Talk:Muhammad/images

Important notice: This page is solely for constructive discussion of how best to integrate images in the Muhammad page, within Wikipedia talkpage guidelines. If you have come here to protest against the presence of images depicting Muhammad, please don't post here. Such objections have been raised before, and been given our consideration. If you have come here to protest against how Muslims are trying to remove images of Muhammad from Wikipedia, please don't post here either. That is not new either. A summary of the current consensus regarding pictures of Muhammad can be found at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. If you personally want to avoid seeing the images on that page, you might want to read this: How to set your browser to not see images Suggestions are expected to be informed by Wikipedia guidelines, in particular Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Suggestions for an adaptation of standing guidelines are offtopic on this page and belong on Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers in articles or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Because of disruption and trolling, this page can currently be edited only by established Wikipedia users. Please be polite and calm. Trolling or aggressive rhetoric either for or against the use of images will not be tolerated.

Additions to the FAQ

To overcome the current deadlock on the proposed additions on the FAQ, I suggest we take Aminz's proposed additions one at a time, discuss them and see what agreement we can come to about their addition (the full list can be seen here: here).

Question 1 'There are non-consenting readers who might involuntarily or unwittingly be exposed to the images when visiting Muhammad article; people who visit pornography articles do expect to see such images but Muslims do not have such expectations by the virtue of visiting this article. Another point is that if someone wants to get some information about Muhammad and googles "Muhammad", this article is the first website that comes up.

OK - I have a number of problems with the formulation of this question in terms of it's suitability for wikipedia - I'll leave possible answers to a later post. First, the concept of non-consenting readers is irrelevant in wikipedia terms and is covered by the general disclaimer clause (and the general disclaimer is included in the FAQ at length). The second part is inference because it presupposes who is visiting the pages, we have no hard data on the matter. We can guess that a lot of Muslims visit the page but we cannot present that as fact. The last part is also a problem because it presupposes that everyone uses google and that it's relevant how they arrived at the article.

A more neutral form of this question would be:

readers who visit the Muhammad article may not wish to view the images or be unaware that the images will be presented

I don't think this solves the original question. Another way of looking at this problem for Wikipedia, is that those who protest the use of images do so, not only out of respect for another culture, but in relation to the epistemological concerns presented through an “indigenous model.” An indigenous epistemology strives to reflect an indigenous reality. In short, such an approach works from the “ground up,” which usually REVERSES the “top down” epistemology from the privileged, typical Western model. Inside out, rather than outside in/emic, not etic. If the conceptual framework of an indigenous setting does not support a framework from outside that setting, we do not simply proceed by forcing the outside framework. That is not knowledge; that is ideology. The indigenous model goes beyond the surface structure of cultural competence, to the actual realities of indigenous people, which is what we want. If we want representations of the people from Sioux City, Iowa, we don’t illicit descriptions of Iowans from people who have lived in outer Mongolia (that would be in a separate section, showing us about Mongolians). If the indigenous approach- including the indigenous experts on the figure of Muhammad, states that you should not and CAN not obtain an accurate, true, and real grasp of this figure through images, and you dismiss this point of view through a theory of “neutrality” and general consensus (from those outside this context), then you have replaced knowledge for ideology. Now what is encyclopedic about that?Rtwise (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Once again, you seem to think that the images are presented as an EXACT, 100% image of Muhammad. They are obviously not. We don't even know for sure what a person looked like for sure until the technology of photography came into widespread use... probably around 100 years ago. Any picture or image produced before that time is not 100% accurate, be it of a man or of a time in history. Good Lord, look at any random painting of a battle from the past 2000 years. That alone shows how people picture(d) and represent(ed) their ideas. The images aren't there for any other purpose except to inform and share cultural views... sorry if you disagree, but it is a fact. Jmlk17 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments? --Fredrick day (talk) 12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

in my book, Aminz is guilty of WP:POINT here. He is trying to sabotage the FAQ by making the questions argumentative (of his pov) and the answers unsatisfactory. This is not constructive. Aminz has been going in circles for weeks now, it is time he took a break from this. Let him take up my suggestion and discuss the "no disclaimers" page. As long as the "no disclaimers" policy stands, there is no point in harping about "non-consenting readers". Wtf is a "non-consenting reader"? Are we prying people's eyelids open with matchsticks and chaining them in front of their screens? A person googling "Muhammad" is obviously far from non-consenting to be exposed to anything the depths of the internet will ooze his way. I daresay Wikipedia is one of the more civilized items among that. If you don't want to be exposed to the internet as it is, don't use google, or at least, for the love of baby bears, use a web filter. Stop giving us grief because you have failed to install a net nanny on your end. thank you. The online Ummah is also free to google-bomb muhammad.net into beating Wikipedia on google. Nobody here will grudge them that if they can pull it off. If they cannot, again, why whine about it here? dab (𒁳) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This question is, once again, irrelevant. While it might be true that 'Muslim' readers might not expect pictures of Mohammed to be in this article, and might therefore be unwittingly exposed to them, it is true that the 'average Wikipedia user', and I propose the vast majority of people who visit this page, 'would expect there to be pictures of Muhammad' and therefore will not be 'unwittingly' exposed to anything.

The concept that these images are in this article unexpectedly is once again based purely on a Muslim point of view. Most users of other cultures would expect there to be visual depictions of Muhammad. Lor (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree with this statement. I think that you have a strong support from ethnology writers, as well as heremeneutics, anthropology. PLease examine the differences written about from an "etic" to an "emic" point of view. While not "sui genre," there are some experiences and aspects of human culture that can not be understood without an "emic" or insider point of view. Religion is often cited as one of those type of subjects. There are many, many people who do not want a general, average joe commentary. When people want to hear about a specific Indian tribe in North America, if they are really wanting to know, they want the particular tribe to describe what it is that they believe or are doing. It is now quite passe to have alledged academic experts come in for a comment from the outside, rather a native, or insider view actually educates. This point of view would go for many other religions and subjects. On this subject, the insider point of view is telling you that it is completely the wrong way to understand the subject. Once people understand this fact, then they ARE surprised of the ignorance, pretention, and lack of respect. Again, there are lots of articles that have no images in encyclopedias and we can't assume everyone expects pictures in them all, so why leave of the pics of Muhammed here? Also, as has been said elsewhere, the pictures are not historically or contextually at the time of Muhammed, and less (much less) than 1% of the Muslim world ever uses pics of Muhammed for any educational purpose. Why not give a single article on Muhammad, and have an entirely different article on this subject? No blinking lights or buttons to click or warnings. It is quite obvious that these pictures have offended a good deal of the world's population, and rightly so. Muslim or non-Muslim, let's have good, informed scholarship, and appropriate use of images in encyclopedia articles. Don't mix topics and don't offend an entire people. What do you think? ThanksRtwise (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

yes, but the (tongue-in-cheek) point is that these FAQs are questions frequently asked by Muslims. Nobody else is even likely to read the FAQ page. It is the whole idea of the page to address Muslim concerns, but Aminz is trying to abuse the FAQ page as a soapbox. I consider this disruptive. dab (𒁳) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was confused as to the changes to the FAQ, please ignore my arguments above. Lor (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question, it is a series of statements and points. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one other point. Edward Said wrote about this issue so well in his "Orientalism." The West used very selective pictures from the "Orient" to understand Arabic culture. The "haram," pronounced "haaraam" instead of "hairemm," which is the place in teh house and/or tent where only women or relatives of the women can go, was mostly a fantasy of European sexual life. The nature and structure of what it is was almost completely distorted, and this was done through pictures and art forms. There are numerous examples. When in popular talk the West says "sheeek," coming from the arabic "Sheikh," pronounced closer to like strawberry "shake," it is understood as "exotic," or in 60's slang "really cool, far out..." The sheikh is a guardian of honor, leader, wise person, etc. You have the representations that seem like understanding, but they are characterizations and distortions. The people from the culture should play a role in gauging what pictures are most appropriate, if any. Thanks. Rtwise (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

yes? we have an article about Orientalism. "The people from the culture should play a role in gauging what pictures are most appropriate" -- we have a full article about depictions of Muhammad. Notable positions of "people from the culture" certainly should be, and are, discussed there. Wikipedia has some inherently "Western" attributes built in: the radical anti-bias policy, its reliance on academia and its aim of being an encyclopedia. If you are unhappy with any of these core principles, you are free to visit some other website, possibly one with aims and principle more compatible with your own. dab (𒁳) 19:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But I think that these concerns are directly related to this particular topic and should be dealt with here as it relates to this specific issue. The point is that the "anti-bias" policy, if there is such a thing as "anti-bias" (and recent scholarship says there most certainly is not!), is not evident here on this issue. Your own statement is conflictual, as you say an "inherently Western" attribute is "built in" which is somehow also "anti-bias." Rather than a general philosophical debate about what "academia" actually is or is supposed to be, I think it is best to frame things contextually and conceretely. On this concern regarding pictures of the Prophet Muhammad, the Islamic expert opinion, the "academic" point of view within the context of the experts on Muhammad (When I say Islamic, I refer to the full gamut of scholarship within the broad sweep of Islamic culture/s) is that pictures distort the subject matter. This might be the inherently "Eastern" academic attribute. Core principles may be debated elsewhere, as you suggest, but the offense and distortion are so clearly visible here. It isn't related to being pleased or happy either, you can be socratic about it. It is just not good scholarship to ignore the emic frame of a subject, here within this article. There is much within academia that would support a less distorted view on this cultural-religious subject, especially for an encyclopedia that purports to be international and comprehensive in scope.Rtwise (talk) 06:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

"conflictual"? Indeed. Radical anti-bias has a strong anti-bias bias. This is pure sophistry. It is simply not true that anything is being "ignored". You want to discuss Islamic aniconism? You are welcome to do that, in article space, go to Aniconism in Islam. We aren't subscribing to aniconism, but how is it necessary to subscribe to something in order to discuss it? Are you proposing we should subscribe to Communism, Satanism, Paraphilia and Veganism before we can host articles on these topics? No? Then how can you propose with a straight face Wikipedia needs to subscribe to aniconism before producing satisfactory articles on aniconism? I am sorry, you are not making one grain of sense. dab (𒁳) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sophistry is a waste of time and attention. It is great that you identify an approach, a bias. The bias is "anti-bias." But there are circles within circles of this, and it does seem like the dog trying to grasp its own tail if you don't address specific examples. Read the first statement I wrote above. If you really are supporting a project of anti-bias, which is the manners and rules here, then why don't you start with the people that are from the culture which birthed and have so thoroughly studied this topic? It would seem that if you are practicing "anti-bias," that you would include the emic point of view. Do you yourself speak Arabic? Are you within an Islamic culture? Do the writers of this article belong inside that circle? If not, where? Our orientation points are not in place very well in this obviously unsolved issue. We say "Middle East," but middle and east from what and who? In textual and iconic representation, we need a proper orienation to find out what the subject even is. Standing in Ohio with loads of books, for example, isn't the same as the fluid insights gained from inside indigenous Arabic, Islamic culture. My point is that the "core principles" you point to, are not practiced very well, conceretly in this setting. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Someone asked what "non-consenting reader" ment, I believe that is the same notion which censors for instance american tv, that you can't swear or show nudity because perhaps a child might glance at the screen and be ruined for life. While I don't like that particularly could a compromise for this article not be that the main article itself does not immediately display the images, but that one would have to click a link to see them - perhaps labeled something like "Follow this link to see an artists rendition". That way nobody would "stumble" on the picture, but it wouldn't have been removed from wikipedia either. --IceHunter (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

very deep. I did read your statement. It boils down to your disliking the fundamental idea of the Wikipedia project. There is no problem with that, you are not the only one, see Criticism of Wikipedia. You can open a blog dedicated to it. But it is perfectly clear that what you are discussing has nothing to do with the purpose of this talkpage. If you write a book about your "fluid insights gained from inside indigenous Arabic, Islamic culture", I'll be sure to include a reference to it on our Arab world article. If we started looking for "indigenous" editors to expound their "fluid insights" into their own culture, then we would be failing to "practice our core principle" (viz., WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV) and be running some sort of multicultural blog/myspace site instead. dab (𒁳) 15:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't find your response to Rtwise satisfactory dab. The point Rtwise is alluding too is deep. --Be happy!! (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

