Talk:Muhammad - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aude (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 21 February 2008 (→Images on the Arabic Misplaced Pages: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:14, 21 February 2008 by Aude (talk | contribs) (→Images on the Arabic Misplaced Pages: fix)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted. If you find these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ. Discussion of images should be posted to the subpage Talk:Muhammad/images.

Important notice: Misplaced Pages's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, including the use of images and honorifics such as "peace be upon him". The FAQ represents the consensus of editors here. If you are new to this article and have a question or suggestion for it, please read the FAQ first.

Misplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muhammad article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 3 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Mediation Archives Request for Clarification/Muslim Guild Statements Clarity discussion/Refining positions Ars' final archive The rest of the mediation by Ars Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive Index

Need clarification

Hi folks, just asking for a clarification here: " and after eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, his followers, who by then had grown to ten thousand, conquered Mecca." In this instance, does "conquered" refer to a violent event, or is it meant in the spiritual sense? Thanks, Duagloth (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How would one conquer a city spiritually? Arrow740 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

@Arrow740: If some body will forcibly wear you a skirt besides u are a man.so will u wear skirts all over ur life.how come you say many of them where converted forcibly.....You people only know how to critisize Islam..But GOD's Grace ISLAM is going to live for ever. You have jeliusy that how come muslims folllow their religion as it was.there is no change in our religion.unlike other religions which are changed day by day.Some of them release their new versions of their religion books... So please stop critisizing aur religion and do research ur own religion and you will find answer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.97.158 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Willing conversion, capturing the hearts and minds of the people. -Bikinibomb (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They knew they had no chance so they surrendered. There were some forced conversions, however. Arrow740 (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Duagloth, the conquest of Mecca was peaceful. Muhammad asked two or three persons to leave Mecca before he enters it unless they convert (what Arrow is calling forced conversion). --Be happy!! (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources actually differ. One source says that everyone in Mecca converted to Islam, "willingly or unwillingly," while others indicate that this was not the case. It is more certain that there were twenty or so holdouts who were killed when Muhammad took over. Arrow740 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it seems clarification is required. The word conquer must not be used here, and its unaccurate. When Muhammad peace upon him started telling people about Islam, he was fought by people because it asked for justice and equality between poor and the rich. the Rich didnt like that and started their voilance and tortures on everyone that became a muslims. suprisingly people still converted, and the tortures only increased.which caused Muhammad and his followers to leave THEIR OWN COUNTRY,LAND, MONEY, HOUSES AND OTHER BELONGINGS, and they only cared for their believes. Muslims and those who tortured them came to an agreement to stop any fights, but it was voilated by the Mekkah people, and as a result Muslims went to Mekkah to regain what is actually theirs. even though they muslims were stronger, all those who tortured them in the past were forgiven. In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own. they might have done it for their own reasons, but at the end it was their desicion. So conquer is when a person takes a land that doesnt belong to him, take it by force, and oppress its people. not return to your own house after you were forced out of it, and forgive those who actually hurt you and fought you for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.60.40.174 (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

'Conquered' just means that Muhammad assumed control of Mecca, the Kaaba etc. It doesn't imply a great deal of violence, though some did take place, most notably the list of individuals to be killed on sight. However, there was much less violence than in other battles, thus 'conquest' is more appropriate than 'battle' or 'raid' in this context. This is also the word used by Al-Tabari (volume 8, page 160) in the headline of that very chapter. The term 'Gazwa' (a raid led by Muhammad himself) is of course appropriate, too. There were 27 of those recorded, and many were significantly more violent than the conquest of Mecca. I think 'conquest' is a nice, non-offensive term that describes events appropriately. Sources: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari Henrik R Clausen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.133.219 (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Captured" seems like a better synonym, with less baggage. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "capture" has a temporary connotation, like you're holding on to it for a while but will give it back or it could be captured back. I think conquer is the correct word and could be read as if "conquering the hearts of the audience". Victory is acquired, not just control. An army might capture a prisoner, but the fighting is over when the enemy force is conquered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.72.220 (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I read here: "In islam there is not such thing as forcing people to be muslims, so those who converted done it on their own.". Actualy in a lot of islam countries it is forbidden to practice other believes, or it forbidden to move to a different believe or no believe at all. Try to establish a church or a budhistic temple in those countries and speak of other believes, or as a christian consume alcholics it is simply not allowed. When one familiy member would change his belief, breaks tradition we read about it here in the news. The last couple of years several women and girls have been murdered because they supposedly had ‘stained’ the honour of their family. Also a few men were victim of honour killings. so think again its not that free, unless you believe thats all a kind of respectull freedom. As a side note, i'm not offensive and i'm not against muslims. just presenting some known old news fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's where you're reading too much into it. Which countries force people NOT to have any other belief except Islam? Saudi Arab? Lebanon? Egypt? Pakistan? Syria? Think again, my friend. Almost all Muslim countries have significant minorities that practice other religions beside Islam. Then again if there might be a society so hell-bent on eradicating all non-Muslims from among their ranks, you couldn't possibly tag them with the label of Islamic fundamentalism. It's like saying that the USA invaded Iraq just because Christianity teaches to spread bloodshed and gaining of material wealth through arm-twisting other people. It's wrong to attribute the doings of a people to a particular faith. And the "honor killing" term is a little over-ambitious and this is not really the page to discuss it. We could have a chat on our respective talk pages perhaps. uXuf (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally from what i have learned from sources is that no one was asked to leave and no one was killed in mecca. Also I assume this source is correct for he gave out a set of guidelines as to what the rules were for the bloodshed. There may be no way to know the truth for certain as the victor always makes history. However, the idea that Muhammed said that those who stood under the flag of bilal (a slave who Muhammed freed), those who stayed in their home, and those who stayed near a another object *slipped my mind, when i find the book i'll fix this*, would not be attacked. Since no one went against the muslims, there was no bloodshed, nor was there any form of an attack that was recorded. This sounds like the right idea, also i don't think that everyone converted in Mecca, for that was unlikely, sounds more like a generalization. Another fact is it is possible to conquer people without slaughtering thousands arrow, there is such a thing as losing a debate. Also did the prophet have 11 wives, I was told that he only had 7, and never more then 4 at a time. Ka$HisHere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka$HisHere (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

I am a Muslim and I have been reading the debate going on - topic after topic and the discussion is wandering into like a hot debate. I think the appropriate way would be to add some sort of disclaimer like "some images might not be appropriate for certain readers bla bla" and then make the person reading the article choose to go in or not.

Um...Not sure if you know this but in Shia'a islam it is ok to depict images of Muhammed. Infact many Shiaa people where his image(along with Ali) around there necks(on a nicklace) in the same way many christians wear jesus. So why should wikipedia choose to be Sunni? Last I check wikipedia was pretty secular.

If we can put restrictions on posting nude images or even graphic images as they are offense to some people, why can't we do it with the images of Muhammed (PBUH)? Shouldn't we make wiki for "everyone" and respect every reader's thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kparacha (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

this debate isn't "hot" at all. It's as stale as they get. If people would actually read the article lead, they would find mention right there that some people don't like to see these pictures, there is really no need to keep informing us of the fact. No, Misplaced Pages is not for "everyone", that's a fundamental misunderstanding (see WP:NOT). Misplaced Pages is for anyone, i.e. anyone who is willing to accept certain project fundamentals. Everyone else is free to just stay away. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"If we can put restrictions on posting nude images or even graphic images..."

We can't, and we don't. See here. Misplaced Pages is not censored; the possibility of offense should be of no concern to editors as per Misplaced Pages policy. Wiki is intended for anyone seeking to be informed, and that's why we don't limit the information provided to cater to the sensibilities of any particular group. If it bothers you, don't look at it.

As far as I (and many of the other editors) are concerned, it is simple enough: if you don't want to see pictures that may offend you, it is generally unwise to go browsing for the related subjects on an uncensored encyclopedia. In this instance, it is unwise to come to a secular encyclopedia with a religious mindset and expectations.--C.Logan (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

the precedent people are looking for is goatse.cx. But seriously. Try to compare in your mind, for five seconds, the encyclopedicity of goatse with that of a famous Ottoman illustrated manuscript. dab (𒁳) 19:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, in an article about goatse, I'd say the image is pretty encyclopedic. In just about any other article--no. gren グレン 23:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I, personally, think goat should be able to be on here. нмŵוτн τ 04:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To address the point about disclaimers, this page (like every other one on Misplaced Pages) already links to Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer which states that Misplaced Pages contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers and Some articles may contain names, images, artworks or descriptions of events that some cultures restrict access to. Hut 8.5 19:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is something that everyone is missing. The Muslims cannot portray images of the Prophet of Islam, because the Prophet did not want people worshipping his image. Also muslims are bounded by the Quran to respect other people religion in al Kafiroon, so there is no reason why muslims should have any trouble with the portraits as they should know better then to worship them. However, I feel there should be some sign that states that those pictures may not be accurate as their is no proof of what the the Prophet looked like. There is no way to verify the authenticity of those portraits, if they were done while the prophet was there. To support that point I would remind debate over the skin color of Jesus/Isa. Ka$HisHere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka$HisHere (talk • contribs) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An example of something that was needlessly offensive is this former version of sportswear . I see this as analagous to the images question in this article, because the issue is not how offensive the picture is in the abstract but whether it added anything useful to the article. Will anyone argue that it was "censorship" to remove the picture from the sportswear article? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could find a better quality image which depicts the same thing. Jockstraps shouldn't really cause offense to anyone; they are simply articles of athletic support. The illustration of this unique piece of sportswear is very useful to the reader. Note, however, the context: an unreferenced article which borders on being little more than a messy stub. The article could be expanded greatly, and several images would find a relevant place- a jockstrap image being one of them (preferably not as wide as this one- perhaps a vertical arrangement would be better).

Although your argument attempt to appeal to the basic usefulness of the image, one must address the historical significance inherent in the images of Muhammad: well-known and academically supported illustrations which attempted to depict the subject in question. Although many Muslims don't like it, this is indeed one part of their history, as there is an illustrative tradition as well as a calligraphic one.

I don't see how the jockstrap example or these images do not "add anything useful" to their respective articles. This is a hollow argument, as far as I'm concerned- one could argue just as much against the usefulness of calligraphic presentations on this article, but that would go nowhere.--C.Logan (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't said that my removal of that image per discussion on the article's (stub's) talk page was censorship though. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So, unless he needlessly escalates this discussion with that other 'c' word, his counterpoints aren't important enough? And if he does, then he's recklessly using hyperbole, and can be disregarded. No thanks. He makes the only salient points needed. The material is historically grounded, widely verifiable, and actually DOES add value to the article by representing the subject, as seen within that faith, during a major period in the history of the faith he founded (being the one in which images were permitted - a period that apparently ran for many many years, and is being not so gently redacted out of the histories by modern activists, to read up on many of the citations shown in the many iterations of this argument. ThuranX (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be remove the name of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) from the caption and just write Muslims pray like this. We are living in a freedom os speach world but hurting other's feeling is not the right way of freedom of speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.217.133 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be misrepresentation, as the images intend to depict Muhammad- the person who illustrated them certainly had that in mind. I encourage you to read the list of frequently asked questions.--C.Logan (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The images FAQ makes no mention of a suggestion that we simply use a show/hide function: the captions remain with a (Show) link beside them which when clicked will show the image in question on the page. Has this already been rejected by one or both sides of this debate? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's been brought up several times, but it has largely been dismissed as a policy violation which is still rooted in faulty reasoning in the first place. There's some merit to it, but it still sets a terrible precedent and grates strongly against our censorship policy. That's a good point, though; the FAQ should probably elaborate on some of the responses to this suggestion.--C.Logan (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding disclaimers to the pictures does not constitute censorship. The pictures will still remain the article. And, if disclaimers are indeed a form of censorship, Misplaced Pages has more disclaimers than any other site I have ever seen and thus is already censored; so why not add another one. -- 12:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unimpeccable (talk • contribs)

Disclaimers are not allowed, and should be removed when found. See Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles. The disclaimer that had been present in the Bahá'u'lláh article was used as a precedent for launching discussions for the inclusion of disclaimers on this article, but that disclaimer has since been remove in accordance with the guideline (see the archived discussion on this topic below).

On a side note, I'm not sure if you were directly responding to my comment, but if you were, there's some confusion. Disclaimers are not the same thing as the above noted show/hide proposal.--C.Logan (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm you might be wanting to take a look at Rorschach inkblot test then.Geni 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed the disclaimer there. нмŵוτн τ 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion--where wikipedia is unwilling to fold under pressure from religious fundamentalists--has increased the encyclopedia's credibility in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.101.239 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Logan, the section you linked to on Disclaimers explicitly states that it is a guide, not official policy; it DOES state on the Disclaimer page that there can be exceptions (and it encourages discussion on the talk page for the article), and I see this article being one of them, since there are so many people here with mixed feelings as to whether or not the image should be displayed. That aside, in keeping with the Misplaced Pages goal of neutrality, the images should remain, and a disclaimer should be posted warning any followers of Islam that such images are present. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, then we can go ahead on put one on sexual intercourse, because some people might be offended by the images there. Or how about next we add one to pornography because there are some anti-pornography activists who take offense? No. No one is forcing anyone to see these images ever at any time, and as such, they require no forewarning. Jmlk 1 7 21:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the "guideline" status, which is why I referred to it as such above. We are strongly advised to adhere to this particular guideline, and as possible exceptions are dependent upon consensus, it should be noted that consensus here (and, as far as I've experienced, in many articles throughout the encyclopedia) has determined that the disclaimers are not worthy of inclusion. Guidelines, even strong ones, are one thing, but with the reinforcement of consensus, the proposal hits a brick wall (unless someone can revolutionize the argument).

Additionally, the individuals opposed are, almost without exception, anons or new users who were directed here from petition sites or from forums or the like with the naive notion that asking nicely could overturn policies, guidelines and consensus. Since these visitors don't understand why or how we do things, the weight of their opinion in the matter is significantly reduced (if not nullified). You can't expect a change in the rules because a random individual "doesn't like it".

Anyone is welcome to become a productive contributor and familiarize oneself with the various rules and discussion histories relevant to the issue, but the majority of "opposition" posts are based in the groundless assumption that censorship on Misplaced Pages is acceptable.

Finally, I'm uncertain how the inclusion of a disclaimer here is related to "neutrality"- could you clarify?--C.Logan (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and oranges here; sexual intercourse is a bad example for a disclaimer, primarily because it's a practice that is engaged in by all cultures, while offense over the depiction of Muhammad is specific to one culture. That aside, people might be offended by it, but given that it is practiced by individuals the world over, those who would raise objections to it would be rendered hypocrites (after all, how else would they have gotten here?) I doubt that people will find it offensive; if nothing else, you probably just offended a lot of Muslims by inadvertently trivializing the life of one of their prophets. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would find it offensive to remove the pictures. Your logic is poor. Posting Mohammad's picture does not trivialize his life, it simply goes against Islamic custom.--Garycompugeek (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Consistency (Bahá'u'lláh disclaimer)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The editors who frequent this page have strong opinions about censorship & disclaimers. For this reasons, what are your opinions on the disclaimer used in the Bahá'u'lláh article? I feel that this article and that one should maintain the same policies & remain consistent, since it's the exact same issue. Also, note that on WP:NDA, it says that all disclaimers should be removed on sight, and consensus is to not have them. What should be done? Should we add a disclaimer here or remove the one form that article? нмŵוτн τ 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that they have it wrong in that article. I don't think the text used there is an out-and-out disclaimer though. I'm also really not enthusiastic about dragging that article into this argument either, it's already messy enough as it is. Lankiveil 23:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC).

We should have both articles do the same thing though. I mean, shouldn't an encyclopedia be consistent? Let's come to a decision of what to do w/ both articles. нмŵוτн τ 23:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in theory consistency is highly desirable, I just think it's going to be even harder to get a consensus from two groups of editors on a controversial topic, than just one group. (on an unrelated matter, are you aware User:hmwith that your signature in Opera sometimes causes a large grey bar to appear on the page which blocks out your comments?). Lankiveil 23:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC).

What? No, I've had this for a long, long time, and I've never heard that. Do you mind taking a screenshot? I have no idea why that would happen or how to avoid it, but I'd like to see the issue. Odd. нмŵוτн τ 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I think that it's something that the community as a whole should discuss, rather than on the talk pages. This is a bigger issue than two individual articles. It's the idea of disclaimers & censorship as a whole. нмŵוτн τ 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: The other article has changed, so this discussion no longer has value or relevance. нмŵוτн τ 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Commons link

Resolved

There are relevant icons in the commons pages. Could the following be added under External Links?

$\alpha$ 16:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already there using {{sisterlinks|Muhammad}} - ✰ALLSTAR✰ 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical background

Scholars usually discuss the life of Muhammad in the context of pre-Islamic Arabia. Watt for example discusses the economic basis of Arabia, the Meccan politics and the social and moral background, and religous and intellectual background of the region. Anybody willing to pair up with me writing such a section as it seems to be too much for me alone doing it? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shadow Article

I have created another article, Muhammed (no images) which does not contain depictions of the prophet (pbuh) himself. There is now a link at the top of this article to find the article which does not contain images of offense to some Muslims, but is otherwise identical. All changes to either article must be made here. Hopefully this will be an acceptable compromise. Franamax (talk) 10:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't self-references supposed to be avoided? Also the notice is in sort of a random place within the intro. Oore (talk) 10:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a self-reference, it's a compromise and a transclusion. Everything in the shadow article is here, just a few images aren't copied over. And yes, maybe the notice could be in a better place, but I didn't do it randomly, I really did think that was as close to the top as I could put it, and I think it should be close to the top (but not AT the top). Franamax (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean isn't saying "This article contains depictions of Muhammad" a considered a self-reference here? I'm not really sure, so I might be wrong. Oore (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You might be right there, I'll fall back on WP:IAR. It's beneficial to those faithful who might wish to research the prophet's life without viewing images of that prophet. It's respectful, everyone has a way out of the argument, and it gets the job done. There are precedents elsewhere, we don't want too many, this is one. Fair enough? Franamax (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have clarified that I do support this compromise but I just wasn't sure if it followed all the rules. Also I wasn't aware of the ignore all rules thing. Thanks for pointing that out. Oore (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest putting it at the end of the lead section (so it appears just above the TOC). That way it doesn't interrupt the prose, also it's more prominent while not being right at the top. James086 11:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I picked that spot so it was visible on the first "page" of the browser, there's no chance of it being too obscure, it seemed like a reasonably good break spot in the prose. That said, I'm not married to it, compromise is compromise, the end of the lead does discuss the prohibition on depictions. Do what you think, just keep in mind the experience of the average user or newcomer to the wiki, some of whom are Muslim, whatever you think is right... Cheers! Franamax (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah... In my resolution I can see down to "3.1.5 Early years in Mecca". I'm not sure if it is average. If it wouldn't be on the first "page" of most people's browsers then perhaps leave it as is. I don't mind either way. James086 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - I can see down to "Family tree - In Mecca" under "Life" in the infobox and I thought I had a pretty good monitor, and it's at highest res. You're seeing 30% more than me, I sure hope you're not average. Doesn't matter, you'll be obsolete too in a few months :) The safe way to see the lowest-common-denominator for the world is probably 1024x768 or so. That's why I figured third paragraph would be good. Franamax (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be convenient for the majority of people so I retract my previous suggestion and now think it should be left where it is (or nearby if someone has a better suggestion). James086 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Make one shadow article, you'll wind up having to make thousands upon thousands. There will never be a shortage of articles that people are offended by. In the end, this might be more of a job for a site-fork than a page fork. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Events will quite likely prove you correct Alec. This is a case where we provide information to the entire world and it's not hard to be sensitive. Perhaps there will be a need for an islam:wiki; we're not there yet. And it's not really a fork, it's a subset. We can always say "no more" and we can always say "even less", but we don't have to do it today. Franamax (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to a shadow article and feel there should be some serious discussion before implementing one. This is a slippery slope and could be a back door for censorship. I agree with Alecmconroy. It could easily lead to every person with an axe to grind demanding a separate article with their version represented. With all due respect, and I understand your intentions are honorable, we need to think and discuss seriously a potential site fork before doing it. Quenn (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably the best place to raise those concerns would be at AN where the current action started. There are definitely some concerns with respect to site-wide policy, this is probably not the best page to talk about them. Franamax (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

absolute no chance this can be allowed to stand - where does it end? must be deleted. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An Islamic point of view Mediawiki-based encyclopaedia project seems to already exist - http://muslimwiki.com/mw/index.php/Main_Page . But if this dealie will allow the issue to drop for a while, more power to it. The text of this article is what needs the attention, not the images. WilyD 14:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have AFD'd the article, I'm gobsmacked that someone thought that it would be a solution to this firestorm by creating such an article with virtually no discussion. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, more to the point, that this has been discussed, and rejected every single time. Judging by the early returns on the AfD, I doubt this POVFORK lasts the day. Reso lute 15:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

lol I give it 'til 20:00 UTC. WP:SNOW and all that! At least I'll get points in multiple heavens for trying :) Franamax (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, heh. As Frederick stated in the AfD, the idea is noble, but the community has no appetite for such a fork. If nothing else, at least we proved that consensus on the inclusion of images in this article remains as strong as ever. FWIW, I've asked on WP:AN if an opt-out option could be created. I don't believe Misplaced Pages should be censored for everyone, but if there is a way for users to self-sensor based on a list of flagged images, that is then left to individual choice. Reso lute 15:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted all my changes to this article. Franamax (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you be opposed if I deleted the shadow article? Especially seeing as how it now has the images as well? Reso lute 15:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Franamax has already commented on the AfD that s/he has no objections to a WP:SNOW deletion. Hut 8.5 17:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ending of first sentence...

"...is regarded by Muslims as the last messenger and prophet of God (Arabic: الله)." Something seems to be messed up there. I don't know whether it's the reference or template but the Arabic text seems to be changing the order of the text following it. Oore (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with the non-latin character. Is that ref really necessary? If not couldn't we just have a comment in the code which would avoid the formatting problem? James086 11:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

this is because '

I fixed {{Allah}} instead. I am a bit confused why {{rtl-lang}} should be necessary, since {{lang}} theoretically ought to be sufficient... dab (𒁳) 19:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Images on the Arabic Misplaced Pages

I have made some edits on the Arabic language Misplaced Pages, and have been looking at various articles and topics through the interlanguage links. As I'm sure you are aware, the article about Muhammad on the Arabic Misplaced Pages is illustrated only with calligraphy images. On other topics (e.g. human anatomy), I have found some examples of how they "censor" images

One approach - One way is with a "viewing warning" image, which essentially says "Some people may consider this picture to be disturbing. Don't click here unless you are certain you wish to see it." If you click on it, you are taken to the Image page and see the image.

Template:ImageWarning

Another approach - use of the show/hide feature, with the image by default hidden. (this example is not an image of Muhammad, but just a picture of a flower, so despite the warning it won't offend anyone.)

هذه الصورة قد لا يتقبلها البعض، قم بالإظهار إن كنت متأكداً Warning: This picture may offend some people.

Maybe an approach like one of these would serve as a compromise on the issue of images on the Muhammad article. I do know that this is a very sensitive issue to many Muslims and think this is a very rare instance where using the "show/hide" feature for an image would be appropriate. I think we should be more accommodating in this case. Aside from this instance, I'm all for "Misplaced Pages is not censored".

I don't have lots of time to involve myself in the issue on-wiki, but want to put these ideas out there and help inform about how the Arabic Misplaced Pages does things in some situations and offer my opinion on the issue. --Aude (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, and for my part, I'm vehemently opposed to any kind of opt-in solution. If someone can write some Mediawiki code that allows readers to opt-out at their discretion, I suspect the entire community would be greatful, but I don't want my Misplaced Pages censored. Reso lute 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Office of the Curator (May 8, 2003). "Courtroom Friezes: North and South Walls" (pdf). Information Sheet, Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 2007-07-08.
Cite error: The named reference best was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Ali, Wijdan. "From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development of Prophet Muhammad's Portrayal from 13th Century Ilkhanid Miniatures to 17th Century Ottoman Art". In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Turkish Art, eds. M. Kiel, N. Landman, and H. Theunissen. No. 7, 1–24. Utrecht, The Netherlands, August 23-28, 1999, p. 7
"Islamic Figurative Art and Depictions of Muhammad". religionfacts.com. Retrieved 2007-07-06.

Categories: