Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Muhammad/images. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:Muhammad/images. |
||
Line 432:
::Well I can see that tensions are running high as ever. Has there been a consensus of questions for the RfC or should we continue to submit suggestions at this point? I tried to make my original one as neutral as I could but I think question 2 was a bit better and more to the point. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
== RfC Proposals Redux 2 ==
Let's try again? Let's keep non-proposal conversation above please? And proposal conversations here? Thanks, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:We're looking for what, examples of who the RfC should be phrased? Here's one;
:<s>*"'''RfC''' - Should the Wikipedia acquiesce to the demands of religious fundamentalism and their apologists, removing all images of Muhammad from [[Muhammad|the main article]]? Or should it ignore external advocacy and propaganda pushes, to provide information to the world freely and uncensored</s>? [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
::C'mon Tarc, you know that's equally unsupportable. And since it's really a policy overturn/change question, this wouldn't be the venue either. Best, Rob <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 18:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
:I know, it wasn't serious, just a momentary steam blow-off. Struck. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
===Proposal #1 (Tivanir2)===
::Which images should be removed from the wikipedia article based upon not having an accurate and reasonable need to be there? And then we can number images and say the name so people can look at them then do Support for images on one line and Remove for the others so you have two subsections perhaps? Just tossing out an idea. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 20:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
====Comments on Proposal #1====
===Proposal #2 (RobertMfromLI's)===
*Create a suitable and unbiased RfC proposal (my quick example wording):
:*In an effort to improve the quality of the [[Muhammad]] article, and ensure the article is properly complying with Wikipedia's current Policies, Guidelines and Resolutions, we are undergoing an image by image review of all images contained in the article. For each image below, please review the image, the citations, the information about the image and the relevance of the image to either the article as a whole or to the section it is contained in.
*List each image with citations and information (such as the captions that Wiqi55 and others so diligently worked on improving). Format similar to this (example is sans actual images and information - pretend it's there):
:*'''{image 1}'''
::'''Found in:''' {section link}
::'''Citations/source for this image:''' {cite/source such as "History of Islam Volume 1, 1987, publisher, etc, etc}
::'''Additional image information (such as from description or source):''' {Depiction of Muhammad during (event), by (artist) from (date)... with whatever other additional info we have}
::'''Q1:''' Does this depiction hold historic or artistic value as a historic or artistic interpretation of Muhammad?
::'''Q2:''' Is a depiction of this nature of the article's subject relevant to either the article or the section it is contained in?
::'''Q3:''' Based on such criteria, do you believe the image adds value to the article or to readers of the article?
:*(02:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)) At the close of the RfC, outside, uninvolved editors/admins would be solicited to review each set of responses to determine some sort of consensus.
:Therein lies the gist of my proposal, which will probably need a few tweaks and such. By weighing in on each of those items, the RfC will automatically address policies, guidelines '''and''' the new WMF resolution. Thoughts? Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 02:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
====Comments on Proposal #2====
I appreciate the sentiment, but such an image-by-image analysis appears to have been done barely [[Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive_20#Critique_of_each_image|six months ago]], a discussion which featured several editors here who are, yet again, protesting them images. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 20:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:I know. :-( But if we are to have an RfC, I figure we should at least do it correctly in as unbiased of a fashion as possible. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 21:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
===Proposal #3===
"Under what conditions can an image depicting Muhammad be used in this article?"
====Comments on Proposal #3====
===Proposal #4===
"Does inclusion of the images presently illustrating Muhammad conform to Wikipedia policy?"
====Comments on Proposal #4====
This is the wrong question. Merely because something conforms to policy does not mean it necessarily should be included. Many if not most of our editorial disagreements (on the whole encyclopedia) have no specific policy/guideline, and it's up to establishing an editorial consensus to determine what should be done. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 06:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
===Proposal #5===
"Should the article Mohammed contain pictures images of Mohammed?"
