Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 7

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

↑ Intro

<- Question 6 | Question 7 | Question 8 ->

Discussion of question 7

 * Sources are key, as is WP:UNDUE. We should represent images, just as we do viewpoints, in the proper proportion to how they are represented in reliable sources. Per WP:UNDUE, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." As such we should be mindful of how reliable sources represent images of Muhammad, and endeavor to keep our own presentation in the proper proportion. I encourage any editor interested in this topic to engage in the following experiment: Go to any public library or major bookstore, and look through the (illustrated) sources that include a biography of Muhammad, be it a chapter, page, or just a paragraph or two. I have performed this experiment multiple times, in several libraries and bookstores, looking through literally scores of books about Muhammad, about Islam, and about religion in general. What I have found is that in the vast majority of these books, reliable sources do not include even a single figurative image of Muhammad. They commonly have images of calligraphy, or scenes of daily life from Muhammad's time, or images of Islamic art and architecture. But images of Muhammad himself are quite rare. Wikipedia should follow this same practice, and not give undue weight to images. --Elonka 01:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Commercial publishers do not adhere to Wikipedia policies like WP:NOTCENSORED, and operate under a number of constraints in their choice of images; our articles are always more heavily illustrated, where images are available, than commercial equivalents, and this is one of the strengths of Wikipedia. Apart from the extra costs of sourcing and printing images, in this particular case anyone who has experience of commercial publishing will know how drastic the effect of the Salman Rushdie case was on the industry.  Decisions not to include figurative images of Muhammad in books are more likely to be made in the publisher's legal and marketing departments than by editorial staff, let alone actual authors. The application of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE to images is dubious in most contexts, and in this case it falls down completely. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Johnbod. Moreover, many of the sources most concentrating on Muhammad that are without images are Islamic in origin; Wikipedia emphasizes views from outside a religion, not inside. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The way that our sources or other encyclopedias use controversial images tells us something about what our readers might expect from us. But we have to be sensible. As Allens points out, an Islamic author or publisher would be a less perfect indication of what's expected of a Western secular encyclopedia than, say, Encyclopædia Britannica, or a life of Muhammad by an atheist author from OUP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Images are not points of view, and attempting to apply NPOV to sorts of depictions may inappropriately import systemic bias from other venues to Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All art represents a point of view. We do place images in articles according to their prominence. Take "The Last Supper", which has been depicted by many, but most prominently and popularly by Leonardo DaVinci. Or the article on The most common and prominent depiction of Muhammad is a signature. That being said, there are less common depictions of him that should be afforded weight, and thus there must be a home for actual paintings of Muhammad somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Johnbod. Beyond that, Wikipedia has ready access to Wikimedia Commons, an extremely powerful resource for ancient artwork - we can and do include more images because we aren't limited to the paltry photo collections a 1980 textbook would have called upon; in fact, under the Commons PD-Art principle we can steal contribute ;) any two-dimensional ancient image any of us can dig up anywhere on the Web. Wnt (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding to the above reasons why we shouldn't follow the example of such sources: There appears to be no widely recognized/accepted appearance of Muhammad. That makes choosing a single image to represent him exceedingly difficult. Many sources may just have sidestepped the issue by not using an image at all. We aren't limited to one image. We've got space!  Good raise  06:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Johnbod, Wnt. Commercial publishers have different values that don't include NOTCENSORED.  Per Goodraise, WP:NOTPAPER.  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) 07:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to the "image survey" requested in the first response. It is synthesis and therefore against the values regarding no original research.  No reliable source has done such a survey, and Wikipedia cannot.  Reliable sources do use images of Muhammad, thus Wikipedia may do so.  Moreover, due weight is provided by written context and not applicable here; it is not provided by unsourced, made up and thus arbitrary image surveys.  Also, agree with Johnbod, Wnt and Goodraise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an uncensored, free-content, NPOV, illustrated, (primarily) online crowd-sourced general encyclopaedia that is facilitated by a non-profit foundation. It would be appropriate to look at what other reliable sources that operate in this environment and have access to the same corpus of images do, but I'm not aware of any that exist. Furthermore, in every other article we choose the images available to us that best illustrate our text. We do not choose to use the images that our sources use to illustrate their text (although in some cases we might use the same image, we use it because its the best image for our purposes not because they used it). Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been greatly opposed to this from the moment someone first unveiled (pun unintended) it in last year's discussions. The use of images in reliable sources should not be seen as any sort of measure or barometer for the Wikipedia's use of images.  