---

The infobox for the Wikipedia article Muhammad (top at right) could feature: a depiction of Muhammad without a veil (for example only, a cropped version of this image); a depiction of a veiled Muhammad (for example only, a cropped version of this image); an image of Muhammad's name in Arabic calligraphy, as currently (for example only, this image); an image of a location associated with Muhammad (for example only, this image); no image.

Q: Which class of image is best suited to the infobox and why?

(place answers under the lettered subsection below; do not only express what you oppose, but also support your favorite option) .

a) Unveiled[edit]

• Strong Support It is a matter of freedom of speech. Joanakestlar
• Support WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest manner
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Perfectly acceptable to me. Niteshift36 01:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Anything other than this is unacceptable per WP:CENSORED. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to say "unacceptable"? Do you support an unveiled image or not? — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, my bad. Fixed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Anything other than this is unacceptable per WP:CENSORED". This argument doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that WP:CENSORED is a good reason to always use the most offensive images? Should we always pick the least-censored images? And who defines what is least censored? I could just as well argue that you are trying to censor the calligraphic or flame representations by replacing them with something else. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the way we depict all other ancient religious figures for whom no contemporaneous images exist. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before I refute this, let me make clear that my approach has nothing to do with a desire to self-censor. I am completely in favour of showing images of Muhammad on the article, and am open minded about the extent to which we should help Muslims who actively want to restrict what they see.

    But the fact is that the most common way of depicting Muhammad takes a different form to that of almost all other religious figures, and the lead image should reflect this. It is nonsense to knowingly argue for anything other than the most common depiction, regardless of what the appropriate depiction is at other articles. It also goes against the widely accepted principle that other stuff exists is a non-argument. —WFC— 17:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Before you refute it further, you should consider taking it to a discussion field and not here in the middle of the !voting. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is appropriate to display a picture of Muhammad unveiled because other religious figures are shown unveiled for example Jesus. Knobbly (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Acceptable, but choosing the right one might prove difficult. An infobox image should help identify the subject; is an image available that could serve this purpose? Goodraise 04:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• perfectly acceptable Edmund Patrick – confer 07:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it makes sense and is acceptable--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jclemens. Unless we change to a standard where artists' impressions of other figures like Jesus or Moses are not recommended for infoboxes, this is unfair favoritism of one group's superstition. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 09:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally support This is basically how almost anyone is depicted: by showing his face. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; unlike other figures, Muhammad is traditionally not depicted in this way. Even though art does exist of that form. What we do on other articles is utterly irrelevant, what the sources depict in each specific case is important. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What is the point of an image obscured in some way if we have available an unobscured version. Encyclopedia presents the most precise information it can (in this case image). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nice picture, not modern, so clearly it was 'acceptable' to someone in the know at the time. Soosim (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as this is what we do for all other biographies where a suitable and usable (legally, etc) image exists of the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jclemens. --CapitalR (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support What would be the point? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per JClemens & Hellknowz. Skier Dude (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per JClemens. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's not just a philosophical question. There simply is no commonly used unveiled depiction of Muhammad. To use an unveiled depiction would (1) Not be representative, since there is no consistency in these images; and (2) Be giving drastically undue weight to such an image. I defy anyone to produce multiple reliable sources that present any consistent unveiled image of Muhammad. So for those who are supporting, without (in my opinion) even understanding the issues here, which image would you even use? --Elonka 15:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is neither neutral nor wise to embarrass potential readers without necessity. It is educational to use the principle of least astonishment. Additionally as nobody knows, how he really looked like, every picture would be wrong. --Advocado 15:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jclemens. Anything other than this would make no sense in the context of a factual encyclopedia article on the subject. God is not consistently depicted the same way throughout history, but we somehow found a picture to use without controversy. Don't fool yourself, this discussion is about censorship and catering to the demands of a religion, not about a survey of depictions used in sources. —SW— ^yak 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: While I strongly oppose censoring the article in any way, shape or form, the lead image should - reasonably - be of a sort most commonly depicted. That, with Muhammad, is a calligraped representation. Ravenswing 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my refutation of the argument that most people are voting (and no, I didn't mean !voting) on, and comments in section d. —WFC— 17:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not the most common representation. Giving it this much prominence would violate the policy of WP:UNDUE weight. But it is a legitimate point of view, so it should appear in the encyclopedia somewhere. Just in proportion to its prominence. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Common enough in Iran, but literally a fringe image throughout most of the Islamic world, and not a common choice of cover image in Western publications either. --JN466 19:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We don't show other historical figures with their faces covered, obviously, because there is no reason to do that. The point of an image, especially in an infobox, is to depict the figure as fully as possible. Since Wikipedia is not censored, there's no reason to choose an image that conceals the subject in any way. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:31, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above; this is how virtually every other central religious figure is treated (from Abraham to Zarathustra). Making an exception to the generally accepted style (and I'll even be so bold as to say unspoken consensus) just to avoid offending people is ludicrous and goes against everything Wikipedia stands for (particularly after our response to SOP--*is shot). Sleddog116 (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Errant and Elonka. It simply isn't a representative image. This style of depiction is well and truly in the minority. It may have a place somewhere in the article, but not as the infobox/lede image. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 01:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: though supporting this option would be an adequate reply to the whole off-site campaign, still it isn't the most common representation of Muhammad these days. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—this is just a knee-jerk to-heck-with-you reaction to people who have raised these concerns. It is childish to do something just to show that you can.Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though this is perfectly acceptable to me, but not to all users, and there is a image format that is universally acceptable. Therefore using a depiction like this in the lede is going far out of our way to be deliberately offensive. And it's not as if there were actually an authentic true image. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the only legitimate option for an encycylopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to Neutral -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Per Elonka, I think it's not about censorship in this case. The infobox should display a correct representation of the subject. In most cases, this would be an image or painting of the subject. In this particular case, it is established that no such images exist that would display the subject as he looked like (i.e. one that was actually created by someone who saw him). If such images appear at any time, they should be used. As long as they don't exist, we should go with the most common representation instead. Regards SoWhy 13:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This should be treated the way any other historical figure is treated. No special exceptions. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No exceptions for anybody. --Voyager (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As I very much doubt he wore one. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support under the assumption that no other media exists with a higher information density. -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support. None of our other articles are WP:CENSORED: the most notable and recognizable depictions go first. We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jclemens. -- Neozoon 00:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: this would be a misrepresentation and not even correctly representing the Islamic culture. Even country articles seem to use that specific country's version of English language... why not in cases of other cultural aspects. Even from a neutral POV this is not a correct representation. No wonder wikipedia is busy offending people claiming the not-censored policy as a pretext. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~Feedintm^Parley 01:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WFC's excellent argument. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Especially per Jclemens and WP:NOTCENSORED. Specific religions, topics or articles rarely get special treatment, and there exists no compelling case here. The only two arguments seem to be that this is offensive (irrelevant, NOTCENSORED) and that Muhammad is better recognized by a calligraphy. No page on Wikipedia is supposed to represent any culture or be tailored to it. Fundamentally I believe at hand is whether this article should be forced to comply with Wikipedia's standards and into consistency with other articles; I believe it should. To do otherwise, especially in such a high profile case, would compromise the encyclopedia's neutral point of view. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An infobox about a notable person must first and foremost contain facts, not fiction, facts on fiction or related facts. Second, one may have many rights but that does not mean he or she must use it anytime. The police for instance has the right to detain anyone for 24 hours without giving a reason; it does not mean that one police officer must do so indiscriminately. We too, have WP:NOTCENSORED, but that does not mean we should use it to irritate others when we simply can do better. Third, please read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Fleet Command (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jclemens. It makes sense. This is not intended to irritate or offend. It takes a series of conscious actions to find the article - it's not being put on billboards in public places. Davidelit (Talk) 12:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per my comment below, having this in the infobox would be a misrepresentation. The common representation is calligraphy, not images, therefore Wikipedia should stick to the facts. Most of the arguments asking for an image to be used in the infobox are based on WP:Other stuff exists rather than anything meaningful as to why an image should take precedence over calligraphy - which is the most commonly used representation. Mar4d (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DISTANT second choice tied with other image option "Not-censored" is not an argument for use of or not use of an image. Making an argument based around that premise, is censorship and a fallacy of reasoning. The reason to use an image or something else should be based solely on an editorial decision. What makes most sense. While there are editorially sound reasons to use either an image or calligraphy; calligraphy has two distinct advantages. First, it doesn't offend---this is not a censorship question, but an editorial one. If an image is KNOWN to offend, then editorially some favor has to be given to the option that won't offend. Editorially using an image explicity because it offends or knowing that it offends should only be made when the objective is to offend, not when the objective is to educate. So some weight has to be given there (again this isn't censorship, it is an editorial consideration of the facts and a purvue of the audience who may read the article.) Second, the calligraphy has an educational element that is missed by many so far... the educational element that images of Mohamed offend Muslims and how Muslims depict "The Prophet". Muslims (generally) do not use pictures of Mohamed. Our use of a non-image would be educational as it would depict the way the subjects followers depict him. The image in the lead should be the one that has the biggest educational impact/convey the most. By using calligraphy, we send an instant message that this is how he is most often portrayed/represented. That being said, I prefer an image over no-image or something arbitrarily unrelated.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. In no other case would we even be having this discussion. I can't think of a single article aside from this one that only has pictures of its main subject under the fold.—Chowbok ☠ 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Given that the most common representation is calligraphic and that none of the images actually depict the Prophet Mohammed in any meaningful sense, I see no particularly strong encyclopædic reason to include a picture in the infobox. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we shouldn't take the potential for offence into account in our editorial decisions - only that it is not the only determining factor. IMO, such considerations strongly outweigh the little encyclopædic value that such an image would have in this case. Kahastok talk 23:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Using clipped images, veiled or unveiled, which form a tiny part of an illuninated manuscript is highly artificial. Victorian or Edwardian images of prophets like Moses (also mentioned in the Quran) are not suitable comparisons. Calligraphy is the way to go. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - First choice. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per WP:UNCENSORED. If we censor Muhammad, it is a slippery slope to censoring many other controversial pages. Pass a Method talk 17:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is appropriate for major historical figures. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per FleetCommand and the fact that if we stick to the idea of representing how the matter is dealt with in most secondary sources, this ain't it. Last time I checked, the desire to offend others didn't trump reliable sources.VolunteerMarek 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as inferior to Calligraphy. The point of images is to educate. Muhammad was not Jesus-- he wasn't a pauper, he was the most important man in his world. The lack of portraits during his life is not an accident, it's a result of the choices he made during his life. Indeed, Muhammad is uniquely notable for this choice. The "iconic image" of Muhammad is his name, not a picture of his face. "Doing what we usually do" would be missing an exciting educational opportunity to teach our readers about the subject and his very notable stance on icons. Insisting on an unveiled image even at the expense of a chance to educate would be "cutting off our nose to spite our face". --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I personally don't care about viewing such things, however, this is not simply deeply offensive to a minority of possible readers and editors, this is a significant portion of the world population. Penyulap ☏ 15:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hector. --JN466 15:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support or the next closest thing to a secular image. Neotarf (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Headlining or infoboxing the article with unrepresentative western images is unencyclopedic systemic bias. Geometry guy 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Only a uncensored image is a proper illustration. -- Laber□^T 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect illustration of how this proposal is ass backwards! "Only an uncensored image is a proper illustration"? What image should be used? Obviously, the one that makes the most editorial sense and conveys the most pertinent information. But the people who insist upon the use of an image "per not censored" or some variation thereof, are saying "We can't consider other images---we can only consider images of Mohamed without a veil because we aren't censored." Er, isn't that censorship? Isn't the whole line of reasoning of "per not censored" really censorship? Once you say that we have to do something "per not censored" and that is the rationale for your argument, then you've engaged in censorship. If that is the crux of your opinion, wheter it is Laberkiste or anybody else, then your argument has to (by definition) EQUALLY SUPPORTS ALL OTHER OPTIONS. If it doesn't support all other options as viable options, then it is not "Not Censored" but "Censored as I want."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - nothing to do with censorship; we should use the image which will contribute most to a reader's understanding of a topic. The common calligraphic representation of his name contributes something because it is iconic; one of a small number of imaginary depictions contributes much less. Warofdreams talk 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name, as stated by HectorMoffet above. We should go with the best available version of that image. I would prefer one with some cultural context, such as text taken from a tile, embroidery or manuscript, rather than the very bland black and white image given as the sample. Amandajm (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Elonka, who said it perfectly. Rivertorch (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NOTCENSORED applying to the others. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No other way of doing it. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Best secular representation of the subject. Spencer^T♦C 21:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not the most common way of doing it, calligraphy is clearly NPOV. That it is 'secular' is, to me, irrelevant. JHS_nl (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - agreed that this is nothing to do with censorship, it's simply the case that images like this one are not a common depiction of Muhammad. It would arguably violate NPOV to use an image in the infobox that the considerable majority of the world's Muslims would reject. Robofish (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - not a common depiction of article's matter --Rax (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the purpose of a physical depiction is precisely that – calligraphic is an abstract depiction.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - An unveiled image is NPOV an the most descriptive representation available. Wiki-Taka (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per opposes.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:NOTCENSORED. Quoting Wikipedia guidelines is not my personal opinion of any sorts. Any such censorship of such images which have been on the English Wiki for years is a massive violation of this and undermines this rule. Removing them to appease Muslim hardliners is censorship. Showing a visual representation of Muhammad in terms of importance, whether they are needed and such is a totally different matter altogether, NO APPEASING the multitude of Anons creating "REMOV TEH IMAHGES NOOW!!!111!!!1" comments. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Undue weight; the most common representation is calligraphic. This is deliberately offending with no encyclopedic reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The calligraphic representation currently in the article is fine. As we have no idea what Muhammad looked like, any 'portrait' would be incorrect and misleading. Apuldram (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jclemens.--В и к и T 15:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most consistent with similar articles about similar historical figures.—Kww(talk) 13:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is my understanding that there are no contemporary images in any form of Muhammed, any more than there are of Jesus or Moses. The only reason there are images of any of those three is artists used their imagination. The images of Jesus and Moses are pretty much iconic in our culture. Man on a cross, you think Jesus, even though Romans executed probably tens of thousands of people that way. Guy with a couple stone tablets, you think Moses. There is no such iconic image of Mohammed in our culture. Since the most common depiction of Muhammed is an artistic calligraphic one, I see no problem with that being in the infobox. --VikÞor | Talk 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is the only way most English-readers have seen these depictions, however fictional they may be. Student7 (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - per User:JohnChrysostom - "None of our other articles are WP:CENSORED: the most notable and recognizable depictions go first. We don't censor Swastika, Holocaust (or Holocaust denial), Cunnilingus, Fisting, or Fellatio. Wikipedia caters to no other point of view, religious or not. It is not Wikipedia's job to censor images (as per the WP:DISCLAIMER) or anything else, to reinforce any form of bias or superstition. What's next, remove pictures of the cross because Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons object, remove descriptions of sex acts as immoral?"

  And to say that "we need to behave like muslims in order to write an article about Muhammad" - is abject sophistry. :) Brendon is here 21:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Without Veil, because censorship is never acceptable, arguments about sensitivity not withstanding. We live in a world where anyone can get on a plane and go anywhere. Where anyone can write anything and have it published in any language. The world of information has gotten small. People need to get used to the inevitable fact that they will be exposed to ideas that offend them. As information is shared at an ever increasing trend, this will only accelerate.--Benjamin 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support, per Ben above :) --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Support if there is a scholarly recognised image that depicts Muhammed Gnangarra 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but I prefer this picture. Weissbier (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Anyone looking at an article in a non-censored encyclopedia, where articles tend to have an information box with an image, would expect this sort of picture for a well-known person (whether real or mythological); just like we have for Moses and Alexander the Great, we should have one for Mohammed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:GRATUITOUS. "When multiple options are equally effective at portraying a concept, Wikipedia does not retain the most offensive options merely to "show off" its ability to include possibly offensive materials." There are several options for portraying Mohammed, and this is by far the most offensive. If an actual portrait of the man existed, there would be a good argument for having that, but there isn't, so the other representations are just as good, with the plus of being less-offensive and more commonly used (which WP should follow). ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - that's what the picture space in the infobox is for, to give a give a fair representation of the subject's likeness (even if it's not based on reality), no need for a Muhammad exception.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We don't know what Muhammed looked like. Any image used would be a work of fiction. An encyclopedia should present the truth, or where this is not possible, admit ignorance. Presenting fiction as if it were truth is misleading and dishonest. Maproom (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jclemens. This article should not be considered a special case under any circumstance in terms of content.--New questions? 18:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, to be consistent with other biographies, but only in conjunction with convenient method of suppressing display, in order to avoid unneccesary offence without censorship. --Boson (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose 1. WP:GRATUITOUS 2. There are plenty of pictures of politicians in questionable poses such as | Chris Christie does not mean we're are going to put this on Wikipedia. This is not a question of freedom of speech. Wikipedia is not a ground to protest and express our freedom of speeach. 3. See WP:Gratuitous again. The Determinator p t c 16:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, we should consider this Article as any other article. A ntv (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the same reason as Kahastok. - Richiez (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we should not have nay special images. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Support To preserve equality of ideas we need to treat this page like any other --Pat ^talk 02:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the infobox should use a calligraphy since that is the normal way to depict Mohammed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. per not censored. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as long as it is an image that was produced by and/or commissioned by a practising Muslim or a group of practising Muslims. This way, the treatment would be broadly consistent with other articles about religious figures; and no-one could reasonably argue that the image used had been created in order to offend Islam. zazpot (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose none are representative, so with no accurate likenesses, we might as well go with the most common depiction in Islamic cultures. No need to go out of our way to purposely offend, which a figurative image in the infobox would do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support because as a reader of this on-line encyclopedia, I would like to see each method of depiction shown. My preference is unveiled as the lead, as veiled obscures identification; and providing calligraphy calls to mind Prince renaming himself as a symbol, and I would be personally offended seeing a person depicted primarily as a symbol in a balanced, unbiased medium. Amarand (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Not censored--GrapedApe (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As others have clearly pointed out this is a very uncommon way of depicting Muhammad. Censorship is besides the point. It goes against our most basic principles about using what is most common and mainstream to depict (in word or image) our subject. WP:UNDUE anyone?Griswaldo (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The unveiled images are no more accurate than the flame. They should certainly be included in the body of the article, but the most common depiction (based on current usage) should be in the infobox. Historical accuracy isn't important; nobody really thinks the Buddha looked like this. Remember, guys, we're not setting precedent for all time here; Wikipedia is writ in water. If convention changes sometime in the 26th century, we can always revisit the issue. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support we have no requirement that ancient figures be depicted in photographic realism. Do people really think that God looks like the guy on the Sistine Chapel? And which Jesus, Mary, Adam & Eve, etc. is the best depiction? none? but we have them. What Mohammad looked like is probably less important than the concept of what he looked like as depicted in later depictions meant to be representative of the likeness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, in any other article about a historical figure, if contemporary photos/drawings aren't available, we use historical ones once they become available, not calligraphy or the like. We should not censor here by doing any differently, and the portrait should be the lead shot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose The fact that there is no contemporary portrayal, combined with the fact that an unveiled representation is extremely uncommon in both modern and ancient times leaves no angle to argue for an unveiled representation in this entry. Lwsimon (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per WP:NOTCENSORED. Mbak Dede (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Hilya#Origins has quotes from Muhammad's contemporaries like: "[...] His hair was not short and curly, nor was it lank, it would hang down in waves. His face was not overly plump, nor was it fleshy, yet it was somewhat circular. His complexion was rosy white. His eyes were large and black, and his eyelashes were long [...]". Obviously, he was a quite handsome man, who had no cause to hide his looks on the street. Therefore support to depict him unveiled, --Rosenkohl (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

b) Veiled[edit]

• Oppose. Too cluttered. Not acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Useless for infobox purposes, unless if this is (and as I understand it, it isn't) how Muhammad is depicted in the overwhelming majority of works. Goodraise 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because we can't understand it's whos. It can just be a man flying in the air.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This wouldn't depict the subject in a meaningful manner. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A veiled image might be suitable for an article about how Muhammad is depicted, but it's not relevant to his biography. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Would have no value. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It would be better to have no image than this image. —SW— ^converse 14:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not a particularly helpful image. Kelly ^hi! 14:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Third choice. In looking through reliable sources (which I believe most of the people commenting here haven't), there is an image which tends to show up more often than others. My first choice would stilll be calligraphy, followed by an image of Muhammad's tomb, but if we chose a veiled image, I would recommend this one. File:Miraj_by_Sultan_Muhammad.jpg. --Elonka 15:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it is neither neutral nor wise to embarrass potential readers without necessity. It is educational to use the principle of least astonishment. --Advocado 15:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: it isn't the most common representation of Muhammad these days. Effectively it is more of historical interest. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose cmadler (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per inverse of my comments above. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in favour of next option per my rationale to above. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose does do little to illustrate the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pretty much just silly. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC) no opinion. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose An infobox about a notable person must first and foremost contain facts, not fiction, facts on fiction or related facts. Still this is much better than unveiled version as it has less potentials to offend. Yes, yes, please do not bother reminding me that per WP:NOTCENSORED, we have the right to show all forms of undesirable contents indiscriminately as part of our holy mission to harass the universe! Fleet Command (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• DISTANT second choice tied with other image option see rationale above.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Using clipped images, veiled or unveiled, which form a tiny part of an illuninated manuscript is highly artificial. Victorian or Edwardian images of prophets like Moses (also mentioned in the Quran) are not suitable comparisons. Calligraphy is the way to go. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not really good for this encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A veiled image does not impart useful information, and so choosing this image would be a form of censorship. The image chosen must be the best one on purely encyclopedic grounds, and not selected on the basis of potential offence. Thom2002 (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as a main illustration, but okay for discussion of historical depiction. Neotarf (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I'm surprised by the strength of opposition here, as I can see the benefits of a veiled image, even if this particular image is not ideal. It is both a strength and a weakness of such an image that it illustrates not only Mohammed, but an aspect of the associated iconography. However, for the main article on Mohammed, I think it is undue weight to draw attention to this issue in the lead or infobox. Geometry guy 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Pointless, as a lead image. The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name. Amandajm (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Elonka and Neotarf. This is not the most common or historically significant type of depiction. Rivertorch (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, silly. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not the most common way of doing it, even less than unveiled, calligraphy is clearly NPOV. JHS_nl (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - no veiling in any way --Rax (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my !vote above.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Undue weight; calligraphy is the most common depiction, followed by unveiled, with veiled a distant third. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The calligraphic representation currently in the article is fine. As we have no idea what Muhammad looked like, any 'portrait' would be incorrect and misleading. Apuldram (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No secular justification for such a choice has been presented.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose See bold type above.--Benjamin 00:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose doesnt add value to the article, a calligraphic representation would be better choice then this Gnangarra 23:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose what should be the use in such a picture? Weissbier (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't care but prefer over unveiled. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, seems rather pointless to me.--SUFC Boy 18:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this should be an unacceptable compromise on WP liberty.A ntv (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose pointless --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose none are representative, so with no accurate likenesses, we might as well go with the most common depiction in Islamic cultures. No need to go out of our way to purposely offend, which a figurative image in the infobox would do. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose as I am not against the veiled representation in an of itself, I am more against the veiled image being used as the only, or primary (lead) image. My first preference for lead image is the highest quality unveiled version available. Amarand (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose is there any historical accounts that Mohammad wore a veil? Thought not. Maybe this would pass muster at Jyllandsposten but not WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is slightly better than the "unveiled" proposal, but only slightly. By blocking the face, a portrait provides little value in an encyclopedic context. Seeing as this is a common representation both historically and in modern publications, there is some argument that such an image should be included - but I don't believe it is fitting for a lead image, which should be representative of the topic. Lwsimon (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. Mbak Dede (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

c) Calligraphy[edit]

• First choice, calligraphy for the infobox. It's the most common way that Muhammad is represented, with calligraphic representations being an elaborate artform in Islam, so it's an appropriate choice. --Elonka 00:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously, because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad abound, and are the most common type of depiction, the infobox should have such an image. I prefer a notable artwork rather than a simple black and white calligraph, but the best one unfortunately has a copyright status that permits only a low-resolution rendition in one specific article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unacceptable. The fact that this discussion is even taking place is evidence of a gross double standard. (And no, calling me names won't make me change my mind.) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support First choice, since calligraphic depictions are far more common and, notwithstanding Niteshift's comment, would probably be the least controversial. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Best choice, as most typical of Islamic representation, avoiding offence, and because none of the figurative images are much use as portraits, which was not their intended function. But not the example given. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is how Muhammad is most commonly represented outside of Wikipedia, so we should follow suit. Euchrid (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Calligraphy for the infobox is acceptable, being the most common way that Muhammad is represented, provided that other depictions (portraits with faces and without) are found in the rest of the article. Allens (talk | contribs) 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It's what most readers would expect to see on an article about Muhammad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Most common depiction of him. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I support calligraphy since it is the most common depiction of him. If this were not true, I would reluctantly insist on the image. --JaGa^talk 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only here on Wikipedia... in Muslim communities it is how it's done. Which are you more likely to recognize, a picture of Mohamed of the Calligraphy for him? I would recognize the Calligraphy before an image.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Muslim community. —SW— ^express 22:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Mohamed is a Muslim figure and most representations of him come from Muslim communities. The point is that other religions have standard tropes around which their characters are identified. We can recognize St Francis of Assissi, even if we've never seen the image, because there are standard conventions surrounding his presentation. We can recognize different historical figures because the art which is used to depict them uses standard conventions to do so. With Mohamed, this isn't the case. With Mohamed, the standard depiction used isn't a figure, it's calligraphic. To use an image that isn't indicative of the community or the norm in the historical profile is not NPOV, but rather UNDUE weighting. It is using our Western biases to select a fringe/minority presentation because we want it (and we want to prove that we aren't censored.) But it does not mirror the historical reality and it does distort the historical record.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Jclemens. Knobbly (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Consistent with how Muhammad is most commonly and famously depicted. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Apparently the best way to help the reader identify the article subject. Goodraise 04:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely the best option. Calligraphy from an actual mosque or other Islamic site should be preferred to a simple user-generated graphic. We need to remember that the purpose of these articles is to educate, and someone who browses briefly (or uses a lede-only version distributed on a CD, etc.) should not come away with the notion that "Muhammad looks like this" or even "Muhammad is represented this way" because it would be wrong. Wnt (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Best choice. A man famous for not getting his portrait shouldn't have a portrait as his primary image. The most informative image we can provide is one which reflects that.--HectorMoffet (talk) 06:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely the most appropriate choice, seeing as most existing depictions are of this form. There's no binding decision anywhere that says infoboxes must have portraits, even if they are the norm elsewhere. HectorMoffet's comment sums it up best, IMO. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 06:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferred as I assume the calligraphy is the least varies option of images to choose from. If there is a continuous debate on what he looks like, bypass what he looks like for the main piece of the article and let people make up their minds as other images are shown later. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 06:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it makes sense and is acceptable--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Best Choice. It is the most common and appropriate method of depicting Prophet Muhammad through an image. Shariq r82 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There is no rule that infoboxes should have portraits. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't know of any other figure whose infobox includes a stylized name as a picture, especially when there are numerous depictions of said person. What function would this even serve, since it's clearly not depicting the person in question? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; standard way to depict Muhammad, per sources. I also want to register concerns that the push to display an potrait style image in the infobox is being influenced by a push-back against resistance to these images being in the article. That's hugely problematic. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — If opposition against a veiled or an unveiled depiction is really that fierce, we should be considerate hereof and opt for the least offensive solution that we all can get along with in the infobox. This should, however, not lead to the conclusion that other depictions of a veiled or an unveiled Muhammad are no longer displayed in Wikipedia altogether.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional neutral. It's far from ideal to represent the subject of a biography in this manner, but given the fierce opposition in some quarters I can't really object in the circumstances. However, I oppose both infobox and lead images being calligraphy as this is a biography not an article about calligraphy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Other articles have artistic depictions of people, as Jclemens said above. --CapitalR (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Text, no matter how stylized, is not an image, and should not substitute for it when images are available. Skier Dude (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jclemens. Every other article on a deity prophet starts out with a portrayal of that deity prophet, why would this one start out with calligraphy? In the context of a secular, rational, factual, and neutral encyclopedia, this makes no sense. It only makes sense in the context of an encyclopedia that is biased by religious pressure and caters to the irrational fears of the religiously extreme. Yes, I understand that Muhammad has been frequently depicted as calligraphy, but generally when most humans think about deities prophets who supposedly took human form at some point, they don't imagine the deity prophet as a jumble of fancy script letters walking down the street. I have no objection to a calligraphy depiction later on in the article (since it appears in many sources), but to have it at the top of the article would be ridiculous. —SW— ^converse 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, assuming the statement that "it's the most common way that Muhammad is represented" is true.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:31 (UTC)
• Oppose, depiction would be more helpful and educational than text. Kelly ^hi! 14:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The calligraphy image is redolent of computer-generated devotional art that can be found on the Internet, which is not a neutral way for Wikipedia to illustrate an infobox. FormerIP (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It can transport similar emotional information like a picture of Muhammad. In contrast, as nobody knows how he really looked like, a picture of Muhammad himself wouldn't be representative. --Advocado 15:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—This seems the most appropriate to me, not because it does not offend Muslims, but because it is the most common form of depicting Muhammad. Much as Emperor Jimmu is depicted through traditional Japanese artwork and Plato depicted by a Hellenistic bust, it seems fitting to use a culturally-relevant depiction in the infobox. GRAPPLE X 16:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support-This is the kind of depiction that most muslims would recognize. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Elonka, Wnt, and others. Presenting any other manner of depiction as primary in an encyclopedia if such depictions do not, in fact, hold primacy beyond the bounds of the encyclopedia itself would be misleading and thus would serve no encyclopedic purpose. scisdahl (t•c) 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Most common depiction. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it took a lot of discussion many years ago to arrive at this position I don't see any reason to change.--Salix (talk): 16:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: In many other areas of Wikipedia (cf. WP:COMMONNAME), the most common usage is what prevails. The most common depictions of Muhammad are in calligraphy, and I have very little use for the comments above which maintain that the only reason anyone could choose this option is out of cowardice. I would appreciate some WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, please. Ravenswing 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We should use the most common available representation in the infobox. That said, I agree with the rationales of Thryduulf and Allens among others that not all of the images in the article should be calligraphy. Jclemens' rationale I vehemently disagree with: the arguments applicable to the most common depiction of Muhammad are not applicable to similarly prominent figures in other religions. —WFC— 17:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The most common, mainstream and culturally significant representation. JN466 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The most widespread style of representation is clearly the best choice as the main image. Cloveapple (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It's ridiculous to suggest that an article on a historical figure should have calligraphy as its main image, when for very good reason we always choose to depict such figures as fully as possible. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:44, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
• Support In my humble opinion, in an article about a factual person, the infobox must first and foremost supply facts about the subject instead of fiction, facts on fiction, or facts about related subjects. So far, calligraphy fits the bill for being facts on the subject, i.e. the spelling and the pronunciation of writing his name as well as a common way of identifying association with him. Fleet Command (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. We are streeeeetching the Principle of Least Astonishment by doing that. That, and (and at the risk of sounding WP:Other-stuffy), I can't think of a single other notable biographical article that uses calligraphy or lettering as the only infobox image (if there is one, please bring it up). Sleddog116 (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:ASTONISH is nothing more or less than an opinion essay and is not a consensus-determined guideline or policy of English-Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: the article should give the most weight to the modern viewpoint on Muhammad. As long as it is now common to depict him with calligraphy, we should stick with it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as most common depiction. It's not Wikipedia's job to make arbitrary decisions on what constitutes a valid depiction and what doesn't, our job is to reflect the majority of reliable sources. The calligraphy option achieves this cleanly. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—not only the most common depiction in modern times and the least-offensive, many of these images are quite beautiful and widely-regarded examples of Islamic art. Davidjamesbeck (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The lede image should be one that is most universally accepted. Those who think pictorial images appropriate also accept calligraphy, but not the other way around. Nobody can really say that a calligraphic image is waffling or a concession--it is simply the most universally accepted form. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Absolutely not. We are not a Catholic or Jewish or Protestant or Muslim encycylopedia, we are an English-language encyclopedia, and our criteria for inclusion should not be swayed by what one group of people want to the exclusion of all others. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Either an unveiled image or calligraphy would be acceptable, there is a case to be made either way. What isn't acceptable is veiling or omitting for religious reasons. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wouldn't mind if both kinds of pictures were shown, though. --Voyager (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per above comments, and adding: What about when various religions begin to push for a portrayal of Jesus Christ using "ICXC NIKA" or "INRI"? Muslims are opposed to all depictions of all living creatures, after all. Bad precedent. Wikipedia is not about being "considerate" or "not offensive". The "principle of least astonishment" is satisfied here for all but hard-line Muslims, as, when looking up a person, you expect to see - a person, not a stylized representation of his name in a different script, essentially the article title repeated in a different language. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jclemens -- Neozoon 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support: this would be the correct representation of the Islamic culture. Even country articles seem to use that specific country's version of English language... why not in cases of other cultural aspects. Even from a neutral POV this is the correct representation. No wonder wikipedia is busy offending people claiming the not-censored policy as a pretext. Adding calligraphy would be most appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral/Second choice ~Feedintm^Parley 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, best choice because it is the most common illustration of the subject. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The correct, common and accurate representation, as used by Muslims, is calligraphy. No reason as to why Wikipedia should be any different as far as this is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to Oppose Second Choice because the made computer images proposed are just plain bad. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The most commonly-used representation. – hysteria18 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support so they can see the message about clicking to suppress images. Images are supposed to be illustrative of the subject. I just answered a question like this in another place and they wanted to show a demure version of a porn acress and I was saying they need to show some sort of inclination that way as that's what she is known for. The subject is the founder of the religion not just a face and the calligraphy illustrates their belief system well. Dmcq (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per WP:NOTCENSORED. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While the calligraphic representation should be present in the article, we should not give special treatment. Having calligraphy does not accurately portray what the article is about - a person, and having a calligraphic representation when other representation (which is more consistent with other articles) exist seems to be bowing the sensibilities of a specific group.
  AFAIK Wikipedia is fairly infamous for its explicit sexual content which is of course offensive to many, saying that calligraphy is a good choice because it is doable or not inflammatory seems like a massive double standard. I think it quite possible that the reason other encyclopedias etc. do not represent Muhammad this way is because they have been bullied into such a position.
  I also understand from the comments of user FormerIP (talk · contribs) that the claim that calligraphic renderings are more common than depictions is challenged. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The least inflammatory option combined with the fact that no actual photos or pictures painted during his lifetime exist. Moreover, this is how he is traditionally represented for Muslims who make up 20% of the world's population. It would be better to leave it to them to choose a representative image of their prophet than a group of westerners. Veritycheck (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Traditionally depicted in exactly this way. PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as it is the most common depiction of Muhammad in an Islamic context; in fact, the most common depiction of him anywhere. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as far as I know it doesn't offend anyone at all. I can't see it as censorship to have the first image (veiled or otherwise) of a person further down the page, so that it isn't the first thing you see when viewing the article. That's being sensitive to others feelings. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• First Choice if this is how Mohamed is presented in most places and by the community in question, why not? Those who argue that we shouldn't use the common (and respected) depiction of Mohamed in the lead, appear to be doing so not because they are right, but rather because they don't want to be "censored." Well, it's not censorship, it is a valid editorial decision. CConsider this, if this were an article on the Olympics, wouldn't the Olympic rings be the most logical symbol to go into the info box? A gold medal, athlete, location, etc wouldn't work as well because people expect to see the ring. It almost feels as if some people who are contributing here want to use images of mohamed in the lead to spite the Muslim community---to piss them off---and to tell them that they can't tell Wikipedia what to do. But that is not a valid rationale... a valid rationale is to use the image/symbol most widely associated with the subject. (Hell, as a non-Muslim, I'm more likely to recognize the calligraphy of Allah than I would some random picture of him.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically my argument boils down to this. Can a strong argument be made for calligraphy? Yes. A similarly strong argument can be made for an image. Both make sense to a certain degree. Since both are editorially sound decisions, we then look at who the audience is. For this article, we will have a large population of Muslims. For that community having an image in the lead might be offensive. So we have two equally valid views, but one might be more offensive to the audience of the article. This lends credence to the editorial decision to use the calligraphy. What about the non-muslim community? Shouldn't they see a 'figure?' Why? Is it an actual photo of Mohamed or just an artistic representation? Isn't that what calligraphy is, an artistic representation? But there is even a stronger editorial argument here for the calligraphy over the image. Some of the pro-image people have argued that to capture peoples attention, you have to astonish them to catch them off guard. Well, using that rationale, it could be argued that the Western reader expects to see a portrait. By having calligraphy instead, we catch them off guard. This presents a strong learning device for the western reader---that in Islam it is considered offensive to have images of Mohamed. So basically, we have two rational editorial arguments---one to have calligraphy the other to have an artistic fabrication of Mohamed (which likely bears no actual semblance to the historical figure). One will offend the subjects target community. The other will not offend the community, but will provide an educational opportunity for the Western reader. I think the decision is obvious. Go with the calligraphy as it is both the more sensitive towards the Muslim community AND the most educational to the non-Muslim community.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're assuming that the majority of visitors to the Muhammad article will be Muslims. I don't think this is necessarily a valid assumption. While it may be true, there is no data to support it (that I'm aware of). —SW— ^gab 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all. My argument is applicable both if the majority of readers are Muslim or Non-Muslim. The fact that calligraphy is less offensive to some, is only one factor in my position. The fact that using calligraphy in the lead would be educational to non-Muslims is the principle argument. Since most depictions of Mohamed are NOT figurative, by having calligraphical image in the lead, it accentuates how important it is to Muslim communities and it accentuates how Muslim communities depict their prophet. By using a calligraphic image, we provide a strong learning opportunity to the non-Muslim readership while at the same time respecting the morales of the Muslims who might come here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Art, within any tradition, is full of conventions and standards. People can look at historical piece of art and identify the subject based upon these standards. This is espeically true for religious art. Depictions of historical/artistic figures are emmeshed in these conventions, which help art historians identify the subects of pieces of work. The conventions surrounding Mohammed are not to use figurative art. Figurative art to depict Mohamed is not representative of the historical norm. This is true regardless of one's religious beliefs. To use a figurative piece of art in the lead, is thus UNDUE and not consistent with the artistic conventions used to depict Mohamed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per my above. I see no reason why this is not a valid way of doing this, that respects both the most common means of achieving our goal elsewhere and the means that is far less likely to offend a large proportion of our readership. WP:NOTCENSORED shouldn't be something we wave in people's faces, and the possibility of offence should weigh into discussion - not as the only factor but as a significant one. I think Balloonman puts it very well above, and I agree with him. Kahastok talk 23:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - least surprise, but not shamelessly yielding to the censors; reasonable position. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is the most common way of depicting Muhammad. An artistic representation of his person would be preferable only if it was known to depict him as he actually appeared are was notable iconic. Since no such images exist, the most common depiction, non-pictoral as it is is best. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Using clipped images, veiled or unveiled, which form a tiny part of an illuninated manuscript is highly artificial. Victorian or Edwardian images of prophets like Moses (also mentioned in the Quran) are not suitable comparisons. Calligraphy is the way to go. I would support calligraphy, possibly from Persia, of high artistic quality, i.e. not just something looking like a logo. Mathsci (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Mathsci, so second choice. Although there is no reason to then use such calligraphy over and over again, at least the ones proposed and available on commons, which is why the more informative and educational use of a location such as the mosque he founded and is buried in is my first choice, as it's both more educational and more interesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Calligraphy in the infobox, images in the body. Mathsci nailed it. This is by far the most common depiction. We shouldn't even be discussing what does or does not constitute a valid depiction. Our job is to figure out what depiction the majority of reliable sources use and use that, no matter what our personal opinion is. The majority of sources use calligraphy to depict Muhammad. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - This is just silly. A fancy writing of somebody's name is not a good depiction of them for an infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 14:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The image in the infobox is usually a portrait. Since there is no known portrait of Muhammad I think the best representation is calligraphic. Ruslik_Zero 15:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The infobox image should best represent the subject as it is most commonly known, and due to the unusual historical circumstances, this is it. Rami R 17:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While it is an interesting choice that has some appeal, it isn't the traditional Wikipedia style. It raises more questions and problems than it solves. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Clearly best choice along several dimensions. It's how the subject is depicted in sources, it avoids giving unnecessary offense (i.e. trolling) and aesthetically pleasing.VolunteerMarek 21:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - most common option, also since a choice of image is arbitrary and none can be assumed to have any real likeness.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- Easily most feasible. Bzweebl (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it makes the point that we don't have a clue what really he looked like. Putting one of the later images in "pole position" would give the impression that the chosen image is definitive when it isn't. The later images belong in the body of the article. Woz2 (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We know how to spell his name but not what he looks liks. Best option. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support So long as no significant portion of the population is deeply, seriously, offended, and I believe that is the case, then sweet. Illustrations are cool ! If a few people don't like that, who cares ! Penyulap ☏ 15:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If it can be established that calligraphy is the most common and recognizable representation of him, I think this is reasonable. --Karl.brown (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the main illustration, but it should be included somewhere, just because it has dangled from so many rear-view mirrors. Neotarf (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. It is a bit dull, but is illustrative, representative, and more interesting the more one thinks about it. Geometry guy 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, calligraphy is historically the most common depiction and should therefore be shown, just as the most common or typical depiction is usually shown for others topics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the most commonly used and recognised depiction of the prophet, therefore it seems entirely appropriate that it should be the lead image, just as Jesus leads with a classical depiction. SFB 12:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this most commonly used depiction, and will add more to an understanding of the topic than one of the depictions. Incidentally, our feature article on Ælle of Sussex leads with an image of a line from a historic document which gives his name, and includes a (wholly imaginary) depiction only later in the article. Warofdreams talk 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support This is the way he is depicted by an unimaginably vast majority of those who write about him. The infobox should contain the image that is most informative; it's not like we have a photo of the guy, so pictorial representation gives no essential information. Seems like a no-brainer (to use a trite, objectionable phrase). -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support The most common manner of representing Muhammad is the "iconic image" of his name. We should go with the best available version of that image. I would prefer one with some cultural context, such as text taken from a tile, embroidery or manuscript, rather than the very bland black and white image given as the sample. Amandajm (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support most common form of representation. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Allens, Shooterwalker, and WNT. Best choice for infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Random support - AFAIK this one is the most popular - so this one should be used per WP:UNDUE Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:NOTCENSORED. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the standard modern representation, so it's the one that belongs in the infobox. It doesn't prevent the other images being used elsewhere in the article, so I see no issue with censorship. Anaxial (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, seems the most common representation. Superp (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, WP:NOTCENSORED. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this seems to be the most common representation of Muhammad and while many are citing WP:NOTCENSORED, there is also no need to purposely cause a stir. I am not opposed to other depictions appearing elsewhere in the article. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Second choice; but should be placed prominently. Spencer^T♦C 21:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support as it is, as is extensively documented, the most common depiction. NOTCENSORED arguments are used in a roundabout way, it should not be used as a counterargument against NPOV. JHS_nl (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the most common depiction of Muhammad, and as such the most neutral choice. Robofish (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as text is still only text and should not used as a place-holder because all other images are controversial. Use a image, or use none. Examples can be seen on pi and e (mathematical constant) for non-controversal articles where the calligraphy is not used at the info box. *Update*: The image location in the info box is used for a depiction of the subject. Even if one were to use Calligraphy, it too could be considered offensive. Its the use of depiction, not images techniques that is cited as offensive. Belorn (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• neutral - would'nt be my choice, but - hej ;) - its only a box ;) --Rax (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - while it is the most common "depiction" of him, it is undeniably an abstract representation of the phonetic value of his name and not of his physical being: it therefore would be highly unusual to use as the main image of an historical individual, even if it is commonly used for that purpose. Perhaps both depictions could be used in some equal setting?  White Whirlwind  咨  00:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since the images are not likenesses but only fanciful anyway, why bother to include one. Peter Flass (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No valid portrait exists. Calligraphy is the best available choice and has the advantage that it rarely gives offence. Apuldram (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Inconsistent with presentation of similar figures, no secular justification for different choice.—Kww(talk) 13:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate Support: Baloonman seems to sum up my views --VikÞor | Talk 14:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - If this is the way he is most commonly depicted, it is the most useful representation for the general reader. MSJapan (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Care--Benjamin 00:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Assuming the "background information" at the top of this discussion is accurate, this is the most common representation of Muhammad used in practice by Muslims and scholars. It makes sense to lead with this image (while still including other depictions later in the article). Dcoetzee 03:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• conditional Support agf on the introduction info that this is the most common representation, though if a scholarly recognised image is available(subject to copyright etc) then that should be used. Gnangarra 23:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The most common portrayal is the logical choice.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - rather useless, since its not a picture or a drawing of the person. Weissbier (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• First choice. It's the most common portrayal (which we should follow) and has the plus of being least offensive. I'd highly encourage using this in conjunction with the 1b option of being to hide future images. I believe this combination would make this nasty problem go away, helping us to avoid further vandalism, criticism, lengthy RFCs, etc. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - objectively speaking, this is the most common representation of Muhammad, so we should go by the mainstream view. Also, most importantly, this would avoid the question of authenticity of the images - in any case how do you accurately represent a personality from the 7th century when there are no popular representations of him around. Shaad lko (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As others have said, this is the representation that is, by far, the most common in contemporary use, and I don't see how using it violates WP:NOTCENSORED. That policy also does not mandate the use of images, and since the calligraphic use is now the most common form, I think it makes the most sense to use. -Jhortman (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems to be the standard depiction. LaTeeDa (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am swayed by Balloonman's Francis of Assisi argument, above. Maproom (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Jhortman, as the best option. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support We avoid contentious or shocking imagery in an info box. See Wikipedia:Images#Images_for_the_lead. --agr (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, calligraphy requests an understanding of the Arab culture that the most of the readers do not have. And we cannot renuonce to the liberty of WP to please a single POV.A ntv (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Most the reader don't even have a visual representation of Muhammad either, but more think of Muhammad from the Calligraphy than the picture The Determinator p t c 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per Wavehunter. -- Richiez (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Not because it's least offensive, but because this is the most common representation of Muhammad. As I wrote above, Wikipedia shouldn't accommodate any cultural norms. In this case, it shouldn't accommodate a (Western) norm expecting the first image in a biography to be portrait. A photograph or scan of a calligraphic design from a historical source would be preferable to a modern computer-generated one. A caption should explain to non-Muslim readers that calligraphy is the most common representation of Muhammad and why. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED, no matter what the topic--Pat ^talk 02:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the infobox should use a calligraphy since that is the normal way to depict Mohammed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Second choice. If the community decides not to be consistent with articles about other historical/religious figures and therefore not to use a likeness of Muhammad in the infobox, then the next best option would be to use calligraphy, since this is how Muhammad is - so I understand - most commonly represented. zazpot (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG SUPPORT This is how Muhammad is represented usually. The Determinator p t c 03:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." This is quote from WP:Images I would say your conventional reader who knows about Muhammad knows him by calligraphy rather than a picture. The Determinator p t c 03:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - with nothing that is sure to be an accurate description, we should go with the usual depiction in Islamic culture. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it's one thing to provide a veiled representation (as the secondary, not lead image) but it's another thing entirely to depict an individual as a symbol. I don't mind having this third on the list, or even having this as the second image, but I strongly believe that the lead image should be unveiled. Amarand (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Answering the question 'Which class of image is best suited to the infobox' is an editorial or content decision best left to those with a good grasp of the subject matter. What we need here is an image that best summarises and represents the topic. One that is very commonly used is probably the best, and if that is calligraphy, then that is the best. The reasoning here should not either to avoid upsetting some people, or certainly not to purposely anger anyone just because we can. The issue is what is the most recognisable and satisfying visual summary of the topic, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is it. Especially among subject specialists. --Nigelj (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this is a good idea, not just because it should be the least politically controversial, but because it's as close as it gets to the person about which we only know from classical Arabic texts. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is a nobrainer since Muhammad is almost always depicted in this form. I agree with Johnbod though, the actual example image used is not a good one.Griswaldo (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is how Muhammad is depicted almost everywhere. It's not like we have a photograph that should be used instead, so I think it best to show Muhammad as he is depicted in Islamic culture.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. For all intents and purposes, in modern Islam, this is the image of Muhammad. Other images (veiled and unveiled) are fine for the body, but this is the most common current depiction and as such belongs in the infobox. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no other person or thing has calligraphy as his depiction - this is getting rather ridiculous: are we going to have to spell God as G-d because some people cannot see the word in print, too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - This is how Muhammad is depicted almost everywhere. It is more correct to be shown Muhammad as he is depicted in Islamic culture, since it is the most prevalent practice. XoXo (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is not how we illustrate other articles. To make a special exemption here violates neutrality. Anywhere else that a contemporary portrait is not available, we use a historical one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support Calligraphy most accurately represents the subject of the article in the way most common throughout history. Lwsimon (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support The arguments on the grounds of "not censored" and "no special/non-neutral treatment" are fallacious (and the idea that Muslims are getting "special treatment" on Wikipedia can be immediately deduced from the fact the article is not full of "pbuh"!). It is standard practice when considering a lede image to illustrate an article, to consider how that concept/thing/person is usually rather than occasionally represented. Western preconceptions about how Muhammad are represented are very skewed - it just isn't standard practice to represent him with a portrait or bust (see Grapple X's excellent comment above about how Emperor Jimmu is depicted through traditional Japanese artwork and Plato depicted by a Hellenistic bust; were it not for the rise of Greco-Buddhist art and the representation of Buddha as a human figure, wouldn't the article on Buddha be illustrated by the traditional Indian depiction of Buddha as a wheel?). The arguments about not wishing to cause offence are also flawed, IMO. The reason that Piss Christ, an iconic and important depiction of Jesus, is not used in the lede of the Jesus article is not in order to avoid giving offence to Christians, but because it is unusual, distinctive and not generally representative. If Piss Christ were the mainstream reference point for "how is Jesus generally depicted", then were a copyleft image available it would and should be used to illustrate the Jesus article regardless of offence caused. Islamic portraits of Mohammed were not intended to be so shocking - but outside their very specific cultural backgrounds, they do have that effect on some other Muslims. That is a sign of how non-mainstream such depictions are. TheGrappler (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. While we all have heard of incidents where Christians flock to an apparition of Jesus or Mary, we never hear of Muslims flocking to an apparition of Muhammad. In the Muslim world, it is rather the appearance of an Arabic inscription reading „Muhammad“ that draws the throngs. - Ankimai (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious, if you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious, super calligraphy listic expialidocious!, but per #Types of representation I'll oppose it,--Rosenkohl (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

d) Image of a location[edit]

• Oppose. Not acceptable. Doesn't even make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Useless as a means of identification. Just increases page loading times. Goodraise 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because it's nonsense.--Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For all the reasons above: what would it be saying to show a picture of a cave or a sand dune or the Grand Mosque? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support where the location is tied to the man's life, this is the best option for this article because all the other choices are: 1) not as educational and 2) not as interesting. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A picture of a location cannot represent a human being in an article that covers a biography.--Aschmidt (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not relevant for a biographical article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Doesn't merit being the primary image. --CapitalR (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Muhammad is not a location. —SW— ^express 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A picture in the infobox should represent the subject of the article, not some related concept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:32 (UTC)
• Oppose, silly. Kelly ^hi! 14:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Second choice. In looking through reliable sources (which I encourage commenters here to do), many illustrate biographies of Muhammad with an image of his tomb. This image would be appropriate. File:Mescidi_nebevi.JPG. --Elonka 15:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Silly nonsense. Why not put an image of Mickey Mouse instead? -- Alexf^(talk) 16:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: this looks more like a placeholder. The worst option of all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Achim Raschka (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- nonsensical suggestion. cmadler (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What kind of strange idea is that? --Voyager (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Niteshift36
• Oppose as per all above comments. A location isn't a man, and is inherently POV at that (as it claims to tie the location and the man together in a way according to the religion's traditions). What's next? A picture of the tree at Gethsemane for Jesus Christ, or a picture of St.-Paul-Outside-the-Walls for St Paul? St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: per Alanscottwalker as well as a second choice to calligraphy. Suggesting image of the Mosque to be appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not helpful. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per just about every comment above, but especially Scottywong's statement that "Muhammad is not a location". The suggestion of such a thing should be a troutable offense... Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Last choice doesn't make sense. Here the only rationale would be because Wikipedia is censored.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I am not concerned with what type of image of Muhammad exists in the infobox - be it veiled, unveiled or calligraphy, so long as all three exist in the article proper - but this is not an acceptable alternative. Resolute 15:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Welcome to the Muhammad article. Instead of showing you an image of Muhammad in the infobox, we are going to show you a random location instead! Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the Tooth fairy precedent. _{where people are offended at this level, they have already disabled images in their browser} Penyulap ☏ 15:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I project that editors and readers who are offended at this level have already disabled images from their browser, or should. Penyulap ☏ 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Putting a map where there should be an image is just nonsense. AndieM13 (Leave a message!) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose non sequitur Neotarf (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. A cop out. Geometry guy 23:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not acceptable. -- Laber□^T 08:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose. The calligraphy of his name is the most frequently-used representation. It is absolutely pointless to use a geographic picture rather than a representation in some form. Amandajm (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as absurd. Makes about as much sense as putting an image of Versailles in Louis XIV's infobox. Rivertorch (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks more informative than calligraphy or artist impressions. Audriusa (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• WTF? Bulwersator (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not representative of the subject of the article, so not appropriate for an infobox. Anaxial (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Makes no sense, looks like placeholder. Superp (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Daft. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Nonsensical - David Gerard (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not a clear representation of the subject of the article. JHS_nl (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose - no context with articles subject. --Rax (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as second choice if Calligraphy is voted down. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Inconsistent with the way Wikipedia treats all similar historical figures.—Kww(talk) 13:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose weakest solution. prefer no image to geographic representation.--VikÞor | Talk 14:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as primary image. Doesn't make sense for infobox. Might be okay to say that "file...." is the way this would be depicted for iconoclasts. Forbidding images ought to be discussed in the context of Mideast iconoclasm, not unusual for the area in the early 1st millennium. Student7 (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, this is worse than censorship It creates the impression that censorship is not taking place by having a placeholder image because the reader is accustomed to seeing images.--Benjamin 00:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Is this for real? Showing nothing would be better. --Seduisant (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose meaningless as it be no more informative than having a picture of the delaware river for George Washington. Gnangarra 23:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I don't have a strong opinion on the first three options, but this one clearly goes against WP:NOTCENSORED, as it can only be really justified on grounds of preventing offence. CT Cooper · talk 23:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This one would just be downright confusing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - stupid idea. Thats like a picture of Tombstone, Arizona to depict the article Revolver. Weissbier (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. Calligraphy is better. Thanks Weissbier for the laugh. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support, specifically in light of similar articles such as Baha'u'llah which have similar image disputes. The calligraphic representation seems valid as well. Peter Deer (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - doesn't make any sense to me, probably the worst option available. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose - I can't even believe this is an option. Depicting a person as a symbol is one thing, but depicting that same person as a location? No. This seems unreasonable. Amarand (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose I'm sorry, I can't justify using a location as the primary image in any biographical article.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 16:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose using a location would lead to us filling in all missing photos with home town photos, this is more odd than the other propositions around here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e) No image[edit]

• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED should not be compromised in the slightest
  Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. No. Doesn't make sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Images of Muhammad in the infobox may be considered too provocative. But his name in Arabic is redolent of devotional Internet art, which is not appropriate because Wikipedia is not a Muslim website. Plus, it can be argued that it is not very different in its message from creating an image of the word "censored" in Arabic and using that as the infobox image. Since we are not obliged to use an image in the infobox, using none is the best way of not pushing any particular point-of-view. FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not how any other ancient religious figure for whom no contemporaneous images exist are depicted. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• An image should be displayed because Wikipedia should be consistent in it's articles about religious figures. Knobbly (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If no image can be agreed upon, I wouldn't object to none being used, as long as others remain in the article body. Goodraise 04:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral --Ankit Maity^Talk_Contribs 07:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Again, this is what one would reasonably expect from looking at every other biographical article and it serves a purpose in identifying the subject. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; we have a variety of images to use - we just need to make a choice on what to use. Images are good. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — Why no picture at all if even Muslims have a sign they seem to use in such cases, viz. the calligraphic sign we currently have in the infobox in en.wp.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, we have plenty of images that are appropriate so there is no justification for no image. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The only acceptable situation when an infobox would contain no image is when no image is available. This is not the case with this article, so oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:33 (UTC)
• Oppose As images are available, there is no reason we should not be able to use them. —SW— ^prattle 14:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (Second Choice). As nobody knows how he really looked like, a picture of Muhammad himself wouldn't be representative so either a calligraphy or nothing makes sense. --Advocado 15:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are images created by Muslims intended for Muslim consumption in religious contexts; just because a proportion of believers are aniconic doesn't mean we would, for example, delete images of Jesus. Ogress _smash! 22:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: as long as there is a generally acceptable practice of depicting Muhammad with calligraphy, this option just don't make sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Ezhiki. cmadler (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just turn off picture viewing in your browser, if it disturbs you so much. --Voyager (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just plain silly 18:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per all comments in this section, and all above comments advocating the same treatment of Muhammad as any other religious leader (e.g. with the exception of the supports in the calligraphy section). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, notcensored. --Pgallert (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It wouldn't indicate quickly whether or not they had their self censorship visors down. Dmcq (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and extend to all 'images' of people for whom there are not contemporaneous, factual images (eg. Christ, Moses, Buddha). I don't object to any image being used on grounds of the religion concerned, but because such an image is meaningless. eg. Christ is often depicted as Caucasian yet he was - by location - middle-eastern/palestinian. By all means include images in an 'art relating to...' article, but not where it suggests that it actually depicts the individual concerned. --AlisonW (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose PuppyOnTheRadio talk 07:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nope. Absolutely not. Because censorship is not cool. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 09:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Second to last choice... I'd rather have this than a completely arbitrary image of a place... which makes no sense... but this would be second to last choice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC) NOTE: the only reason why this isn't the last choice, is because both this and the "location" image fail to have rational editorial reasoning, but pure censorship rationales. If we are going to be censored, I'd rather be honest in that position, which this is, than to have some random photo which is not only censorship but cowardice.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Clearly a ridiculous option given the existence of numerous images that depict the article subject in some fashion. Resolute 15:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Censorship issue, reduces value of Wiki, not appropriate in the 21st century. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Second choice after calligraphy because it makes the point that we don't have a clue what really he looked like. To take a random example, there's no known image of George Green so his infobox is text only. Putting one of the later images in "pole position" would give the impression that the chosen image is definitive when it isn't. The later images belong in the body of the article. Woz2 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional oppose So long as it is not an image of a person. I project that editors and readers who are offended at the level of any image have already disabled images from their browser, or should. I've heard that it's any depictions of living things that are offensive, so images of places, and writing is cool, people, not so cool, Mr M, untenable. Penyulap ☏ 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Images do exist that can usefully represent the topic in an infobox. The selection of the image must be based on what is most encyclopedically valuable. The decision must not be influenced in any way by the offence that choosing any given image will cause. Thom2002 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But not for the reason you might think. It appears that there is no universally agreed upon appearance of Muhammad and depictions of him by those of the Islamic faith, who would be expected to agree upon such as a depiction, are verboten. --Jtalledo (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak support. Infoboxes don't need to have images: if nothing else sensible emerges from this RfC, leave the image out. Geometry guy 23:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose Wikipedia is not censored! a×p_de^Hello! 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Jclemens and Errant. No reason to omit an image here. Rivertorch (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - even image of his tomb is a better solution Bulwersator (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not standard practice for infoboxes where images are available; can see no good argument in favour of this. Anaxial (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are abundant images available. JHS_nl (talk) 13:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support - info boxes don't need an image --Rax (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - use best available image. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per any other request for censorship.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Inconsistent with the way we treat any other parallel historical figure.—Kww(talk) 13:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak support. better than geographic, IMO.--VikÞor | Talk 14:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not in the business of the accommodation or enabling of a shelterd exsistence. Thats what your parents, church, mosque, etc are for.--Benjamin 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't have a strong opinion on the first three options, but not displaying an image at all makes little sense when plenty are available, even if there is difficulty in choosing one. CT Cooper · talk 23:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose every one oppose a void, imageless info boxes depict the need for an image we have those and alternatives Gnangarra 00:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as there seem to be no consistent way to portrait him unlike Jesus who is generally portrayed in a consistent way. Images should of course be used in articles when appropriate. // Liftarn (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. None of the available imagery actually depicts Muhammad, they are merely artistic interpretations. As such, they don't add information to the infobox. I fully understand WP:NOTCENSORED as well as the "do not yield an inch" sentiment of many here, but I also do believe that putting an artistic interpretation in the infobox is pointless pointification. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think this would be the most astonishing option for your average WP reader. You learn to expect an image in the upper right corner. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Artistic depictions are not the same as a true likeness. The infobox should not include an image since there is no compelling reason to elevate one depiction above another. Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose silly. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 15:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose as I feel all notable figures should have images associated with their articles when said image is available. As there are options, I believe the best should be chosen and displayed. Amarand (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose catering to the most sensitive viewers is not a good idea - it leads to every group wanting its own take on WP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion of question 2[edit]

The notion that "calligraphic representations" of Muhammad (assuming that concept makes sense in the first place) are more common than pictures of him is not supported by evidence. I've tried hard to find images from the history of Islamic art comparable to what we currently have in the infobox, but was only able to find three. On the other hand, I was able to find many many pictures of Muhammad. If they are so common, why have we needed to create a mock-up for the infobox? FormerIP (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we actually have few good historic calligraphic images, and we should avoid nasty modern computer-assisted ones, which is what nearly all of the Commons category consists of. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as being a question in the history of Islamic art per se, since that's a vague term (though unquestionably Islamic calligraphy is an extremely significant form of art in traditional Islam, far more so than, say, in Western art), but rather of the hard fact of what is used to depict Muhammad. However for specific evidence I can only recall Schimmel's analysis in "And Muhammad is His Messenger" from the books I have to hand. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to argue that the "most common image" is calligraphy, or veiled, or, anything - the counter should easily be that the most published image, globally, seen by millions, was that from South Park. I don't think thats what anyone wants. Maybe we should have a frame grab of Santa Claus. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

There is at least anecdotal evidence. While we all have heard of incidents where Christians flock to an apparition of Jesus or Mary, we never hear of Muslims flocking to an apparition of Muhammad. In the Muslim world, it is rather the appearance of an Arabic inscription reading „Muhammad“ that draws the throngs. Ankimai (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal Why not have a montage (a la a whole bunch of ethnic people group pages, such as Lebanese Americans) that has a handful of depictions and says something in the caption like "Depictions of Muhammad vary widely across centuries and throughout societies"? This seems the most useful instead of choosing a canonical form of Muhammad. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional support for montage/collage of several images. Depiction do indeed vary and if we can show this, why not? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support montage, that's a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure that I fully support this, but it could provide a good solution to a no consensus result. FormerIP (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Scottywong ("SW") in d): Muhammad is emphatically not regarded as a "deity" in Islam, but as a prophet. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. My mistake. I'm not sure how that changes anything. Are you trying to say that other articles on prophets generally don't include depictions at the top of the article? Why is this distinction relevant to the discussion? —SW— ^converse 16:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Koavf's alternative proposal. I think we can all agree that no matter which of the previously existing options would have been chosen, controversy would ensue indefinitely. This alternative allows us to incorporate all options, thus eliminating future debate about which to use. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm opposed to selecting an image based primarily on considerations of religious sensitivity or opposition to censorship. Rather, we should, as with any other article, pick the image (or none) that most readers would expect to find in this article, following the principle of least astonishment and the example of other respected reference works. However, since I know next to nothing about Islamic iconography, and the historical, artistic, religious, etc. merits of the various images are not discussed here, and neither is the practice of reliable reference works, I have insufficient information to support any option at this time.  Sandstein  17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded. The quality of the article is the only thing we should aim at, and the choice of images should not be influenced by anything else. I'm also pretty sure the average practicing Muslim can understand very well the necessity of having a few images of Muhammad when they are relevant to the article's topic (especially in an encyclopedia that has no affiliation with Islam). mgeo talk 19:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Koavf's alternative proposal, which neither removes images nor censors them, but provides a nice montage of images. Ogress _smash! 22:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Koavf's alternative. If you have to pick a single image, there is no avoiding the fact that calligraphic depiction is the most representative. But it is visually uninteresting, or at any rate the one that is being used now doesn't do anything for me. Montage or no, we need a better calligraphic depiction. I suggest something from the Muhammad Ali Mosque in Cairo. Kauffner (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Koavf's alternative. While a montage of images makes sense for articles about a group of people (like Lebanese Americans), and would make sense for Depictions of Muhammad, it's a poor choice for an article about a single person. Almost all of our other biogaphies use a single image in the infobox or none, not a montage. It would just be too visually cluttered, and there's no good reason for it, since it isn't going to please anyone who objects to the visual representations. Robofish (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. If there really are many radically different competing representations and no one is dominant, a montage is most appropriate. Dcoetzee 03:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't see how that would fix anything. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the montage has much to suggest it, but we ought do that for all personalities for whom no life-time depictions exist: Moses, Adam, Eve, Jesus, and nearly every other biblical figure, etc. would all have to do that - we cannot intellectually do a one-off just for Mohammad. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral as WP:NOTCENSORED. Mbak Dede (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]