====Comments on Proposal #5====
This is probably the best one, although I think I might add, and say, "Should the article Mohammed contain pictures images of Mohammed, and, if so, how many and which ones?" That may be too much for an RfC, so if we only want to deal with the broad question, then as written this is fine. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 06:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:I think that would bring us to proposal #2. ;-) <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 06:14, 30 October 2011 (UTCI
'''Support''' (for proposal #5) I too might support this proposal on the WMF '... principle of least astonishment' and also to help reduce the perennial discussions occurring on this page. However, I have spent a long time informing myself recently about this subject, both here and off-site. I have a concern which I find hard to eloquently express. There appears to be world-wide movements (such as ''the petition site'') which desire the removal of all images of PUBH on and off Wikipedia, not just those images on the Wikipedia [[Muhammad]] page. If, as a result of consensus, all the images of PUBH were removed from the [[Muhammad]] page, what happens to such images in other Wikipedia places? Specifically, I would withdraw my support above, principally for [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] reasons, if I felt that it would lead to the removal of all such images from Wikipedia. All (English Wikipedia) places where images of [[Muhammad]] are currently being used are listed below, including the [[Muhammad]] page ...
* [[:File:Mohammed receiving revelation from the angel Gabriel.jpg|image1]] in [[Muhammad]] and [[Islamic view of angels]]
* [[:File:Mohammed kaaba 1315.jpg|image2]] in [[Black Stone]], [[Depictions of Muhammad]], [[Jami' al-tawarikh]], [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]], [[Kaaba]], [[Muhammad]] and [[Muhammad in Mecca]]
* [[:File:Muhammad destroying idols - L%27Histoire Merveilleuse en Vers de Mahomet BNF.jpg|image3]] in [[Muhammad]]
* [[:File:Siyer-i_Nebi_298a.jpg|image4]] in [[Muhammad]], [[Muhammad in Medina]] and [[Siyer-i Nebi]]
* [[:File:Maome.jpg|image5]] in [[Censorship by religion]], [[Depictions of Muhammad]], [[Early Middle Ages]], [[Freedom of speech versus blasphemy]], [[Islamic calendar]], [[Muhammad]], [[Muhammad in Medina]] and [[The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries]]
* [[:File:Gagarin_PropovedMagometGRM.jpg|image6]] in [[Grigory Gagarin]] and [[Muhammad]]
( I said I could not express myself eloquently :( sorry) --[[User:Senra|Senra]] ([[User Talk:Senra|Talk]]) 22:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
:"Least astonishment" does not have the slightest applicability to this article. A reader with even average common sense who clicks on the article for Muhammad will expect to be presented with images thereof. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
::That is, in fact, not true, for a number of reasons which have been explained above. No sense repeating them. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::I have to agree, in part, with Ludwigs2 here. Tarc, your contributions to this discussion seem to get more and more insulting over time. As far as I can tell, you're saying that any Sunni coming to this article does not have "average common sense". Still, I think that, probably, "least astonishment" supports inclusion of the images (at least, some of them), but I don't think it is appropriate to say that no one of good sense comes here and is astonished to find the images. In fact, I was a bit surprised myself, in that I assumed that there were no pictures (at least, outside of those drawn in contemporary times by non-Muslims, which clearly wouldn't be appropriate here). Of course, that points to the notion that some images should be included (as others have said), but perhaps not nearly as extensively as we currently feature them (up to the possibility that the images would more appropriately belong only in a sub-article like [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. Again, I'm not trying to take a strong stand here one way or the other, but only to say that this is a question worthy of discussion and an RfC. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::::If you feel insulted, then you should work on some skin-thickening exercises. This is EN.wiki. Not Middle.East.wiki. Not Iranian.wiki. A reader reading an article in the English Wikipedia, which like it or not presents topics in a Western-centric point-of-view, should ''not'' be astonished to see an image of Muhammad in the Muhammad article. Ludwigs has no leg to stand on on this tangent, and neither do you. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 01:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I more or less agree with that; I, for one, was fascinated when I finally saw an article on Muhammad that gave me insight into what people's impressions of him were. Incidentally, the fact that Farsi Wikipedia has these images in their Muhammad article without the accompanying talkpage theatrics should perhaps indicate that many Muslims (certainly all the Muslims I know; in my area, we have a few Iranians and a lot of Albanians) are not so closed-minded as they've been portrayed by the images' detractors; if I were a Muslim, I'd find the idea that an encyclopedia needed to "protect our beliefs" rather patronizing. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 14:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Good point - can't get a link to work, but there are 5 images, two veiled, three full-face; and its a featured article. Some are the same as here, where we have currently 6 images, one veiled, one flame & 4 with face visible (including the Russian one). [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: The Persian wikipedia is not a reliable source. It is also in the interest of Persian nationalists (and the theocratic regime in Tehran) to turn their article into the "Persianified Muhammad". But here on the English Wikipedia we should try to be more balanced. We currently have too much Persian imagery in this article. One gets the impression that the Prophet was revered only in Persia (or Persianate cultures) or that he was a [[Persian King]]. Last I checked, even pages of Persian kings do not have this amount of Persian imagery on their articles. And it's not about protecting one's beliefs, but rather having a balanced and accurate presentation of a historical figure and his teachings (which this article's placement/selection of images terribly fails at). <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 15:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Oh yes, having a Russian image of Muhammad ''totally'' drives home the idea of Persian nationalism; nice try at now framing it as a nationalist idea, but perhaps you should apply Ockham's razor here. It ''could'' be a giant Persian conspiracy to Persianize Muhammad... but it might also just be the fact that the images are quite informative, for reasons I've elucidated above. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights|<font face="MS Mincho" color="black">話して下さい</font>]]) 16:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::: No one said anything about a Russian image (or a conspiracy for that matter). The fact that we have too much Persian imagery in this article has been raised before by other editors. I'm just saying that comparison to the Persian Wikipedia should be more reserved. We shouldn't copy other Wikipedias. Their take on the subject sometimes reflect national interests and cultural or religious beliefs. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 16:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Well we've just discovered (below) we've had an image from Kashmir, and the 19th century, all along without realizing it! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: Erm. Dear me. I really [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad/images&diff=next&oldid=458199105 did not mean] to cause so much controversy. Perhaps we should all reflect on historical figures such as the [[Solomon|King]] who was purported to have been wise. One wonders how [[Sulayman|such a person]] would have dealt with mediating this thread! --[[User:Senra|Senra]] ([[User Talk:Senra|Talk]]) 16:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::: Johnbod. it may have only been found or copied in Kashmir, but possibly produced somewhere else. In any case, the illustrated book ''Hamlat i-Haydari'' has been studied and categorized as a tradition of the [[Qajar]] dynasty, which is Persian. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Copied, very possibly, but if they didn't think it was produced in Kashmir they wouldn't have catalogued it that way. With such a specific date it presumably has an inscription recording the circumstances of its making. In fact we currently have 2 Persian, 2 Turkish, 1 Kashmiri & 1 Russian image, which seems reasonable balance. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::: I meant ''originally'' produced. It is thought to be [[Qajar]] (Persian), not Indian. Also, the Turkish miniature tradition is a continuation of the Persian one, with Persian works often served as model to Ottoman painters. Considering these facts, a better count would be 5 Persianate and 1 Russian. That doesn't seem "balanced". <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::As usual, any specious wiggling to avoid the facts. One might as well call all Western art Greek. If it is made in Kashmir it is "originally" Kashmiri. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 21:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Perhaps Wiqi55 is saying we need to find more images to provide even greater balance? I'm sure that's ''achievable'' - though I am not sure if more images is ''suitable''. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Johnbod, it has been studied as part of the Qajar tradition, which is Persian. The ''Hamla i-Haydari'' is also a book of Persian poetry, composed by a poet in the Qajar court. It can't be more Persian than that. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 21:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Oh yes it could - it could ''actually'' be made in Persia, by Persians. You know perfectly well that [[Persianate]] culture covers almost the whole Islamic world to varying degrees, but that doesn't mean there is not a difference between what is actually Persian and what is not. Or would you classify the whole of [[Mughal painting]], and other arts, as Persian? [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::: Kashmir was ruled by Parisian dynasties in the 16th century (and perhaps later too). There were also Persian courts in Kashmir. Thus the fact that it was made by Persians cannot be ruled out. Also it was a Parisian poetry book. Regardless of the patron's ethnicity, the fact that they were interested in a Persian poetry book is enough to determine their cultural affiliation. Concerning your other point, we are dealing with a single artistic tradition. The same artists and their direct disciples often moved from one dynasty to another. For instance, the Persian miniatures boom in the Ottoman empire was largely caused by many masters and their disciples moving from various Persian cities (most notably Tabriz) to Istanbul. It is rather reasonable to assume that the images we have here are the result of a continuation of a single artistic tradition at different phases. This tradition happens to be distinctively Persian. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 21:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::*Honest questions: (not familiar with art topics really) Does the fact that they were ruled by them invalidate their own cultural contributions? Inotherwords, does the art of the time reflect their own culture, or the culture of the Persians they were taken over by? If their own culture, how much weight should we give to who ruled as opposed to the cultural aspects of the art? Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::: The style will certainly reflect the artist and his school. But the content (including the interpretation of certain events, or which events to highlight and illustrate) will be left to the patron. Now the patron could either be a Sultan (i.e., someone affiliated with the court) or a rich merchant. <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Ok, so we need to become more informed/knowledgeable on these images then? And we need to know if the artist/school moved on to Persian artistic influences or kept their own cultural influences? I think that's the gist of what I am getting out of this... and from there we can make an informed decision on this? This may be a case for better variety or better citing/information or removing ones with the same artistic influences? Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::That would be a help. Wiki55 has a moderate amount of knowledge, but unfortunately he uses this advancing distorted arguments to marginalize the actually very widespread traditions involving Islamic depictions of Muhammad into a "Persian" box, which he then feels able to dismiss. Applying the same logic to Europe, all post-Renaissance art would be described as "Italian", as it is certainly influenced by the Italian Renaissance, and forms part of the same tradition. And all Western art from the last 2,000 years would be described as Greek for the same reason. Like other countries, the English court in the Renaissance imported several Italian and Flemish [[artists of the Tudor court]] who influenced English art; that does not mean that all art made in England for centuries afterwards was "Italian" or Flemish". That the Mughals and Ottomans imported small numbers of Persian artists (among others from elsewhere) for a brief period equally does not mean that these empires did not develop their own traditions. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}{{ec}}Wiqi55, I agree with your "shouldn't copy other Wikipedias" sentence. But alas, your last statement is the crux of this entire argument. If we do not reflect such interests for en.wiki, then the entire RfC and ongoing discussions is moot - so, what's the issue if they have some bias in such a fashion? It doesn't seem to be related.<span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
== Addressing editors who have significant concerns about the use of images of Muhammad on this article ==
We need to get our thinking straight; pin down our points of agreement; sharpen our arguments. For starters, am I right in thinking
#No one would object to pictures of Muhammad illustrating [[Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad]] (if it ever gets written)
#No one objects to pictures of Muhammad illustrating [[Depictions of Muhammad]]
#We believe the artists' impressions of historical events in this article have no educational value for the topic of this article - or, if they do, not enough to justify the space they take up.
The question of whether the Foundation resolution has implications for this article, I'd really like to put off till a little later in this thread, once the more straightforward points are clarified. If you can think of any other important possible points of agreement among us that need to be clarified, please add to the list. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 02:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC) (<small>I just jumped online and have to jump off again, so haven't read the last day's posts. Will do in 4 or 5 hours. </small>--[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 02:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:Good start, but I see a couple problems right off:
:There is no agreement that the section described in #2 needs to be written for this biography article.
