Illustration of Muhammad, Censorship or respect for diversity? Options

From watching AN/I recently, probably many are aware of this petition which has now gardnered more than 18,000 signatures:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/removal-o...-from-wikipedia

The issue is whether the painting of Muhammad should be included in Wikipedia's Muhammad's article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

It seems that there is significant unity of opinion among Muslims that the image should not be included because it is a taboo in Islam to show their prophet's face. Those arguing for include tend to be non-Muslims or, like Matt57, those who can be classified as anti-Muslims.

Some are claiming that this is an issue of censorship, but I can't believe it is that as the painting of Muhammad isn't a likeness but rather just non-realistic depiction. The argument around this image seems to be more about whether or not removing the image will set a precedent that will result in all depictions of Muhammad being removed from Wikipedia.

My opinion is that this particular image makes no significant contribution to the article, but that it does serve as a rallying point for a contrived conflict between anti-Muslim editors (who camouflage their incitement under the banner of "anti-censorship") and Muslim editors.

Although, I do think that the images of Muhammad should be kept in Wikipedia in general and especially with regards to the Danish cartoon controversy. To remove all images of Muhammad from Wikipedia is wrong but we should cover the topic with modicum of sensitivity. Thus I do strongly favor keeping this separate article and its images (and its name should be enough to warn any pious Muslim as to what he/she should expect):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

But keeping one solitary and non-depictive painting of Muhammad in the Muhammad article merely to aggrevate Muslims for the pleasure of anti-Muslim editors seems to be unnecessary, in fact, it seems to be purposely "trollish."

This post has been edited by SenseMaker:

The petition now exceeds 40,000 signatures.

The images say "This is what Muhammad actually looked like"

Every article implies it, and this is what makes Muslims angry. The text should not describe the image this way. All artwork should be cited properly: as artwork.

Something like:

Osman [1595]. Siyer-ı Nebi (The Life of the Prophet). Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul: Ottoman Miniature illus. Muhammad at Mount Hira, Hazine 1221, folio 223b

The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad.

The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad.

These are among the very most notable and historical images of Muhammad available. One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article. They were selected with a gravity of purpose appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. All were created by Muslims, some famous in their own right. They were provided by scholarly institutions of the highest caliber, such as the University of Edinburgh and the French National Library. All were already made available on the internet by these same institutions.

The way the images are included now the writers might as well have illustrated the article with pictures of Muhammad themselves. The artwork is only included for color's sake, even the "ancient illustration" context is simply tossed aside in favor of more gratuitous depictions of Muhammad.

These are among the very most notable and historical images of Muhammad available. One is the earliest known image of the subject of the article. They were selected with a gravity of purpose appropriate to a serious academic enterprise. All were created by Muslims, some famous in their own right. They were provided by scholarly institutions of the highest caliber, such as the University of Edinburgh and the French National Library. All were already made available on the internet by these same institutions.

Utter nonsense. Cite each of those things. Mention it in the article. Place these images in historical context. None of that has been done. They aren't pretty colours for you to play with.

Possibly the answer lies in their minds, and not ours.

I'm really beginning to doubt that.

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.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

and are also cited in the "references" section of the article (#18 and #42 respectively.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Notes.

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.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

and 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.

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.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg

and 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_defense
http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtd...d_Chewbacca.jpg

The 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:

The 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.

"Might get violent" and "have a lot of oil" is bigoted rubbish and has no part of my argument.

The 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.

"Might get violent" and "have a lot of oil" is bigoted rubbish and has no part of my argument.

I didn't mean to mischaracterize your argument - DL invoked a 1973-type oil scenario, and the possibility of communal violence comes up again and again on both sides, probably based on the reaction to the Danish cartoons (which, unlike these depictions, were created to be provocative.)

I only meant to highlight that unlike some others, you're not bothering to construct arcane wiki-arguments, when the real point has nothing to do with WP's editorial policies, which make no attempt to address the social-political consequences.

For no good reason, save for.... the game.

And so typical on Wikipedia.

What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image?

http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image?

http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

I think it has everything to do with France's "issues" with muslim immigration (and immigration in general). Which is why they made it illegal for little muslim girls to wear the hijab in schools (how's that for freedom of expression). You don't want to start bringing France-and-issues-with-islam into the mix, because that's another fork entirely.

On that note, France may have given the world Voltaire, but recall the Voltaire spent most of his life in Switzerland, or on the French Swiss border town which now bears his name (or other nearby regions) because he was "banned" (also known as exiled) from France. He's appreciated in the present day, but back-in-the-day? Not so much. In some ways, the more things change.....(you know the other half).

I don't have a dog in that fight, but I've watched the proverbial "fighting dogs" maul each other in play. More "heat generated" (shivers at using their terminology) than a workaday Wikipedia argument. In short, the French feelings about hijab/scarf, and probably also about the cartoons (recall they were also published in France, shortly after Denmark) have much to do with feelings about immigration and the changing of the national demographic. Which isn't something many people have an easy time with.

Recall that we in the U.S. (and Canada, and Australia) are immigrant countries. For all our struggles with racism (etc) we are made up of newcomers, so eventually, every new wave of immigrants is more-or-less eventually accepted, over time, esp. in the 2nd or 3rd generation (caveats on what is considered "accepted" acknowledged). Not so in Europe. Or not in the same way, would be more accurate to say. A 3rd generation, German born Turk, til a few years ago, per jus sanguinis, was considered a Turk, whereas an American or Czech who could prove German blood many generations back got a passport immediately. Fair? Nope. But that's how it was. It's changed a bit, and France didn't exactly do that, but still, the adjustments aren't as easy in immigrant countries. Such adjustment "teething pains" have more to do with feelings about islam, I think, than the real points being made or yelled about. As it were.

So I'd add to my recommendation to you to speak to a muslim or two about the cartoon issue, to also talk to a French person about the hijab/scarf issue. Per the latter, prepare to not "talk" but to witness a wave of words which will not be interrupted. Strong feelings there, and not entirely lacking in emotion. To say the least.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What do you think of the French National Library's display of the same image?

http://expositions.bnf.fr/livrarab/pedago/grands/0_01.htm

I think it has everything to do with France's "issues" with muslim immigration (and immigration in general). Which is why they made it illegal for girls to wear the hijab in schools. You don't want to start bringing France-and-issues-with-islam into the mix, because that's another fork entirely.

So I'd add to my recommendation to you to speak to a muslim or two about the cartoon issue, to also talk to a French person about the hijab. Per the latter, prepare to not "talk" but to witness a wave of words which will not be interrupted. Strong feelings there, and not entirely lacking in emotion. To say the least.

44,083 are waiting to talk about Wikipedia, a land stranger than France.

44,083 are waiting to talk about Wikipedia, a land stranger than France.

Yes, the Wikipedia "community" is one of those new-fangled "non-state actors" as they call them in politics and law.

As are terrorist groups, like Al Quaida. (or any other group which supra-ceded national borders and was active enough to merit some form of recognition of legal personality).

No association implied of course. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) But they both would qualify for that terminology. Hence the new branch of legal thought addressing such entities whereas old fashioned national law (and supra-national law, aka international law) don't address such animals at all. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Newsflash:

It is obvious--to everyone except those who put up the pictures, and to anyone familiar with the high school level discourse surrounding them--that the real reason they are up there is, to put it in these people's terms, to teach the violent barbarian Muslims a lesson about their stupid religion. Turkish Muslims weren't barbarians, and didn't think icongraphy was blasphemous like a bunch of idiots, so they were the "good" Muslims. The other Muslims are the bad ones that blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people, and maybe showing them who the good Muslims are will change their ways.

It is obvious to everyone it is puerile crap. But the picture-lovers won't admit it. Why? It's a psychological issue called cognitive dissonance. They are unwilling to admit to themselves and to others that they *like* offending Muslims and their stupid religion and backwards violent ways. So instead of admitting it, and opening themselves up to being called racists, they'll spin up all sorts of nonsense and unrelated reasons to keep the pictures up.

The thing is there's no good reason. It's decoration, and decorations are not important. Put up an artist's impression of what he looked like and there you have a nice decoration for the article. Now if taking down *a decoration* seems like a big deal, that's because the picture lovers have a lot more invested in displaying them them than any normal, neutral, person. And what is invested is their plan of attack. They want to offend Muslims with these pictures, that's the whole idea of putting them up there in the first place.

