Talk:Muhammad

Muhammad is not the founder of any religion

Muhammad (pbuh) is not the founder of any religion, he is the last and final messenger. May Allah guide the person who have written this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDJOE WIKI (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia... go start another golden age, then we will talk 24.69.114.254 (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

See discussion above. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 182.185.251.123, 13 September 2011

please remove pic of Muhammad (pbuh)its not allowed in islam

182.185.251.123 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't follow Islamic rules. See the FAQ at the top of the page to find out how to disable the images on your computer (along with more explanations for why the pictures are kept). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is there no picture depicted in the Arabic version? Has wikipedia curtailed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.86.91 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Because every language of Wikipedia has its own rules. Only the most basic, fundamental rules are shared (like "IPs can edit" and "articles must be neutral"). Even those rules end up varying, as the interpretation of them differs. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Worth noting, however: the Farsii article does have the pictures; in fact, they had them before we did.—Chowbok ☠ 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Biovision007, 30 September 2011

Abu al-Qasim Muḥammad ibn 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abd al-Muttalib ibn Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf ibn Qusai ibn Kilab (Arabic: محمد Muḥammad, pronounced [mʊˈħæmmæd] ), or simply Muhammad (also spelled Muhammed, Mohammad or Mohammed) (ca. 1 May 570 – 8 June 632) (Monday, 12th Rabi' al-Awwal, Year 11 A.H.), was the founder of the religion of Islam, and is considered by Muslims to be a messenger and prophet of God, the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets, and, by most Muslims, the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran. Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets. He was also active as a social reformer, diplomat, merchant, philosopher, orator, legislator, military leader, humanitarian, philanthropist, and, according to Muslim belief, an agent of divine action.

Biovision007 (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

See the end of Talk:Muhammad/Archive 25 where the naming was recently discussed. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is strange