very deep. He should hold an existentialist colloquium about it, on his blog. This is far outside the scope of WP:TALK. Wikipedia has foundational principles. You accept them: you are welcome to contribute. You don't accept them: you are welcome to stay away, and even to bitch about them off-wiki. That's the long and short of it. dab (𒁳) 11:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a take it or leave it approach. Also, existentialism? Again, staying with the subject of displaying pictures of Muhammad. The subject of method and bias, as it relates here is something to note because of how it has offended so many, and because it is so clearly against the "core" literature from the culture that birthed him. I am sure you don't mean to say that indigenous knowledge is irrelevant for the "anti-bias" point of view (be assured it most certainly isn't; here is where your attention should be). In principle, "anti-bias" is admirable/appropriate as a project and program. There is nothing wrong with that, fairly normal stuff. You want to have an approach. But at least from teh time of Kant forward, we all know it is "as if." We have a practical way of approachig something, fine. We operate "as if" we locate a "bais" free point of view. We can even say "anti-bias." I have no problem with people contributing to the method's page you refer, it is just that here a very clear problem has emerged. This problem is real news, beyond debates of method. Briefly, in his "cave metaphor" I doubt PLato would have called it "existentialism" for someone to climb down into the cave to solve the problem of appearances/reality. My own reaction is it seems tautaulogical for people to simply revert people back to core principles and then believe something is solved or taken care of.... especially when it quite obviously hasn't. That is the procrustean bed (the Greek fellow that would strech people to fit his own bed or remove anything that went outside the frame). It isn't existentialism to look "deeply" into a cultural setting for what they see and experience. It is just something to be found, is there all over, in the books, the scholars, the writers, scientists, etc. You just let experts on the subject report what they know and see. Finally, if you yourself, or others, don't read or write Arabic, if you are not trained in an Islamic context (in whatever field you choose), aren't you at a great disadvantage as to determine if "anti-bias" has even been achieved? Shouldn't you take Wikipedia's tool box and "anti-bias" principles within the context of Arabic scholarship? If they respond back to you, that your approach to "anti-bias" is quite clearly biased (distorted and offensive), who then decides the point? In short, I don't think that dab has really addressed the point of an "emic" orientation, but has simply referred to rules of order and Wikipedia principles. The problem has most certainly not been solved by this redirection. Thanks Rtwise (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Okay, rtwise, all the isms aside, how do you feel that your diatribes should apply to the article? Remember that this is the talk page of a Wikipedia article, not a philosophical journal. What, concretely, do you think we should do? Aecis^Brievenbus 15:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? What Rtwise is arguing is: the best "unbiased" and "Scholarly" treatment of any subject, in this specific case the article on Muhammad, can best be achieved from an indigenous point of view. And that indigenous point of view is the Arab and Muslim point of view of the subject, which strictly restricts pictorial depiction of the subject. I am in agreement with every word of what Rtwise is saying and would like to add that, treating a subject from indigenous POV is fully consistent with Wikipedia policies as well. WP:NPOV defines NPOV as representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If we take a census of all published reliable sources on Muhammad in all languages, there is absolutely no doubt that a sheer majority of them will be ones written from a modern Muslim point-of-view without any pictorial depiction. Arman ^(Talk) 09:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There's only one problem with that reasoning: keeping the images out is not a neutral point of view, because an image is not a point of view. An image is just that: an image. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

At most, WP:UNDUE might be seen to apply, but the article also notes - in no uncertain terms - that naturalistic depictions are rare. -MasonicDevice (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Offensive? Haven't we been over this ground before? WP makes no editorial decisions to avoid offense. It's hardly a tautolgy to say that in the context of this site, "Y is an inviolable. To do X would violate Y. Therefore, we cannot do X." Context is key. It seems to me that you harbor disagreements with the policies in general, not just this application of policy. Get a blog and write on it there, but please, stop jamming up the talk page with your railing against "long" established WP policy. If you really don't like it, take this discussion to where it belongs: the policy's talk page.

Your charges that this bio offers a "distorted" view of Muhammad (solely?) because it contains pictures continues to ring hollow. You still fail to provide a single shred of evidence to back up the assertion that viewing an image of Muhammad impairs understanding of who he was, what he did, or his importance to society. This failing is not yours alone, as most of the scholars that also advance this viewpoint provide little in the way of evidence to back their assertion, either. Ask yourself, "What distorted viewpoint are these images promoting?" If you're going to make such charges, then you had better be sure you have an answer to this question. The nebulous answer "It's a distortion" won't cut it, nor will the complaint that "It's not customary," "It's not scholarly," "It's not how Muslim's see him." The first is too general, and circular to boot. The second is addressed in the article, and has a link to a subpage for a more detailed discussion. The third is wrong (several other dead tree or online encyclopedias include pictures of Muhammad). The fourth runs counter to policy, and isn't even a reason to remove the images, but rather to add text to explain how they do see him. No amount of Muslim scholarly agreement can make these pictures go away. Their existance and subject matter is verifiable and encyclopedic, and these are the only bars that we need meet to include them. I'm sorry you don't like the ruleset that WP operates under, but 'dems 'da breaks. If you can convince enough people over in the policy pages, you can affect a policy change.-MasonicDevice (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would go further and point out that anyone is free to create their own Wikipedia fork. All the text here can be copied, and the software is open-source, so there's really nothing stopping people who don't like the policies here to build on the work here but change it to their tastes. That's what Conservapedia and Citizendium did, and more power to them. Let a thousand flowers bloom. —Chowbok ☠ 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an unacceptable approach to method as it relates to this subject. There are several good reasons why. Back to Procrusteus, the guy was a Greek robber/thief. He put people to sleep with his method (his bed) to steal something from them, and also create injury. American Indian literature is filled with charges of "ethnocide" from scholarly writings about them over the years, that they stole something. What? Identity, dignity, knowledge, a lot of stuff that people take when they hide behind methods... Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the "bias against bias" approach. But, if we are honest, it is fairly standard, bread and butter stuff. The statemetns written in Mason Device's post, that perspectives "runs counter to policy" and "dems 'da breaks" if you question them, is actually not good scholarship in my view. This is tautology in the end, back the rules...take it up with management. The oft quoted statement of "orders are orders" by the soliders that killed innocent people in Nazi Germany, applies. They deferred to the method and order...what do you expect? This is what the orders have said, so we have to continue doing this stuff. When you come up to something that an entire people, ,or an entire city of living Arabic/Islamic scholars tells you,that it is distortion and that it does offend, you have climbed into a problem. If going back to the play book doesn't work, then you have to look at other ways to represent something, ways that can fit into your method, and so on. Surely this can be done if you try. A great book, that is often called the definitive work on truth and method, is Hans G. Gadamar's "Truth and Method." You have to read through the development of all this to see the PREJUDICE camouflaged in a "bias against bias" method. Teh "bias against bias" is just the same old "prejudice against prejudice" of the Western Enlightenment (rose by another name..). You have a little trick going on in that, a play on language, because no one can escape prejudice, or pre-judgments, because we are all thrown by langauge and circumstance. There are circles within circles of judgements. No one can function with out them. Saying that we have a "bias against bias" or a "prejudice against prejudice" does not make prejudices disappear. But it is a good method to use ..... As far as methods for this problem....again, go to the culture, the expert scholars, the setting and let them direct you. I would think that someone would have to at least read Arabic, to have been recognized by the culture itself as an expert. There are lots of them. They would need to be thoroughly familiar with the main corpus of writings on this subject. Let them guide you if you don't know how to read Arabic, haven't read the sources, and are not from the culture...etc. Finally, for us Western types, I would refer you to Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method." There are situations you ditch method to really find something, important situations. In short,method is something we play with and should never be taken so seriously that it obscures a subject matter. Thanks...Rtwise (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)rtwise

Ho boy... I think we just got Godwinized. Look, man, no one here (on this page you're looking at right now) cares about your dead Greeks, your philosophy of scholarship, or epistomology, because they have zero to do with the list of policies that regulate this insitution. Thay don't tell us what can and cannot go into this article? Got that? You don't even attempt to apply your scholarship to WP policy? Why is that? Do you feel that your scholarship should superseed? I doubt even you'd be that arrogant, after all what makes you better than anyone else? The policies aren't absolutly good or absolutly bad in and of themselves, but they do regulate and stipulate the current MO. We can't just ditch our method whenever we feel like it, because we'd just end up with a bunch of articles fashionable nonsense. WP is not anarchy. While a discussion on the general nature of scholarship is a good one to have, trying to have it in this space is a waste of your time. You're trying to fight a much bigger battle than you think, and you need to take it over to the NPOV, VER, and NOR talk page, and possibly the Village Well, to have any hope enacting the changes you seek. As the old saying goes, "Your princess is in another castle." -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Need to contact the person who created this site

Don't worry, I'd would like to ask you a few questions about rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.136.154 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no one person, but you are more than free to email myself, any other admin/user, or ask here on on my talk page. Jmlk17 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You could also ask here. If your questions are about the images, you should first read Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This page has hundreds if not thousands of authors. This encyclopedia has millions of authors. You can see the details in the "history" button at the top of each page. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If by rights you're referring to a desire to copy some of this article, see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)