Newsflash:

It is obvious--to everyone except those who put up the pictures, and to anyone familiar with the high school level discourse surrounding them--that the real reason they are up there is, to put it in these people's terms, to teach the violent barbarian Muslims a lesson about their stupid religion.

Is that your personal opinion, or is it the opinion of what you think the others think. Because the way you wrote it isn't entirely clear. Discuss.

Turkish Muslims weren't barbarians,

Europeans, would disagree, with valid historical precedent. You know that about 100 or so years ago, the Turks came within 1 hour drive of Vienna, right? You know that Turks invaded Cyprus in 1964, right? You know the island is still half occupied by the Turks, since that date, right? (hence "Turkish Cyprus, and Greek Cyprus"). You know that there exists a state of virtual war at that wall, between Turkey and Greece (ahem, Greek Cyprus, but scratch the surface and it's all about Greek politics). That it is a longstanding and current "Berlin Wall" at the former capital city - to this day, right? Of course you do(!) Or do you? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unsure.gif)

I mean, you and didn't think icongraphy was blasphemous like a bunch of idiots,

Turks have become secular after the model put forth by Ataturk in the early 20th century, and post WW2. Turkish secularism is a recent thing. During their moves into Europe (which was about when they moved into the Former Republic of Yugoslavia-states, and Albania, they were slightly less polite. But even while secular, they still brutally took over other countries. Did I mention Cyprus again? 1964? Rape, pillage, and mass murder of Greek Cypriots, most "disappeaared" still being unaccounted for? (men, mostly). The political situation there is still tense, they have a little "Berlin Wall" cutting the island in two to this day, manned by armed guards. Cyprus is the principal sticking point as to why Turkey isn't in the EU. Not even on the list. Estonia and Slovenia and Lithuania, further away from Brussels, "yes". Turkey? Talk to us at the end of the next century, is the message they get. Europeans are still pissed. So to speak.

so they were the "good" Muslims. The other Muslims are the bad ones that blew up the World Trade Center and killed 3000 people, and maybe showing them who the good Muslims are will change their ways.

I'm sorry, but this is utterly ignorant, beyond all possible repair, Ben. You need a loooooooooooooooong history class. Unless you are trying to caricature the ignorance of others. In which case you are doing a good job.

It is obvious to everyone it is puerile crap.

What? The excuses? Or the complaints? Be more specific.

But the picture-lovers won't admit it. Why? It's a psychological issue called cognitive dissonance. They are unwilling to admit to themselves and to others that they *like* offending Muslims and their stupid religion and backwards violent ways. So instead of admitting it, and opening themselves up to being called racists, they'll spin up all sorts of nonsense and unrelated reasons to keep the pictures up.

Again, that's not cognitive dissonance. That's "hypocrisy".

The thing is there's no good reason. It's decoration, and decorations are not important.

Finally, a comment I can respect.

Put up an artist's impression of what he looked like and there you have a nice decoration for the article. Now if taking down *a decoration* seems like a big deal, that's because the picture lovers have a lot more invested in displaying them them than any normal, neutral, person. And what is invested is their plan of attack. They want to offend Muslims with these pictures, that's the whole idea of putting them up there in the first place.

That's partly true. The other part of it concerns the completely dense people who simply are arguing on the basis of free speech, who have no foggy clue why it would piss muslims off.

If the goal is to avoid controversy and hurt feelings, then we may as well close shop. Or is there something here which we're actually trying to accomplish?

That's ridiculous Proabivouac. The contrapositive stands just as firmly. Are you trying to upset people? Or write an encyclopedia? The Supreme Court presented respect when countered with the same points, and Wikipedia can't seem to do the same.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Is that your personal opinion, or is it the opinion of what you think the others think. Because the way you wrote it isn't entirely clear.

It is my opinion of what people in general would think. It's not important, I was simply emphasizing how obvious I believe it is.

Discuss

This quite an unfortunate "English test" tone you've adopted. I am not your pupil nor, to set the record straight, your teacher.

Europeans, would disagree, with valid historical precedent. You know that about 100 or so years ago, the Turks came within 1 hour drive of Vienna, right? You know that Turks invaded Cyprus in 1964, right? You know the island is still half occupied by the Turks, since that date, right? (hence "Turkish Cyprus, and Greek Cyprus"). You know that there exists a state of virtual war at that wall, between Turkey and Greece (ahem, Greek Cyprus, but scratch the surface and it's all about Greek politics). That it is a longstanding and current "Berlin Wall" at the former capital city - to this day, right? Of course you do(!) Or do you? unsure.gif

Of course some would say Turkish Muslims were barbarians within a different context; an entirely irrelevant context, I might add. The context I was in was the context of blasphemous icongraphy, not Cyprus. Was someone talking about Cyprus before? I must have missed it.

Turks have become secular after the model put forth by Ataturk in the early 20th century, and post WW2. Turkish secularism is a recent thing. During their moves into Europe (which was about when they moved into the Former Republic of Yugoslavia-states, and Albania, they were slightly less polite. But even while secular, they still brutally took over other countries. Did I mention Cyprus again? 1964? Rape, pillage, and mass murder of Greek Cypriots, most "disappeaared" still being unaccounted for? (men, mostly). The political situation there is still tense, they have a little "Berlin Wall" cutting the island in two to this day, manned by armed guards. Cyprus is the principal sticking point as to why Turkey isn't in the EU. Not even on the list. Estonia and Slovenia and Lithuania, further away from Brussels, "yes". Turkey? Talk to us at the end of the next century, is the message they get. Europeans are still pissed. So to speak.

This is all very interesting, but my mention of the Ottoman Empire's views on icongraphy of Muhammad has no relation to Turkey's current political secularism. I was relating it to the illustrations of Muhammad, the subject of the thread.

I'm sorry, but this is utterly ignorant, beyond all possible repair, Ben. You need a loooooooooooooooong history class. Unless you are trying to caricature the ignorance of others. In which case you are doing a good job.

Yes, I am in fact trying to caricature the ignorance of others.

What? The excuses? Or the complaints? Be more specific.

My characterization is not that important. Let's say the attitudes and arguments of the editors who wish the pictures to stay in their current state.

Again, that's not cognitive dissonance. That's "hypocrisy".

I'd agree it's hypocrisy, but I also did actually mean the psychological term "cognitive dissonance." If you disagree, so be it. It too is unimportant, more important is the clarifying sentence following it.

Finally, a comment I can respect.

Well that's my main point so that's good. Respect is one thing--do you agree with it?

That's partly true. The other part of it concerns the completely dense people who simply are arguing on the basis of free speech, who have no foggy clue why it would piss muslims off.

See, I don't think people are that dense. I'm sure some are, but maybe not the ones you are thinking of, and that's pretty much what I was getting at before. I think the free speech issue is just them covering-up their underlying desire to offend Muslims. It's a rationalization for their primary goal. See, if their primary goal was free speech I think the discourse would go a lot differently. There wouldn't be so many pictures up, someone arguing on the basis of free speech would still show concern and discussion over an offensive *presentation* of the images, even if they're not willing to remove them (such as the statue of Muhammad). The fact that it goes the way it does--with people putting up lots of images, instead of nice functional illustrations, arguing the works of Nakkas Osman are somehow extremely important to feature on the Muhammad page--makes me think a lot of them really want to offend Muslims, and that's their primary goal as an editor of the article. It's not "Protect free speech" it's "Offend Muslims to teach them a lesson about how stupid their religion is."

(edit)And perhaps this will clear up what I was calling puerile: this desire to offend Muslims (and the way they try to hide behind other issues too.)

That's what I think is going on here. People are trying to offend Muslims because they think Muslims deserve to be offended. The fact is this is still an encyclopedia, and yes some people will get offended by stuff in an encyclopedia. Pictures on the genitalia articles, for example. Except what I see is, to make an analogy, people going to the genitalia page and putting up hardcore porno, then arguing incessantly that it should be included on the page simply "because it's a matter of free speech" or "because we must illustrate three-way copulation on the genitalia page." So I'd call that sort puerile too, no matter if the motivation was "we need to shake people's sexual sensibilities so they stop getting offended" or just a simple "haha I'm putting up porn on the Internets"

This post has been edited by Ben: