Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 4

''The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Question 3 | Question 4 | Question 5 ->

Question 4: Narrative Images
(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

Yes (for the following reasons):

 * The current number (though not necessarily the particular images) are about right. We normally illustrate a long biography with the most appropriate historical images of incidents in the life, where these exist, and there is no reason to do anything different here. The images are designed to illustrate biographies, and do this well. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is how we normally do things, so long as the images are historically and/or artistically significant, which I understand to be the case here. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They should be allowed but not required. As long as it's below the fold and there's a hatnote to warn or hide these images, there's no need to legislate here. -- Ja Ga  talk 03:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia may. The suitability of each image for the purpose remains up to the people writing the article. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Wikipedia should not refrain from using any means to educate its readers allowed by US law. If we start making concessions to individual groups, we'll have cases like this all over the place.  Good raise  05:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:NOTCENSORED. Note: This answer is contingent upon implementing at least one of the hatnotes, so unwary readers can avoid images.  If we actually force every non-tech-saavy reader to view all images, I'm less certain we'd have the moral highground. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per Johnbod. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes as per Johnbod. (Further thoughts here ) Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC) (In other words, this is relevant image use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Support per the standard procedure in any other non-stub article about a subject. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support The images add a lot to historical understanding, for instance the Dante.  Neotarf (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — It is up to the authors to decide which pictures are chosen and where.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, these images exist and are encyclopaedically relevant so there is no justification to prohibit their use. Thryduulf (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod and Thryduulf. The images are interesting and encyclopedic, so use them.  --CapitalR (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. A good article absolutely must have appropriate images, and images illustrating the subject's life are definitely appropriate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:36 (UTC)
 * Obviously. The best images available happen to be narrative in quality. The alternative would seem to be that we should include depictions of Muhammad but avoid the best ones, which just seems daft. It's not as if narrative images are somehow more offensive to Muslims - in fact, the reverse is probably true. FormerIP (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - There is no rational reason why appropriate images should be disallowed from use in appropriate locations. &mdash;SW&mdash; squeal 15:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Johnbod sums it up well. Alexius  Horatius  15:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support—As FormerIP, these are not only valuable but less contentious than figurative depictions. GRAPPLE   X  16:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional support - provided that the images serve an encyclopedic purpose (i.e. "interesting" images do not merit inclusion just for being interesting). Sleddog116 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support—but only where really necessary. I think some interesting points are raised below in the "No" section and these should be taken into account by the editors as they make decisions about what or what not to include. I would support a decision by the editors to use fewer or no images if they found any of those ideas persuasive.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The perfect example is the image of the Black Stone. Several months ago, the image was in the article with virtually no context, so there was a proposal to remove it.  Editors instead provided context for inclusion, so the image was retained.  That is ultimately why we're here; either we're going to reassert that normal editing procedures are what will be used in this article (just like every other article in the project) or if we're going to make editors jump through quotas, ratios, hatnotes and "no pics til the 3rd screen" hoops. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Thryduulf. I don't think the argument that they serve no encyclopedic purpose is valid. If they do not manage to add anything to the reader's understanding of the depicted event, it at least provides contemporary depictions of said event, allowing readers to learn how previous artists handled those events. Regards  So Why  13:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Tarc. cmadler (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per most comments, especially Tarc. This article is one of many. It is not special, except in being the target of pressure groups. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 02:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support especially in relationship to historical pieces of art which have cultural/historic value. Again a balancing act should be struck not to over do it, but yeah, this is exactly where images could be appropriate.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per Johnbod. The images used at present are from illuminated manuscripts of high quality and were created to make reference to the life of Muhammad and associated mystical narratives. Mathsci (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment this is standard practice and I am not convinced that the reasons given are enough to overturn that (after all WP:NOTCENSORED). On the other hand, Elonka does make a good point below that depictions of Muhammad are less common and less iconic than most comparable historical figures.  Wikipedia is a worldwide encyclopedia, and to my mind it depends on whether the convention that "A good article absolutely must have appropriate images" is a universal norm based on humans being visual creatures or a cultural expectation of a Western encyclopedia and therefore a standard that should be applied with care.  I suspect the former but think that NOTCENSORED is a poor reason to rule out the latter.  Eluchil404 (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Ruslik_ Zero 16:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems reasonable and encyclopedic to me, and views here will likely illuminate the previous question. Geometry guy 23:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, There is a long tradition of creating these illustratory images. They are part of the history of Islam.  I support there use. Amandajm (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, as with all other articles. Reality is depictions are part of the history of Islam, as per above. Superp (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Yes, that would be standard WP practice, and I see no compelling reason to abandon that here. Anaxial (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Standard practice. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Images are used to increase the readability and enjoyability of this encyclopedia. Visual illustration of events is especially helpful and is used throughout other biographical articles. No reason why to deviate here. JHS nl (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Any image that improves the usefulness of the article should be placed where it works best. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - because Wikipedia is not an Islamic proselytising website that has to conform to the rules and regulations of Islam. Moreover, it is an encyclopaedia whose job is to relay/transmit information with as much impartiality and intactness as possible (if needed, with vivid and descriptive images) sans prejudicial censorship or distortion. In an encyclopaedia, sensitivity of the reader doesn't actually matter. What matters is verifiability. Wikipedia is not censored. Thank you. :) Brendon is   here  12:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Where the picture accurately depicts the events described in that section, it should be included, yes. I see no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't do this, as this is the normal process for every other article on Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 19:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Standard Wikipedia practice.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod (per standard bio). Student7 (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The use of posthumous and historically inaccurate illustrations to depict the life of a historical figure is commonplace among kings like Harold Harefoot (the lead image there is an engraving dating to centuries later). In the absence of authentic illustrations, they are far better than nothing, giving both a visual interpretation of the events (reinforcing the textual account) and showing how at least one later culture interpreted those events. Dcoetzee 04:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per Johnbod, it is similar to other long biographies. 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod, Dcoetzee et al. There is no compelling reason to censor ourselves. OSbornarfcontribs. 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: wikipedia is not censored, especially not for such a superstition. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as judgement on what images should be used should not be based on sensitivities, given that this occurs in many other articles. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support As per Johnbod. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, though I highly recommend using the hatnote option 1b or 1a in conjunction with this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be allowed. No, they should not be mandated.  This is a matter for editorial judgement of the article's authors.  Use the hat note to respect religious opinions and allow leave the actual choice of images up to those who know the article best. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - no reason to treat this article any differently than we treat any other medieval figure. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support - the Wikipedia uses the highest quality depiction of an individual available. I don't believe that a group should have the right to censor a particular depiction. Using the highest quality depiction available provides information to those seeking it, without obfuscation (a veil, a symbol, a location). If Muhammad was a person, and was represented in the art of the time, that art should be used. I also believe that where multiple versions are available, particularly where a photograph is not available, I believe the diversity of these should be made available, so that the reader can come to their own conclusions regarding the original subject. Amarand (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per . This article should not receive special treatment; this is how similar articles are handled AFAIK. OSbornarfcontribs. 23:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg Support per Jonabod. This article should be the same as any other. While consistency is not something we should push for too much, to deliberately create an inconsistency just because there are external protests goes against the spirit of general editorial practice.--New questions? 23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, Wikipedia "may", otherwise we are imposing a little bit of Islamic belief and law onto every editor and every future editor of this one article, which is unreasonable. Equally no one should pretend that these are news photographs of the actual event! If there is an interesting copyright-free image that represents something in the text, we are under no obligation to ask any religious leader for extra permission to use it in some articles and not in others. --Nigelj (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Johnbod. - Ankimai (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No (for the following reasons):