As far as I see, all the images of other articles (Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc) in the info box are paintings or photos. This article is the only article on wikipedia that presents just a written name as the infobox image. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It's because that is the most common visual representation of Muhammad, and WP should try to use such a depiction in the infobox (just like how we prefer infobox pictures of sports stars to have them either playing or at least in uniform, when we can get them). There are paintings of Muhammad's body further down in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, you should also add a picture of Muhammad in the infobox, the same way you did for Jesus, Buddha, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.99.42 (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Using the same logic, one could say that the most common visual representation of anyone is their name in writing, rather than a picture. In fact, it is patently clear Muhammad is treated as a special case here, so as not to offend Muslims. ðarkuncoll 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's not at all for that reason. If we didn't want to offend Muslims, we wouldn't include the Prophet's picture anywhere in the article, but, of course, we do. We get people commenting here every few days telling us that we have to remove the pictures of Muhammad because they are false and not allowed, and we tell them every time that we don't follow their rules. No Muslim is going to say "Well, it's okay to use the image, so long as its not the lead image of the article". They either accept or reject images of Muhammad entirely. The image in the infobox is not Muhammad's name in writing. It's the image you would see of Muhammad if he were depicted in art. It's not like it's just "Muhammad" in 12 point Times. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That argument is just plain silly all the current "image does is prove you can write Mohamed in calligraphy and make it look stylized and it is clearly an unsuccessful attempt to appease the religious fanatics, a proper image was in that box for years, there is no credible reason other than appeasement that it has been changed. This place used to be proud to resist censorship, not ant more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.174 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Other historical figures get an artistic depiction of them. So does Muhammad; the artistic depiction is most commonly rendered in calligraphy, so we use an example of the most common artistic style. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that both sides of the argument are offended by the current article's content, I believe we have reached a fair and balanced approach. Singularity42 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Good way to look at it. Everybody gets equal treatment! ~Amatulić (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The most common "image" or representation of Muhammad in the world today is the calligraphy version, so I see no problem in using that at the top of the article. Note also that the God article has no image at the top, even though many suitable, classic images exist, some of which are used in the article. Rklawton (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And I think the article reflects a well thought out compromise on the issue. One the one hand, Wikipedia is not censored and how Muhammad has been depicted historically is of encylopedic value. On the other hand, there is no policy that a historical painting of the subject should be at the top of the page in the Infobox, and the most common modern representation of the subject is the version currently in the Infobox. Singularity42 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not an artistic depiction it's just written words in a foreign language , it is still just written words even if added to paintings often. By the above logic all info-boxes should not be photographs but copies of the written word that have been published in newspapers as these are most common way of representing the subject. It's amazing how the need to appease overrules common scene in this PC world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.163.174 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're not understanding. It's not "added to paintings." It is the painting most commonly used for Muhammad. If you took all of the artistic renderings of Muhammad in the world, and counted them, you'd find (warning: completely made-up statistic coming) that 99% of them look like our infobox, and well less than 1% like the images farther down the page. As a good comparison: the picture on Jesus is absolutely not what he actually looked like (the image is too European, and, of course, he didn't actually walk around with a halo shining behind him). Nonetheless, its a very good representative of how Jesus is normally depicted in art. And, again, your PC argument fails miserably, because if we really were being "PC" (which, btw, is considered an offensive term by many) then we wouldn't have any pictures of Muhammad in the article. In any event, this issue has a very strong consensus, so your desire to replace it with a image is about as likely to succeed as the desire of others to remove all of the images in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Added to paintings" "is the painting" whatever, it is still just a word in a foreign language and in that case has no artistic element, it's just type not art so your comparisons to the Jesus article are completely irrelevant, no misunderstanding on my part, just a reply that willfully ignores the issue and facts of the matter. and I am afraid my PC arguments do add up as the format of the article would not have been changed if there was a desire to appease and in doing so finding a PC compromise and further just because "In any event, this issue has a very strong consensus, so your desire to replace it with a image is about as likely to succeed as the desire of others to remove all of the images in the article." does not meed I should be dissuaded from raising an issue your post does attempt to do this and is not really in the spirit of a reasonable discussion. If you must reply please address the isues raised rather than willfuly ignore the issue posted about just to get the last word — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.30 (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And I have to say comments like "wrong again" in the page history section are immature and not constructive is there not a basic civility code in force in this place to stop posts like that? can I respond by saying grow up? or does that make me ass bad as the poster of the imature comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.30 (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that you're wrong. And, no, saying that is in no way a violation of WP:CIVIL. It's pointing out that you are still misunderstanding the image. It's not just a word in another language. It is a very ornate and specialized calligraphic representation of that word (that is, if you simply looked in a normal copy of the Qu'ran, that is not how it would look). My point on the consensus issue was perhaps a bit strong, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're going to need an extraordinarily strong argument to reverse a very well held consensus than just saying that we're "PC". In any event, I don't think I have anything else to add unless you have some new evidence or line of argument. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am not wrong and the manner in which you put "wrong again" (hidden in the page history) was very much uncivil and immature, if you have a point here is the place to put it. I as I have said above "all the current image does is prove you can write Mohamed in calligraphy and make it look stylized" can you not see this? it is still not artwork just text again no mistake of the nature of the image (why is there a need to claim I misunderstand the image?) (please can you let that sink in your brain before further comment), and again and again you ignore the issue being raised use logical fallacies like straw man and contribute nothing to the argument except show a need to get the last word, I'll say again to try and communicate to you If you must reply please address the issues raised rather than willfully ignore the issue posted about just to get the last word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.235 (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

the latest coment inj the page history is "sigh" how is that a constructive comment? that is clearly uncivil and immature, i'll say again is there not a basic civility code in force in this place to stop posts like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.9.235 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The arguments concerning popularity of usage are specious. Otherwise, for example, Jesus would be represented with the ☧ symbol, rather than a picture. Artistic representations of Jesus are certainly common, but the ☧ (chi rho) symbol is far more common, considering its usage on coins, etc. ðarkuncoll 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

