Full text (in one 933k page) | Intro | Question 1a ->
 | This RfC is closed.
After closely examining the arguments put forth in each section, we have concluded that the status quo of the Muhammad article should largely be retained. For proposal 1, we found there to be no consensus to put any type of hatnote in the article. In the discussion of question 2, we found that there was the strongest consensus to put a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. With regards to the placement of other figurative images, we found that the current status quo -- of using figurative images of the highest encyclopedic value to illustrate important events in the subject’s life -- had the most support. This was accompanied by a general sentiment that figurative images were not necessary before the “Life” section, but would certainly be necessary after that point. However, editors should remember that calligraphic representations are the most common, and should not add images, especially figurative ones, without a clear encyclopedic reason to do so. Furthermore, there was a clear consensus to avoid any quota of figurative or calligraphic image, and to let the text of the article dictate the images used. There was no consensus for how the principle of least astonishment should apply to Muhammad. Thank you all for your participation and your patience. Respectfully, Black Kite (talk), Keilana (talk), and Someguy1221 (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Introduction
[edit]Pursuant to the Arbitration Commitee case on images of Muhammad, the community has been requested to:
. . . hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
This Request for Comment (RfC) is closed. Black Kite, Someguy1221, and Keilana have volunteered to present a consensus analysis, per this AN thread. Content policies and image guidelines are listed here for easy reference and to address in your responses (you may also find others to bring forward):
Mission:
Policy:
Guideline:
Please keep comments within your own sections, as per usual RfC procedure. Please use the "additional discussion" areas if you wish to make general comments. There is also a general discussion section at the bottom of the RfC.
Background on images of Muhammad
[edit]- No images of Muhammad are known to exist from his lifetime (570–632) or for centuries after it.
- The earliest images that do exist of Muhammad do not show very consistent or distinct features.
- Islamic art showing Muhammad first survives from the mid-13th century.
- The earliest surviving Islamic images of Muhammad are limited and varied in their geographical origin, coming from Persia (Iran), Central Asia, and areas inhabited by Turks; they are much less common in Arabic-speaking areas, although they can be found illustrating texts in Arabic.
- Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and are more widespread geographically; calligraphic renderings are also the only type of representation of Muhammad to appear in mosques, and in editions of the Quran.
- Medieval Islamic images of Muhammad are narrative images, usually showing a number of figures and depicting specific biographical events in Muhammad's life.
- In the 15th century, Islamic artists began to show Muhammad with a blank or veiled face, as an artistic convention to avoid representing his features. From the start of the 16th century, this became for a time the most common representation in Persia (Iran), and common in Ottoman Turkey.
- Sometimes Muhammad is shown entirely as a flame, extending a convention of showing him with a flaming halo.
- When printing became common in Islamic countries, images of Muhammad began to be printed.
- In modern times, images of Muhammad are mostly found in Shia (instead of Sunni) contexts, though this was not always the case historically. The modern images include both veiled and unveiled types. (Shias represent a minority in Islam; well over three-quarters of all Muslims are Sunni.)
- As of March 2012, prior to this RfC, the Muhammad article has 6 figurative depictions of Muhammad.(permalink).
- One of these depictions is Western and the other five are of Islamic origin. Of the Islamic images all are from former empires, two are from the Ilkhanate (Persia/Iran), one is from the Durrani Empire (Kashmir), one is Ottoman (Turkey) and one is an Ottoman copy of an image from the Ilkhanate.
- The images in the Life section of the article portray events and are placed in the article to be near the relevant event in the text.
- The dates of the non-Western images range from c. 1307 to 1808, the Western image is mid-19th century.
- Of the non-Western images, three show his face, one is veiled, and one uses the flame convention.
- The images are placed starting several screens into the article; the infobox uses a calligraphic treatment of his name.
- There are regular complaints from new and anonymous editors for and against the use of images of Muhammad, and image-use has required the creation of a separate discussion page, Talk:Muhammad/images. The issue has in the past been subject to news articles about off-wiki pressure. (e.g., here and here).
- There have been disputes among established editors as to whether the current type and number of images in the Muhammad article are appropriate. These disputes have led to the arbitration case, mediation on the approach for this RfC, and then here.
Participants to this RfC are advised to keep in mind that Wikipedia policies and guidelines allow for many different ways to illustrate or not illustrate articles. Participants may wish to view various alternative mock-ups of the Muhammad article here: (sample 1), (sample 2), (sample 3), (sample 4), (sample 5) or other similar biography articles, for example, here and here. As with any content discussion, careful compromise is important.
- For further background, participants may wish to review Talk:Muhammad/images, the Arbitration-related pages, the mediation pages, and evidence adduced (also, [1]) during the arbitration, which compared the number of images in the Muhammad article with several other Wikipedia historical biographies.
- Question 1a Should there be an instructional hatnote?
- Question 1b Should there be a functional hatnote?
- Question 2 What image should appear in the infobox?
- Question 3 Where should the first figurative-art depiction of Muhammad occur?
- Question 4 Narrative Images
- Question 5 Figurative-art depictions vs. calligraphy
- Question 6 Principle of least astonishment
- Question 7 Image use in sources
- Question 8 Number of figurative images
- Question 9 Is an image quota useful?
- Alt Question 10 How should an image quota be treated?
- General discussion
- Proposal:Leave everything as they are (no change is necessary)
- Note on NOTCENSORED/AGF paradox
- Permissibility of Images of Muhammad in Islam
Please use the above links or the navlinks at the top of each page to see the rest of this RfC. Each section has a link back to this intro, and to the next and previous section.