Talk:Islamic calendar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we remove the picture of Muhammad? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a topical moment for this RfC. There has been for many years, ever since it was first inserted, a slow edit - war between people removing the picture of Muhammad and people adding it back.

Remove. This is an article about the Islamic calendar. It in no way adds to the reader's understanding of the article subject. The caption is disingenuous. The picture was painted 700 years after the Prophet's death and is not a true likeness. It purports to be a picture of the Prophet forbidding intercalation at the Farewell Pilgrimage. In an earlier thread a proponent tried to justify this by saying that the picture was added into Al - Biruni's book at the point where he was narrating the events of the Farewell Pilgrimage.

This justification is also disingenuous. There were no doubt many matters discussed at the Farewell Pilgrimage - not least the fact that Muhammad would not be speaking to the faithful again. There is no basis for the suggestion that the Prophet was discussing intercalation as opposed to any of the other matters which came up. I would suggest that the uploader of the picture only put this into his description as an attempt to justify his insertion of an irrelevant image. Also there is no indication in the picture that the Prophet is actually speaking as claimed. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this topic with user IP 87.194.35.154 about three years ago (see "Can't you guys add up?" on this Talk page) - the consensus then was to keep it. AstroLynx (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting that discussion, in numbers there were fifteen !voting to remove and ten !voting to keep. On argument, omitting comment such as "disrespectful", there were eight for remove and three for keep. I note that some of the iconophiles made the comment "there is consensus for keep". How come, when the consensus is not ascertained till the debate is closed? I see that Astrolynx is now going down the same road. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The image seems relevant to the topic and fills the mundane whitespace throughout the article. My two cents. - Gaming4JC (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Gaming4JC summarizes my thoughts exactly. So make it four cents ;-) PizzaMan (♨♨) 21:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep As Gaming4JC points out, the image is relevant and punctuates the monotony of the text nicely. It is also a lovely example of early Islamic art available in the public domain. Extremists would do well to be reminded that their prohibition on any depiction of the Beloved (salallahu aleihi wasalam) is a minority opinion which the rest of the Islamic world has historically rejected. The suggestion of removal is essentially a campaign from a religious minority to exert censorship of wikipedia according to their personal prejudices. Isn't there a Wiki policy concerning such campaigns? Chrislamic.State (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep per others voting keep. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep It is a good illustration. --Adam in MO Talk 04:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep The IP has used the same arguments regularly seen at Muhammad which were rejected by the community. The caption reflects the sourced text in The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. I would suggest this is yet another case of attempting to censor the image per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the "sourced text" in al-Biruni's book? From what I remember he frequently says "It is reported" and then quotes his sources. How could he source a picture which was painted getting on for a millennium after his time? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a strawman argument. Jimbo enunciated the "principle of least astonishment" and IIRC it was endorsed by the community in an RfC and made official WMF policy. Bottom line - if material is irrelevant and also alienates a section of the readership it has no place in Wikipedia. People need to be proactive - I bet Mark Zuckerberg wishes he had taken steps to ensure that Facebook gave no offence to the Chinese government, now that it's banned in its biggest potential market and his learning Chinese hasn't helped. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is the argument to keep the picture. One of the few ways for Wikipedia to become worse than it is would be for it to be edited by governments. Religious movements, especially sectarian ones, would be no better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that IP editors are very welcome to !vote in this discussion. Also, the claim that the argument is the same as that deployed at Muhammad is wrong. Obviously a picture of a person has relevance to an article about that person. A picture of a staircase has no relevance whatsoever to an article about a calendar. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. That is not a "picture of Muhammad", it is a picture of an incident relevant to the article. And it does not contain a "likeness of Muhammad", it contains a generic representation of a bearded man, very like several other representations in the same image. Maproom (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my argument. We're not in the business of feeding misleading information to our readers. The caption says it's the Prophet, but it's not. And no - one has pointed to the elephant in the room, that not only is it not a picture of the Prophet, the caption relating it to the subject of the article (i.e. intercalation) is pure sophistry.

There are plenty of illustrations which could be added to the article. This one has no merit and should be removed. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The Islamic art historian Robert Hillenbrand, in the paper referred to in the caption text, argues quite convincingly that the central person in this image is indeed Muhammad. AstroLynx (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep. It might be more or less relevant, as many pictures in Wikipedia are, often used to illustrate a monotonous text, and there is no reason to remove it, except for the claim that it is "offensive" to depict the prophet, a claim which is fake, given that still in the 1960 Syrian mainstream Muslim theologists edited a children's cartoon depicting the life of the prophet. That was mainstream. There is no reason to give in to a minority sect claiming offense. Ilyacadiz (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. Were any pictures of the Prophet painted before his death? If so, did any survive to the fourteenth century? And if they did, was the painter of this picture aware of them? I suspect that the answer to all these questions is "no". 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Remove This is rubbish; we aren't a colouring book or a comic-book for infants and imbeciles, but a source of reference for people seeking information. Irrespective of religion, politics, or sentiment, irrespective of whether we have or have not any verifiable pictures of Mohammed, the article is not about him and gawping at even a true picture of him would not inform any one a scrap about the calendar, whether Islamic, Judaic, Gregorian or Bhuddist. You want a relevant picture for a lunar calendar? Put up a picture of the moon; I have seen some nice ones in Mother Goose books, smiling and complete with a cow jumping over. Whitespace??? People complaining about whitespace? No one likely to read about the Islamic calendar and equipped to understand the article is likely to find the whitespace a serious impediment. Get real folks, the article is to tell anyone who wishes to know, whatever it is they want to understand, not to gawp at a fictitious portrait that would have been irrelevant even if it had been an exact likeness. JonRichfield (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And again, these arguments have been used in the community-wide RFC. Please tell me which portrait of Jesus, Buddha, the Apostles, etc. is "non-fictitous". This article is about the Islamic calendar. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be unaware of this, but there was a radical change in the way Jesus was portrayed in the middle ages, and that was because of greater exposure to the Holy Mandelion (what we call the Shroud of Turin). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't answer my question. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Too bad the only modern scientific study in favor of its authenticity is widely disputed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The article says

"In 2013, new peer - reviewed articles were published in favor of the hypothesis that the Turin shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth."

If you have more up - to - date information it might be worth putting it in. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Remove. Hi. First, because it is not offensive (people in it are well-groomed and respectable), one can assume the artist attempted to produce a visual work in good faith. But a picture of Muhammad belongs to Muhammad article, especially since I don't know which one is Muhammad and I don't see the act of forbidding. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So you're advocating removing pictures of Jesus from all non-Jesus articles? And, as forbidding is an abstract action, we rely on the interpretation of reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Leave Lisa alone. Why would anyone want to put a picture of Jesus in a non - Jesus article? You can't "rely on the interpretation of reliable sources" because that's original research. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am replying to her points (just like you have done with other editors, over and over again). There's lots of articles which contain pictures of Jesus which are not specifically about Jesus, Christian Church for one. And we're not interpreting reliable sources, we are using the interpretations of reliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Christian Church" is an obvious repository for a picture of Jesus. "Islamic calendar" is not an obvious repository for a picture of Muhammad. And according to Astrolynx, Hillenbrand argued that the picture was of Muhammad, not of him forbidding intercalation. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Given that Muhammad founded Islam, it seems you are grasping at straws. And AstroLynx was specifically replying to your assertion that the figure was not Muhammad. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify, Hillenbrand specifically links the illustration with Mohammad forbidding intercalation in the pre-Islamic calendar - the earlier practice of intercalation and its abolition by Muhammad is the topic discussed on the same pages in al-Biruni's text. It is not simply a picture of Muhammad, it is Muhammad forbidding the insertion of intercalary months so it is perfectly appropriate to show it here. AstroLynx (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, NeilN.

