Talk:Muhammad/Depictions

Muhammad Pic
(discussion copied from User talk:Briangotts with permission. The Muhammad Pic in question is the image in edits such as these   --BostonMA talk  14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Hi Briangotts, are you up for a discussion about the disputed Muhammad Pic? --BostonMA talk 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I generally concur with the Hun. I'll see how the discussion develops but like he says, there has been absolutely no concrete objection raised, based on WP policies, why the image should be removed, other than a general iconoclasm based on a particular interpretation of a religion not shared by the majority of WP users. I believe removal would be outrageous- the image is souced and is a historical relic (made by, it should be noted, Muslims). Since those objecting to the image maintain that Islam objects to images of all of its prophets, are we to now remove images from Jesus, Abraham, etc.? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Several points
 * "there has been absolutely no concrete objection raised, based on WP policies..." WP:Profanity states in part:
 * "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
 * I believe that I am following this guideline. I believe that the image is a) considered offensive by a large number of people, b) is not informative in the context of this article -- we have absolutely no clue regarding the event which this image is depicting.  I would very much like to know whether you believe you are applying this guideline, or whether you believe the guideline is inappropriate.  If it is inappropriate, how would you amend it?
 * "Since those objecting to the image maintain that Islam..." This is an inappropriate ad hominem argument and is furthermore incorrect.  Please discuss Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than the alleged views of editors.
 * "are we to now remove images from Jesus, Abraham, etc.?" Are all images of Jesus and Abraham uninformative in their respective articles?  (added later --BostonMA talk  14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Looking forward to hearing from you again. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk  13:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * From your latest message, I am not sure our views are at all reconcilable. In my opinion the image is neither offensive nor obscene; it was created by people who revered and honored Muhammad. The only reason it is "offensive" is because there are some people who object to all images of Muhammad, and by extension images of religious figures in general. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, what I wrote was that the image is considered offensive by a large number of people. I consider this a question of fact.  Do you disagree that large numbers of people find the image offensive?  It is entirely possible to reconcile the belief that "a large number of people find the image offensive", with a personal valuation that does not find the image offensive.
 * I would still like to know how you would answer the questions I have asked originally. Thanks.  --BostonMA talk  13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindenting)I see no contradiction between including the image and the policy you cite. My interpretation is that image must be both subjectively and objectively offensive and this falls far short of that standard. You also seem to maintain that while these images should not be included in the Muhammad article, they might be appropriate for a separate article on images of Muhammad. I encourage you to establish such an article and see if the attempts at censorship are any less frequent there. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I don't see WP:Profanity as being based upon the subjective values of the editor, but that is my reading. Yes, I do believe that images of Muhammad are appropriate in other articles.  For example, articles on Persian art, or Depictions of Muhammad.  If fact, the image in question is found in the latter article.   You write "I encourage you to establish such an article and see if the attempts at censorship are any less frequent there."  As a matter of fact, you can see that that article is extraorinarily stable -- 50 edits since June 1.  There is an occasional blanking vandalism, and although I haven't read the talk pages, there may be someone who argues there that the article shouldn't exist, or shouldn't have images in it.  But even if the article were vandalized on a regular basis, and even if people who did not support Wikipedia's encyclopedic goal argued for deletion of the article, it would not mean that attempts at censorship there means that application of the WP:Profanity guideline is inappropriate here.  --BostonMA talk  14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's ludicrous. Your standards would eliminate virtually every image on Wikipedia. You are clearly searching for excuses to remove an image you find personally offensive. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * what is the image of? Who are the people in it?  Why are they gathered round? Why are some wearing persian-like Shia caps? Who is the woman? When was this set? We know so very little about this image, it does seem important, but its done on a large minbar, which would appear to make it late-ish, but that would rule out Abu Talib from being present, but maybe that was artistic license. Is there a copy of the image in context, that is atop of the text that accompanies it, as that would explain what we are seeing. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact is, we don't know what the image in question is about. However, we do know what is going on in a depiction of Jesus being crucified, or Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son, or any number of other images.  Applying a standard that says that if we can't say anything sensible about what an image depicts, then that image is not informative seem reasonable, and it clearly would not apply to many, hopefully the vast majority, of images on Wikipedia.  But note, the majority of images do not need to meet even this minimal requirement, because they are not considered offensive by significant populations.  --BostonMA talk  15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not representing the situation accurately. The image is sourced and the source describes what is depicted. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The source, unless I am missing something, says the image is a depiction of Muhammad. Being made several centuries after Muhammad's death, and without any attestation that the image is a reasonable likeness, the image does not inform us of anything in particular about Muhammad's appearance.  Given that we don't know anything else about the image, the information content of the picture, related to Muhammad is essentially nothing.  The image is informative about Persian art.  It is informative about the variation in attitudes about depictions of Muhammad in Islam.  But I don't see how it is informative about Muhammad.  If I am mistaken, could you please write a paragraph describing things I might learn about Muhammad from the image.  --BostonMA talk  15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The image illustrates the veneration in which Muhammad was held by Muslims of al-Biruni's time, and how they viewed him. Wikipedia biographies contain numerous images made by people long after the death of the person depicted. See Jesus, Gautama Buddha, Leif Ericson, Genghis Khan. You are setting up false criteria for judging whether the article should be kept, criteria that were never intended to be part of Wikipedia policy but are rather your own (in my opinion, very tenuous) interpretation of what that policy means. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC) You and I are in fundamental disagreement about the nature of "offensiveness". You appear to believe that because a group of people, based on subjective criteria, regard an image as offensive, it should not be included. I believe that it is a consistent principle of both law and common sense that offensiveness must be measured objectively and subjectively. The fact that a particular group is offended by the inclusion of an image that, as you admit, adds aesthetic (and as I maintain, informative) depth to the article does not warrant its deletion. There is no objection to the image on the grounds that it depicts Muhammad in an offensive manner (and, I do not believe that such an offensive image could be excluded from an appropriate article, such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy or Piss Christ, for that matter), only that it is offensive because it is an image of Muhammad. This is an encyclopedia and is governed by the general principles and obligations adhering thereto. It is not governed by sharia and arguments based on sharia cannot exclude images or material from being included if they are otherwise well-sourced. That's really all I have to say on the matter, and I refer you to the additional arguments made by User:The Hungry Hun, with which I concur. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image illustrates the veneration in which Muhammad was held by Muslims after Muhammad's death. The image might therefore appropriate in an artcle on Islam (assuming no better images available).  The Muhammad article is about Muhammad, and only tangentially about Islam as it evolved after Muhammad's death.
 * Wikipedia does include images of figures such as Buddha, Leif Erikson and Ghangis Khan which are not historically accurate. These images usually add aesthetic value to an otherwise barren textual landscape.  But we should be clear they are not informative.  They are acceptable for the purpose of providing aestheic value, in part because they do not violate any other policy or guideline.  To my knowledge, no good-faith complaints have been made that these images are offensive.
 * You say you disagree with my interpretation of WP:Profanity. Do you disagree with the part that says:  "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not"? I would really like an answer.  Do you disagree with the part that says "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."?  If you disagree, could you explain how you would amend this guideline?
 * There is obviously a conflict between writing an encyclopedia and not offending people. An encyclopedia, if it is really "encyclopedic" will cover material which will unfortunately offend some people.  It would be nice to avoid being unnecessarily offensive, while still covering offensive material in an encyclopedic way.  But how do we decide what is "unnecessarily" offensive?  To me, that is the purpose of the  section: "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."  If an image is not informative in a given context, and it further is considered offensive by many people, then, in my opinion, it is probably unnecessary to have that image in that context.  --BostonMA talk  17:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Several points


 * You have mis-characterized (or misunderstood) my position as:
 * "You appear to believe that because a group of people, based on subjective criteria, regard an image as offensive, it should not be included."
 * That is not my position. My position is that, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, if a group of people regard an image as offensive and if that image is not informative in the context of a given article, then the image should not be used in that article, but it may be used appropriately elsewhere.


 * You state that you maintain that the image is informative. I agree that the image is informative.  A picture of a butt-plug may be informative to someone who does not know what one looks like.  (I still don't).  However, while removing a picture of a butt-plug from the butt-plug article may make that article less informative, removal of a similar butt-plug image from Michaelangelo would not make that article less informative about Michaelangelo, even if it could be established that Michaelangelo used a butt-plug.  So, as I have asked before, please write a paragraph detailing the information appropriate to the Muhammed article which the image in question provides.    I really do not understand what is, or could be, that information.
 * In reference to the following paragraph:
 * "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."
 * I have asked you a number of questions. Unfortunately, I don't feel you have responded to them.  To make the discussion fruitful, I think we really need to engage with each others concerns.  If I have not engaged your concerns, please let me know, and I will try to do better.  However, I would very much like to know with regard to this paragraph:
 * Do you agree with the first sentence?
 * Do you agree with the second sentence?
 * If you disagree with either, how would you amend this guideline?


 * I think the references to Sharia are out of place. It is not Wikipedia's mission to offend, although we must do so incidentally in the course of writing an encyclopedia.  In my opinion, if there are guidelines that say that doing X causes offence which is unnecessary from the point of view of writing the encyclopedia, then it should not matter which group is offended, but rather all groups should be treated equally, whether they are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, women, Blacks, gays or whoever.  That is my opinion, I would like to know yours.
 * I look forward to your response. --BostonMA talk  23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You have said nothing new here. I have responded to your questions to the best of my ability - you simply choose not to accept my answers, which is your right. However you continue to attempt to impose an artificial standard of "offensiveness" on this project which it was never the intention of its founders to follow. I accept in its entirety the paragraph you quoted. But as I said offensiveness must be measured both objectively and subjectively. A Jew might find the visual depiction of the Tetragrammaton to violate the tenants of his faith, but it would be unreasonable to expect Wikipedia, which is not bound by the laws of any religion, to adhere to religious law (or one subgroup's interpretation of the laws of a religion it shares with other subgroups, some of whom actually created the image in question). For this very reason the image of "Piss Christ", which is FAR more offensive than the Muhammad image you object to, is not censored from WP. I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly to you. I am trying to assume good faith but you do not seem inclined to accept my view or acknowledge that I have even made any points. Therefore I don't know that continued discussion will be fruitful. I will not agree with your imposition of an entirely subjective standard of offensiveness which would only lead to more images being censored in the future. Cheers, Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that communication seems to have broken down. Please remain cool.  I appreciate that you believe that you have answered my questions, and that you believe that I have failed to address your issues or acknowledge your points.  However, from my perspective, I did not, until this last comment, an answer to my question about the paragraph from the guideline that I had quoted.  I am very thankful that you have stated that you accept in entirety the paragraph I quoted.  That clarifies things for me a bit.  Also, from my perspective, you have not told me what information you think the image supplies that related to Muhammad that is appropriate to the subject of that article.  Perhaps you feel you have answered that, but I have not been able to "hear" that answer.  From my perspective, I have also acknowledged many of your points.  If you feel that we are unable to communicate, would you be amenable to having a mediator assist in our communication?  Sincerely,  --BostonMA talk  02:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, it has been a while since I have heard from you, and I see that you are active on Wikipedia. I will assume that you may still be considering my suggestion that we obtain the help of a mediator.  If you are not amenable to discussing with me with the help of a mediator, please let me know.  Also, if that is the case, would you object to my copying this discussion over to the talk:Muhammad page, so that it would be visible by more editors?  Thanks.  --BostonMA talk  14:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You may copy this discussion to whichever talk page or pages you wish. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to some points made by User:Briangotts.
 * The guideline has, what I consider to be clear language. The clause about offensive materials reads:
 * "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers..."
 * It seems that you do not believe that this should be interpretted literally, but should be interpretted according to some principles of "objective and subjective" offensiveness. Could you elaborate what you mean by "objective and subjective"?
 * I am trying to understand your position, and I do not intend this as a personal attack. At some points, you argue that the image in question is informative.  However, at other times it appears to me that your position is that the offensiveness that might be perceived by Muslims wheter based upon their religion, or merely custom, ought never to be used in applying the Profanity guideline, whether the image is informative or not.  Could you clarify whether or not you think the profanity policy should ever apply to the offensiveness perceived by some Muslims regarding images of Muhammed?
 * If you think that the guideline never applies to offensiveness perceived by some Muslims regarding images of Muhammad, could you explain how this might relate to offensiveness perceived by other groups, such as Christians or Jewish people?
 * If you think that the guideline does apply to offensiveness perceived by some Muslims with regard to images of Muhammad, but doesn't apply in this particular case, could you give an example of a case where it would apply? --BostonMA talk  14:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how to make the case more clear to you. You appear to wish to censor every bit of discussion or information on Wikipedia that might offend anyone. I am at a loss to find a Wikipedia policy that permits you to strike portions of comments (whether or not they are inappropriate or offensive) as you have done below to another editor. "Objective and subjective" offensiveness is a standard used in many different areas, such as employment law. In order for an image to be worthy of removal it must (a) offend an individual or group of people based on that group's belifes AND (b) be offensive to the community as a whole (in this case, the community of Wikipedia users. I concede that certain subgroups of Muslims might find the depiction of Muhammad offensive (not, however, the Muslims who created the image in question.) Nonetheless, there is nothing inherently offensive about this image to the majority of Wikipedians, who do not share the iconoclastic beliefs you fear offending. It depicts Muhammad neither engaging in any unseemly activity, nor portrays him in a negative light (the creators of the image, on the contrary, held him in the highest reverence). If, for example, an image was posted of Muhammad immersed in a jar of urine (as with "Piss Christ), an argument could be made that the offensiveness of the image, to the community as a whole, outweighed its informative value to the article in question (it would not, however, do so in the case of an article about the "work of art" (just as the image of the execerable "Piss Christ", offensive as it might be to the community, cannot be banned as uninformative from the article about that work. Re:the informative nature of the image, it is self-evident. The image was created by Muslims, in accordance with a classical Islamic understanding of the life of Muhammad, to illustrate a period of his life. You appear to believe it cannot be informative unless it was made contemporaneously; that standard, of course, would condemn virtually every painting used on this or any other encyclopedia to illustrate a historical event and therefore cannot possibly be a valid standard by which to judge. I find it difficult to assume that you are making this argument in good faith. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If you raise no new points in your response to the above, I have nothing further to say on the matter. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You all talk way too much, I think. Look,with all due deference to this belief system, we are an encyclopedia and as such do not have to kowtow to any particular religous belief or cult procedures. It may be prohibited for You Muslums to do images, but it is not prohibited for Me to do images. (striking out inappropriate comment --BostonMA talk  17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)) Anyway, there are ample images and pictures of many things that people find distasteful in an everyday sense but agree are required iamagery in an encyclopedia. For example, there are pictures of vulvas, breasts, scortums, penises, colons, abscesed teeth, ingrown hairs, s&m tools, vivisected rabbits and any number of other revolting and disgusting things that turn the stomach and challenge the senses. But they are, to be sure, necessary. We don't put them on T-shirts but we do put them in encyclopedias. Pictures of Mowhammed are equally neceassary and we will include them. I am under the impressions that Islammis (struck inappropriate epithet --BostonMA talk  17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC))  are against presenting images of Mouhummud because they want to avoid idolatry: I can re-assure you that I, for one, have no intention whatsoever of idoloizing the likes of him, so you can sleep at night. In short: sorry man, you will just have to suspend your abhorance and get over it. Or even simpler, don't look at it if ya don't like it. (striking inappropriate comment --BostonMA talk  17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)) Maybe a sort of Viewer Discretion warning at the top of the page would help quell the juvenile squimishness? DocEss 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats' the spirit! - censor things that scrape you over-sensitive nerves. Goodness.DocEss 17:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have censored nothing. (struck comment that defies logic -- DocEss 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)) The comments were inappropriate, and I struck them.  They are, however, obviously still readable.  Please refrain from making personal attacks per WP:NPA --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  18:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did refrain. Which person did I attack?DocEss 18:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Without endorsing the comments in question, I will say, BostonMA, that it is not for you to decide what is "inappropriate". The comments should stand for themselves, and if they are attacks or otherwise inappropriate then the proper remedial actions should be taken through the established channels. You are not the arbiter of appropriateness and may not strike other user's comments. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya! what he said.DocEss 18:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have views regarding the content of Wikipedia, and I have views regarding many other topics. The latter views I consider my private business, and I do not share them on Wikipedia, no more than I would present my views on religion in a lecture that I might give in school. So, you should realize that you know nothing of my views on religion. You, as everyone, are entitled to form your own opinion of me, based upon whatever comments or edits I may make at Wikipedia. However, I think it is inappropriate to attach religious labels to editors. I think it is inappropriate in general, but it is especially inappropriate when the labels that are attached have the capacity to Poison the well, and to shift attention from the issues before us, to political controversies that exist outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to fight out such controversies. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 18:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ya ya. Fine speech - I can't see how your point is relevant to this 'images' discussion? Here's one thing I've learned here in Wiki world regarding images of Mohummud. Anyone who wishes to eliminate images of him will stop at nothing to do so and will use any tactics and reasoning system, however illogial, including verbose prose qouting scripture and diversionary accusations and blah blah blah. Any argument offered that supports image inclusion is quickly countered by the claim that 'no images are appropriate because we don't know what he looked like.' Of course, we know, that this argument is absurd: we have ample images of historical figures that we assume are not actual depictions. They are, rather, reasonable facsimiles and they are so overwhelmingly necessary to satisfy the human mind's insatiable need to put a face to a name. It is ridiculous to try to work against that powerful part of the human soul. Moses? We have lots of pictures of him. King David - tons of depictions. St. Peter - all kinds of statues and paintings. And yet we have no idea what they really looked like. Similarly, there exists thousands of varied images of Mohummud and they all look close enough to be valid facsimiles. Golly, we have a litany of pictures of God himself and no one seems to get all tied up in a knot and have a tantrum over that, yet pictures of Mohammed are censored away! Ludicrous. Worse, I'd say, it borders on pagan idolatry. And last - having nothing but calligraphy to represent a human doesn't work - just ask the-artist-formerly-know-as-Prince. People NEED to see a face.DocEss 18:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[ed conf]
 * I would suggest you tone down your "voice". These type of comments are not conducive to collaboration. Yes, there is no censorship in Wikipedia, but we expect editors to behave civilly in these discussions and not to engage in personal attacks as the ones you have made above. There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.


