QUOTE(msharma @ Thu 24th January 2008, 7:53am)
QUOTE(Proabivouac @ Tue 22nd January 2008, 5:47am)
QUOTE(msharma @ Tue 22nd January 2008, 5:28am)
Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context.
The sources are on the image pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Maome.jpghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpgand are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes.
Nowhere in your links does it state why they're important/mainstream enough to be shown. Which is what I asked you to cite. The whole point is that people of a certain sort simply want to piss other people - of a religion or race you don't like - off, and that's why they push for things that are otherwise ruled out by WP:UNDUE.
That's the first time I've heard that an article should explain in the article itself why what is presented has been presented. Usually this is on the talk page.
As for undue weight, please remember that this is a biography of Muhammad the actual man, not an article about how Muslims represent and venerate Muhammad. Images of biographical subjects don't suggest that the images are part of any cultural movement, modern or otherwise: they are only depictions of the subject.
Most images of biographical subjects have no cult or fame at all, in most cases, the reader will never have seen them before, which is good: if readers only see what they already know, they've learned nothing.
Reductio ad absurdum is a simple matter in this instance: if only one image survives of a biographical subject, and most people haven't seen it or heard of it, we can't include it in the article: because the norm is for no image to be made or seen, its inclusion violates undue weight.
The logical fallacy is to count depictions never created as being "represented" by the absence of depictions which were. We may as well shorten the article's text to represent the majority of the world's population who never think about or discuss Muhammad at all. More rationally, an image which, for whatever reason, was never created, is aptly and sufficiently "represented" by
its own failure to appear.
I'm so tired of all these essentially random arguments…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defensehttp://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtd...d_Chewbacca.jpgThe only honest argument is that forwarded by Glass bead game and Disilliusioned lackey: the display of the images upsets many Muslims for reasons the rest of us don't relate to and can't truly understand, and we should avoid this because it's only right/they have lots of oil/they might get violent etc. Muslims don't like it, and that's all we need to know. Appeals to novel interpetations of Wikipedia policy as the deus ex machina which will come and elegantly solve the apparent contradiction between the pursuit of disinterested neutrality and public relations concerns are wastes of everybody's time.
This post has been edited by Proabivouac: