something, Akeeq, but where do we present these depictions as authentic and valid, or as historically accurate for that matter? Where do we present these depictions as anything other than depictions, artistic interpretations? Rest assured, btw, we do acknowledge that there is a "religious censor" to displaying the images, it's just that we have decided not to abide by it. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, why If I may ask? Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget the time period either folks. It's not like you could grab a camera and snap a picture of him. All pictures of anything or anyone had to be drawn by hand. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Because abiding by such a rule/guideline/law/instruction/censor would go at the expense of encyclopedic content. Aecis·(away) ^talk 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Gary. Accurate image photography has been around for only about 100 or so years. Thus, anyone since the beginning of time has had their image just depicted, not photographed. This argument that "the images of Muhammad aren't accurate" is invalid, as every image from that time period is the same: a depiction of the common accepted beliefs of the view of the person. Enough said. That "argument" has no basis, and as such, this discussion really had no solid, grounded merit. Jmlk17 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree Jm1k, I agree about the part of being "depicted" BUT my point is, those depictions were made AFTER his death. Not in his lifetime. King George's portrait was "depicted" with him sitting infront of the artist, not in his mind. So calling the arguement in itself as invalid is pretty.. well, childish. Akeeq (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And I also find it as against the basic human rights. Now what are basic human rights? Everyone should know. If a large population of the world is hurt by the images, isn't it going against human rights? I think it is. You can not go out butt-naked in the street or have sex on the street, why? For the sake of others. Morals. For the same reason, you do not go and call other people's belief and faith as wrong, why? Their rights. For the same reason, if a billion people are hurt by the images posted here, do you not think it's against there basic human right to "not be offended?" If wikipedia thinks otherwise, then this is a sorry state this encyclopedia is in. More like.. intellectual prostitution. Akeeq (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't be prostitutes, we don't charge! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. :> Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Akeeq, public nudity is illegal--not a violation of anyone's human rights (as typically defined) and not being offended is not part of any prominent view of human rights. Hell, stupidity offends me but yet I see enough of it (at my university). But please, this is not the place for an argument of morality or Wikipedia policy. A policy as broad as not censored and no disclaimers must be taken to the Village Pump or to the mailing lists and it will take years to change if ever. gren グレン 04:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

So, according to this, anyone is free to publish anything he/she wants without any check on them? Sounds more like jungle-law to me. Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"And I also find it as against the basic human rights." I find your argument ironic Akeeq. You rally against Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Information as if these are instruments of torture. Without these your left with a police state that violates the things that free societies stand for. In reality you do not understand or choose to ignore the Freedom of Religion that is prevalent in western cultures. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do "not" rally against freedom of speech or anything "freedom" to be precise. My only point is, in displaying "freedom" we should take in view the feelings of a group we are dealing with. I don't find it very appealing to display my freedom of speech or expression by humilating/degrading any particular person/group, or hurting their sentiments. (An example) And I don't think any "encyclopedia" should stoop down to that level either. Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of material that people object to on Wikipedia violates no ones' rights. It can be presented with decorum, however. No one has a right not to be offended; there is no such thing unless there is some kind of prior agreement between consenting individuals. If I am not mistaken, readers of Wikipedia implicitly consent to its policies. Now, I am offended by insulting cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad as well as the 'Piss Christ', as they are regrettable, tasteless and even ridiculous, but they do not violate anyone's rights to life, liberty or property (except when tax dollars are used to fund them, as in the case of 'Piss Christ' but that's another story). So it is not a question of rights, as those are easy to delineate in this matter.Twalls