 * No, they are not needed. There are very few images of this type, and they are not really representative of the topic, so might give a misleading impression that these are "iconic" images and common in Islam, when in actuality such images are quite rare. For example, in the 14th century Mongol Ilkhanate, some images of Muhammad were created for history texts such as the Jami al-tawarikh. But the artists were kind of making it up as they went along. They were centuries past Muhammad's lifetime, so would do things like taking common images in Christian iconography, such as the birth of Jesus, and then in the "History of Islam" section of their world history, swap out the characters to try and show an image representing the birth of Muhammad, in the same format as a "birth of Jesus" image. The Mongols were relatively new to Islam at the time (their leader Ghazan had just converted in 1295), and their history books were trying to portray all of human history, not just that of Islam. We shouldn't take images of Muhammad from those history texts as representative of Islam, because they weren't. --Elonka 00:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they add nothing to the readers' understanding of the events described (in fact the image of the black stone tradition that currently illustrates Muhammad contradicts Ali's contemporary description of Muhammad). They may be attractive to non-Muslims but they are repulsive to many of our Muslim readers, and since they serve no real educational purpose, they should go. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer to show images in the Depictions section, as well as the dedicated Depictions of Muhammad subarticle. These images lack broad cultural significance. The art we show in the article on Jesus has broad cultural significance for Christians; likewise the art we show in the Muhammad article should be art that has comparably broad cultural significance. Doing otherwise obscures cultural differences that are encyclopedically relevant and must be represented for the reader to obtain a correct understanding of how Muhammad is received. -- J N  466  19:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, unless the images contain educational value that cannot be suitably provided by the accompanying text. In situations where the educational value of the image can be replaced by less controversial means, those less controversial means should be adopted. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  01:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as the images are controversial, we shouldn't use them to illustrate the events. That said, I wouldn't oppose narrative images used to illustrate the historical style of Muhammed's depiction (that is: narrative images used as figurative would be used). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposing using images related to depiction per my rationale to support calligraphy. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they serve no purpose but rather have the strong possibility to inflame. Veritycheck (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. As I've said above, I'm inclined to restrict such images to the 'Depictions' section, which seems like the best compromise between informing our readers and not directly offending them. Robofish (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. They serve no purpose and are all non-educational fiction because they don't come from anyone who actually laid eyes on Muhammad. Images belong in the Depictions section and in the Depictions of Muhammad subarticle. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per others and per my other answers. It is more informative to confine them to the depictions section with adequate explanation of the depictions issues within the cultural history of Muhammad.Griswaldo (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of question 4
It is very important that narrative images be properly described. If an image is veiled, replaced by a flame etc., is it an image of Muhammad, or does it represent the role or mark the position of Muhammad in a story? Some careful research might pay off here; find out what the original authors said about these things. There is no sense for Wikipedia to "take the rap" for displaying Muhammad images if the artists never intended them to be taken that way. Wnt (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)