Talk:Depictions of Muhammad

 

 

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 the display of 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: Wikipedia's Muhammad FAQ addresses some common points of argument, such as 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.

External link to Muhammad

There have been a couple editors replacing the link to Muhammad with an external link, for the dubious reason that an internal link would somehow break mirror sites. As far as I know we don't use external links for Wikipedia articles for the benefit of mirror sites. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was able to find the policy I was referring to, Wikipedia:WAWI. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 17:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we get you to read over Wikipedia:Piped link and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking.Moxy (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks OSborn, I didn't know about that one. However, it seems that the examples pointed out in WP:WAWI use external Wikipedia links in citations, not in-line with the prose.

Moxy, unless I missed something, those guidelines you reference don't answer the issue raised here, about when or why it might be appropriate to use an external link to an internal article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think those examples listed are examples where the policy would apply, rather than examples of the policy being applied. I think this is a fairly rare issue in links. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a guideline. That doesn't mean it isn't important, but we should remember the distinction: Policies are governing rules, guidelines are best practices. WP:COMMONSENSE also applies.

Reading that guideline in its entirely, it seems clear that it's all about having an article make sense in some other place than on Wikipedia. For example, if one were to print out the article, one would still want references to be verifiable in that version. In that context, simply spelling out "Wikipedia's article on Muhammad" without any link at all serves the intent of the guideline, because it describes the self-reference clearly in prose, and it would be clear on any other medium what is being referenced. The whole point of that guideline is to avoid ambiguity, and I don't see how an internal link piped with the appropriate prose violates it, especially since inline links aren't desirable in prose.

I recall the original argument for including this internal link concerns how mirror sites would render it. I don't see why we should be worried about how mirror sites render this particular link as opposed to all others in the article, especially when the link is piped to text that describes clearly that the sentence is about an article on Wikipedia.

I wouldn't object to sticking an external link to the Muhammad article in a footnote for clarity on other sites, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think in this case not linking the phrase may be the best solution since the link wouldn't be to the subject of Muhammad but to our article on Muhammad so having it be plain, unlinked may be the best solution. How about changing it to

In 2008, several Muslims protested against the inclusion of Muhammad's depictions in Wikipedia's Muhammad article.

I don't think a footnote is necessary but I don't think an internal link is really correct here. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection, although if you make that change I'm sure someone will come along and turn Muhammad into a wikilink anyway. Try it and let's see how it goes. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also removed a bizarre internal link to a Talk: subpage, the source cited supports the statement and anyways a regular internal link is non permanent. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't bizarre, it's a well-established subpage resulting from long-standing consensus. I do object to removing that link, because its removal creates difficulty for anyone trying to verify that footnote. An external link is warranted in this case. Whereas an external link to Muhammad serves no verification purpose, an external link to Talk:Muhammad/FAQ serves to verify the reference, in the exact same way as the examples given on WP:WAWI. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The subpage isn't bizarre but linking from article space into talk space is. The source given covers that fine but if you wish to add a primary source citation to that as well then go ahead. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, at first glance when I looked at your last diff I thought you removed a link from a footnote, not from the body. I'll leave it as is. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Depictions of Muhammad → Depiction of Muhammad – Per WP:PLURAL. I don't believe this topic fits any of the exceptions laid out there. The article is not just about individual depictions of Muhammad (which could be construed as "groups of classes of specific things," I suppose), but the idea of depicting him. The incongruity between this article and Depiction of Jesus moved me to propose this. Honestly, I think "depictions" sounds better, but again, I don't see this as a good case to stray from WP:PLURAL. Note that my proposed title is the original one, and a very brief discussion with very little in the way of arguments moved it over six years ago. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sensible arguments, though as you say the plural somehow sounds better. No objection, verging weak support. Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• On the fence, leaning to oppose. I too think "depiction" seems awkward, even for the Jesus article, and WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that we don't slavishly apply a guideline just because the list of exceptions isn't exhaustive. This article is about many things, including a group or class of depictions throughout history, and associated cultural issues and controversies. It isn't all about the singular practice or idea of depicting Muhammad. One reason for using a singular form is to make plural links more convenient, but that doesn't apply here because the plural word comes first. Also, I don't recall ever seeing this term in singular form. All that being said, however, I don't have any real strong objection to renaming, either. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Depicting Muhammad? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Probably not, per WP:NOUN. --BDD (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Right. That will do for when they make the movie :) Johnbod (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lean - Oppose - We are talking about a group or class of something, in this context we talk about not one specific depiction but depictions as a whole unit. (The Jesus article imho should follow this naming also.) Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 04:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• With no very strong opinions here (which is refreshing, given the topic), I'm withdrawing the request. I do think "Depictions" sounds more natural, so I think it's reasonable to ignore WP:PLURAL. I'll be requesting the opposite move at Depiction of Jesus shortly. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fart? Shit?

Where the words Fart and Shit used In the 1300s? The section says-Dante, in The Divine Comedy: Inferno, placed Muhammad in Hell, with his entrails hanging out (Canto 28): No barrel, not even one where the hoops and staves go every which way, was ever split open like one frayed Sinner I saw, ripped from chin to where we fart below. His guts hung between his legs and displayed His vital organs, including that wretched sack Which converts to shit whatever gets conveyed down the gullet.

I found this-"A cask by losing centre-piece or cant Was never shattered so, as I saw one Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.

Between his legs were hanging down his entrails; His heart was visible, and the dismal sack That maketh excrement of what is eaten.

Doesn't breaketh wind sound more encyclopedic than Fart? And does excrement sound more encyclopedic than Shit?--98.87.94.57 (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting bowdlerizing Dante? Ultra Venia (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And yes, the word "fart" was indeed used in the 1300s. Just read "The Miller's Tale" by Chaucer, line 3806 — the word occurs in both middle and modern English (reference). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

21st Century depiction in film

[[File:Innocence of Muslims.png|thumb|Muhammad is portrayed lightheatedly in the 2012 film Innocence of Muslims]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domepor (talk • contribs) 08:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Really, is there any need for the still from 'The Innocence of Muslims? The actors in the original version have already stated that the film (as acted in by them) was nothing to do with Islam, and all references to the religion were clumsily dubbed-in afterwards. The actor was not playing Mohammed - he was playing a minor warlord and bandit leader in Egypt. It's just like quoting words from Adolf Hitler from the subtitles on one of the 'Hitler is Angry' youtube meme. 86.171.62.154 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section

It's unclear what the scope of this section is meant to be. From the rest of the article, it seems as though the article's scope is visual depictions of Mohammed (and the substitutes for such, like calligraphic and figurative depictions), so that the controversy section's scope would be controversy over visual depictions. Instead, it seems to include material that was controversial for other reasons but that happened also to include a visual depiction of Mohammed. The recent addition of Innocence of Muslims is one such example; I'm not seeing in the sources that controversy focused in any way on the fact that an actor portrayed Mohammed, and based on the film's content it seems very likely that it would have been just as controversial as a widely distributed text-only book. (Sources are using the word "depiction," but I think it's in a different sense than we're using it here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

...Any thoughts? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that the purpose of that section is to provide overviews of modern controversies notable enough to deserve a mention or have their own articles. Whether the focus of each incident is visual depiction or just depiction of Muhammad in a general sense, they're still about depictions. I agree with you though, the controversy over Innocence of Muslims appears to be more about how Muhammad was depicted rather than the fact that an actor portrayed Muhammad. The visual appearance of Muhammad would also have aroused controversy anyway, but that seems to have been overshadowed by the way he was portrayed, in a similar fashion that Christians were outraged (and in some places reacted with violence) at Last Temptation of Christ (film) (although Christians wouldn't care about Jesus' face appearing on screen). ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Basically, I think we need to identify which controversies are actually related to the topic of the article, ie. the visual depiction of Mohammed. (Other controversies, including "Innocence of Muslims," are notable but don't seem to be relevant.) It's a little complicated because "anger over the film's depiction of Mohammed" sounds like it means "anger over the fact that Mohammed was visually depicted" but most likely really means "anger over the way Mohammed was shown to behave." Perhaps we can go over all the examples and identify which ones belong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 September 2012

Hi, Kindly remove the pictures and images depicting Holy Prophet PBUH. Wikipedia is very good source of information and you all help others in many aspects. But kindly dont do such things which offend Muslims. You all and i are created by one God. And we have to answer for our deeds at the day of judgement. Fear from Allah..! Its better for us all..

Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fahadzafar89 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

To quote from one of the notices at the top of this page, "Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article ... If you find the display of these images offensive, it is possible to configure your browser not to display them; for instructions, see the FAQ." VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this is a joke, or if the requester missed the ludicrous irony of requesting removal of depictions of Muhammad from an article that's all about depictions of Muhammad. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 September 2012

• We, all the Muslims, strongly condemn this depiction. We request you to please remove the pictures and images depicting Holy Prophet (PBUH). All the prophets should not be depicted. The portrait maker have to answer at the day of judgement to Allah. Please remove these pictures for God sake. --ساجد امجد ساجد (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

God, this is getting boring. What you are asking us to remove are not depictions of Muhammed. They are depictions of depictions of Muhammed. If you object, then please talk to the creator of the depiction, not this encyclopedia. 86.171.62.154 (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)