There is a wide variety of reasons why a RS may or may not make use of an image in a given publication, including but not limited to size, spacing, attribution, relevance, or editorial discretion.  Enacting this proposal would put the burden of guesswork into the hands of editors as they try to discern why or why not a source did or did not use an image. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In matters of image use, layout, varieties of English, whether or not to use an Oxford comma and so on, Wikipedia should go by what policies and guidelines it has, not by what sources that have their own policies and guidelines do. It would be impossible, in any case that is even slightly controversial, to ever reach the conclusion of a discussion about what reliable sources do, which ones we should follow and which ones we shouldn't. What would be the point of allowing a procedure that will never give us a result in any case? FormerIP (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Elonka. We are an encyclopedia, we do not shoot from the hip. Follow the sources. Follow the sources. Follow the sources. It's really as simple as that. -- J N  466  19:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources should be used to determine the historical trends and most prominent illustrations accordingly. Illustrations are heavy, so assuming that some printed sources don't include Muhammad's images on ideological reasons would be inappropriately vague. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Once again, Johnbod has summed it up well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Johnbod and Goodraise. cmadler (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not "poll published sources" to determine image content for any other article at WP. There is absolutely no precedent for this, nor should one be made in this case. Let the actually involved editors decide through consensus, according to established policy and precedent. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mainstream sources avoid depiction and so should wikipeadia. That is NPOV. -- lTopGunl (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "[P]revalent usage in reliable sources about Muhammad" is irrelevant here; we're trying to build a better reference work here, less subject to commercial pressure, religious lobbyists, cowardice and taboos. Most mainstream reliable sources on sexual topics are too timid to use the images that we use here; so what? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy on due weight makes it very clear: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." That images are subject to due weight considerations has been stable part of the NPOV policy since June 2006. When it comes to original research and systemic bias, this is no different from the problems with due weight assessment of textual claims. Western academic sources might be more censored than we would like, but here is not the place right great wrongs: any systemic bias in Western academic sources should be imported into Wikipedia. That's what NPOV implies for both text and images. The only valid objection is that Wikipedia is much more illustrated than most other reference work, so a few depictions should make the cut, but the gist of Elonka's argument remains valid: the kinds of images used for illustration should be guided by the secondary literature. Vesal (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. Due weight is determined by summarizing in writing, written reliable sources, and citing written reliable sources directly for the propositions asserted, according to our verifiability principals. But, there is no such thing as summarizing a picture, it either is or isn't (at least in common sense, in less than 1000 words, and even then not very effectively), and no reliable source has tried, so Wikipedia cannot.  So, while NPOV would militate against irrelevant images that is not the case here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Which images are used by others is irrelevant. People use images that they like or they not use images that they do not like. It is purely editorial decision based on the subjective opinion of an author. This argument that we should use images that others use is actually quite silly. There are many article here that use images that have never been used in any other source. Does it mean that all that images should be removed as well? This proposal is just an attempt to bend well established Wikipedia policies to obtained a result favorable for the authors of this proposal. Ruslik_ Zero 16:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia can to better, it should. Pictures are worth a thousand words ... let's use them.Jason from nyc (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Calligraphy type illustrations are going to be more prevalent amongst rs texts, and can be used on that basis. The bloke died a long time ago and didn't sit for any portraits. I'm not saying the centuries old illustrations are akin to vandalism, or graffiti. They have their own notability from age, but not as actual depictions of Mr M. wouldn't they be simple WP:OR in Mr.M.'s article ? Old doesn't come into the OS judgment, in the end that's what it is. 'This is what artist X thinks Mr M looked like'. The artist is notable, and the old painting he did is notable in his own article for sure, but are we looking at a version of a pop culture section in this article, just an older version of it ? If there is no free image of the subject, should every artists depiction do ? There are plenty of aspects here, it is UNDUE (in that article, but not elsewhere), but there are larger issues.