 * Some suggestions:


 * Discuss the article, not the subject;
 * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
 * If you feel attacked, do not attack back.


 * I have placed a WP:NPA warning in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 19:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not all of your arguments were intended for me. However, if they were, I believe a number of them to be straw-man arguments.  I have not quoted scripture, I have quoted Wikipedia guidelines.  Nor is it true that I will "stop at nothing" to remove images of Muhammad.  Although it already appears in the previous discussion with Briangotts, I will repeat it here for your benefit that the image in question does belong on Wikipedia.  The question is whether it belongs in this article.  The appropriate guideline, as far as I am able to discern states that images which are offensive to Wikipedia readers belong in articles only when their omission would cause that article to be less informative.  Wikipedia does indeed have many images which are not true likenesses.  However, I am not aware that there are large numbers of people who find those images offensive, thus that guideline does not apply to them.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  19:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"There are pictures of vulvas, breasts, scortums, penises, colons, abscesed teeth, ingrown hairs, s&m tools, vivisected rabbits and any number of other revolting and disgusting things that turn the stomach and challenge the senses. But they are, to be sure, necessary." May I ask how? I know I've brought this up in conversation with you previously, but does anybody not know what a breast looks like? Or what an erect penis looks like? If you say "yes", I'm still not sure those things add any more to the article than Mohammed's photo does. Just my take. "I will repeat it here for your benefit that the image in question does belong on Wikipedia. The question is whether it belongs in this article." Where would a painting of the prophet Mohammed be any more appropriate than in the article on Mohammed? Only in a specific article about that painting. I know it's a repeat argument, but the other articles about religious figures have them too, so I think if we're going by that standard, it's pretty clear that pictures are added. I also am interested to see that there doesn't seem to have been much argument about this until after the Dutch newspaper printed several pictures - people didn't mind back then. I don't want my tone to sound poisonous; I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion, so pardon me if it does. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Patstuart, your comments do not seem poisonous at all, and I welcome your civil discourse. I'm going to respond to what I think is the essential issue, but please feel free to raise your other points with me again.
 * You ask
 * "Where would a painting of the prophet Mohammed be any more appropriate than in the article on Mohammed?"
 * That is a good question, but I think it misses something. We are not discussing paintings of Muhammad in general, but one particular painting.  There is another image of Muhammad in the page that I most certainly feel is informative -- the painting which depicts the story of the rededication of the Black Stone.  From that image, one can discern the approximate size of the Black Stone, if nothing else.  (And after looking at the Black Stone article, I think this painting does a better job of illustrative the approximate size than the realistic photo in the Black Stone article).  So, just as I have no objection to the disputed image appearing in Wikipedia in general, so also, I have no general objection to images of Muhammad appearing in the Muhammad article.  (There may be more appropriate images, but I do not have a position on that question.)  That we lack any real understanding about one image, does not mean that other images suffer the same handicap.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not want to add to the quagmire ... but would not showing art about a subject be considered information. Much like art showing of Jesus, positive or negative, as long as it was used historically for informative reasons (for illiterate people ... art is used to communicate to wide audiences ... for it is a language almost everyone can understand). So, do to religious reasons, there might not be any Islamic art related to Mohammad, but is the same true for non-Muslims? If there is historical art depicting Mohammad used to portray information in the past? If there is, it should be shown. Some people might be offended ... but if I got up a large enough community who be offended with 1 + 1 = 2 ... should that be censored too? Again ... this only applies if it meets that it was historically used for communication standard, which is more than just a plain image and nothing more. Now ... if there is disagreement on how informative something is ... I think we should favour the side of freedom of information and let readers decide for themselves ... it is not for individuals themselves (or any single [but not represents the whole] to determine what should be censored or not). Information is the key to science ... as soon as people start crossing out stuff to make everyone happy ... we lose all progress and the point. Nonprof. Frinkus 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Now ... if there is disagreement on how informative something is ... I think we should favour the side of freedom of information and let readers decide for themselves ..." Hi, there is a simple test that I use to decide whether something is informative.  I see if there is something that I can write which is both accurate and relevent to the topic at hand based upon the image.  What can be said about the image in question, other than it is an image of Muhammad, but no one has attested that it is an accurate depiction, nor do we know what event is being depicted, nor who the other persons are in the image.  Of course it is informative regarding Persian art, and regarding images of Muhammad created by followers centuries after his death.  However, the Muhammad article deals only tangentially with Islam after the death of Muhammad.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  21:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Boston, I hope this isn't a problem: but I've seen several people today speak out in support of keeping the image, one as neutral (Frinkus did not state an opinion), and youself as against it. I propose that the image stays until someone else speaks out against. Once that happens, we can remove it until we come to an agreement (which is doubtful) - and should that fail, go to a arbitration (or is it mediation? - which it appears one person has already done. I may not put the image back in myself (lest we get into edit warring), but it doesn't seem that the talk page consensus at all supports its removal, and it should be readded. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I say we leave the image in, and don't mediate until someone else comes out against it on the talk page - which I'm sure there are many zealous adherents willing to do. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Patstuart, I do not have a problem yielding to consensus. However, my observations from the edits made to the article page lead me to believe that no consensus exists at this point, that is, there have been a number of editors who have removed the image in question, including some quite senior editors. I will wait. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to Boston's comments: We are not discussing paintings of Muhammad in general, but one particular painting. There is another image of Muhammad in the page that I most certainly feel is informative -- the painting which depicts the story of the rededication of the Black Stone.
 * Hmm - I hear your point, and I'm a little surprised. I want to agree with you, but, unfortunately I'm not sure I do. To be honest, I don't see a lot of difference between these two paintings. One was illustrating an event which could just as easily be envisioned in the mind, and I'm not sure it was much more helpful than the other one which showed the historical figure of Mohammed. I wish I could do better to justify this. But someone said it well above, that people need faces to look at. This in my non-well-formed opinion on your statement.
 * I'm still interested in seeing if any Muslims with objections could come up with some. It would add much to our debate. I've shamelessly assumed that BostonMA is not a Muslim by his profile and city - I hope I'm not wrong.-Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No one remove the pictures except ONE reason! Hint not Wikipedia.Opiner 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures
Most of you folks probably weren't here when we had the big fuss over a picture that was on the Qur'an page. Someone added a picture of his girlfriend looking at a giant page of Quranic calligraphy displayed in an art gallery. One Muslim editor freaked out because she was wearing a sleeveless top and shorts, and women in sleeveless tops ought not to be pictured looking at the Qur'an. I did battle for the picture, because the calligraphy was gorgeous. This went on for months, with the editor removing the picture and other editors re-adding it. Eventually someone found a picture of the calligraphy sans girl, and we used that.

In the course of that controversy, I thought of a principle that might reduce some of the friction re Islam-related pictures on Wikipedia. The point of WP is knowledge; we're an encyclopedia. We can't let anyone censor the encyclopedia for religious reasons. However, there's no need to add a picture for "pretty" if it conveys no knowledge and offends some readers and editors. Much as I hated to let go of my defense of "a woman's right to bare arms," I had to admit that the replacement picture was a better representation of the calligraphy. So, I shut up.

We got along fine with one picture at the Muhammad article for more than a year, I think it was. It was a Persian miniature, it was small, Muhammad's face was veiled, and I thought it was a sensible compromise between some Muslim sensibilities and reader's right to know how some Muslims depicted Muhammad. The other pictures were at the Depictions of Muhammad article, where we had space to treat the subject thoroughly. That seemed to be acceptable to all.

Now we have editors who are determined to add pictures here, even if they don't convey any information. I cannot but suspect that the point is to show that "Muslims can't censor us, nyah nyah nyah!" Well, why go out of our way to upset Muslims if no information is being conveyed? That seems to me to be disrupting WP to make a point. The Muslims who edit here are not anyone's enemy. They're talking, not making bombs. They're the people that those of us who are non-Muslims need on our side! Yes, some of them seem to me to have restricted and blinkered viewpoints. But we aren't going to change that by taunting them. That doesn't work. Courtesy goes a lot further than snarkiness.

I don't think that this principle necessarily applies outside Wikipedia. People can make pictures or make fun of Muhammad as they please. If the humor is truly funny, I'll laugh. (I'd laugh at intelligent send-ups of Buddhism, too, and I'm a Buddhist!) But we're doing something different here and it requires some courtesy between editors. Let's agree to have ONE picture of Muhammad, and then fill the rest of the article with calligraphy or informative pictures of places and things. If someone wants to discuss depictions of Muhammad, there's a whole breakout article dedicated to the topic. Zora 05:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a Zoroastrian. You've no need to say that I'm among "the people that those of you who are non-Zoroastrians need on your side." There's no credit due to me for "talking not making bombs." You believe that Muslims, unlike we Zoroastrians, might "make bombs." When they don't, their views are to be granted an added measure of respect for this. Though I don't much like it, I can think of no other interpretation of what you're saying.


 * However valid your thinking might be - and it might be - at the very least we can recognize that the discussion has become "meta" enough to render objections based upon the mere fact of reference to the metaspace (e.g. you're just saying "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.") invalid. If it's in truth a political decision, then nyah etc. is an entirely legitimate stance.