So, why is the Holocaust denial so touchy a subject? Not long ago, a 60year old professor was sent to jail for denying it. A simple denial of a history event makes the world go gaga, where does freedom of speech go then? Why are only jews given the right to "not be offended"? (Again, an example)Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And a completely irrelevant and off-topic example at that, not worthy of a response. This is not about the Holocaust, this is about a Wikipedia article. What is it with the Muslim obsession with Jews? Why do people always point to the Jews when they try to make a point? Aecis·(away) ^talk 13:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And whats making you flare up so much? It was an example, should be taken like that. Obsession with the jews? Personally, I'd be more bothered if my dog didn't take a bath rather than reading about jew kids writing messages on missles that killed Lebanese kids. Anyway, the example was in response to freedom of speech, too bad if you can't get it.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But what we're talking about here on Wikipedia in this particular article are historical depictions of Muhammads made by Muslims themselves. If some modern aniconic Sunni sects have a problem with some past or modern Shia making images of the Prophet or of God, they should take it up with them directly, or those certain Sunni imams should instruct their followers to mentally process these images in the desired manner when they encounter them. I'm curious - when a child makes an innocent drawing of God (as I remember doing) or Muhammad, is that a punishable sin? How is that dealt with by strict aniconists? Children can view Wikipedia too. Twalls (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a child's "innocent drawing" on wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encylopedia, not a nursery drawing book. Moreover, it's not about whats sin and whats not, it's about hurting the sentiments of a billion people around the world. For whatever faith they practice. That is not for us to question.Akeeq (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Akeeq you appear to be trolling. Your arguments are poor and your comparisons appalling. I suggest you take a step back and gather yourself if you wish us to assume good faith. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Trolling? Excuse me, I find your arguement more like trolling. More like you are hellbent on arguing rather than accepting anyting.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words... ever hear that expression? It holds true. Someone could describe something for pages, and yet still not do as good of a job as a portrait could. Also, a quick Google search brings up numerous other sites (many that actually have highly-offensive depictions of Muhammad) that are not being subjected to a flawed petition and spurious demands. The only reason Wikipedia is being subjected to these? We are a popular website... enough said. Jmlk17 14:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The only reason wikipedia is subjected is because its supposed to be an enyclopedia not another blog. 125.209.65.243 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand where the heck the Muslims who want to remove the images get the idea that a billion people will be offended by viewing these images, and that they speak for this supposed billion people. It just makes no sense on so many levels.Eik Corell (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think so? Whatever the case, the basic ideas of a religion are relatively same all around the world.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's very true. Whether to depict the image of Muhammad is an internal debate for Islam and should not determine Wikipedia policy or content. Now, some Deobandi and Wahhabist sects disparage images of any living thing, so I imagine they would be offended by any Wikipedia article with an image of a person or animal. Also, Akeeq, please do not insert a comment in the middle of another person's comment. It eliminates the proper placement of the signature. Twalls (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not insert a comment inbetween someone's comment? didn't get it, I think I'm using the colon signs properly. :/ Sorry if its not the case. As for your point, for once, I see a reasonable answer.Akeeq (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The question isn't whether it is right or wrong to display a picture of Muhammad, but if displaying the picture has merit to the encyclopedia entry itself. The argument should not be about respecting people rights that are formed from their religious ideals, nor respecting freedom of speech because it is a law. If a person steps back from looking at it from a biased point of view (meaning from any religion, personal preference, etc), and instead judges the merit of displaying without predisposition, then based only on the idea that some people remember and understand history better if they have a face to match a name and details; displaying the picture has merit and should be displayed. Considering that the knowledge of a picture of someones interpretation of what Muhammad looked like can not be connected to any direct physical or mental harm under normal circumstances, there seems to be no reason not to have it available. On a side note, I can see why Muslims are required to ask for the change, if they are indeed duty bound to request a pictures removal. To play devil's advocate: The general reasons for not having a picture of Muhammad seem outdated, and no longer necessary. Can this rule not be changed in order to suit this day and age? Nothing is permanent, everything must change at some point. There is no fair way to decide the issue if you involve the personal preferences of people from different cultures. Logic, as always, with as little interference of emotion as possible, is the best resort for something that is so irrevocably tied to strong emotions. (-Kurai) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.168.140 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then there is still no issue... the pictures do the article complete justice with showing what the commonly accepted idea of Muhammad's image was at the time of their creation. Jmlk17 23:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Islam forbits the depiction of the Prophet's image, he difinitely did not sit down and allow anyone to draw him. So, any images of him that others have chosen to draw hundreds of years later are not actually images of him. They are inacurate, they are wrong. This is why they should be removed, the information is false. As to the argument that the images are not intended to depict what he looked like but rather to show historical representations of him, that means someone who has never seen George Bush can one day draw a picture of him based on what our culture has representated him as and that will be considered a picture it is fair to use?? Cause...not all white men of X height and Y weight look the same. The same applies to Middle Easterners. Particularly, a person who is very unpopular among a certain group can be incorrectly described and drawn by that group. Those pictures should be taken down because they are the equivalent of allowing a person you have never met, who might dislike you, to draw you and then to have that picture bandied about as a representation of you. Even if they are not biased, they are still inaccurate. Wikipedia, as a group which removes inaccurate information from its pages when they are found, should remove any images of the Prophet. Also, it certainly should not stubbornly make claims that it will never remove the images. As the very least, fair and respectful arguments against the images should always be given fair and respectful consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.67.85 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he didn't? Maybe Muhammad did commission portraits of himself. But you're missing the point, and attempting to find another outlet. The are no photographs, nor 100% accurate representations of anyone throughout history, not until the mid 19th century. Artwork is artwork, and always has been, hence why the images are included. Good Lord, your argument is so full of holes I can't take the time to write (for the 100th time) against this exact same argument. Please archive this overdone thread. Jmlk17 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no photographs of a lot of people throughout history. There are, however, commissioned portraits in which the subject sat for several hours and allowed a talented artist to take time to look them over and draw them. Those portraits can be argued to be accurate, the ones here cannot. There is a very tangible difference. I'm going to say that I know that Muhammad did not commission portraits of himself because he was the prophet of a religion which bans his image being depicted. He himself said such a thing is not allowed. You say my argument has holes which you have already addressed, but I've looked over this page and haven't seen you actually answer any of the points I've raised. You're not claiming the picture might be accurate, you're just saying there are a lot of inaccurate ones. I'm responding that those other ones can reasonably be expected to be accurate, and this one can't be. This same exact argument has not been made anywhere on the page, please do not try to discard my point by lumping it in and throwing it away with the rest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.100.239 (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See the archives... see the FAQs, etc. Your reasoning isn't the first. Jmlk17 05:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Need to contact the person who created this site

Don't worry, I'd would like to ask you a few questions about rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.136.154 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no one person, but you are more than free to email myself, any other admin/user, or ask here on on my talk page. Jmlk17 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You could also ask here. If your questions are about the images, you should first read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This page has hundreds if not thousands of authors. This encyclopedia has millions of authors. You can see the details in the "history" button at the top of each page. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If by rights you're referring to a desire to copy some of this article, see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Location of Warning Notice

At the top of the page Talk:Muhammad there is a large box with a hand signaling STOP. It carries the message that images representing Muhammad - PBUH - are in the article and are not to be removed, based on a previous decision. It goes on to advise that people who may be offended by such images can set their browser so the images are not displayed to them.

This is fine but for one little detail. The images are not on the Talk:Muhammad page.

They are on the Muhammad page where there is no such warning.

By the time someone reaches the Talk:Muhammad page and has the opportunity to read the message, it is likely that they have already seen the Muhammad page and been offended, if their culture and religion makes such images offensive to them.

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking why they are not on the actual article page? Jmlk17 22:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It is understood that Talk pages generally refer to their article. This is not a disclaimer to help prevent users from accidently seeing images on the article page but more of a "this Talk page is for article improvement discussions". User can read the FAQ about the picture issue OR go to this talk page to discuss the images. This is no mistake and by design. Garycompugeek (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary put the issue more concisely than I can, so I'll borrow some of his words. There SHOULD be a disclaimer to help prevent users from accidently seeing images on the article page.

The first part of the message, (i.e., that there are images representing Muhammad - PBUH - in the article and that there is a way to read the article yet avoid seeing the images) SHOULD appear at the beginning of the article.

The likelihood is that a person who comes to the article as a reader, not as an editor, will see the article before seeing the Talk page (if they ever do see the Talk page.) Without such a note at the beginning of the article, then the note at the beginning of the Talk page is more a charade than an effort to accommodate the beliefs held by some Wikipedia readers. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The message could include something like Click here to go to an alternate version of the article with the same text but without the images which some consider offensive. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these things is likely to happen. You should probably read everything in the top of the Talk:Muhammad page that you have pointed out. Read the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and the discussions. Everything you have said is addressed in there. Garycompugeek (talk) 03:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't find discussion there of the issue I raised. Are you referring to current pages or archives when you say "Everything you have said is addressed in there" ? Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try not to be obtuse but the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ tries to explain why the images are shown over contemporary objections. If you want details about specifics follow dab's advice and read archives. They are quite in depth and extensive dating all the way back to beginning of the mediation/arbitration about a year ago. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the discussion is that: "Since we have Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, we don’t give a shit what may happen"--Be happy!! (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You say " There SHOULD be a disclaimer to help prevent users from accidently seeing images on the article page". This has been discussed, rehashed, and flogged to death over and over again. The short answer is: we have Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and that's the only disclaimer we want, or need. For context, see the faq. For the gory details, read the archives. dab (𒁳) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all for your replies. Thanks dab, for making it clear I would need to go to the archives. I don't think they were mentioned before.

Garycompugeek, just to be clear, I HAVE NOT questioned the policy of showing images despite objections.

Aminz/Be happy, I have no way of knowing if your admirably brief summary is meant to be tongue-in-cheek or taken at face value. If the latter, it seems appallingly cavalier, given the sensitivity of the issues involved.

I'll try to read the archives. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

more precisely, if you want to discuss the general principle of no disclaimers in articles, you'll need to go to Wikipedia_talk:No disclaimers in articles. dab (𒁳) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If these Pictures were real?

These pictures are not real and therefore no one is allowed to make any one's pictures just by imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waqarpak (talk • contribs) 07:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. Jmlk17 15:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, we are now having 'imaginary depictions' of people on enyclopedias in the name of freedom of expression. Atleast thats what I can understand. No wonder this site never gets a proper encyclopedia standard anywhere. Oh well, I'm sort of bored of all this discussion because I don't see either of the party agreeing on anything. Akeeq (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Every image in existence of any figure created before the age of photography can be described as being an "imaginary depiction". Many, many encyclopedias use such images throughout. Resolute 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Paintings of old English Kings, for example. Fnagaton 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Or anyone until the mid 18th-century AD. Good Lord, how is that even an argument? Jmlk17 00:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we can take something out of this... that we should in some way distinguish between contemporaneous portraiture and these "imaginary images". But, that, of course, doesn't mean they can't be important. The "imaginary" images of Jesus have shaped the way Western Christendom view him and, relatively, the lack of images of Muhammad have helped to shape the Muslim image of him. Of course that may all change with greater access to such images. gren グレン 17:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the article mention that naturalistic images are a minority viewpoint? Can't any discerning reader determine that visual dedpiction doesn't inform "the Muslim image of him" from the article as it stands? -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you which is why I didn't want a figurative image in the lead and wanted fewer--consensus was against that for whatever reason. For better or worse we work through consensus. 151.196.164.10 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, portraits from the Renaissance on are generally accurate in a way that earlier depictions are not. The basics of perspective and the very idea of portraiture approximating the real look of a person dates from then, so that's really more of the cutoff point than the invention of photography. That said, I don't see too many people protesting the images of other Middle-Ages or Classical figures (and I made that point in the FAQ).—Chowbok ☠ 14:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete the pictures

Delete those pictures! These editors @ wikipedia are shameless and arrogant. They are hurting the sentiments of world's second largest religion by brazenly depicting the pics of its Prophet. I believe every person should respect the beliefs, customs and sentiments of other religions, Even if he/ she doesnt believe , practice OR is attached to it. Shame on you Wikipedia ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.82.64 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My God says "Pizza is evil" and no one is allowed to consume it therfore everyone please stop eating pizza. Same principal as above with componets changed seems a bit silly doesn't it. We are not arrogant. You are pretentious. Look in the mirror. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GaryCompuGeek, To correct your analogy- It is something like this : " My God says Pizza is evil , so I donot want it to be mixed with my food ". I wouldnt mind you eating pizza, unless you are eating it in my plate ! Sameway - ( I am not being sarcastic) I wouldnt object if you put those pics in your own personal page or any other insignificant page.It matters a lot when it is put in Prophet Muhammad's page. Its against his teachings. This 15 page Wikipedia article wudnt have been created if Muhammad werent the prophet (of Islam) and if he were just some ordinary 6th Century resident of Makkah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.82.64 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Long answer: Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Short answer: "No." _(1 == 2)^Until 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

IP address 76.95.82.64 you have just become an editor at wikipedia and so you have just insulted yourself. Also since when do you represent and lead all the Muslims world-wide. Since you are not some sort of supreme leader of Islam please do not presume to speak for the entire religion. Also keep in mind that some sects of Islam do allow depiction of Muhammad. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and is WP:NOT#CENSORED nor does it follow the Islmaic sharia. Next time, please see the Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and previous talk archives as we have discussed many of these questions and issues ad nasuem already. Also by coming to this site you already agree to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, and if you find such pictures distasteful or otherwise feel free to leave at any time. Please do not continue your trolling actives and rants, instead support your arguments with facts and try to change the consensus. Cheers.Janus8463 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Janus8463, I dont think I have insulted myself. It just happened you did not give weight to the word 'these'. I have great respect for the other editors who are doing great job by writing / editing different articles on science, entertainment and current affairs etc. Reg the 'some sects in Islam do allow depiction of pictures' , I am not a Harvard grad in Islamic Studies but I believe there is a big majority of Muslims in the world belonging to Sunni sect which discourages the picture depiction of the prophet. To further strengthen my argument, If some sections of people question the ability of my president (Bush) based on his public speakings, I still wudnt allow them to put anything in the main Bush article which would embarrass him. Because I respect him for being the President and representing the whole US population to the world. And would not like to justify saying some sections of media allows it. I believe my opinion is still valid: "Give Due respect and Donot hurt the feelings of other people, Particularly when you can deliver the message without hurting them".

Your opinions are valid, but your argument is not here. Read the link above, and that will answer your concerns. Jmlk17 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All too often, the actions of some in the West do ignore the values of Muslims etc., particularly when it comes to external policies. Even so, Wikipedia is not a stage for playing out or reflecting these schisms. It is a neutral, coherent repository of information, and the editors agree to not favor one opinion or group over another. There is indeed a problem that many Sunnis have with Shia depictions of the prophet or other important figures. As I have stated above, this is a disagreement between them alone. The depiction of religious art depicting Mohamet is historical in nature and in no way "shameless and arrogant." Some members of one group believe it to be haram and others do not. In contrast, if editors were to insert into this article a cartoon of the prophet with a bomb in his head, yes, that would be shameless, arrogant and provocative, and I would consider that a brazen attempt to incite people, not to mention in poor taste. The pictures in question, however, are tasteful, historical and very relevant to religious history. Thanks, Twalls (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue has been beaten into the ground countless times. It's the same thing every time, and the argument will never change. The pictures will stay, end of story. Jmlk17 02:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I thought it important to identify the question of such depictions as mainly an internal debate between different traditions within the Islam, and to make the point that the inclusion is not some attempt of Wikipedia to rile anyone up. Of course it's patently wrong and quite presumptuous to demand their removal without reading the disclaimer or even looking at the article, but the response of some is just a little knee-jerk. You have to assume (as with any product) that people don't "read the directions." Twalls (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

'The pictures will stay, end of story' - I think thats where we see the arrogance and thats where the story actually starts. Anyways, everytime some person feels that article is disrespectful and unethical he/she is going to write down his/her opinion. Jmlk17 you might want to reconsider if you want to repeat the same lines redundantly. -Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.82.64 (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In regards to arrogance and disrespect, I'll refer you to your original post above. But I digress from not feeding the trolls. This thread should be archived. Jmlk17 04:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradictions in Wiki Policy

I went through discussion on September 11 attacks on wiki and discovered that wiki has the policy to put all conspiracy theories out from the article because THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA does not support those theories, in this article about Muhammad (PBUH), wiki has put on Illustrations, and refused to remove them, do'nt they think it is in clear contradiction to the MAIN STREAM islamic views?, secondly it is a historical fact that Muhammad (PBUH) never got his picture drawn, nor his close companions did, does’nt this make those illustrations out of context, concocted and a mere imaginations of sick minds from centuries till this date? I request to remove all non representative illustrations out from the main article, simply because the illustrations are not representative of the personality being the subject of the article and the MAIN Stream (1 Billion Muslims) do not accept those images to have any relavance to the Prophet (PBUH), and next time if wiki adds an article about my Papa, my opinion should be considered main stream as i keep record of his life and not of XYZ's Mkashifafzal (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC).