This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 ( talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 212.116.219.107 ( talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Irfan
I think, you are missing the point Zazaban. I suggest you get yourself more educated on the prophet Muhammad, before posting comments.
If one looks into the English translations of the Sirat, the works 'fight', 'battle', 'raid' and 'attack' are used more or less interchangeably, and it is described in detail how the Muslims conquer settlements and share the booty (as per Sura 8). 'Conquest' is an appropriate term to use, and is surely less aggressive than the terms 'raid' or 'attack' used in the scripture. Avoiding 'conquest' would constitute undue whitewashing. References: Ibn Ishaq & Al-Tabari, tables of content. Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 ( talk) 09:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As an FYI and heads up, an article in today's edition of The New York Times ( Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized), talks about this ongoing controversy. I'm sure there are lots more folks who will come take a look at this article now. -- Mhking ( talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Elwood64151 ( talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense. Alex1996Ne ( talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.
-- digitalSurgeon ( talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why the picture shouldn't be included given that historical pictures of
Jesus are included.
TCPWIKI (
talk)
historical pictures of [[Jesus]] are included? Is this relevant in this case. Did anyone ask for the removal of pictures of Jesus(PBUH).
This is an encyclopedia. Any argument regarding the intentional offense a specific group is irrelevant as long as the information is factual or the represented content actually exists. It is a source of information that strives to be unbiased and thorough. Removal of content based on a particular group's wishes constitutes bias. Removal of factual content from a relevant topic would cause this source of information to become incomplete, again, affecting the accuracy of the article. Intentionally causing an article to become incomplete would set a dangerous precedent. Such action could call into question the accuracy of all articles within. While the intentions of those attempting to remove content may be honorable, to do so would erode the foundation of this great and noble project and tarnish it's reputation as a free and open source of unbiased and uncensored information. Hardley C. Cure 63.82.71.140 ( talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand, since many editors are editting the images, then obviously there is a quite enough number of writers who want these images out... isnt this the purpose of wikipedia. Or those images are so important to stay that you even violate the whole reason wikiperdia was established on.
Any idea how one can incorporate this kind of information to the article [1]? in a table with the subtitle "Appearance and Manner"? -- Be happy!! ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is important to have these descriptions, because these descriptions are more valid and correct, since it came from people who actually saw the prophet. While the depiction, no one can be sure of its truthfullness since, non were drawn while he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be "documented in all the Islamic books..." and so on (and I would be interested in seeing how you scientifically document that not one jot nor tittle has been altered), but what remains is that images of Mohammed were made, both historically and in contemorary times. I understand that displaying these images may be offensive to some Muslims, but you are in a free forum here. If you do not wish to be offended, then do not come. As long as the facts are correct, then they may be displayed. The depictions exist, ergo they may be displayed. There are MANY depictions of Christianity (and Christ) I find offensive, but in a society with freedom of speech and freedom of expression these depictions cannot be censored (nor would I want them to be. God is bigger than that). Indeed the highest command of Christianity is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I do not wish MY speech to be censored or restrained, and hence I must respect others right to say what they will (with obvious exceptions, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre). MY faith is not damaged by what OTHERS say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.198.192 ( talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Even though it seems that nobody even bothers to read the FAQ, it could certainly be a bit more solid and developed. We've gotten a few arguments which, while still utterly flawed, are semi-common and deserve a clear response (lest others follow in these same footsteps).
There are, I think, some fundamental misunderstandings between the resident editors and these concerned visitors. Notice, for example, the difficulty found in grasping simple concepts such as "illustrative depiction". Notice one of the poorest and yet most prevalent argument: that the images are "incorrect".
The FAQ touches on these arguments, but it could certainly do much more. Let's not let this plague of topics and repetitive posting go to waste- incorporate some of the discussion into the FAQ. Perhaps it would be best to start with an introduction which explains- generally- the concepts of "depiction", "neutrality", "censorship". After this introduction, a presentation of the common arguments/questions would be appropriate. I hope somebody agrees on this; the FAQ is a nice tool that we can turn to, but it's only moderately effective at this point. Improving it will save everyone quite a bit of time in the future, as all major arguments will already have a clear response.-- C.Logan ( talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 ( talk • contribs) 04:33, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)
The servers aren't all based in Florida, and the company is now incorporated in California. Still, if California tried to pass such a law it would get knocked down pretty quick in federal court. Good thought though. Avruch talk 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
First amendment, anonymous genius. JuJube ( talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here, but say it was actually passed into law. Then what? -- 64.173.240.130 ( talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl ( talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
though the images are not yet removed, but i have to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this discussion. Those who are in favor of the removal or not, I thank everyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, February 4, 2008 (UTC-5)
This talk page is apparently linked in many places on the Internet, due to discussion in many Islamic forums. As a result, there are many people here of sincere faith but who are not Wikipedians and do not understand our policies and the reasons for them. Please be nice to these people. And if you are a person of faith here to argue your case, please do us the courtesy of listening to the reasons for the content policies which are in place. If everybody treats everybody else with respect, even while disagreeing, we may be able to persuade some of our new friends to stay and help counter systemic bias. And if not, at least we will avert another PR disaster. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How come you were able to edit the page and add your comment, when the rest of us can't? TharkunColl ( talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two artworks by Muslim artists which portray the face of Muhammad uncovered further down in this article.
I believe I suggested this idea before and someone told me disclaimers are not allowed on Wikipedia and should be removed if they are noticed. Perhaps they were misleading me, but that was the response I received. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- ...I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? -Rosywounds // We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5
I am unhappy with how much of this current brouhaha has been handled, so I've made an informal complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad, if anyone's interested.— Chowbok ☠ 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As I've recommended in the Talk: Muhammad/images, take the images dispute to Wikipedia: Arbitration and get a ruling. I'm neither for 'or' against the images being kept. I'm more concerned about this article becoming a 'Holy War' site. GoodDay ( talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the consensus on this article concerning the images? Keep or Delete? GoodDay ( talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I still recommend trying ArbCom. If they reject the case, then start blocking editors who go against the consensus (if 3 blocks fail to get the message across? a lifetime ban for the editor should be invoked). GoodDay ( talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant the reverters, not the arguers. Those who keep their disputes to the discussion pages are acceptable. It's those who revert against the consensus, who need reigning in. GoodDay ( talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's frustrating for innocent editors out there, who have to content with a 'locked' article. GoodDay ( talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this image controversy has just gotten substantial media coverage here: New York Times - Wikipedia Islam Entry Criticized. -- Hdt83 Chat 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
To C.Logan; The ban dates to the 20th century due to te huge development in the media, not for any other reason, before the 20th century those pictures were something marginal and its exposure to the muslims we so limited to a few people. However we must say again that Muhammad (PBUH) himself refused to have such pictures or statues for himself, so the taboo roots back to the 6th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
well, quote their expert then: Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.” The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. this is pathetic. Islam has been going for 1400 years. They've had their jerks, and they've had their wise men like everyone else. This "depictions protests" nonsense is 20th century Islamism, period. All these zealots are achieving is reducing their rich heritage to an annoying or mildly amusing travesty. dab (��) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ How to set your browser to not see images}}Imagine a wikipedia space page with instructions on "How to set your browser to not see images". Imagine a link to it in the toolbox on the left side of each page. Image a more noticeable template that links to it, available for pages which are routinely problematic due to images that are shocking to a minority of wikipedia editors, rather than shocking/offensive to enough to have the image only linked to. Imagine a Wikimania conference in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
this has been proposed and rejected repeatedly. It is not for us to instruct people how to configure their browser. Nobody will stop you from compiling a Help: page giving instructions on how to block certain images at browser level. Interest groups could then trade lists of images on WP they do not wish to see. But the point is that we, as WP, cannot single out some images as "problematic": we either show them because they are relevant, or we don't show them. If we started accepting responsibility of maintaining blacklists "unsuitable for $INTEREST_GROUP" we'd never hear the end of it. If this situation prompts some users to set their browser to "block all images from wikimedia.org" -- so be it, let them configure their browsers already and stop pestering Wikipedia about it. If they are too pious to view "infidel" websites, what are they doing here in the first place? That's like a puritan visiting a porn site and then placing complaints could he get special settings blocking all the indecency please. dab (��) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no chance - leaving aside the work it would require, editors are here to improve the encyclopedia not spend their time trying to deal with every single group on the internet who want special privileges - it would be seen as the thin edge of the wedge and I'd be at the front of an campaign to stop this attack on the secular nature of wikipediia. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
look, nobody whatsoever objects to the development of a "halal Wikipedia" plugin that Islamic readers can install if they so choose. Instead of debating this here, people could just go and do it. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy at all, people are free to fiddle with their incoming internet traffic any way they like. You can develop a script that replaces "Muhammad" with "Muhammad (pbuh)", or "Jimbo" with "boobies" for that matter, in five minutes and just install it tacitly on your end. But no, this isn't about not seeing images, it is about making political noise. Still, if there was such a plugin, at least we could simply point further complaining users to it in a giant sign at the top of this page and move on. What is not acceptable is being pressured into adapting the standard toolbox / article space so that everybody is presented with a STOP sign and a message like "STOP! IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, DON'T LOOK!!! CLICK HERE FIRST!" as Fredrick points out, every interest group on Wikipedia would give no peace until they'll have similar templates touting their own sensitivities to the world at large in place. dab (��) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And another thing - why have we ran straight for "daddy" Jimbo? what's the point of having a community if people are going to run straight to him? Was this proposal put on the relevent boards first? -- Fredrick day ( talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think this is setting a precedent. Most articles on movies/books provide a header for "plot"; they don't simply jump into spoilers without warning, nor do they place these spoilers in the lead, for example. True, they don't provide overt disclaimers, but they at least allow readers to know "what's coming." Most Muslims that view this article probably wouldn't immediately assume unveiled imagery is furnished here, considering how rare it is to begin with. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, {{
spoiler}} is was sort of a prededent (I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often). As it is, I would rather get rid of {{
spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent. (hey, I note we
already have -- thank you Wikipedia!)
seriously, Aminz, you should look into developing a "halal Wikipedia" plugin along the lines I mentioned: this isn't meant as a joke, this could be a respectable project, and would even be guaranteed to make the news.
dab
(��)
21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about a built-in template for spoilers; I was referring to the fact that all Wiki articles on movies, for example, isolate the plot summary into one section under one heading. They do not provide spoilers in the lead, for example. This makes it very easy for someone to navigate on such a page while still avoiding spoilers. An article such as that is not censored, even though it provides accommodations (built in to its structure) that allow one to navigate the page easily without worry of accidentally stumbling into something that one could potentially find unhelpful/objectionable. "I would rather get rid of {{ spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent." So you would have found it tolerable, so long as it doesn't impact a page on Muhammad? That sounds like bad-faith editing, particularly since you barely even edit Islam-related articles in the first place. Halal Wikipedia? That seemed pretty irrelevant (and uncivil). - Rosywounds ( talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there is a section in this article that is named "depictions of Muhammad." I think any person, Muslim or otherwise, would be able to reasonably infer what is (or ought to be) located in that section from the title. Besides that, my comment wasn't directed at you, Fredrick day; it was directed at Dbachmann who implied that he wouldn't necessarily oppose a policy on spoiler templates so long as its application does not extend to a page on Muhammad, which sounds pretty hypocritical in my book. Certainly anyone can post, but individuals that come to this talk page to rant and cry (I am talking about Dbachmann, again) probably aren't doing much to contribute to this Islam-related article anyway; Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we don't need people that are wholly unconcerned with improving the article to come here to politicize the issue. - Rosywounds ( talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The complete removal has been eliminated as a solution, but different methods ought to be taken if we don't want anonymous users to appear here everyday clogging the talk page. I think anything is worth a shot. - Rosywounds ( talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
When we upload the picture of a living person we worry about copyright, we worry about that person's permission to upload the image (if not taken at a public meeting). We don't publish people's image taken by hidden camera in the washroom on Wikipedia. Almost everyday we have cartoons and caricatures US President George Bush published in various newspapers / magazines across the world. Should we publish those images on Wikipedia (if found under a free license)? Right now, there is a big upset in Hong Kong, because some nude images of a few celebrities have leaked on internet without their permission. Should Wikipedia use those images as soon as their copyright expires? Not sure what the exact policy on Wikipedia is, but I believe very logically, we shouldn't; especially if the subject of the article would not want to be identified by any of those images. When naming people on Wikipedia we always use the name the subject person wants to be called by. If there is a derogatory nickname of a person that the person doesn't approve, should we use that name in Wikipedia to identify him or her? Certainly not.
What has all this to do with Muhammad's (Sm.) images? There is no Images of Muhammad drawn during his lifetime - because Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve of painting his image. It is a historical fact Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve drawing images of living things. All his life he fought against creation of idols and images of people, especially those of famous people, heroes, and historical figures - because such practices eventually lead the image to become more important than the teaching (arguably what has happened to the Crush symbol).
Now, given some people (though Muslims) have drawn images of the Prophet (perhaps unknowingly) with little respect to Prophet's prejudice against such painting, should Wikipedia repeat (or escalate) the mistake by posting the images? When there is clearly no way to get to a compromise between showing and not showing the image, whose preference should Wikipedia respect, the preference of the person about whom the article is, or the preference / interest of the people who may be curious to know how the Prophet was "drawn" in isolated cases by people unaware / not respectful about Prophet's prejudice against painting? I strongly feel, Wikipedia should follow the preference of the subject of the article (The Prophet in this case), at least in the article about him.
This is not Censorship - this is respecting a very important person's own preference about how he wanted to be depicted. If the images are retained in the separate article on "Depiction of Islamic Prophet Muhammad" for historical interest, that's understandable.
If wikipedia admins still decide against removing the picture, please on the FAQ page under Q.1, In addition to It offends Muslims and The images are false add a third section heading "Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects" and clarify that Wikipedia policy is to totally disregard people's personal view in deciding how they should or should not be portrayed. Arman ( Talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, Arman, the request, as placed in the form of the heavy-handed begging that Islam-adherants have come her with, is not only censorship, it is blackmail. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic doctrinal guidelines; it is secular, and stands above and beyond the governing of any one party or parties. If you don't want to read the article, don't read the article. Don't look at the images. But you don't have the right to prohibit me or anyone else from doing so. And the constant begging that this has turned into is bordering almost childish blackmail. -- Mhking ( talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Any Muslims offended by the images should use Firefox with the Adblock add-on. Then they can block the images that offend them from appearing on their computers. Everyone's happy. 67.135.49.211 ( talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sadly to read such a post and a reply on a respectful site!
I think the Adblock solution is really fine. The problem applies only to Muslims, and they have proper remedies to avoid seeing images of their prophet. We can't have Wikipedia ruled by arcane religious laws anyway. Henrik R Clausen
Dear Sir,
I have never thought of being a secular as to be disrespectful to others beliefs or disrespectful to 1.5 billion believers seeing in such posted picture an insult to their prophet.
I always thought of secularism as a balanced thoughtful human respecting rule of thumb ideology and never the opposite. You are not promoting secularism at its best, but you are promoting sectarianism which I am really sorry to see such in here. Wikipedia is one of the common and famous references on the web, in the meantime, they are not entitled to put their own articles about any religion as per being a secular website as some wikipedia administrators replied, you are not entitled of any religious debate, article, study, or even any related to religious nature material.
By doing so and by rejecting the request to remove the picture posted please allow me to tell you that you are far from being secular but more likely closer to be a sectarian who is promoting sectarianism and nothing more. There is nothing called I own this then I do whatever I like, specially when it does provoke others and attacking or disrespecting their core of beliefs.
I really laughed when someone of the administrator was comparing religion to a restaurant "what an ignorance indeed!", if you to assign administrators please make sure that they are well educated seculars on the level of culture at least. I am only passing the following "you have to be respectful to be respectable".
"Your freedom ends when others freedom begins
Isn't it the ultimate core of understanding and mutual respect. Freedom of speech, a hanger where we hang our personal and social failure on and claim that it is sacred (where the word sacred is a religious term that is not related to secularism in any way). The better yet is "Respect" where everyone is entitled for such, as if freedom of speech means or equal to no respect then goodbye humanity.
Regards. Aulic
I don't believe this is an Arbcom issue. It's about content, not specific user behavior, which is Arbcom's sole purpose, unless I understand Arbcom wrong. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no liberty of expresion in that countries. A simple pic make thousend of people to mobilizate. It could be better to censor wikipedia to all Musulman regions, and then, whait.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Don't do this please. You r not alloed to Draw Picture of Muhammad (PBUH) Please Rempve them Adnan (ISB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.177.146 ( talk) 16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC) 212.116.219.107 ( talk) 11:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Irfan
I think, you are missing the point Zazaban. I suggest you get yourself more educated on the prophet Muhammad, before posting comments.
If one looks into the English translations of the Sirat, the works 'fight', 'battle', 'raid' and 'attack' are used more or less interchangeably, and it is described in detail how the Muslims conquer settlements and share the booty (as per Sura 8). 'Conquest' is an appropriate term to use, and is surely less aggressive than the terms 'raid' or 'attack' used in the scripture. Avoiding 'conquest' would constitute undue whitewashing. References: Ibn Ishaq & Al-Tabari, tables of content. Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 ( talk) 09:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As an FYI and heads up, an article in today's edition of The New York Times ( Wikipedia Islam Entry Is Criticized), talks about this ongoing controversy. I'm sure there are lots more folks who will come take a look at this article now. -- Mhking ( talk) 15:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Elwood64151 ( talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Mhking on this nonsense. Alex1996Ne ( talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
last time i heard every one was allowed to edit wikipedia, what happened to that ? this is sad. please explain the reasoning behing this.
-- digitalSurgeon ( talk) 17:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason why the picture shouldn't be included given that historical pictures of
Jesus are included.
TCPWIKI (
talk)
historical pictures of [[Jesus]] are included? Is this relevant in this case. Did anyone ask for the removal of pictures of Jesus(PBUH).
This is an encyclopedia. Any argument regarding the intentional offense a specific group is irrelevant as long as the information is factual or the represented content actually exists. It is a source of information that strives to be unbiased and thorough. Removal of content based on a particular group's wishes constitutes bias. Removal of factual content from a relevant topic would cause this source of information to become incomplete, again, affecting the accuracy of the article. Intentionally causing an article to become incomplete would set a dangerous precedent. Such action could call into question the accuracy of all articles within. While the intentions of those attempting to remove content may be honorable, to do so would erode the foundation of this great and noble project and tarnish it's reputation as a free and open source of unbiased and uncensored information. Hardley C. Cure 63.82.71.140 ( talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it necessary? Most of editwars seems to come from new accounts or IPs. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 23:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand, since many editors are editting the images, then obviously there is a quite enough number of writers who want these images out... isnt this the purpose of wikipedia. Or those images are so important to stay that you even violate the whole reason wikiperdia was established on.
Any idea how one can incorporate this kind of information to the article [1]? in a table with the subtitle "Appearance and Manner"? -- Be happy!! ( talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is important to have these descriptions, because these descriptions are more valid and correct, since it came from people who actually saw the prophet. While the depiction, no one can be sure of its truthfullness since, non were drawn while he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince charming456 ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
It may be "documented in all the Islamic books..." and so on (and I would be interested in seeing how you scientifically document that not one jot nor tittle has been altered), but what remains is that images of Mohammed were made, both historically and in contemorary times. I understand that displaying these images may be offensive to some Muslims, but you are in a free forum here. If you do not wish to be offended, then do not come. As long as the facts are correct, then they may be displayed. The depictions exist, ergo they may be displayed. There are MANY depictions of Christianity (and Christ) I find offensive, but in a society with freedom of speech and freedom of expression these depictions cannot be censored (nor would I want them to be. God is bigger than that). Indeed the highest command of Christianity is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I do not wish MY speech to be censored or restrained, and hence I must respect others right to say what they will (with obvious exceptions, "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre). MY faith is not damaged by what OTHERS say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.198.192 ( talk) 16:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Even though it seems that nobody even bothers to read the FAQ, it could certainly be a bit more solid and developed. We've gotten a few arguments which, while still utterly flawed, are semi-common and deserve a clear response (lest others follow in these same footsteps).
There are, I think, some fundamental misunderstandings between the resident editors and these concerned visitors. Notice, for example, the difficulty found in grasping simple concepts such as "illustrative depiction". Notice one of the poorest and yet most prevalent argument: that the images are "incorrect".
The FAQ touches on these arguments, but it could certainly do much more. Let's not let this plague of topics and repetitive posting go to waste- incorporate some of the discussion into the FAQ. Perhaps it would be best to start with an introduction which explains- generally- the concepts of "depiction", "neutrality", "censorship". After this introduction, a presentation of the common arguments/questions would be appropriate. I hope somebody agrees on this; the FAQ is a nice tool that we can turn to, but it's only moderately effective at this point. Improving it will save everyone quite a bit of time in the future, as all major arguments will already have a clear response.-- C.Logan ( talk) 08:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, does that mean if someone proposes an initiative in Florida to ban pictures of muhammed from being shown and it passes then Wikipedia would have to remove thier pictures no matter what the consensus is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.251.11 ( talk • contribs) 04:33, February 3, 2008 (UTC-6)
The servers aren't all based in Florida, and the company is now incorporated in California. Still, if California tried to pass such a law it would get knocked down pretty quick in federal court. Good thought though. Avruch talk 14:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
First amendment, anonymous genius. JuJube ( talk) 16:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to play the Devil's Advocate here, but say it was actually passed into law. Then what? -- 64.173.240.130 ( talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Please place your requests for Wikipedia to remove pictures of Muhammad in this dedicated page or they may be removed. TharkunColl TharkunColl ( talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
though the images are not yet removed, but i have to thank everyone who took the time to participate in this discussion. Those who are in favor of the removal or not, I thank everyone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.81.12 ( talk • contribs) 06:48, February 4, 2008 (UTC-5)
This talk page is apparently linked in many places on the Internet, due to discussion in many Islamic forums. As a result, there are many people here of sincere faith but who are not Wikipedians and do not understand our policies and the reasons for them. Please be nice to these people. And if you are a person of faith here to argue your case, please do us the courtesy of listening to the reasons for the content policies which are in place. If everybody treats everybody else with respect, even while disagreeing, we may be able to persuade some of our new friends to stay and help counter systemic bias. And if not, at least we will avert another PR disaster. Thanks, Guy ( Help!) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
How come you were able to edit the page and add your comment, when the rest of us can't? TharkunColl ( talk) 01:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There are two artworks by Muslim artists which portray the face of Muhammad uncovered further down in this article.
I believe I suggested this idea before and someone told me disclaimers are not allowed on Wikipedia and should be removed if they are noticed. Perhaps they were misleading me, but that was the response I received. - Rosywounds ( talk) 01:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- ...I do not know whether or not it is a violation of censorship policy, but perhaps we could include a warning of these images at the top of the page on Muhammad? -Rosywounds // We can't include a disclaimer at the top of the article - Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. The article is already covered by Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, which says Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to and Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. --Hut 8.5
I am unhappy with how much of this current brouhaha has been handled, so I've made an informal complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heavy-handed admin behavior at Muhammad, if anyone's interested.— Chowbok ☠ 02:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
As I've recommended in the Talk: Muhammad/images, take the images dispute to Wikipedia: Arbitration and get a ruling. I'm neither for 'or' against the images being kept. I'm more concerned about this article becoming a 'Holy War' site. GoodDay ( talk) 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the consensus on this article concerning the images? Keep or Delete? GoodDay ( talk) 02:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I still recommend trying ArbCom. If they reject the case, then start blocking editors who go against the consensus (if 3 blocks fail to get the message across? a lifetime ban for the editor should be invoked). GoodDay ( talk) 02:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant the reverters, not the arguers. Those who keep their disputes to the discussion pages are acceptable. It's those who revert against the consensus, who need reigning in. GoodDay ( talk) 02:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's frustrating for innocent editors out there, who have to content with a 'locked' article. GoodDay ( talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this image controversy has just gotten substantial media coverage here: New York Times - Wikipedia Islam Entry Criticized. -- Hdt83 Chat 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
To C.Logan; The ban dates to the 20th century due to te huge development in the media, not for any other reason, before the 20th century those pictures were something marginal and its exposure to the muslims we so limited to a few people. However we must say again that Muhammad (PBUH) himself refused to have such pictures or statues for himself, so the taboo roots back to the 6th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazem adel ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
well, quote their expert then: Paul M. Cobb, who teaches Islamic history at Notre Dame, said, “Islamic teaching has traditionally discouraged representation of humans, particularly Muhammad, but that doesn’t mean it’s nonexistent.” He added, “Some of the most beautiful images in Islamic art are manuscript images of Muhammad.” The idea of imposing a ban on all depictions of people, particularly Muhammad, dates to the 20th century, he said. this is pathetic. Islam has been going for 1400 years. They've had their jerks, and they've had their wise men like everyone else. This "depictions protests" nonsense is 20th century Islamism, period. All these zealots are achieving is reducing their rich heritage to an annoying or mildly amusing travesty. dab (��) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
{{ How to set your browser to not see images}}Imagine a wikipedia space page with instructions on "How to set your browser to not see images". Imagine a link to it in the toolbox on the left side of each page. Image a more noticeable template that links to it, available for pages which are routinely problematic due to images that are shocking to a minority of wikipedia editors, rather than shocking/offensive to enough to have the image only linked to. Imagine a Wikimania conference in Egypt this summer. WAS 4.250 ( talk) 19:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
this has been proposed and rejected repeatedly. It is not for us to instruct people how to configure their browser. Nobody will stop you from compiling a Help: page giving instructions on how to block certain images at browser level. Interest groups could then trade lists of images on WP they do not wish to see. But the point is that we, as WP, cannot single out some images as "problematic": we either show them because they are relevant, or we don't show them. If we started accepting responsibility of maintaining blacklists "unsuitable for $INTEREST_GROUP" we'd never hear the end of it. If this situation prompts some users to set their browser to "block all images from wikimedia.org" -- so be it, let them configure their browsers already and stop pestering Wikipedia about it. If they are too pious to view "infidel" websites, what are they doing here in the first place? That's like a puritan visiting a porn site and then placing complaints could he get special settings blocking all the indecency please. dab (��) 19:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no chance - leaving aside the work it would require, editors are here to improve the encyclopedia not spend their time trying to deal with every single group on the internet who want special privileges - it would be seen as the thin edge of the wedge and I'd be at the front of an campaign to stop this attack on the secular nature of wikipediia. -- Fredrick day ( talk) 20:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
look, nobody whatsoever objects to the development of a "halal Wikipedia" plugin that Islamic readers can install if they so choose. Instead of debating this here, people could just go and do it. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy at all, people are free to fiddle with their incoming internet traffic any way they like. You can develop a script that replaces "Muhammad" with "Muhammad (pbuh)", or "Jimbo" with "boobies" for that matter, in five minutes and just install it tacitly on your end. But no, this isn't about not seeing images, it is about making political noise. Still, if there was such a plugin, at least we could simply point further complaining users to it in a giant sign at the top of this page and move on. What is not acceptable is being pressured into adapting the standard toolbox / article space so that everybody is presented with a STOP sign and a message like "STOP! IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, DON'T LOOK!!! CLICK HERE FIRST!" as Fredrick points out, every interest group on Wikipedia would give no peace until they'll have similar templates touting their own sensitivities to the world at large in place. dab (��) 20:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
And another thing - why have we ran straight for "daddy" Jimbo? what's the point of having a community if people are going to run straight to him? Was this proposal put on the relevent boards first? -- Fredrick day ( talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think this is setting a precedent. Most articles on movies/books provide a header for "plot"; they don't simply jump into spoilers without warning, nor do they place these spoilers in the lead, for example. True, they don't provide overt disclaimers, but they at least allow readers to know "what's coming." Most Muslims that view this article probably wouldn't immediately assume unveiled imagery is furnished here, considering how rare it is to begin with. - Rosywounds ( talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
yes, {{
spoiler}} is was sort of a prededent (I'm surprised this doesn't come up more often). As it is, I would rather get rid of {{
spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent. (hey, I note we
already have -- thank you Wikipedia!)
seriously, Aminz, you should look into developing a "halal Wikipedia" plugin along the lines I mentioned: this isn't meant as a joke, this could be a respectable project, and would even be guaranteed to make the news.
dab
(��)
21:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about a built-in template for spoilers; I was referring to the fact that all Wiki articles on movies, for example, isolate the plot summary into one section under one heading. They do not provide spoilers in the lead, for example. This makes it very easy for someone to navigate on such a page while still avoiding spoilers. An article such as that is not censored, even though it provides accommodations (built in to its structure) that allow one to navigate the page easily without worry of accidentally stumbling into something that one could potentially find unhelpful/objectionable. "I would rather get rid of {{ spoiler}} (per "WP is not censored") than allow it to set such a precedent." So you would have found it tolerable, so long as it doesn't impact a page on Muhammad? That sounds like bad-faith editing, particularly since you barely even edit Islam-related articles in the first place. Halal Wikipedia? That seemed pretty irrelevant (and uncivil). - Rosywounds ( talk) 23:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please note that there is a section in this article that is named "depictions of Muhammad." I think any person, Muslim or otherwise, would be able to reasonably infer what is (or ought to be) located in that section from the title. Besides that, my comment wasn't directed at you, Fredrick day; it was directed at Dbachmann who implied that he wouldn't necessarily oppose a policy on spoiler templates so long as its application does not extend to a page on Muhammad, which sounds pretty hypocritical in my book. Certainly anyone can post, but individuals that come to this talk page to rant and cry (I am talking about Dbachmann, again) probably aren't doing much to contribute to this Islam-related article anyway; Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and we don't need people that are wholly unconcerned with improving the article to come here to politicize the issue. - Rosywounds ( talk) 23:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The complete removal has been eliminated as a solution, but different methods ought to be taken if we don't want anonymous users to appear here everyday clogging the talk page. I think anything is worth a shot. - Rosywounds ( talk) 23:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
When we upload the picture of a living person we worry about copyright, we worry about that person's permission to upload the image (if not taken at a public meeting). We don't publish people's image taken by hidden camera in the washroom on Wikipedia. Almost everyday we have cartoons and caricatures US President George Bush published in various newspapers / magazines across the world. Should we publish those images on Wikipedia (if found under a free license)? Right now, there is a big upset in Hong Kong, because some nude images of a few celebrities have leaked on internet without their permission. Should Wikipedia use those images as soon as their copyright expires? Not sure what the exact policy on Wikipedia is, but I believe very logically, we shouldn't; especially if the subject of the article would not want to be identified by any of those images. When naming people on Wikipedia we always use the name the subject person wants to be called by. If there is a derogatory nickname of a person that the person doesn't approve, should we use that name in Wikipedia to identify him or her? Certainly not.
What has all this to do with Muhammad's (Sm.) images? There is no Images of Muhammad drawn during his lifetime - because Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve of painting his image. It is a historical fact Muhammad (Sm.) did not approve drawing images of living things. All his life he fought against creation of idols and images of people, especially those of famous people, heroes, and historical figures - because such practices eventually lead the image to become more important than the teaching (arguably what has happened to the Crush symbol).
Now, given some people (though Muslims) have drawn images of the Prophet (perhaps unknowingly) with little respect to Prophet's prejudice against such painting, should Wikipedia repeat (or escalate) the mistake by posting the images? When there is clearly no way to get to a compromise between showing and not showing the image, whose preference should Wikipedia respect, the preference of the person about whom the article is, or the preference / interest of the people who may be curious to know how the Prophet was "drawn" in isolated cases by people unaware / not respectful about Prophet's prejudice against painting? I strongly feel, Wikipedia should follow the preference of the subject of the article (The Prophet in this case), at least in the article about him.
This is not Censorship - this is respecting a very important person's own preference about how he wanted to be depicted. If the images are retained in the separate article on "Depiction of Islamic Prophet Muhammad" for historical interest, that's understandable.
If wikipedia admins still decide against removing the picture, please on the FAQ page under Q.1, In addition to It offends Muslims and The images are false add a third section heading "Muhammad himself didn't approve of painting living objects" and clarify that Wikipedia policy is to totally disregard people's personal view in deciding how they should or should not be portrayed. Arman ( Talk) 05:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, Arman, the request, as placed in the form of the heavy-handed begging that Islam-adherants have come her with, is not only censorship, it is blackmail. Wikipedia is not governed by Islamic doctrinal guidelines; it is secular, and stands above and beyond the governing of any one party or parties. If you don't want to read the article, don't read the article. Don't look at the images. But you don't have the right to prohibit me or anyone else from doing so. And the constant begging that this has turned into is bordering almost childish blackmail. -- Mhking ( talk) 06:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Any Muslims offended by the images should use Firefox with the Adblock add-on. Then they can block the images that offend them from appearing on their computers. Everyone's happy. 67.135.49.211 ( talk) 21:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Sadly to read such a post and a reply on a respectful site!
I think the Adblock solution is really fine. The problem applies only to Muslims, and they have proper remedies to avoid seeing images of their prophet. We can't have Wikipedia ruled by arcane religious laws anyway. Henrik R Clausen
Dear Sir,
I have never thought of being a secular as to be disrespectful to others beliefs or disrespectful to 1.5 billion believers seeing in such posted picture an insult to their prophet.
I always thought of secularism as a balanced thoughtful human respecting rule of thumb ideology and never the opposite. You are not promoting secularism at its best, but you are promoting sectarianism which I am really sorry to see such in here. Wikipedia is one of the common and famous references on the web, in the meantime, they are not entitled to put their own articles about any religion as per being a secular website as some wikipedia administrators replied, you are not entitled of any religious debate, article, study, or even any related to religious nature material.
By doing so and by rejecting the request to remove the picture posted please allow me to tell you that you are far from being secular but more likely closer to be a sectarian who is promoting sectarianism and nothing more. There is nothing called I own this then I do whatever I like, specially when it does provoke others and attacking or disrespecting their core of beliefs.
I really laughed when someone of the administrator was comparing religion to a restaurant "what an ignorance indeed!", if you to assign administrators please make sure that they are well educated seculars on the level of culture at least. I am only passing the following "you have to be respectful to be respectable".
"Your freedom ends when others freedom begins
Isn't it the ultimate core of understanding and mutual respect. Freedom of speech, a hanger where we hang our personal and social failure on and claim that it is sacred (where the word sacred is a religious term that is not related to secularism in any way). The better yet is "Respect" where everyone is entitled for such, as if freedom of speech means or equal to no respect then goodbye humanity.
Regards. Aulic
I don't believe this is an Arbcom issue. It's about content, not specific user behavior, which is Arbcom's sole purpose, unless I understand Arbcom wrong. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ echo 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no liberty of expresion in that countries. A simple pic make thousend of people to mobilizate. It could be better to censor wikipedia to all Musulman regions, and then, whait.