When most Christian artists go about making a painting of Jesus, they paint the current European, haloed image. They do not paint the chi-rho symbol. When most Budhist artists go about making a painting of Buddah, they usually paint the sitting cross-legged, meditating image. They do not paint a version of the name "Buddah". When most Muslim artists go about making a painting of Muhammad, they usually paint an artistic, caligriphay version of his name. It is the most common image that representes the subject. Singularity42 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. The ☧ symbol has been used far more often to represent Jesus than any picture of him. It has been used on untold thousands, perhaps millions, of coins, for example. You are making artificial distinctions in order to justify the current position, rather than looking at all the evidence. ðarkuncoll 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do you get that info, exactly? Where is that evidence of the symbol being used more than the image? You kind of have to back statements like that up on Wikipedia. —Digital Jedi Master (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is just stylized writing not art, therefore the creators are not artists just people writing, my doctors handwriting would not normally be considered art a new definition of art applicable to only Muslims has been created here in order to appease in this special case . furtherer the current image does not even show a painting, no artist is listed in the image file, no original work seems to exist in a gallery or collection. it is not a reproduced work of art.

To TharkunColl: Interestingly, ten years ago, I would have recognized Jesus by one of the stylized images long before I recognized him by the symbol. I suspect for those who would recognize Muhammad by either, the symbol would be recognized more than largely varying artists interpretations. Just my opinion though. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a little history might help here. People who joined up in the last couple years might not realize this, but a lot of us had to fight for years to get any pictures of Muhammad displayed. It was a long, hard argument, but we did finally win. Before that, the consensus was to not display pictures, and anyone adding them would be reverted as quickly as people removing them now.

So when the consensus was finally changed, it ended up being something of a compromise that the images would be added, but kept "below the fold", so to speak. It may well have been an unspoken compromise, but I think everyone was basically tired of fighting at that point. So none of us pro-image folks really kept fighting to have the images higher up, because we'd won on the main issue.

