Jump to content

Talk:Depictions of Muhammad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former good article nomineeDepictions of Muhammad was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 25, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hebdo image

[edit]

FYI in case anyone is interested: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2022_April_12#File:Charlie_Hebdo_Tout_est_pardonné.jpg Some1 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

[edit]

It is offensive to Muslims when creating a picture of any prophet, and we do not appreciate how you displayed those images here, please remove them. Hassamohammed (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. It is against our policy to censor things because some may find them offensive. At the FAQ you can find instructions on how to hide those images on your account Cannolis (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It is offensive to Muslims" We don't care. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't care. That is not why we have the policy. WP:Wikipedia is not censored applies to all religions and none, to all interest groups and individuals. That is the policy because it is the only way we can be neutral, despite knowing that some readers will be offended. We regret that offence but will not concede on our fundamental principles. (Oh, and by the way, the depiction of Muhammed in the article was made by a muslim artist: the hadith against depiction is a modern and disputed one, as the opening paragraphs of the article explains.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the hadith against depiction is a modern and disputed one" It is basically presentism at work, and represents only a minority of Muslims. Dimadick (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, we don't care. People have a choice over what they get offended about. We cannot cater to everyone's preference. We don't remove content because it offends someone. The fact that we don't care also means that we don't deliberately try to provoke offense either by including gratuitous images, because we don't care either way. By design, we are neutral, and therefore we are deaf to the offenses perceived by others. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia article" paragraph

[edit]

This paragraph seems outdated. The current English wikipedia article about Muhammad no longer displays that picture (unlike in other languages), so it appears that wikipedia did indeed give in to censorship eventually. Thus the part of this paragraph claiming it didn't ought to be changed. 90.119.26.215 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is still in the article, see the "Farewell pilgrimage" section. Hut 8.5 17:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be split?

[edit]

It seems to me that the history of artistic depictions of Muhammad over the centuries in Islam is a quite different topic to the matter of 21st-century protests against depictions of him. Would it be worth splitting off the latter into a separate article titled something like Muhammad cartoon controversies? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 01:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those instances have their own articles already. This being a sort of overview article, I think the content largely fits. WP:TOOBIG is not currently a problem here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking under WP:TOOBIG grounds- moreso that there isn't currently any article focused on the matter of contemporary depiction of Muhammad in cartoons. For comparison, Depiction of Jesus is an article focused on the religious/artistic perspective and doesn't include mention of things like this Onion article. It would be possible to greatly expand the Depictions of Muhammad#Controversies in the 20th and 21st centuries section of this article, as much of the content of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy#Background, opinions and issues is really about modern cartoon depiction of Muhammad in general and not specifically about the Jyllands-Posten cartoons so should be located in a more general article- but in the event of moving that content into here, this article would quickly become a WP:COAT article. For that reason, I feel like a separate article for the overview of Muhammad cartoons in the 21st century aside from any specific incident would be useful. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 13:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2024

[edit]

Could you remove depictions of Prophet in the article. There are billions of Muslims in the World. Do you think these are acceptable to Muslims? SaloxiddinTursunaliyev (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia is not bound by the tenets of any faith, including Islam. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:CODI. Melmann 16:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because many those images were created by Muslims, I'd say yes, those are acceptable, including the ones in the Muhammad article. This is an article about depictions so it should hardly be surprising that it would include depictions from a variety of sources. If they aren't acceptable to you personally, then see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q3 for instructions on how to configure your account to avoid seeing them. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith knowledge about the Prophet's physical appearance

[edit]

I made a well cited paragraph about how the Prophet is described in the Hadith, since the article now is rather short, and was removed because there wasn't a discussion in the talk page about it. Here's the discussion. Wikain (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've had various go's at it I see. If you want us to discuss it, you should show what you now want to add here. You realize there is a paragraph exactly on this at Muhammad#Appearance_and_depictions? This uses entirely secondary references, which (as the last person to revert you pointed out) is better than using primary (Hadith) sources, as you appear to do. Johnbod (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image by Theodore Hosemann

[edit]

The painting by Theodor Hosemann in the introduction seems heavily edited and is of very poor quality. I personally think it should be removed. I currently can't do that since the page is protected. 109.54.1.122 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it was a relatively recent change [1], and if this article is to have a leadimage, I don't think that one is a very good choice. I moved it back (to a section where it arguably doesn't fit, maybe we should put in in the non-muslim gallery). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a misleading AI upscale of the lower quality File:Mohammeds Berufung, Hosemann 1847.jpg. I've replaced it with the original per MOS:IMAGES, but perhaps someone could find a better scan of the original artwork. Belbury (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEADIMAGE?

[edit]
File:Berufung Mohammeds.jpg
Die Berufung Mohammeds durch den Engel Gabriel by Theodor Hosemann, 1847: Prophet Muhammad receiving the words of God from Gabriel in the cave of Hira.
16th century from Siyer-i Nebi

Anyone care to have an opinion? Some consensus on this can't hurt. IMO this article does ok without one, I see no obvious "winner". A collage could be an option, but they can become time sinks.

The Hosemann has been added a couple of times, IMO it's not a very good choice, no image is better than that one. Something more like the Siyer-i Nebi below would be better than that one, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed at length on Talk:Muhammad, resulting in an agreement that a calligraphic depiction is the most common, and therefore that should be the lead image. See also Talk:Muhammad/FAQ Q4. The same reasoning would apply to this article: to use the most common kind of depiction at the top. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that this article, also, says calligraphic depictions are the most common. There's a wide variation of calligraphic representations, as shown in the gallery. To my non-Arabic eyes, some appear so dissimilar that it isn't obvious they represent the same thing. Maybe a collage of two or four dissimilar examples would be good for the lead here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with adding some examples at the top, but please no collages! The images would be much too small for those who can actually appreciate the calligraphy to do so. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"some examples at the top" would be a collage, wouldn't it? Like at for example Portraits of Shakespeare. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just meant single images in the top sections. Collages are almost always horrible, though Portraits of Shakespeare has an excuse. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Illustration of Muhammad prohibiting Nasī'. Found in an illustrated copy of Al-Biruni's The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries (17th-century copy of an early 14th-century Ilkhanid manuscript).

I would strongly oppose using the Hoseman image in any context. For me, perhaps one of the most convincing and defensible arguments for using the Illustration of Muhammad prohibiting Nasī' is that it was made by (or at least for) a Muslim. Hoseman will be seen as little better than Charlie Hebdo. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The Hoseman image should not be used. Calligraphic depiction would be ideal. Borsoka (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some calligraphy [2], we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say "in any context", but I have no objection to having Hosemann or Charlie Hedbo in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was an overreaction on my part and I have toned it down. I was thinking about a lead image collage. But if we do use it, we should do so in a way that is not deliberately provocative. Its age may be obvious to European readers but not generally so the caption should give the date. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per current use, I don't think it's more deliberately provocative than anything else in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is fine in its current context. My reaction was to the prospect of making it even part of a lead image collage. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC) ("current" as in following its relocation.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, very current ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Depictions_of_Muhammad&oldid=1265689238"