:Point #3 is not a point of agreement, it's a point of disagreement. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 07:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::Correct. Wrt #3, I'm wondering if those with concerns share a view on this point. Forgive me if I misunderstood, but I thought you were OK with the present use of images on this article, Amatulic. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 08:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Anthony, these are all things I would agree with, with the obvious caveats that it hasn't touched on the ethics or foundation principles issues, and that point three skirts around something that is/will be a major bone of contention. I don't think it is possible to say that ''any'' image has no value to the encyclopedia (simply coloring up the page is a value of sorts). we are sparring over the issue of ''enough value'', which brings in the dual questions of how to evaluate the positive value of an image and whether 'controversiality' is a negative value to be weighed against positive values. But with that in mind I'd agree with what you've written. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 17:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::P.s. maybe you can add that as point 4 - one of the concerns here is that the 'controversiality' of an image should be weighed in to its evaluation. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 17:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::Anthony, Two suggestions: (1) your question on shared point of view is probably not something you want to steer to. The history of this talk page will show that most (not all) who share a view do so for reasons that will be deemed religious (whether personally held beliefs, or the belief we should honor/respect others' ''religious'' beliefs so we don't offend). That probably won't turn out well without a policy change first. And I guarantee you, even if I am uninvolved in this, numerous people will find such shared POVs if such is in the proposal. (2) I'd steer away from "controversiality" as well, because "offense", "controversial" and so on all point back to religious beliefs - which, like my #1 above, all point back to Wikipedia no longer being secular. It's a difficult situation, I know. Especially when multiple roads lead back to the Village Pump for policy changes. Now, if you '''are''' discussing proposing a policy change, then yes, all of the above becomes valid for incorporation. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 18:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Thanks. I'm trying to see what those presently engaged in this discussion who object to the way images are used in this article are complaining about, if we put the controversy/Foundation resolution to one side. I'm pretty convinced this is not the venue to sort out the relevance, if any, of the controversial/offensive nature of the pictures. Now I want to see, with that off the table, the exact nature of other objections. That's starting to crystalize below. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 09:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Yes, I am OK with the present use of the images. That's why I said that your item #3 wasn't a point of agreement, because it basically says "we agree the present use is wrong." There is a fairly good consensus that the way images are used presently is fine. Ludgwigs2 disagrees, seeing a problem with ethics and controversiality. He has not made a convincing argument (to me at least) that such problems even exist here. The fact remains that we are having this discussion because Ludwigs2 wants to hold the images in this article to higher standards than any other biography on Wikipedia. The only reason we are having this discussion is because some folks are offended. That's what it boils down to. As far as I can see from looking over years of archives, those who are offended seem generally ignorant of their own faith, they are offended by their own choice or by indoctrination. That, and the fact that they complain here, are ''not'' reasons for Wikipedia to coddle them when the images ''do'' add educational value to the article. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 18:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::::Yep. My section heading could have been clearer. Sorry. I was just trying to see what common ground is shared by those who are currently objecting to the way images are used here. I understand you are not among those. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 09:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::Two points, one general, one directly to Amatulic:
::::* general point: I believe that anthony is trying to get a feel for points of agreement between '''those editors who have concerns about the images'''. While editors who ''support'' the images are certainly free to comment, we do not really need another section of dispute over the same material. Once we have a clear set of agreements between the 'oppose' editors, we can go back to debating the issue. that will make the discussion more clear and effective all around, so I would ask the supporters not to get involved in this particular debate.
::::* Amatulic:
::::*# your argument seems to be that ''"anyone who objects to the image is too ignorant to be coddled"'' - if you cannot see either the ethical or the logical problems inherent in that approach, I don't know what to say to you.
::::*# You are an admin, and that sysop bit holds you to a higher standard of behavior. I understand the need on your side to make this about ''me'' as a personal matter - attacking me personally is the only way to avoid discussing the issues I'm raising, which may be the only way for your side to sidestep the conclusions that would otherwise be natural. it's not the first time I've dealt with that kind of thing on project, nor will it be the last, but I expect admins to be more circumspect than average editors. I've already corrected the statement you made about me here made here twice; do I need to do it a third time, and accuse you of [[wp:IDHT]] to boot? --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::I am not an admin in this dispute. Please respect the distinction. Admins aren't special people, they are simply editors with a few extra tools, and those tools are not to be used when [[WP:INVOLVED]] in a content dispute. Also, stop seeing personal attacks where there are none. About you, I simply stated that you see a problem with ethics and controversiality and have not argued the case convincingly, and that you appear to want to apply higher standards to the images here than anywhere else. Right or wrong, that is the impression you have given, and I apologize if that impression is incorrect but that's how it seems to me. Finally, do not misrepresent the position of others. I didn't say ''anyone'' who objects to the images is too ignorant to be coddled. You clearly aren't. However, look at the archives. Almost 100% of those who object have done so based on premises that are false by Islam's own theology. We can attempt to educate them, or we can bend to their ignorance. There's a big ''ethical'' problem in doing the latter. ~[[User:Amatulic|Amatulić]] <small>([[User talk:Amatulic#top|talk]])</small> 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
:Point one is obviously false, given the people opposed are opposed to ''all'' images of Muhammad on the article, not their placement. Cramming them into one section will not resolve the issue for those people. All it does is allow a certain editor to pretend they are being reasonable now while the necessary reduction in images that such a change would cause would actually get them halfway to their goal of censoring the article to suit their viewpoint. The battle for the other half would commence rather quickly, I suspect. [[User:Resolute|Reso]][[User Talk:Resolute|lute]] 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for clarifying, Amatulic. Resolute, I suspect Hans, Qwyrxian, and possibly Wiqi55, along with me and Ludwigs, have no problem with relevant images of Muhammad illustrating a section addressing images of Muhammad. Not sure, though. Hence this section. You're right, if that is established it will clarify the debate some, and focus the debate on the specific usage being opposed, rather than image use in general. I'm certainly not proposing cramming images into such a section, one example, or two at the very most would be due weight. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 01:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Anthony, I think you missed a few parts above. (1) It will not end the "issue" at hand. Which is that there are images of Muhammad in the article (it is not their location causing the problem - it is their existence in the article causing problems). (2) A few of the editors you name (see conversations or diffs above) have indicated they wish no images and do not seem interested in a compromise. If agreement for moving the images to their own section occurs, it will only be a stepping stone to removing them. The next step will be removing the "redundant" section because a "Depictions" article already exists (sound like recent history?). And finally, by what standard or policy or guideline do you think that '''this''' article deserves special treatment over the numerous other articles with similar (ie: religiously motivated) disputes to remove content (text or image based)? Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::I'll clarify my position in light of Anthonycoles' request/point. I do not object wholesale to all images of Muhammad, nor do I think that we should interpret the recent WMF resolution to mean that we should remove these images (side note: I do 100% support the creation of tools that make it possible for ''others'' to block the images; I myself, for example, will use such tools to block pictures of nudity, etc., while I'm at work, as I need some images blocked but not all images, as the current work-arounds require). I do believe that we are probably over-using images in this article, because, as has been pointed out by others, these images all come from a fairly narrow time frame and area, and using them to represent Muhammad throughout the article is excessive; in other words, I consider the over-emphasis of a narrow category of images to be a violation of [[WP:UNDUE]]. I also believe that we should have more calligraphic or other abstract images (assuming we can get them as free/fair use files), given that that is how Muhammad is represented the overwhelming majority of the time in Islam. I do believe that we should have a section in this article that acts as a summary (see [[WP:Summary style]]) of [[Depictions of Muhammad]], and that said section should contain one or two visual (picture) images of Muhammad. I believe that the [[Depictions of Muhammad]] article should contain as many images as we can reasonably fit, keeping in mind the constraints of [[WP:UNDUE]] (i.e., not overemphasizing one specific time period/artist/whatever). In other words, I'm not coming at this from a "potentially offensive" position--I'm coming at it from the requirements of [[WP:NPOV]], which I believe this article violates. Finally, one of my main points so far in the last week or two is that I consider it insulting that some editors have constantly lampooned this as a dead issue, as one of pandering, of accusing some people of bad faith, and of attempting to prevent the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]] from being used by those who feel that their voices are not being heard. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian|talk]]) 01:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::Qwyrxian: There are definitely points I agree upon. I have no idea why some editors would (a) try to remove an opponent with WQA, (b) try to do an end run to ArbCom when valid RfC proposals were on the table, (c) misstate their position at ArbCom, (d) propose RfC's that through implication or direct wording make the questions "remove or remove or remove" and so on. You're correct, if that isn't bad faith, I dont know what is. Nonetheless, in good faith, with numerous conversations being derailed because I wont agree to removing all images, I've proposed an RfC that addresses your concerns. The "all or nothing" ones on the table will not work to do that. Nor will the "none or none" proposal. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 02:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I pretty much endorse this entire post, Qwyrxian, it's a common sense approach to the page. [[User:Noformation|<font color="black">N</font><sup><font color="red">o</font></sup><font color="black">f</font><font color="red">o</font><font color="black">rmation</font>]] <font color="black"><sup>[[User talk:Noformation|Talk]]</sup></font> 02:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This is also in response to Antonyhcole's comment. I also do not object automatically to every and any image of Muhammad here. Two aspects are capable ''in principle'' of being illustrated in such a way in spite of the (unreasonable, in my opinion) offence to some Muslims: (1) Muhammad reception in the West. (2) A discussion of the image prohibition. However, even if we ignore, for the sake of the argument, the inane argument that offence taken by a large number of people for religious reasons doesn't count on an article about the very religion whose members take offence, there are enough arguments left to reduce the number of illustrations to at most two:
* The Western Muhammad reception needs at most one image, as some kind of focal point. This is also the number we have at the moment. Any more than that would be undue weight because the important thing here is the reception in writing. Reception by Western painters, if someone wanted to discuss it, would definitely have to be moved to a separate article.