 * Old sources have included Mr M (you know I want to call him Dr.M., more a rapper sort of feel to it), some old sources include pics for the same reason editors here want to include them, simply because we can. If you can have a picture, of course you do. If it sucks, but you don't have a better one, you still go with it. The old writers are the same. In the end there are no accurate images, just OR. Anyhow, people will no doubt fail to see this clearly, as they are over-impressed with anything old. The best sources are people close to the subject, and as those rs's were not into images, and they are also the absolute rs's, it's fair to go with no images. Same as other 'straight to the point' scholars have done and avoid the 'tabloid magazine' mentality that uses pics to sell issues which a few scholars have used. Penyulap  ☏  16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dead-tree sources may avoid photos because of the expense. Here it's only pixels, and you can use as many as needed. Neotarf (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons provide much more illustrative material than any other encyclopedic source. This practice should continue for the benefit of the community. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Vesal above. While we are not bound by what mainstream academic sources do, we do have a duty to respect NPOV and give fair weight to opposing positions. If the use of figurative images of Muhammad is rare in other sources, that's not decisive, but it should influence us to consider whether our use of them is excessive and non-neutral. Robofish (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Images in sources are and should be treated different from facts written in text. Images are not commonly referenced to support facts. There is practically never a third-party made image to an event. Text can be summarized or rewritten, while images are not "redrawn". Fact checking is not performed on images, text are. All in all, images on wikipedia is there to support the text in helping understanding. Belorn (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." 'Nuff said. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempting to apply the image policies of disparate publications to Wikipedia is a doomed effort in general, as the editorial policies with respect to images are governed by many factors that have little or nothing to do with the secular perspective that an encyclopedia takes. The effort to apply it here is simply an end-run around censorship questions.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Classic images seem best. While the article may "see also" to the controversial cartoons, they clearly shouldn't be in this article because they would be non-WP:TOPIC (for example). I wouldn't be interested in seeing anything but a Gilbert Stuart of George Washington, nevermind that Salvador Dali might have come up with a "real interesting" portrait! :)  Follow the same for Muhammad IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose images I was invited by a note on my watchlist page. Depictions create bad impact Muslims find it rude to have them. It is not called neutral removing will not be censorship it will be decent. All decent sources use calligraphy so please remove all images. --Highstakes00 (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the principle that our choice of illustrations should reflect reliable sources. Presentation is the job of our editors, and image choice should be treated the same way as word choice - informed in some cases by sources but not determined by them. Moreover, closely emulating the choice of images from one or particular sources may (combined with other factors) lead to copyright violation, since this is a copyrightable creative choice. Dcoetzee 04:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Johnbod. Added volume should not give additional voices. Muhammad was pictured, is pictured, and will continue to be pictured - unless, of course, we bow to outside pressure, like most sources have to simply for economic reasons. This is the only time I will invoke WP:NOTCENSORED in one of my votes here. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We should try to follow the sources as much as possible. In my opinion, this means taking a middle-of-the-road approach. I strongly support the solution of using a mixture of calligraphic, figurative, veiled and non-veiled images, with a calligraphic image in the infobox and an option to hide images. This satisfies the sources that use images and the readers who want to see images, as well as the sources that don't use images and the readers who don't want to see them. On a separate note, Wikipedia is a global project, and promoting a western bias isn't going to help us in the long run. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Imho, there is no rationale for trying to match the image-policy of reliable sources - rather the only criterion should be on ascertaining whether the images used (if any) are really representative of the person or not. For instance, though no one took a photograph of Jesus or Muhammad, images of the former are commonly recognized as such. The same criterion of popular recognition should be used in the case of the Muhammad article. Shaad lko (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conventional sources were typically not created in the massively distributed manner in which Wikipedia is created. This left their editors/contributors/publishers much more susceptible to threats, and their content in turn more susceptible to timid/censorial editorial approaches to potentially controversial material. One of the joys of Wikipedia is that it is less susceptible to such pressures. Since clearly neither Islam itself, nor non-Muslims, have adopted a uniform policy about whether or not images of Muhammad should be made, it is appropriate for the article to reflect this by showing the numerous methods Muslims and non-Muslims have adopted, historically, in well-meant efforts illustrate information about him and his life. zazpot (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Printed sources are constrained by budgetary constraints on acquiring and printing images - we have no such constraints. If there are freely usable images of high quality, there is no need to restrict ourselves to only images used by sources that face different constraints than we do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Wikipedia's position to be as unbiased as possible. This means that the entire range of images representing the notable person should be used, to illuminate from both sides of the story. Showing no images leans 100% toward the one side, whereas only showing the most realistic figurative representations shift things toward the other side. A balance would show a representative sampling of all available types of representations. Censorship should not be an option. Amarand (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)