It's not ideal, and I agree with the original poster that an image should be at the top of the page, just like for anyone else. But if one side got everything they wanted, it wouldn't be a compromise; it's only a compromise once everyone's unhappy.—Chowbok ☠ 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree it is not ideal. We should never be compromising core principles/tenets of Wikipedia. Either they get changed, or they get unilaterally and indisciminately applied. At least that's my opinion. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Chowbok that's not a history I have witnessed, the image of Mohammed was in that infobox for years and the core principle of no censorship was observed. the religionists were correctly ignored. It does not make sense to change wikipedia's core principles to appease religionists just because it's perceived as easier. All the current situation shows is that a special case has been made, it looks wrong, is inconsistent and no amount of false reasoning (as witnessed above) will change this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.160.10 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We're not say "how is Muhammad represented". The question is, as an image, as art, as a visual medium, how is Muhammad represented, and the answer is, "As a special form of calligraphy". If you went looking for actual images of Muhammad, you'd find, as far as I can tell based on having looked at this and related pages, less than 100 in the world. Total. However, you would find hundreds of thousands, if not more, of stylized, specially formatted, calligraphic representations of Muhammad. Let me draw an analogy: the company IBM, for its trademark/logo, uses a special calligraphic representation of the letters IBM (see File:IBM logo.svg). That's the image we use in the infobox of IBM, because that's the image that the company uses to represent themselves. We don't pick out a picture of their corporate headquarters, or use the original logo (see File:Original IBM Logo.png) just because it's more of a "picture", or anything else. Of course, there is no such thing as an "official" picture of Muhammad (or, really, most people except for maybe some politicians). But there is an image that represents, by a majority by a super-majority almost 100% of the time. I also argue that this is exactly like the fact that we use a European-looking Jesus in Jesus, rather than one that is "historically accurate". Now, I could be wrong, so go ahead and start up an RfC or some other similar form of dispute resolution. And I apologize if my words have been blunt, but to me changing the infobox image to a non-calligraphic painting of Muhammad would actually be a violation of Wikipedia core policies, not the other way areound as IP has presented it; this just seems blindingly obvious to me, which is why my words have been strong. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That figure of 100 is complete nonsense - there are many more than that, old and modern, and thousands if you include images that have a veiled face, some probably added to an originally depicted face. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, THAT makes perfect sense. As indicated above, I can buy into it wholeheartedly. And in following the examples we used, I betcha that if I lined up 100 images of Jesus, they'd all look relatively the same (minus some small amount of artistic license) - but if I lined up 100 images of Muhammad, they'd all look very different (as this very article demonstrates). Also, as Muhammad is, to a larger extent, a topic that is discussed (etc) largely by those of the Islamic faith (which is quite large in numbers), I could easily see a calligraphic representation as being the most prevalent. In such case, I think Qwyrxian has hit the head right on the nail - using something other than such a representation would be against policies and guidelines. So, if that is the reasoning applied to choosing the infobox image, I'm all for leaving it. If that isn't the reason, but is still a valid reason, then I am still all for leaving it. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 02:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Moore false reasoning the IBM logo is made to be EXACTLY the same and reproduceable many times it's not intended that people construct the IBM Logo by hand, writing isn't like that, more false reasoning to justify the special treatment given to this case, again Qwyrxian words have not been blunt but childish and immature a big difference that most people could see and no matter how much Qwyrxian ignores that fact and calls his behavior something else it still remains uncivil. and unjustifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.107.64 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You're the only one being uncivil in this thread.—Chowbok ☠ 03:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you can construct that comment from what has been posted above, it's just that certain people with an agenda do not like being presented with the facts. It wasn't me who posted "sigh" but you choose not to see that because you do not like the facts I state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.224.56 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Enough of the uncivil remarks. Your original topic has been answered to, you have no reason to comment further, you just seem to be attacking people now. --Nutthida (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with you and not Qwyrxian on the main issue. That doesn't change the fact that Qwyrxian has been exceedingly patient and courteous, and you have frequently been rude and accusing him of bad faith.—Chowbok ☠ 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There was no uncivil remarks coming from me I did not put "Sigh" If I have been blunt well I guess i thought that it was normal around here or is it that there one rule for people who agree with you and another for those that do not? Guess so given that post. you actually do not comment on the issues and you just seem to be attacking people now and your post is hyporcritical. The actual fact is that the origional topic has not been answered far from it infact. there is no credible reason other than apeasement of religionists that a proper image should be shown in the infobox. as for "Qwyrxian has been exceedingly patient and courteous" how does that square with the "sigh" post selective reading does seem to be at play here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.64.122 (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt that my "sigh" was uncivil. In my past experience, I've never had anyone take a term of that nature as uncivil. I don't understand why it bothers you. It certainly wasn't attacking you in any way. If you want to pursue my remarks further, you should probably do so at WP:WQA, which is our usual forum for discussing issues of incivility; in fairness, you should know that if you do so, your own behavior can come under scrutiny. If you want to pursue the actual issue of the image further, since there seems to be a general consensus supporting the current image, you'll need to pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

And besides, the image discussion page is thataway → Talk:Muhammad/images.

~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how "sigh" could be interpreted any other way but an uncivil remark, I can not see another point to be made from this remark and I have to say that after the amounts of posts on this page it's a bit late to show a redirect to another page. there may be a general consensus supporting the current image amongst religionists and those guided by appeasement rather than wikipedia's core values but that isn't actually a genuine consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.89.148 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "genuine" consensus, in your opinion? One that agrees with your viewpoint? This issue has been discussed to death repeatedly. I appreciate that you may be new to the conversation, but this is not a new or novel question. If I may be very frank, I do not anticipate that you or anyone else commenting here has anything new to add to the discussion -- thus, the "sigh". – Luna Santin (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, characterizing those to disagree with you as "religionists" or "guided by appeasement" is not only false, but insulting and offensive; and a gross violation of Wikipedia's core Wikipedia:Civility policy as well as the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I have rarely seen a clearer case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Contrary to your assertion without an accompanying rationale, the presentation of the lead image in this article does represent Wikipedia's core values, as others have repeatedly explained above and in the talk page archives. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually the only reason to have no real image is either a religionist reason or to appease religionists stating that fact is not a violation it's just stating a fact weather you like it or not, most likely you are only getting wound up because I state the truth and you don't like it so are now thyrowing toys out of pram and accusing me of "pot calling kettle black" in page history, thats extremely childish immature and unquestionably uncivil, no matter how upset you get with me stating the facts it happens to be the truth nether the less. So one side of the argument is allowed to be "blunt" as they put it but the other isn't even allowed to state their view by your childish rules, if I may be frank even thank (although only people of other opinion are allowed to do this by your terms) if you think the issue has been discussed and resolved why are you not just ignoring my posts? and It was not you who put the "sigh" remark so why try and justify it? it remains unconstructive. your post does nothing but attack me and even if i'm pott calling kettle black (as you so childishly put it) this is only as a response to posts like yours. The stupid thing is I had exepted User:Qwyrxian's explanation that if I wanted to discuss it further I should work out how to use dispute resolution, that is a reasonable comment. you post is just inflamatory, you have no constructive comment to make so why do you bother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I (and I am sure others) are of the camp/opinion of "I don't care what your or anyone elses or even my personal beliefs are - this is policy. We follow policy or... we follow policy. Period." Thus, personally, if I thought there was any validity to your claim, I'd be screaming bloody hell in this discussion (or more likely, politely point it out). But I do not believe that to be the case, as has been discussed ad-infinitum above and in archived discussions. After reviewing the numerous discussions on this matter, I believe, whether people against having an image of Muhammed think it was done to appease them or not, that in reality, policy is simply being followed (which may just happen to coincide with their desires). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No policy is not being followed people are avoiding raising the issue as they will just be attacked (like you post), people are ignoring the fact special treatment is being applied here because it's easier to appease then anything else, look how much the bad guy I have become! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.6.130 (talk • contribs)

Please try reading this thread from the beginning. If you can find a common visual depiction of Muhammad, feel free to add it. Those of us who would like to see such an image have tried valiantly, and failed to find one. So go ahead, nobody is stopping you. You have yet to suggest anything specific. Find an image and present it. Otherwise your complaints aren't relevant, and starting to border on WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Anon: Be careful who you accuse of attacking you (I don't particularly care, but others might). I suspect I did no such thing. Like Amatulic, I'm all for an image if a common visual depiction can be found. I too couldn't find any. Help us out in this matter and find one, and you've got my !vote. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Question good article status; view overall article as apparently biased