* The image prohibition and also the phase(s) in which it was interpreted more sensibly and Muslims did depict Muhammad can, in principle, be discussed in the article. But more than one image for this very minor aspect is overkill and massive undue weight.
* This article is a key part in our series of articles on Islam. Images in articles serve a dual purpose. While each of them individually illustrates some detail in an article, all of them together give an impression of a topic's mainstream iconography. Our Muhammad article is currently ''lying'' about the iconography of Muhammad by showcasing numerous atypical pictures. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 06:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::Hmmm... interesting point (Bullet 3). Image 1 and 2 do seem to have stylistic similarities (to each other). I didnt notice such in the rest, but it's late. I'll look again tomorrow.
::You've made a very compelling argument for evaluating the images in that light. Yes, I know others have stated they've evaluated them in that fashion. But I'd rather make up my own mind. Tomorrow. When I am more awake. Off to bed. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 09:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Actually those comments bring up a good point that I hadn't thought about. While we are generally apprehensive of removing current pictures why does the article not have any current depiction types (i.e. the flame or flame with face that is normally used to depict him by the muslim community in present time.) I am not saying we should necessarily replace any pictures (thats for the RfC obviously) but we don't have any modern day type images which would also be a good addition to the text in my opinion. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 14:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::The most recent Islamic image (1808) is "flame-only". It would be ideal to have a modern, probably Iranian, image, but copyright keeps these off Commons. We don't even have any at [[Depictions of Muhammad]]. It might be possible to have one under "fair use", but given how vulnerable to attack all images of the Prophet are, one wonders how long that would last. I don't agree with Hans Adler's points - our images are, with the exception of the absence of a modern one, reasonably typical of the images that exist. These come from a wide variety of cultures, covering more than half the period since the Prophet's lifetime. Exactly the same criticism could be made of images used in [[Jesus]] and other Christian articles as "lying" about Christian use of images. Jesus has (very low down) a reasonable section on [[Jesus#Depictions_of_Jesus|Depictions of Jesus]], which rather remarkably did not mention Protestant aniconism at all (a sentence now added). We should restore a brief section here covering Islamic aniconism & the depictions, and linking to the other articles, & that is under discussion elsewhere here. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::I would like to point out that setting an arbitrary number is not a great way to start any sort of editing. Pictures with relevence should be included (again we need to look at said pictures and determine relevence) and pictures that have no relevence should be removed. As far as biography portraits go this is extremely meager especially compared to even other religious founder articles. [[User:Tivanir2|Tivanir2]] ([[User talk:Tivanir2|talk]]) 14:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::'''Tivanir2:''' I noticed that too. There ''were'' such images at one time. And I think whatever images we agree belong in the article '''must''' have such portrayals (flame, veil, etc) to be balanced. I also agree with the (paraphrased) "no arbitrary number" comment. Content, need, relevance, balance (ie: flame, veil, face shown, etc) and value should be all that is used to weigh such - regardless of whether that means 2 images or 200 images or something inbetween. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
::::'''Johnbod:''' I suspect those would be the only images that were not objected to - though I do suspect if another en-masse removal attempt is made (though unlikely due to the semi-protect), that such images would simply be associated casualties - and not due to an objection to them specifically. I guess, either way, that leaves us some work on finding an image that's PD or that we can use a fair use claim on. Definitely against the imbalanced portrayal that Tiv has pointed out. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 17:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Anthony, as for point 1, I am sure ''some'' people would object to images of Muhammad in [[Muhammad#Depictions of Muhammad]] (if it ever gets written). Having such images there would not be vital, given that there would be a link to the main article. If we had an image, I would advocate that it be a veiled one ([http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg example]). Points 2 and 3 I agree with. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 02:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::Hi Jayen! Thanks for that. I messed up this thread with an ambiguous title. :( I was really just trying to clarify the position of editors presently here advocating removal of images. They've now mostly chimed in, so I'll just let this thread ramble on, as these things do, until something shinier pops up. :) --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]]) 13:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:Jayen, that section ''was'' written. Someone took it out (see thread with related title on this talk page). Anyway, from following page after page (which are now all in the archives) about the images, you may find their existence here is the issue - not where they are located. BTW, thanks for the image link. I'll be proposing an image change/addition (will see who wishes which) as not having such a representation seems not to be balanced. Best, <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 03:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::Here is quote from the archive that clearly suggests that the number and location of images affect the amount of objection to them:
::{{quote| 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.}}
:: Anecdotal evidence, yes, but still useful. Full post here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/Archive_10#Pictures] <b><font color="#4682B4">[[User:Wiqi55|Wiqi]]</font></b><sup>(<font color="#99BADD">[[User talk:Wiqi55|55]]</font>)</sup> 04:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Not even the slightest bit useful. We have no idea at all what piques the SPAs and vandals ire at any given moment, whatever incites them to come here and post their harangues is beyond the purview of this board. What is interesting though is that in the several weeks since Ludwigs2 initiated this fiasco, we have not had a single comment in this discussion by a non-established, regular users. No IPs, no SPAs, not in any of these topics or even to file an Edit Request. If you wish to ponder anecdotal evidence of editor behavior, ponder that one for a bit. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Not really related anyway. It was a veiled image. Not really a compromise either, since it's accepted as ok (which means one side gives nothing). As for the Depictions article, it didnt make press - though it does get some removal requests (all archived now). And a lot less since this article no longer has a decent sized section pointing to it. <span style="border:1px solid #100;padding:1px;"><small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></span> 04:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks, Wiqi55. I must say I agree with the general sentiment expressed in that 2006 post you linked to. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 21:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
::::May I ask, in all seriousness, how a picture of a veiled Muhammad in any way is representative of how those perceived his face to look? The information presented is not the same. In the example at the link above, the Quranic calligraphy was the subject matter - not the sleeveless woman. In this, Muhammad and how history perceives him is the subject matter - not one single perception, not a veil (except as a representation of '''part of''' one perception). The comparison seems rather inapplicable. Best, <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 21:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::The style with the veiled face would seem to have been the dominant style in the depictions that were created, making it the representative type of image. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|J]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|N]]</font><font color="#0000FF">[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 04:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
::::::I see a point in that, but, assuming unveiled depictions did not gain a lot of notability due to "controversy" (for lack of a better word), that would simply argue towards a better balance. Currently, I think it is 2 veiled, 4 not veiled. But, here's an interesting thing (and a follow-up point): when I searched Google for images, using the word "flame" in the search terms, all but one image were unveiled and unflamed (and there was a bunch of calligraphy). Note, I only said that such was interesting. On to the follow-up point (and perhaps this is the reason my search results ended the way they did), either due to changing perceptions in various sects of Islam or perceptions of those who are not necessarily Muslim but venerate Muhammad (or have interest in him), or due to the "controversy"(for lack of a better word) surrounding the images, or a combination of those, it seems the other (non-veiled) images have a very high degree of notability. But that's just my opinion. Best, <small>[[User:RobertMfromLI|R<small>OBERT</small>M<small>FROM</small>LI]] </small>|<small><small> <sup>[[User talk:RobertMfromLI|TK]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/RobertMfromLI|CN]]</sub></small></small> 05:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||