 * For my part I consider that if the objections are based upon notions of blasphemy, I'm inclined to entirely disregard them. This must not be allowed to establish itself in academia, even here on the margins.Proabivouac 06:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He he: yesterday a Jew, today a Zoroastrian and Tomorrow ?. Let me guess,.. a Christian. --Aminz 06:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What the hell is that supposed to mean? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just joking with a new (or perhaps old ?) friend --Aminz 21:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Zora, you are very well-intentioned but your compromise proposal is illogical. Either it is ok to have tasteful, historically significant images of Muhammad in this article, or it isn't. So far the only justification raised for it not being ok is "offensiveness" because it is "blasphemy" (I do not regard the arguments that it is not informative or does not actually depict Muhammad as bearing any validity). Why, then, would it be all right to include a single image, but not two (or three)? Do you honestly believe that this compromise is (a) logically consistent and (b) likely to be acceptable to those who reject all images of Muhammad? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Briangotts. I am trying to understand your reasonings regarding the question of informativeness.  You express your opinion that the arguments the image does not actually depict Muhammad as having no validity.  I don't think that anyone is denying that the image is a representation of Muhammad, just as images of Jesus with European features are representations of Jesus, or the cartoon images of Muhammad are representations of Muhammad.  However, we have no attestation that pictures of Jesus with European features correspond to Jesus's actual appearance.  Similarly, we have no attestation that the representation of Muhammad is actually a likeness of Muhammad.  If it is not a likeness, it does not actually inform us regarding Muhammad's appearence.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  15:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An image does not have to be a likeness to be a noteworthy representation. The images of Jesus are relevant and informative to the Jesus article because they demonstrate how his followers have historically understood him and his role. The same is true of these images. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for your explanation. I agree that an image does not have to be a likeness to be noteworthy.  The image is noteworthy, and belongs in Wikipedia.  However, the question in this particular case is only whether it is informative.  You are absolutely correct that the image demonstrates how some of his followers have historically viewed Muhammad, (just as depictions of Jesus as a European is a way that some of Jesus's followers have viewed him.)  However, a) the article is only tangentially related to the evolution of Islam after Muhammad's death, and b) although images of Muhammad are a notable part of the evolution of Islam, and are worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, it is also true that creating or owning images of Muhammad is a practice of only a minority of Muslims.  If you are trying to illustrate how Muhammad's followers have typically portrayed Muhammad, then the image is misleading. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Zora's comparison to the Quran article controversy is not applicable here. The woman portrayed in the picture had no relevance to the article about the Quran. For that reason (and NOT because some people were offended by a bareheaded woman looking at a book) and for that reason alone, the picture without her in it was more appropriate for an encyclopedia. If the article were about westerners and their attitudes towards the Quran, the picture would probably be appropriate notwithstanding its offensiveness to some.
 * Here, we are talking about an image made by Muhammad's followers to illustrate an event from his life. There can be no more relevant image. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The majority of Muhammad's followers do not create or own illustrations such as this. If you wish to portray how Muslim's typically represent Muhammad, then this image is misleading.  You say it illustrates an event in Muhammad's life.    It may, or it may not.  In the history of art, it has not been uncommon for someone to commission a painting which portrays that patron or the patron's ancestors in some apparently important context.  Perhaps the other individuals in the painting were modelled after the patrons, and the scene depicted is entirely imaginary.  The point is, we don't know, and to say that it depicts an event in the life of Muhammad, without being able to say which event it is suppose to depict, I think is my opinion, unwarranted.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  15:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that Boston's argument here amounts to just more diversionary moise because it's driven not be powerful reasoning but by the typical "anti-image" agenda. The argument is therefore disengenuous. It's easy to see from a common sense standpoint: these images are art. They serve the purpose of art. The images fill our need to put a face to a name.DocEss 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please desist with your ad hominem remarks. Discuss issues and content, not editors.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  16:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine, I'l re-phrase to placate you. An argument like the one above amounts to just more diversionary noise because it's driven not be powerful reasoning but by the typical "anti-image" agenda. The argument is therefore disengenuous. It's easy to see from a common sense standpoint: these images are art. They serve the purpose of art. The images fill our need to put a face to a name.DocEss 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Boston MA, "I must now inform you that you are too far from reality." What "event" do any of these portray? There is no Wikipedia policy that requires an image to accurately portray an identifiable moment in someone's life in order to noteworthy and includable in that person's biography. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Without looking at all of the images, I imagine that none of them portray any known event. Are you conceding that the image in question in fact does not portray any known event?
 * There is no policies or guidelines that require images to portray identifiable events in biographical articles. There is however, a guideline that states that images which are offensive to Wikipedia readers should be included only if they are informative.  You claimed the the image portrayed an event in Muhammad's life, and was consequently informative.  I pointed out that the image does not verifiably portray an event in Muhammad's life.
 * Please stop with the ad hominem remarks. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  16:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are ducking the issue, yet again. an image need not portray a specific identifiable moment in a person's life in order to be informative. The image is as informative as any of those cited and its informative quality outweighs its perceived offensiveness. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not claim that an image need portray a specific identifiable moment in a person's life in order to be informative. It does not.  However, you did claim that the image portrayed an event in Muhammad's life, and you did claim that that fact made the image informative.  I pointed out that your first claim is not supported by any verifiable evidence.
 * Regarding "ducking". Could you now please answer the question of whether you now concede that we have no evidence that the image portrays any known event in Muhammad's life?  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not at all concede that. Not having the manuscript in front of me, I cannot say what event it portrays. Since it is an illustration from a manuscript of Islamic history I'm sure it does, in fact, portray a scene discussed in that manuscript.
 * The point is that whether it illustrates or not a specific event is irrelevant; just as the other images I cited are illustrative of the subject and thus noteworthy without necessarily being either likenesses or identifiable as a specific event. I entirely reject your logically inconsistent and unencyclopedic criteria for determining whether it should be included. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that evidence might exist does not change the fact the we have no evidence. If evidence were to be presented, that would change matters significantly, but no evidence has been presented, only speculation.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With regard to whether I am missing the point, if you argue that the image represents an event in Muhammad's life, then it is quite reasonable to ask what evidence you have to support that claim. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The say-so of the Bibliothèque Nationale, whose scholars are presumably more knowledgeable about this image than you, for one thing. As I said the image does not need to portray a particular, identifiable event (e.g., Muhammad preaching to Ali, Uthman, and Abu Bakr on January 7, 625 in Medina). That is a ridiculous standard, and I am hard-pressed to believe that you make it in good faith. It is enough that the image is identified as Muhammad and he is clearly preaching or speaking to his followers. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What standard do you imaging I am setting? Where did I state that standard?
 * I was responding you your claim that the image portrayed a event in the life of Muhammad. If the scholars of the Bibliotheque Nationale state that the image represents something other than an imaginary event, you could educate us all by revealing what they have said in this regard.
 * If I find an image of Saint Christopher with the caption "Saint Christopher carrying Christ on his back", does that mean that it depicts an event in the life of Jesus? --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are also not using "ad hominem" properly. Were I making an ad hominem attack on your argument I would say you are (whatever unacceptable thing) therefore your argument is unacceptable. I am actually responding to your arguments (though I grow weary of responding to the same ones over and over again) therefore I am not engaged in ad hominem attacks. Light hearted quips taken from Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf hardly qualify. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comment said that I was out of touch with reality, the implication being quite clear that my argument should therefore be rejected. Please do not comment on editors, comment on the content of articles or upon issues under discussion.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation regarding picture
User:Patstuart requested that we hold off on mediation until someone other than myself has expressed themself in favor of removing the image over which there is a conflict. Since that time, Zora has spoken. IrishPunkTom had also, previously expressed his opinion, and this morning Ibrahimfaisal has removed the image. I have requested of him to express himself on this talk page. Since Ibrahimfaisal's removal, there has been another restoration. I feel that Patstuart assumes good faith toward the removers, but I am less convinced that other editors assume good faith. I think having a mediator intervene may be a way to restore trust and fruitful communication. I ask all the editors involved to express themselves regarding whether they would be amenable to having a mediator assist in this discussion. I am also open to brainstorming regarding other ways this edit conflict might be resolved. Sincerely --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 12:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason I have deleted the image is because it is not informative and not valuable to the article. It shows some imaginary persons. We have no idea which place they are sitting and what year it is. We have also no idea who are those people in the picture (except one is claimed to be Muhammad). The picture provide no information AT ALL and it is offensive for vast majority of Muslims (like > 80% .. as all Sunni and many Shia too). We are talking about billion people here. I think the picture is more fit for Depictions of Muhammad article than here and losing it will not make article less informative. It will help other editors to contribute more constructively in the article and improving its quality. --- ابراهيم 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The image is well sourced. To say it is of "imaginary persons" is ludicrous. It is an illustration in an al-Biruni manuscript and was drawn to depict Muhammad. Religious sensibilities do not determine encyclopedic notability. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more. We have many images of all kinds of histrorical people that we know are not actual depictions. Images are part of the human mind's insatiable need to put a face to a name. We need pictures of Moses, Kind David, St. Peter, Charlemagne, Constantine and, yes, even Mohammed. He's clearly no more special to an encyclopedia than anyone else. (And just to note, I would think I wouldn't want my hero-prophet to be represented by nothing but a bunch of squiggles and a bloody sword . What an image that is!)DocEss 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not comment on the sourcing of the image, since I will assume nothing here. However, amount of people (the billion number) is completely irrelevant.  To kill one innocent individual (someone not guilty of murder, rape) is too many ... to kill hundreds is immaterial from a logical right/wrong standpoint ... it is still wrong.  If something was well sourced and met the criteria [this specific image I have no comment on], but millions of people do not like it, is still no reason to censor.  Now, if we had a total percentage of all Wikipedia users who were offended, that say exceeded a high percentage (much more than 50%, exact percentage I have no opinion on), then you would have a good case for censoring on numerical grounds. --User:Frinkus

Personally, I think it's high-time we had a mediator settle this painful and loquacious argument. I am all for it. This banter is 'un-prophet-able." DocEss 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC) The picture does not represent how Muslim's typically represent Muhammad. It does not add any value to the article. --Truthpedia 20:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue will probably not go away. I can say certainly that Muslims will continue to delete the image; the only way it will go away is if people allow it to be removed, and I doubt anyone will agree to that either. I'm not sure what the conflict dispute resolution process is, if this is the only (or best) one. But I say it's high time as well. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do the Muslims object to having a picture of Mohammed here? This is not a Muslim publication or a theological treatise. Can they present a cogent argument, not based on religion, why the picture should be excluded? TharkunColl 23:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have filed a request for mediation with the mediation cabal. It is my hope that all editors who wish to add or remove the Maomé.jpg image will participate in the mediation. Please encourage those who may want to edit this image to add their names. Please add your name, but please do not use the application form to discuss substantive issues until the application has been accepted. At some point, someone from the mediation cabal will contact me to either inform me that a mediator is available and willing to take the case, or that the request has been rejected. (The current queue for processing applications appears to be about 10 days.) Until that occurs, I will not be editting the Muhammad page. I may also choose to limit my resonses to issues raised on the talk page based upon my estimate of whether  discussion is civil and based upon assumption of good faith. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IrishPunkTom has been banned for 48 hours because he reverted the picture 3 times in a WEEK. --- ابراهيم 09:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Creating a link to the images at the top as a compromise
Ok, when I come to this article, a very large article with lots of content, I expect a picture of the subject.

Ok, so far so good. However there are people who don't like to look at that picture for personal reasons. Normally that would not mean much here, but intensity of emotion seems to be making it impractical. So, I have put:


 * For images of Muhammad see Depictions of Muhammad.

At the top. Mabye I am just a dreamer, but perhaps we can compromise on this? HighInBC 14:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not have any problem with that --- ابراهيم 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor I, --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 14:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom removed the link saying it give undue weight to the images. Could you please explain this here with the other editors instead of reverting me? Since the majority of editors seem to support this link I have returned it. HighInBC 14:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate, the reason for the link at the top is to compromise with those who refuse to allow an depiction of Muhammad on the actual article. Many people coming to this article expect an image and the link is so far down the article it may not be seen.

This is an attempt to solve a contreversy with compromise. HighInBC 14:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a thought, mabye it could say:

There are no depictions of Muhammad on this page, for images of Muhammad see Depictions of Muhammad.

Would that help put peoples minds at ease nervouse about seeing them? Or would it simply call too much attention to the issue? HighInBC 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This should be clarified... because I have the impression that User:Ibrahimfaisal likely responded affirmatively to this idea thinking that this would be done in lieu of having images of Muhammad on the article. Is that what you were thinking Faisal or were you ok with the images and this additional prominently placed link? (→ Netscott ) 18:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if we have NO images showing Muhammad only then the link on top is okay. If a single image appears in the article then it should be removed from the top. The link could say To honor vast majority of Muslim's faith the articles does not give any dipiction of Muhammad and they are placed in this seperate article (well one can change this wording but it is just a general idea). --- ابراهيم 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If the images were to remain, then it would not be much of a compromise would it? Good idea to clarify though. HighInBC 18:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok HighInBC, then please do the honors since you're insisting that the link stay and now remove all of the images. (→ Netscott ) 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have not insisted on anything, I have made suggestions and edited according to consensus. As for the images, I beleive another editor recently removed the image. If were missed then go ahead and remove it, I don't see it as a question of honors. HighInBC 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, since the other image of Muhammad was missed I've gone ahead and followed your suggestion here and removed the top link to Depictions of Muhammad. (→ Netscott ) 21:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there was a misunderstanding, when I said "If <INS>(any images)</INS> were missed go ahead and remove it", I meant remove the image. I did miss a couple words so that is why it came out wrong. Anyways I am trying to be productive, and not excacerbate the situation. I am going to take a break on this article until Monday.


 * While there are disagreements here, the editors involved seem to be acting in good faith towards what they sincerely think is for the good of the encyclopedia. If tempers begin to run high, please remember that, and take time to do whatever it is you do to relax. I know I am.


 * Peace! If you want to talk to me do it on my talkpage as I will not be reading here. HighInBC 21:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Restatement of Underlying Issues
(I have tried to collect what I believe are the unresolved issues in the dispute and to restate them in a concise format. Undoubtedly, the list reflects my percerption of the dispute which may not be shared by others.  I recommend that others prepare, if they are able, similar lists of what they believe to be the unresolved issues, (or of things that we may agree upon), in a similarly compact format.  I would also recommend that that editors, if they are able, formulate compact replies to any points raised.  Please place your counterpoints in their own compact space rather than interweave them with this statement.  Thanks. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  00:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

The underlying issue to be resolved is whether the guideline WP:Profanity is applicable to the Maomé.jpg in the context of the Muhammad article. The guideline text under consideration is:
 * "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."


 * 1) That image is considered offensive by many Wikipedia readers
 * 2) Its omission does NOT cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, because it is a false image. --Islamic 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not start with the FAKE pics of Muhammad letter and sword?Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved issues which form components of the central issue

 * 1) Whether or not the Maomé.jpg might be considered to be offensive by (a large number of) other Wikipedia readers.
 * 2) Whether or not the Maomé.jpg is informative in the context of the Muhammed article.
 * 3) Whether or not WP:Profanity should be applied according to the common meanings of the words in its text, or whether the guideline should be interpretted in accordance with some concepts which are not articulated in the guideline, and if so, what those concepts are.

Unresolved issues with regard to whether the Maomé image might be considered offensive to Wikipedia readers
With regard to whether or not the Maomé image might be considered offensive (to a large number of) other Wikipedia readers, it has been argued that some standard of objective and subjective offensiveness needs to be used. What that standard might be has not been clarified, or that is the opinion of some editors.
 * How about what might be considered offensive in a free Western country? Like the one where Wikipedia was made?


 * Offensive can include lots of other things. If image of woman without veil in article where doesnt extra super NEED to be there you can say censor on VERY SAME reason: some readers say offensive. Muslim also find Jesus pic offensive right? Same thing dont REALLY know what he look like so take it out. What about other religion and what THEY find offensive? Why are they quiet BECAUSE have RESPECT for people who dont agree.


 * Not-Muslims find pic removing offensive AND it doesnt make article more informing, SO you have NO right to say your concern about offending. You dont care what they think at all!Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Unresolved issues with regard to whether the Maomé image is informative in the context of the Muhammad article
With regard to whether the Maomé image is informative in the context of the Muhammad article, the following issues have not been resolved.
 * 1) Whether the Muhammad article is only tangentially related to Islam as it developed after Muhammad's death.
 * Yup should be about Muhammad NOT Islam. Muhammad preaching is on-topic, pix not allowed in Islam off-topic. You wanna say article about Islam SO must be Islam article. NO. This article must be NEUTRAL point of view. Neutral mean pix dont bother you. Only Islam says pix bother us. Neutral says IGNORE that taboo.Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Whether the Maomé image verifiably depicts any known event in the life of Muhammad
 * What about FAKE PIX of Sword and Letter? AND do photos of Lewis and Esposito 'depict any known event in the life of Muhammad?' WHY do you say nothing?


 * 1) Whether the Maomé image is typical or atypical of representations of Muhammad created or owned by Muslims.
 * Doesnt matter! This article not 'OWNED BY MUSLIMS'!Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Whether Maomé image is informative about anything other than Islam as it developed after the death of Muhammad, Islamic art, Persian art, or similar topics which may be related to Muhammad, but which should be covered only tangentially in the Muhammad article.

Unresolved issues with regard to whether WP:Profanity should be applied according to the common meanings of the phrases its text
With regard to whether WP:Profanity should be applied according to the common meanings of the phrases in its text, or whether the guideline should be interpretted in accordance with some concepts which are not articulated in the guideline,
 * 1) There is lack of clarity regarding what these concepts are according to which the guideline ought to be interpretted.

What is agreed

 * 1) Wikipedia is not censored
 * 2) The Maomé image is notable it is appropriate to Wikipedia's mission to include that image on Wikipedia
 * 3) Images of Muhammad are not in general proscribed on the Muhammad page by WP:Profanity, but would only be proscribed if at least one of two conditions were met, 1) they are not informative in the context of that article, or 2) equally suitable alternatives are available.  Agreement on this point does not imply agreement that one of these two conditions is sufficient to make an WP:Profanity applicable, but that at least one of these conditions is necessary for WP:Profanity to be applicable.
 * 4) Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to be informative to be appropriate for Wikipedia articles.
 * 5) Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not require that images in general need to reference a particular known event to be appropriate in Wikipedia biographical articles
 * 6) Images in general do not need to reference a particular known event to be informative within a given context.
 * 7) Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be appropriate for Wikipedia.
 * 8) Images in general do not need to be accurate likenesses of the persons they may represent to be informative.

Unhelpful comment removed. HighInBC 19:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My Questions
I have asked these questions before, and have been attacked as disengenuous for asking them, but they are honest questions and I want them answered. We know so very little about this image, it does seem important, but its done on a large minbar, which would appear to make it late-ish, but that would rule out Abu Talib from being present, but maybe that was artistic license.
 * 1) What is the image showing?
 * 2) what is the image of?
 * 3) When was this set? Is this Muhammad in Makkah, or Madinah, or back in Makkah?
 * 4) Who are those in the Image, they are obviously significant, they have Halos.
 * 5) Why are they gathered round?
 * 6) Why are some wearing persian-like Shia caps?
 * 7) Who is the woman? Is that Hafsa, Fatima or Khadija towards the top - Its important to know, it gives us a period in time.
 * 8) Is there a copy of the image in context, that is atop of the text that accompanies it, as that would explain what we are seeing.

When I asked these honest questions previous Briangotts replied "That's ludicrous. Your standards would eliminate virtually every image on Wikipedia. You are clearly searching for excuses to remove an image you find personally offensive." - Which firstly proves he Knows that people find the image offensive, secondly that he does not know much about the image (And thus, as an illistrative guide fails to portray its context), he wants to see people offended, which is not the way Wikipedia should work. There is another image of Muhammad in the article, and I know exactly what is happening there. It is Muhammad replacing the black stone into the Kabaa, I know roughly when this happened because of the text in the article, and I know the general story because of this. I know nothing at all about this image. Can anyone answer these questions? --Irishpunktom\talk 09:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Debate over issues

 * Its omission does NOT cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, because it is a false image. --Islamic 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not start with the FAKE pics of Muhammad letter and sword?Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can proove that these are FAKE pics, then delete them. There is no point to keep FAKE pics. --Islamic 14:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to whether or not the Maomé image might be considered offensive (to a large number of) other Wikipedia readers, it has been argued that some standard of objective and subjective offensiveness needs to be used. What that standard might be has not been clarified, or that is the opinion of some editors.
 * whether the Maomé image might be considered offensive to Wikipedia readers
 * How about what might be considered offensive in a free Western country? Like the one where Wikipedia was made?


 * Offensive can include lots of other things. If image of woman without veil in article where doesnt extra super NEED to be there you can say censor on VERY SAME reason: some readers say offensive. Muslim also find Jesus pic offensive right? Same thing dont REALLY know what he look like so take it out. What about other religion and what THEY find offensive? Why are they quiet BECAUSE have RESPECT for people who dont agree.


 * Not-Muslims find pic removing offensive AND it doesnt make article more informing, SO you have NO right to say your concern about offending. You dont care what they think at all!Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether the Muhammad article is only tangentially related to Islam as it developed after Muhammad's death.
 * Yup should be about Muhammad NOT Islam. Muhammad preaching is on-topic, pix not allowed in Islam off-topic. You wanna say article about Islam SO must be Islam article. NO. This article must be NEUTRAL point of view. Neutral mean pix dont bother you. Only Islam says pix bother us. Neutral says IGNORE that taboo.Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether the Maomé image verifiably depicts any known event in the life of Muhammad
 * What about FAKE PIX of Sword and Letter? AND do photos of Lewis and Esposito 'depict any known event in the life of Muhammad?' WHY do you say nothing?


 * Whether the Maomé image is typical or atypical of representations of Muhammad created or owned by Muslims.
 * Doesnt matter! This article not 'OWNED BY MUSLIMS'!Opiner 04:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether Maomé image is informative about anything other than Islam as it developed after the death of Muhammad, Islamic art, Persian art, or similar topics which may be related to Muhammad, but which should be covered only tangentially in the Muhammad article.

I'm ambivalent on this particular issue. On one hand, the content doesn't convey direct information on Muhammad and is therefore not essential to the article. Consensus matters, and clearly there isn't consensus on including this image, and so it should be out. On the other hand, I'm strongly offended by the view of some Muslim editors here that Wikipedia should in any way adjust its presentation to be "Islamic". While Islamic law may prohibit Muslims from depicting Muhammad, non-Muslims shouldn't be pressed to follow Islamic customs. Naturality in the spirit of civility, even non-Muslims shouldn't engage in presenting works or content that denegrate Muslims or Islamic customs. This image however does not seem to be intended to denegrate Muhammad or Islam in any way, and therefore it's unreasonable for Muslims here to be so agitated by such images. The image shouldn't be included, in the end, since there isn't consensus. I'm not happy with the idea of giving into fundementalist muslim mentality though. ImKidding 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No Muslim that I have seen wants all the images of Muhammad removed from the Wikipedia. There is an article linked prominently at the top of this one that deals with depictions of Muhammad. There are many images of Muhammad there, and no-one wants to blank those. The image that keeps on getting reverted though is constantly reverted for no other reason than it causes offense. It tells us nothing about nothing. Can you, or anyone, using a source, tell me why they know that that is Muhammad preaching, and not Muhammad in audience? Muslims have a no-image policy in respect of all their Prophets, if there was some "fundementalist muslim mentality", as you so charmingly put it, there would be Muslims removing images of Jesus, Moses, Adam, etc, from thier respective articles.  There is not, and the respect that Muslims show for the art by Non-Muslims in respect of Prophets Muslims call thiers, is not repeated. Aniconism is the primary Muslim tradition concerning Prophets, and in particular Muhammad, the seal of the Prophets.  There is a fundementalism at work here, but it is an Anti-Islamic one. Forcing and bullying an image into an article knowing it causes offense is surely not the way to build an encyclopedia that we can all value and share. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree here. There is little rhyme or reason to these recent Muslim outrages over this or that image. Why are people campaigning against the "preaching" image, but the "Miraj" one was left alone over many months? Muslim editors know that they wouldn't stand a chance trying to remove all images of Jesus, Abraham and what not from Wikipedia. So they compensate by attacking some single image chosen more or less at random. They are really saying "we want to hear you respect us. be politically correct. say you go out of your way to respect our religious sensitivities", and these requests are placed wherever there is a chance people will submit to them out of political correctness or cultural relativism or whatever. Come on, it is obvious that it would be WP:POINT to put the Muhammad cartoons on the Muhammad article. It is just as obvious that this perpetual bitching about Persian art depicting Muhammad has a similar motivation of WP:POINT, not of improving Wikipedia. All has been said about this. Wikipedia policy is perfectly clear. There may be editorial reasons to keep or discard this image, but there certainly aren't political or religious ones. dab (&#5839;) 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Dab, thank you, exactly.Opiner 08:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know whats in the image? Can you tell me, using a source, that Muhammad is the main figure in the piece, and not a member of the audience? Thsi image tells us nothing, not one thing, it serves no purpose, except to offend. YOu admit that the image causes offense, how would the article benefit if the image was added.  What does it show us? Also, your conspiracy theories are nice, but invalid. Stop assuming bad faith and maybe we can come to a compromise here. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * i think these are some very valid points. why is there such a strong drive to include an image about which so little is known? who is who in the picture, what exactly is happening (if it is "preaching", what evidence is there for that?), at what time in the sira? who are the people sitting there, what is being said to them? these are all important questions which deserve answers especially for those readers who we are apparently informing. the relevant image page gives no sourced contextual details at all. if we know almost nothing about this image, exactly what encyclopaedic, contextual value does it provide?  ITAQALLAH   12:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It does NOT provide any encyclopaedic contextual value to the article. --Truthpedia 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

On the meaning of maome.jpg
According to the image description page, it is a Persian manuscript prohibiting the intercalation of the calendar. We know that Muhammad is there, we know what the topic is, and we know it refers to one of two very similar and probably indistinguishable events. There really isn't any reason to keep claiming that we don't know what's happening in the picture. Captainktainer * Talk 16:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The user who added the image did not add the description ("prohibiting the intercalation of the calendar"), another user did. The user who added the description has been to explain where he got the information from. Captainktainer informs us that he got it from the BNF Archive but thats too shoddy. did he get it online, did he go in and see it? Its too weak, it relies on SteveMcCluskey as being a source, and that violates WP:NOR and would amke it grounds for removal.  If SteveMcCluskey has a link to where he got this info from, or a book name, or anything, I would like to see it. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in this diff, which I helpfully linked for you here, just type in Arabe 1489 into Mandragore. Type "Arabe 1489" between "Cote" and "Index" under "Manuscrits", then press Enter. There, you'll get a page with information about date of publication, etc. Press "Legendes", then click "fol. 5v." That then brings up the legend, as well as a series of descriptors for the vision-impaired and for those looking for additional images with common properties. And we know that it's Arabe 1489 fol. 5v because the Bibliotheque Nationale de France identifies it as such. I did this yesterday in I swear no more than two minutes, using the links provided. We don't need SteveMcCluskey as a source because the information is right there at our fingertips. Captainktainer * Talk 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fake pic, maybe you mean Muhammad sword uploading from the Street Scholar! If real or fake was your concern thats where youd start and WHY whould you also censor the other one?Opiner 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a sword of Muhammad in the Topkapi museum. Your lack of belief of its credibility aside, it is still called Muhammads sword, and is still linked to this Muhammad. If you want to discuss this in detail bring it up in its own regard, its a seperate issue. I am not doubting that the image is real. It is clearly real.  Its clearly a real persian image.  However, thats all we know.  We know Muhammad is in the image, and presume that thats him to the front, but we can not be certain.  We have no idea who is in the image.  We have no idea why so many haloed people are gathered together. We have no idea when the image is set. We know precious little about the image.  All that is known is that its one of Al Birunis, and that it is offensive.  Knowing that it is offensive seems to be the driving reason for the inclusionists, and that is simply not the way Wikipedia should work.  Further, you are certainly not assuming good faith, and that is leading you to draw conspiracy theories.  I am discussing this honestly with you, please do likewise. --Irishpunktom\talk 19:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly then WHY it offensive? Is there any reason can make sense besides one religion? For most people and Im sure also for maker of these pictures you make the picture becuase you honor and are interested in the person. If someone come and rip it down you usually say that THATS offensive. Here its the opposite and I cant understand why except for halal reason. Honestly then my reason is I think wikipedia should not be subjected to halal litmus test. Ever. One side say were not gonna let wikipedia insult the muslims by ignoring halal another say were not going to let the muslims censor us. Everyone elses arguments HONESTLY I dont believe are real reasons just lawyers mkaking sometimes good points but that isnt why theyre making them. Now tom harrison took them down and what was his reason? Form reading what he say it look like he just thought it was more trouble than its worth so might as well give in. BUT I think it will just make people say hey this works just keep showing up and doing the same thing until they giving in.Opiner 19:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Opiner, that you don't find it offensive is irrelevent. Can you at least admit, in the face of so much edit warring, that some people do find the image offensive ? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * DIdnt say they didnt but asked you WHY it offensive. I think answer is theres nothing offensive about it EXCEPT it violate perception of Islamic law. I admit some people do find it offensive can you now at least admit that this is why?Opiner 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the image is offensive in this context, not because it violates Islamic law, but because the intent of placing the image in this context appears to be to provoke a reaction.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I cant know intent of editors who found images but my intent only to stop censorship. Provoke a reaction mean wanting complaining and edit warring BUT I wish what you call a 'reaction' would just go away. If thats really your motivve you can win just by not reacting! Its a great example of argument which is not seeming honest. You wont take responsibility for own behavior instead project/displace it to someone else trying to get reaction from you!Opiner 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What behavior would you like me to take responsibility for? What do you think about what I said does not seem honest to you?  You asked why the image is offensive.  I do not believe the "why" question bears upon Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Most editors, including myself, are not professional psychologists or sociologists, and the answers we give to this why question are, so to speak, the opinions of amateurs.  However, since you asked the question, I felt it fair to give you an my answer, even if I don't think this is the right approach for dealing with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The images are not being censored. There is an entire article where many images of Muhammad are placed and can be discussed and even more added! What other intention could there be of adding an image of which you know very, very, little than to bully and force an image you readily admit causes offense? The image is not representative of the majority of Muslim art, does not fit the description of Muhammad in the Surah (altough, we do not even know that that is Muhammad at the top, though I presume it is), does not have any context or understanding to any aspect of the sirah, the history of Muhammads life. It tells us nothing. Why do you want it so much, if not solely to offend. Sell it to me! Why this image? Whats so important about this image? --Irishpunktom\talk 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

the intent of placing the image in this context appears to be to provoke a reaction - disagree. I propose a compromise. Can we have a nice big fat link at the top saying "depictions of Mohammed" so that any Muslims don't have to look at the image, but it can still be useful to those who want to see it? Granted, it's not precedent (the always mentioned example is penis), but for heaven's sake, sometimes compromise is better. I'm coming to think that this will be the most informative and least offensive way of doing it; perhaps we should just be practical and look at this possibility, rather than getting up in arms on both sides and saying "but it's the principle!" Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've agreed to that before, and signal my approval here again. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also reiterate my willingness to agree to this proposal. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How do we know thye wont start warring over the link until we are tired out? Or move it down the page so no one can see it? If not these two editors then some others?
 * An image of Muhammad was present on the Muhammad page for a year, and there was little or no warring. Similarly, there is a page Depictions of Muhammad which has little or no warring.  Of course future editors are not bound by a consensus reached at this time, just as the editors who began adding new images to the Muhammad article did not feel bound by the consensus reached a year ago.  That is the nature of Wikipedia.  You can only arive at a consensus with the editors who happen to be present.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  22:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * REAL compromise would be agree to number of Muhammad images not zero THEN agree to revert anyone try to add more of them OR to take them away.Opiner 21:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If consensus can be reached regarding having one or more images on the Muhammad page, then I am willing to enforce that consensus against any editor who agreed to that consensus and violates it, and against any editor who is involved in the current edit war, and who has the opportunity to participate in this discussion but fails to avail themself of that opportunity.
 * There appeared to be a consensus on an image of Muhammad from August of last year, until August of this year. Having that image, and reverting all deletions or additions of new images would be an acceptable compromise to me, if it is acceptable to the other parties.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  22:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly reject that compromise. When available, biographical articles should have illustrations, images, and/or depictions of their subjects, to create a rich multimedia environment. Depictions of Mohammed are not in and of themselves offensive or likely to cause shock and disturbance to the majority of the world; it is only a fraction of the population who have any possibility of being shocked thereby, and the encyclopedic interest of creating a rich multimedia environment that reflects the subject of a biographical article far outweighs the interest of protecting those who read the content disclaimer and choose to ignore it. Captainktainer * Talk 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Captainktainer, could you clarify whether you think we ought to abide by WP:Profanity? --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it even applies in this case. While written very broadly, the guideline as related to images was written with shock pictures and pictures of bodily functions in mind, as well as blood and gore. I'm basing this, by the way, on my reading of the Meta page, as well as the talk page of WP:Profanity. I agree that simply placing an image in an article for the purpose of offending someone is a breach of decorum, but that isn't the issue here. We have an image about which we actually know quite a lot (illustrator, date of illustration, place in which illustration was made, topic, main subject, and one of two particular dates in time that it refers to) and which helps visualize the subject as portrayed by people with profound respect and reverence for him. It enhances the article, aesthetically as well as pedagogically. That's not profanity, and it hardly falls into the same category as a picture of a penis. Captainktainer * Talk 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Captainktainer. Thank you for your response.  One question we can ask is whether the profanity guideline dictates that the maome image should not be present in the Muhammad article, or whether it does not so dictate.  A separate question is whether we ought to abide by the profanity guideline and follow its dictates (if it dictates anything in this case).  For the moment, I am most interested in your position on the latter question.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  02:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to know if BostonMA willing to actively meaning with talking and reverting apply the standard youre supporting here in other articles? Since depicting of other propeht EQUALLY offensive to Islam I think and since muslim editors can read those too. Plus we dont know what any of them look like so by your logic theyre not informative. To apply differnt standard suggesting of WP:OWN because its saying some articles must follow halal they are owned by the Muslims and follow the halal but other articles not owned so dont have to. Same question with the unveiled woman on articles not having to do with rrleigion. Or only article about the related to Islam things have to follow the Islamic law?Opiner 02:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Opiner. Please forgive my English skills.  I am not sure what you are saying.  I will respond to those parts I think I understand, but please try to clarify what I missed.  Works of art, such as the maome image, are notable for a variety of reasons, and I think it belongs in Wikipedia, but such images I think belong on the Muhammad page only if they make the article more informative.  I am not saying that there should be different standards for different articles.  I think the same standards apply to all articles.  Muslims do not own the Muhammad article any more than non-Muslims do.  We should be guided by editorial policy and guidelines, and not by the religion of editors.  With regard to images of unveiled women, typically they make an article more informative.  For example if the article is about a woman, then an unveiled picture of that woman informs us of the appearance of that person.  --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Being clearer. Other prophet articles have images equally informative or not. They inform us how they are depicted but not what they really look like because we dont know. Okay. Second point depiction of other prophet also euqally haram. SO why would Muhammad article be ddiffernt than David article? Only reason I can think is that muslim editor claim ownership over Muhammad (Actually real reason is they dont hang around at David article but thats even more arbitrary and shows how NOT based in policy is this image removal.) Final point what counts as 'informative' is very debatable. We can agree i think that the pics are at least A LITTLE informing because they show themselves how Muhammad been depicted. But you can say not informative ENOUGH to justify the offense to the muslims. Cant same logic be used on pictures of unveiled women where theyre not demonstrably ESSENTIAL to the article? We always can ask well does that REALLY need to be there? Broader question is should Islamic law standards of what is offensive count on wikipedia or in west generally? Im saying no whats offensive should be viewed by western standards which Im sure is what writers of this GUIDELINE had in mind.Opiner 03:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Opiner, thank you for your clarification.
 * I think it is speculation that readers find images of David offensive. I am not aware of any complaints in that regard.  The reason why individuals may or may not find a given image offensive, is a question for psychologists, sociologists and political scientists to investigate.  In my mind, the fact that objection has been raised to certain images of Muhammad, but not of David, is evidence that the link between an image being perceived as offensive and Islamic law is not as straightforward as might be imagined.
 * I think there is a very simple way to test whether an image is informative in a given context. Try to describe in words exactly what the image informs us that is relevant to the article in which it appears.
 * I agree that the images are much more than a little informative. As you point out, one of the ways in which they are informative is that they illustrate how Muhammad has been depicted.  However, the article is primarily about the man Muhammad, and only tangentially about those who followed Muhammad several hundred years after his death.
 * Wikipedia should not follow Islamic standards for its content. It should follow its own standards for content.  One of those standards is expressed in the guideline that says that images which might be considred offensive by readers should be included only if they are informative. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk  03:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its just because the censorship editors dont hang around David article much AND because people havent been told recently by the news that depiction of David is insult to the muslim. First point show its about a handful of WIkipedia EDITORS not readers. We dont really know what reader think just assumption but the GUIDELINE referring to readers not editors. Second point suggest offense might be more political than visceral revulsion. Unlike the Muhammad cartoon its really not like the piss christ at all. portrait of Muhammad on supreme court of America for example for a very long time no riots at all. But if in the news and everyone make a big deal then people get offended as self-fulfilling, er, prophecy. Similarly news make the non-muslim more aware of the censorship demandings. Either way that handful of editor complain isnt credible sample of what average READER will find offensive.
 * Agree. They show how Muhammad has been depicted purporting to illustrate events of his life like the lifting of the black stone idol into the Kaaba and him preaching the Islam.Opiner 06:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the questions I ask ever seem to get answered. There is a tradition of Aniconism in Islam. This is surely agreed? Now, images of Prophets in Islam are generally considered offensive to Muslims, this is agreed. Amoung a minority of Muslims, this is not the case, and reflecting this tradition we currently have an image of Muhammad replacing the Black stone int he Kabaa.  Reflecting the majorities traditions we have also included calligraphy, in an Arabic style. Now, knowing that the images of Muhammad are offensive, we should require a reason for their inclusion other than its a biography.  Images of other Prophets in Islam are deemed offensive, but not so in other religious traditions, and as such Muslims have not attempted their removal. Muslims are respecting other traditions, is it that hard to do likewise? The images included should reflect firstly an artistic traditon, and secondly a historical context to the biography of the article it is being included on. Now, knowing that images of Muhammad are offensive to Muslims, we could approach in a NPOV way, and include one image of Muhammad (As is the case at present), but this must have some context, and must be adaquetly sourced. Zombietime will simply not do. A more Neutral way of approaching it would be to indicate in bold, or with some degree of emphasis at the top of the article that there is an entire article devoted to Depictions of Muhammad which can explain in more detail the reasons behind this, while the biography article can.. you know, get on with being a biography. Alternatively, you can approach from the Anti-Islamic perspective I've seen advocated here, and bombard the article with multiple images, revelling in the offense it causes.  Or the Sharia approach, and remove all images of all Prophets. I prefer NPOV. --Irishpunktom\talk 15:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree BUT I was saying this for a long time. Trying to say article should be ABOUT Muhammad NOT anbout today Muslims and Bahais. Everything reverted by editors saying should be about the Muslims. Look at second paragraph talk about what people TODAY think about Muhammad! So not tangential at all. To me this is more important than the pics SO I would agree to drop the pics if we can fix this so I ask when you wriiting 'However, the article is primarily about the man Muhammad, and only tangentially about those who followed Muhammad several hundred years after his death' if you really mean that. if yes then please help me move what people think of Muhammad to the sections on the views. Otherhwise it seem maybe you dont really mean that except as the attorney argument for removing pics alone.
 * This is specious to say wikipedia not follow the Islamic law but only its own standard when GUIDELINE say if potentially offensive. But ONLY way it could be offensive is by the Islamic law! So my question which nobody answer is there any way EXCEPT the Islamic law where we can say its offensive? If no then you cant creidbly saying we wont be following Islamic law. We will be doing that but dishonestly.Opiner 06:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I don't think it really applies in this case; I don't think it dictates anything in particular for material that isn't verbal profanity or images of blood, gore, nudity, and bodily functions. Even if we read it based on face-value meaning (in a strict constructionist view, for instance) rather than intent (in a loose constructionist view), and if a literal reading of the guideline were to apply here, I really think the much stricter subsection of WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT, is the better standard to apply, particularly because the latter is policy and should take precedence over a "mere" guideline. Captainktainer * Talk 03:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. First it a guideline unlike the WP:NOT which is being the POLICY. Second its written by westerners meaning western understanding of 'profanity' NOT including idolatry or blasphemy! Can frame it this way, should idolatry and blasphemy which can be offensive to some religion be held to stricter standards of informativeness and on-topicness in a manner having the analogy to obscenity or pornography?Opiner 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your association of ethnicity to the authors of the guideline belies a sinister motivation for your actions. Now, I am a "westerner", and I understand the meaning of the word profanity! Now, tell me, what inforamtion about the biography of Muhammad do you you learn or gather from this particular image? --Irishpunktom\talk 10:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Your association of ethnicity to the authors of the guideline belies a sinister motivation for your actions.' What? Look we both know wikipedia come from western country. And we both know encyclopedia come from western country. AND we know what we ususally call the academic scholarship come from the western country. This is true OR you are goingf to say it belie the 'sinister motivation for my actions?' Me Im only only asking dont pretend you dont know what I'm saying just to be scoring the political correctness points! ONCE you said lets discuss things honestly and now Im wondering. Dont make dumb issue where Im trying to talk to you about something real. Question is EXACTLY how the Islam standard to be or not into the western censorship paradigm. West and Wikipedia is obviously censored whatever people say. Question is whether Islam ideas are added in the censorship paradigm with the slavery the holocaust and everything else you cant talk about with freedom of normal subjects. Not saying there cant be or arent good reasons for the censorship as there are in those cases BUT I want to see an honest case which ADMIT to the new censorship and tell me why.Opiner 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Get this, ethnicity, gender, race, etc, are irrelvent. The geograhic location of the wikipedia servers should have absolutely no bearing on the content of the encyclopedia! Now, answer the question, what inforamtion about the biography of Muhammad do you you learn or gather from this particular image? - Irishpunktom\talk 12:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As mentioned previously, a whole bunch. Captainktainer * Talk 19:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Get this, religion irrelevant. The religious beliefs of wikipedia editors should have absolutely no bearing on the content of the encyclopedia! Opiner 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly! --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Does WP:Profanity conflict with WP:Not?
At least one editor has argued that the use of the Maome image should be guided by WP:Not rather than WP:Profanity. This raises the question of whether the Profanity guideline conflicts with the NOT policy. WP:Not states:
 * "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider bjectionable or offensive...Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content" (emphasis added)

WP:Profanity on the other hand states:
 * "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

While the wording of these two rules is different, I believe that their intent is actuall the same, i.e. I personally, believe that the standard of being informative with respect to a given article, provides an exceedingly low barrier to the inclusion of images in Wikipedia articles, easily satisfied in almost all cases. So although the language in the Profanity guideline is very slightly more restrictive, I cannot see the differences between the rules as being so great as to justify non-application of the WP:Profanity guideline on the grounds that it conflicts with the NOT rule. --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 17:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia must include material that is offensive to some, and
 * Wikipedia should not gratuitously include offensive material, but should include it only where appropriate. The NOT rule says that appropriate use requires the material to be relevant to the content of an article.  The Profanity rule says the content should be informative.

Should WP:Profanity be accepted according to its face value meaning?
It has been argued that WP:Profanity should not be accepted at its face value meaning. An editor has described this as a "strict constructionist" to which has been opposed a "loose constructionist" view. It is argued that the intent of the Profanity guideline does not correspond to the plain meaning. It is argued that the guideline should not apply to offensiveness of all kinds, but only to "verbal profanity or images of blood, gore, nudity, and bodily functions."

Wiktionary defines Profanity as Wiktionary further defines Profane as I would thus argue that if we look past the plain language of the guideline itself to the name of the guideline, the name clearly suggests that the guideline applies to a broader range of offensive things than just "verbal profanity or images of blood, gore, nudity, and bodily functions." --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) the quality of being profane
 * 2) obscene, lewd or abusive language
 * 1) Not sacred or holy; not possessing peculiar sanctity; unconsecrated; hence, relating to matters other than sacred; secular; -- opposed to sacred, religious, or inspired; as, a profane place.
 * 2) Unclean; impure; polluted; unholy.
 * 3) Treating sacred things with contempt, disrespect, irreverence, or undue familiarity; irreverent; impious.  Hence, specifically; Irreverent in language; taking the name of God in vain; given to swearing; blasphemous; as, a profane person, word, oath, or tongue.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines were not drawn up hundreds of years ago, but recently. They undergo modification on an ongoing basis. The laws of variousl lands, on the other hand, have often been drawn up in previous eras, which may make the language in those laws anachronistic.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are written to be understood by average Wikipedia editors and not trained professional lawyers. Thus the language in these policies and guidelines should be written so that they do not require special interpretation. If special interpretation is necessary for proper application of a policy or guideline, then the policy or guideline should be re-written in such a way that its face value meaning corresponds to what is intended.

Mediator
has graciously agreed to take our case. There are a number of editors who have expressed concerns regarding mediation, and I strongly recommend that you discuss your concerns with. It is my hope that all parties who have been either adding or deleting the Maome image will accept as a mediator. Sincerely, --BostonMA <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)