No content discussion taking place. Ending talkpage disruption.
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I turned to this article to understand the historic origin of the Shi'a–Sunni division in Islam. I found that the article unnecessarily omits details regarding this, and so "sanitizes" this aspect of Islamic history. Remarkably, it further seems that other aspects of history that might be viewed as negative have received similar treatment. E.g., a search of the article to understand the origins of Islamic views of punishment in the Prophet's life (practice and teachings) is similarly lean. Reference to the treatment of conquered opponents is therefore comparably lean; in one case, reference is made to the pardoning of some, but clear statement as to the fate of those not pardoned does not appear. **The omissions here appear decidedly selective, in support of what might be termed a positive view of early Islam.** Nowhere is this appearance more clear than in the section on "Legacy", and the subsection that follows on the history of western views of Islam. Though scholars in this area are quoted, the quotes are so selective that they fail to represent the true, and often subtle and nuanced views of the quoted scholar (and do not begin to approach a reasonable, and thorough perspective on western views, either at the time, or in legacy). The final subsection (as of the date of this Talk submission) adds an exclamation point to the conclusion of "selective presentation" of information. As a result, I have to conclude that this is a not a good, but a poor article -- the perceived handling of areas where this reader has interest and critical capability (legacy, western views) casts a shadow over the preceding early historical aspects of the article, where my trust in the balance and veracity of the presentation simply has to be that, trust. Such trust cannot be placed, given clearly apparent bias later in the article. Hence, I would recommend that Wiki withdraw its "good article" imprimatur, and open this page to edit by serious scholars -- as a start (given the sensitivity of the article), by submitting the whole of the article to recognized academic historians of Islam, including some of those quoted, for comment on background (with edits to the article based on the comments to be made by a senior wiki editor), by inviting discussion of the balance of the article by the same audience, perhaps by submitting quotes of living scholars that appear in later sections for comment and clarification, etc. In this way, balance, and the completeness and thoroughness arrived at through balance, can be achieved. Otherwise, this is an article cannot be seen as an unbiased source for accurate historical understanding. In short, what's needed, is not a favorable article to one main branch of Islam or the other, or an historical article that is discernibly pro- or anti-Islam. What readers need is an article presenting the preponderant scholarly (and so as accurate as is obtainable) historical understanding of this subject, in support of no particular constituency. Until the article presents that, it cannot be a good article, and it cannot be recommended to young people for reading (as an online encyclopedia article must). Meduban (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC) The topic of this article is the biography of Muhammad. The article is not about Islam, Islamic history, Shia Islam, or Sunni Islam. Other articles cover those topics in more depth. Good articles must meet the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Which of those criteria are you claiming this article does not meet? Finally, you or any serious scholars are welcome to make improvements or propose specific changes here. The page is not closed to anyone except anonymous IP users or new accounts due to a history of vandal edits from such users. But even they may make constructive suggestions on this talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Agree with Amtaulic here; furthermore, Meduban, you should know that Wikipedia considered and firmly rejected the idea that we would "give over articles to experts". Another online encyclopedia called Citizendium attempted such a model, though they don't really get very much traffic and weren't able to successfully complete the model. Wikipedia very intentionally decided that anyone could contribute, save for the times when we have to stop anonymous editors because of a string of vandalizing edits. Amtaulic also correctly points out that the info you want may be found on other pages. Nonetheless, your help is welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC) You say that you welcome discussion on this page but in reality if you express views that do not conform to the religionist agenda you are very quickly, poo pooed, put down and insulted by a barrage of like minded individuals as has been witnessed above. There needs to be an outside view of matters discussed on this page to reach a balanced consensus as at present this article lacks balance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC) If there's a consensus, sometimes it's hard to overturn, especially if there has been massive discussion over the issue in the past. To get outside views, the best thing to do is call a WP:RfC, or perhaps another method of [{WP:DR]] if you wish. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) It would also help if there were any constructive suggestions on improvement. There seems to be none in this section so far, just complaints about balance, selectivity of sources, and some misperceived "religionist" agenda. The regular contributors here have not made any expression of religion as far as I can tell. Please adhere to the guideline Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Anyone can come here and suggest improvements to the article. Unconstructive complaints and personal attacks are definitely not welcome here. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry but spouting Assume good faith at me does not exclude your actions or describe mine, the issue here is that there is alot of people here with the same viewpoint which is one guided by religious beliefs not surprisingly given the articles name. therefore religionist is a fair description. Again I am not allowed to state my view without my opinion being deliberately misquoted and deliberate offense being taken at my statements as a calculated and deliberate attempt to make me look the bad guy, therefore please head your own advice and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your post is hypocritical in nature as is often the case when you posts. It will be very hard for you but please head your own advice and try to be civil when you post here. my point was that if you put any constructive suggestions on improvement that do not conform to the religionist agenda you are very quickly, poo pooed, put down and insulted by a barrage of like minded individuals as has been witnessed above. your post is just another example of that and no matter how much you respond as you do that still remains the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC) "Unconstructive complaints and personal attacks are definitely not welcome here" why do you continue to post just that then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC) The problem here is that this has descended very quickly into a critique of the talk page process. IP, you should suggest specific changes to the actual sourcing and wording of the article that you think would improve it. Simply saying "This article stinks" and "you religionist wont let me fix it" (sorry if you think this is an unfair paraphrasing) isn't going to solve anything. --Daniel 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC) Yes I am objecting to the talk page process as applied on this specific page, I am withholding my actual viewpoints and objections as I do not feel they can be reasonably discussed here. As has been suggested I should learn how to do a WP:DR. but I do not think that it is unreasonable to point out that the normal checks and balances that work on most articles are not working here. That's my opinion and I should be allowed to state it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 22:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) No ones stopping you from stating your opinion. People might argue with you, but they are just as entitled to their opinions as you are to yours. I'm just stating that nothing is going to change in the actual article unless you propose concrete changes. --Daniel 22:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC) My problem is that in order to have a non religionist proposal taken seriously you have to learn how to do a WP:DR otherwise you are just barraged with poo poos put downs and insults. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 23:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC) I really suggest you try proposing concrete changes. The fact is, you won't get anywhere with DR if you don't first have an actual content dispute. --Daniel 23:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC) My point is that I have an actual content dispute but as I can't put it here I have to learn how to do a DR a process that should not be necessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC) How do you propose to go to Dispute resolution if you persistently refuse to start the debate that would lead to the Dispute? This is not a forum for discussing the talk page. No matter how biased you may think the talk page is, this is not the place for that discussion. This section started off good with some critical statements. But when editors asked for specific detail it turned into a forum board style discussion about the editorial process. I've yet to see a single content alteration suggested, which I can either agree with or dispute. How do you propose we settle a dispute if there has been no discussion that would create a dispute? DR is for disputes with other editors. If you wish to contest content you do it here (which you seem to want to not do) and then if no reasonable consensus can be reached, you have a dispute in need of resolution. You seem to be making the assumption that your unstated content change will automatically be disagreed with, and thus wish to skip straight to resolution. This is entirely inappropriate. Please post your content related suggestions. And please talk about the article, not the talk page. If you think we are going to dispute you, then post it and prove yourself right. I suspect you may find out that wiki editors are a very reasonable bunch of people.Smitty1337 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC) "I suspect you may find out that wiki editors are a very reasonable bunch of people." a glance just above this will prove that statement false, that is why I can't post here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.169.96 (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC) This has gone on long enough.Can you actually suggest some changes so that it can be debated upon rather than calling everyone bigoted? Why don't you actually post the request and then judge?Name serves nothing.Neither your cause or anyone else's. --Sam 02:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC) What a pathetic response if "This has gone on long enough" then why lengthen it with your post? do you see the hypocrisy inherent in your post? I repeat in the hope it will sink in do you see the hypocrisy inherent in your post?????? I have stated my reasons quite clearly they remain totally valid and just more posts like yours only serve to underline how bad the situation is here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.6.130 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC) Could somebody who hasn't been involved in this yet please collapse or mark this as resolved, since at this point we're just generating more heat than light? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC) because it's not resolved, can't it be marked as unresolved and unresolvable? and why are we trying to hide what goes on on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.6.130 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I have left the anon/IP a message here[1] indicating how (and where) to properly address the biases and issues the anon indicates they have with the article and/or policies and guidelines. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Prophet-Mohammed-Name.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Prophet-Mohammed-Name.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Very offensive

I find these images of the holy prophet muhammed offensive. If I may I would like to provide an alternate photograph. May Allah guide your ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.157.248 (talk • contribs)

New comments at the bottom of the page, please.

Please also read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Not all Muslims share your view.

Many people are offended by many things on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't censored for anyone's benefit.

By all means, we are always willing to consider new or alternative images. Where can we see it? ~Amatulić (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The foundation recently passed a resolution on the use of controversial images which likely applies here. To quote:

We urge the community to pay particular attention to curating all kinds of potentially controversial content, including determining whether it has a realistic educational use and applying the principle of least astonishment in categorization and placement.

where the 'principle of least astonishment' means that media should conform to the readership's expectations of the topic. Since it is a general practice in the Muslim community not to depict the prophet, and since none of the images of the prophet presented on the page are factual or necessary to article content, they likely should be removed as contrary to this resolution. --Ludwigs2 14:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)