If you feel that the following answer is reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "non-Jeus". But to my current perception, the following items, chosen from the very top of my current watchlist, are non-Jesus articles: Windows PowerShell, Adobe InDesign, Sniper (disambiguation), Adobe Flash, Adobe InCopy, Windows RT, Microsoft Surface 2, Windows 3.1x, List of DOS commands, Spartan (browser), Graphical user interface builder. Yes, I will revert addition of an image of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or Bill Gates in all these articles.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There's a picture of Christopher Clavius in "Gregorian calendar". You might just as well claim it's him announcing that ten days will have to go. It's a load of rubbish. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Clavius was one of the astronomers who advised pope Gregory XIII on the calendar reform and later wrote a very fat book on it. So there is every reason to depict him there, though perhaps his image should rather follow that of the Pope than precede it. AstroLynx (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Clavius was one of a group who effected the reform, but most of the work was done by Lilius. Mohammed didn't advise anyone and didn't even devise the calendar that bears his name - that was done by one of the caliphs about ten years later. And you still haven't answered the point that the caption to the Wikipedia portrait was dreamed up by the person who uploaded it - like to cite a page reference for your claim that this is Muhammad forbidding intercalation? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference to Hillenbrand should be sufficient for this claim - it is easily verifiable for anyone who makes the effort to look it up. AstroLynx (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - WP:CITEHOW, WP:PROVEIT. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't understand either. What is lacking in the Hillenbrand ref. (nr. 20) in the fig. cap.? Author, title of article, title of book, place of publication, year of publication, publisher & page numbers are given. AstroLynx (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 87.81.147.76. I am afraid "other stuff exists" discussions of arbitrary kind are the least favorite discussions in Wikipedia. I categorically make a point of not engaging in them. But I tell you this: If the image was an image of the real Muhammad (peace be upon him) as opposed to an artistic image, I might have said something different. (I am not saying that I would or wouldn't but I reserve myself the right to do so.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The image illustrates the accompanying section quite well. The image is also a Muslim work, from a book by a Muslim author. So what is the problem? An image isn't controversial if it illustrates a section (and this one complies with WP:PERTINENCE), but for some reason if the image happens to show Muhammad, suddenly it's controversial. I see no reason to single out Muhammad for special treatment in editorial decisions regarding illustrating sections on the English Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on this so far (not you, Amatulic)

The (unknown) artist who made (or in this case copied) the image was perhaps not a Muslim but it was made for a work by a well - known Muslim author which was dedicated to a Muslim ruler.

The sources mentioned above make it pretty clear that the image refers to Muhammad's abolition of the intercalary month (al - Biruni's text does not refer to the other topics covered in Muhammad's Farewell Speech).

Unfortunately for your argument, citing a negative does not prove a positive. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Remove The image does not improve reader's understanding of the article subject and the image may be considered offensive by some readers. We gain no potential benefit from offending even one person with this image. 173.53.57.63 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  Bogus argument, not grounded in Wikipedia policy. First of all, images should have WP:PERTINENCE. there is no requirement that they "improve reader's understanding". And that image is pertinent to the section. Secondly, Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia's editorial decisions aren't made on the basis of "offending even one person". ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, WP:PERTINENCE#Offensive_images addresses images that may seem offensive to readers and recommends against using them unless doing so 'would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.' We could use an image of Mount Arafat in place of the image of Mohammad that would be just as pertinent since that is where Mohammad delivered the sermon that mentioned the prohibition of Nasīʾ. 173.53.57.63 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I think it is a bit unfair that you are attacking his secondary reason so fiercely, while he even italicized "may". His primary argument is relevance. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Amatulic: WP:PERTINENCE:

Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article topic.

Let's suppose it was Muhammad and that at that moment he was discussing some of the finer points of Muslim theology. What's the relevance? The burden is on the uploader - otherwise someone could willy - nilly shove in an image from the Parliamentary newsfeed showing the Secretary of State announcing yet another bank holiday.

As for WP:NOTCENSORED, if a woman unwittingly enters the showers while the rugby club is there they would probably cover up. That's polite. By your argument they would carry on regardless. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The section is called "Prohibiting Nasīʾ". We have an image of Muhammad prohibiting nasīʾ. Seems like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Where in the image is the act of prohibiting? Where are the nasīʾ? If these things are not obvious and the source is not considered to be reliable, the image cannot be pertinent.173.53.57.63 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep CommentKeep The sole question this RFC rests on is "Does the reliable source, from which the picture is obtained, describe it as depicting an event relative to the page". While I cannot verify the source myself, even the opposers do not challenge this reading of events. Therefore it stays. SPACKlick (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The reliable source concludes this is a picture of Muhammad. The reasoning is that it was inserted in a book (which is a history of chronological systems) at the point where it mentions Muhammad. However, the uploader, using his own opinion, claims it is a picture of Muhammad forbidding intercalation. I wouldn't grace this with the title "original research" as there's no evidence the uploader did any research. There is no reliable source to back the claim.

As to why the uploader made this claim, the obvious explanation is that he wanted to insert the picture in the article at the point where it mentions Muhammad,but knew that if he simply captioned it "Muhammad" he would fall foul of the rule which requires the image to be directly relevant to article text. The caption is a fabrication and one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that what is written must be true. There is also the point made earlier that if an image is not directly relevant but also may distress some readers then we do not cut the contributor the slack that we might otherwise have done but look for substitutes (which in an article of this nature are not hard to find). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be clear! Who do you refer to as the "uploader"?

The image was uploaded to WP on 22-09-2006 by "Der hungrige Hunne"; it was linked to this page on 24-02-2008 by "Dbachmann"; I myself added the Hillenbrand ref. to the fig. cap. on 20-10-2011 (does that count as "original research"?). AstroLynx (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been censured for bad editing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann and acting without consensus Talk:Gregorian calendar#An unnecessary split. Done without any discussion.. The concern is that you have conflated an art expert's opinion and the positioning of the picture in the text to make the assertion that the picture is of the subject doing one of the things which are mentioned in the text. Amalthea added the same claim on 15 April 2009 and it was subsequently removed. I don't see any consensus for adding it back. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Shows the weakness of your argument. Dbachmann "censured for bad editing" is actually "reminded to avoid using his administrative tools in editorial disputes" seven years ago. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Shows the weakness of your argument. You are now concentrating on side issues to avoid addressing the matters in issue. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you've pinged Dbachmann, so to clarify the finding was "repeatedly reverted content edits without offering any explanation." And 2008 is what we're talking about. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I pinged DBachmann to let him know another editor was making accusations against him. And the editor who reverted Amalthea's edit was quickly reverted himself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're a master of weaselling. I made no accusations. I merely quoted an archived discussion. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? A quote? Care to point out where "censured for bad editing" was said? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

[1]. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You know what a quote is, correct? "To repeat someone’s exact words." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dead right. And you know what, to identify quotes they have little marks on either side of them thus (" "). And do you see those little marks there in my comment? No. And I'm not talking about your misrepresentation of my comment in which you added those little marks. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@AstroLynx - your edit 20th October, 2011 [2] edit summary added bibliographical note on this and other images in the same work added the words

See also: Robert Hillebrand, "Images of Muhammad in al - Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations", in: R. Hillebrand (ed.), "Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars: Studies in Honour of Basil W. Robinson" (Londen [sic] /New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2000).

So this was a general comment about all the art in the book, not speculating as to what the Prophet may or may not have been doing in any particular picture.

That would explain why the diff shows that the caption to which this information was added makes no reference to any activity being undertaken by Muhammad. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had read the reference (nr. 20) to the figure caption carefully (how difficult is this!), you would have seen that I refer to an article specifically focussed on the illustrations in al-Biruni's Chronology and not to Islamic art in general. AstroLynx (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

A thought. The picture shows Muhammad in a building. The Farewell Pilgrimage sermon was delivered on Mount Arafat. Therefore the picture does not show Muhammad on Mount Arafat. Therefore it shows him delivering a perfectly ordinary sermon in a perfectly ordinary village. Therefore WP:PERTINENCE#Offensive images kicks in and the picture must go. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point - if I recall correctly, Hillenbrand also noted this. However, how sure are we where Muhammad was in Mecca when he delivered this part of the various speeches which he gave during those days? The Quran (sura 9:36-37) certainly doesn't specify the location, nor do the earliest sources on Muhammad's life such as Ibn Ishaq (cf. Guillaume's translation, pp. 650-652) or al-Tabari (cf. Poonawala's translation, pp. 112-114). For other speeches locations are cited such as Muhammad standing on Arafat or seated on a camel or a grey mule but not for this particular speech. AstroLynx (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I've changed my above !Vote to "comment" because it seems there's more controversy over the source than I first interpreted from the discussion. but rather than arguing back and forth the simple solution seems to be for an editor to go to a library, find the book and quote the description of this image from the book. SPACKlick (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: Actually, the IP (who seems to be very familiar with policies and arb cases) is making things up again. I've asked another editor for permission to copy their comment here, but pending that, please read this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

[copying from my earlier posting on this topic on 11-10-2011 - all links still work] "The image in question is found in the second chapter of al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations. The text clearly links the image with Muhammad's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech given at his last pilgrimage [Sura 9:37]. You can find an English translation here [p. 14]. If you want to check Sachau's translation, the Arabic text can be found here [p. 12]. If you want to check Sachau's edition of the Arabic text, the Paris manuscript (ms. Arabe 1489) is online here [see fol. 5v]. WARNING: the manuscript contains several Muhammad images!" AstroLynx (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Picture is slightly historical, very old and provides a good depiction. Delibzr (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

When I added the Hillenbrand reference in 2011, I could easily have added more references but at that time it seemed exessive, so I opted for only one. Among several Islamic art historians who have written on the al-Biruni images and whose works I have consulted there is no doubt how the image should be interpreted.

As an example one can look at the most recent BNF catalogue of Arabic manuscripts (Yvette Sauvan & Marie-Geneviève Balty-Guesdon, Bibliothèque Nationale. Département des Manuscrits. Catalogue des Manuscrits Arabes. Deuxième partie. Manuscrits Musulmans, tome V, Nos. 1465-1685 (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1995), pp. 35-38), online here, where the description of ms. Arabe 1489, fol. 5v, reads "Le prophète Muḥammad interdit l'intercalation d'un mois supplémentaire dans l'année lunaire".

Another paper which I also could have mentioned is: Priscilla P. Soucek, "An Illustrated Manuscript of al-Bīrūnī’s Chronology of Ancient Nations”, in: P.J. Chelkowski (ed.), The Scholar and the Saint: Studies in Commemoration of Abu’l-Rayḥan al-Bīrūnī and Jalal al-Din al-Rūmī (New York: New York University Press, 1975), pp. 103-168. AstroLynx (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Neil N: That link is very interesting. I believe the article says the Arabs intercalated every three years, but your translation clearly shows they followed the Jews, who intercalated eight or nine months every 24 years. I'll look at the article and see what changes I can make to reflect that.

Different authors in the past have made claims about the original intercalation method: once in every three years, nine in every 24 years (appears to be equivalent with three in every eight years), seven in every 19 years (as the Jews do) or 11 in every 30 years. AstroLynx (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@AstroLynx: Why the reluctance to provide page numbers? I have no doubt that the original Arab text and the translations of Sachau and Neil's correspondent all match up, and the Bibliotheque Nationale's description confirms that. But what has this to do with a perfectly ordinary sermon preached in a perfectly ordinary village? Let me give you an analogy. A biographer writes a book about Margaret Thatcher. The printer binds in a photograph of the subject and does so opposite page 64 (that being a very convenient place to interleave a photograph). It so happens that on page 64 the author is describing how the subject met Denis. It is WP:CONFLATION to say that therefore this is a picture of Margaret meeting Dennis. (OK that's a redlink but it shouldn't be). 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just saw your comment of 2:04 PM. I refer to "all art in the book". Obviously "the book" is Chronology of Ancient Nations. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do I show reluctance to provide page numbers? AstroLynx (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

You quote page numbers 129 - 146. Is there somewhere in that wall of text the opinion that Muhammad is forbidding intercalation, and if so, what page is it on? Better still, reproduce the actual words here.

That I can look up for you on Monday, the library is now closed and Hillenbrand's book is not online (AFAIK). AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As for Delibzr's comment, the Mona Lisa is a nice portrait, but it's not really appropriate in a scientific article.

Isn't eleven in every thirty years the current method in the Islamic calendar, or is that coincidence, like the Muslim calendar will catch up with the Gregorian in AD 20,874, and the Gregorian cycle is 20,871 weeks. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a scholar who believes that originally 11 months were intercalated every 30 years. AstroLynx (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

And per your comment 2:31 PM, three in eight is not the same as nine in 24. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

What makes you so sure about this? AstroLynx (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

As an aside it may be useful to note that the images in the Edinburgh manuscript Or. 161 are also online here. Here the image of Muhammad forbidding intercalation is fol. 6v. It is obvious that the Paris and the Edinburgh manuscripts are closely related.

According to this online inventory (see nr. B.3) some 17 manuscripts of al-Biruni's Chronology have been described (there appears to be at least one more in Cairo). The London manuscripts do not appear to have illustrations. Regarding the other manuscripts I have no information whether they contain illustrations or not. AstroLynx (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Remove. According to Hillenbrand, "three of the five Muhammad images in the Biruni manuscript are already permeated by strong sectarian feeling. Thus the polemical potential of such subject matter is there right at the beginning of religious painting in Islam: proof, if any were needed, that it was a sound instinct which had steered earlier painters away from such themes." (Persian Painting, 2001, p. 135). Unless we're making a point about sectarianism or propaganda in art, I don't see the point of having this image in this article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 20:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

If you read the paragraphs preceding the one which you chose to quote above you will have seen that the "strong sectarian feeling" in those Muhammad illustrations refer to the depiction of the investiture of `Ali and Muhammad's apparent support of Shi'ite teachings. But these other images are not relevant in this discussion as we are discussing the image of Muhammad forbidding intercalation in the early Islamic calendar, before any sectarian issues arose. If there is one single WP-EN page on which this illustration is relevant and pertinent it obviously is this one. AstroLynx (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment is not entirely accurate. Hillenbrand didn't see a need to examine the other two images (note the word "already" in his conclusion). Also, the third image that he used to prove the "strong sectarian feeling" (The Envoy of Musailama) has nothing to do with the investiture of Ali. Incidentally, his arguments concerning that image also applies to this image (the prominent placement of ahl al-Bayt; al-Hussien is favored over al-Hassan by being placed closest to the prophet; etc). I didn't get your last point though, since the image is still relevant in the book's own page or where an example of sectarian or polemical art is needed. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The image which belongs here (on Islamic calendar) is the one of Muhammad forbidding intercalation, the others certainly do not belong here. AstroLynx (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was clear enough that you misrepresented Hillenbrand. He actually noticed a "strong sectarian feeling" in an image that was not about the investiture of Ali, contrary to what you wrote above. Then based on how you misrepresented the source you assumed that the RFC image has no sectarian purposes, which is original research (and can be disputed by pointing at Hillenbrand's arguments about the Envoy to Musailama). In any case, I don't see a reason why I should change my !vote. Adding pages/images to a general article from a source that has been described as sectarian and agenda driven is not inline with npov. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 13:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As promised, here are the relevant lines in Hillenbrand's (2000) paper on the illustrations in al-Biruni's Chronology of Ancient Nations. Note that Hillenbrand actually discusses and reproduces the illustrations in the Edinburgh manuscript (Edinburgh University Library, Or. 161) but he clearly states (p. 129) that the images in the later Paris manuscript (BNF, ms. Arabe 1489) copies those of the Edinburgh manuscript. After some general remarks on the illustrations in this manuscript, Hillenbrand continues on p. 131 [in-text footnotes are not transcribed]:

"The first picture (pl. 5), on f. 6b (dimensions: 67 by 134 mm) depicts the Prophet forbidding intercalation. This may sound an abstruse subject, and it certainly does not lend itself naturally to illustration; but for an Islamic author, the Prophet's own views on time as they affected Muslims were a natural place to begin a disquisition on that subject. Hence, perhaps, the choice of this scene for the first painting in the book. Its immediate context is the controversy about observing a sacred month. Some argued that it could be postponed in a given year and then reinstated in a later year. [...] The importance of Muhammad's stand on this matter may be gauged from the fact that two of the Five Pillars of islam -- fasting and pilgrimage -- are involved in this ruling. Intercalation, then, was a practice with very serious repercussions and justified a pronouncement by the Prophet ex cathedra. Hence the location of the scene in a mosque setting and the presence of a minbar, wheras according to tradition the event occurred in the open air and Muhammad was seated on his camel."

Hillenbrand adds several other interesting observations on this illustration which I haven't copied here but anyone with access to a good library can easily look these up him- or herself. AstroLynx (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hillenbrand says that "The first picture ... depicts the Prophet forbidding intercalation." The problem is that while Al - Biruni was an Islamic author and hence started his exposition with the Prophet's views, there is no evidence that the painter of the picture was. Further, even if he was a Muslim Wiqi55 has demonstrated that he was inimical to Muhammad's theology. The only way Hillenbrand's assertion would hold water would be if Muhammad had commissioned the picture himself. Anyone can put forward a theory (e.g. perpetual motion, cold fusion). These theories only become acceptable when they are supported on peer review. There is no peer review of Hillenbrand's claim, so it falls in the category of WP:FRINGE and we cannot use it. In Mr Wales' words, "We are not transcription monkeys."

On the face of it, this a pretty picture of Muhammad preaching in a mosque to break up the text at the point where Muhammad's name is introduced. It is absurd to suggest that the painter had some deep theological agenda. Occam's razor - the simple and obvious explanation is usually correct. Unfortunately Hillenbrand cites no source in support of his opinion so it is completely unsubstantiated - it is original research. Conceding purely for the sake of argument that the picture does illustrate some event described in the passage does not help - the passage is a general discourse on intercalation and Muhammad could just as easily have been explaining how intercalation works (and the perceived evils of it) as making an "ex cathedra" announcement outlawing it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately (for you) that's not how WP:NOR works. Hillenbrand is a reliable, published source. However your speculations are original research. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@87.81.147.76 Perhaps you should first read Hillenbrand's paper yourself before you start accusing him of not citing sources. He does, in abundance, and in particular he cites Priscilla P. Soucek's important study from 1975 on the same illustrations (which I already mentioned on the 31st of January).

I don't see why it is important whether the painter of the picture was a Muslim or not. Furthermore, the allegation that he or the manuscript's owner(s) may have had Shi'ite leanings is likewise of no importance because the illustration refers to an event predating the sectarian divides between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims.

From your claim that the image was inserted at the first instance of Muhammad's name in al-Biruni's text, I can infer that you have not taken any effort to read the original text yourself (a curious fact as the English translation is easily available online). Need I point out that this is a false claim (as most of your other claims)? The Prophet is also referred on pp. 1, 2 and 9 (in Sachau's English translation) whereas the intercalation reference is not found until p. 14.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that we have a nice illustration of Muhammad forbidding intercalation. We have several printed scholarly sources (Soucek, Hillenbrand) supporting this interpretation (which invalidates your claim that it is original research by myself or another editor) and until someone publishes a scholarly paper arguing that it is not Muhammad forbidding intercalation I see no reason why not to use it. AstroLynx (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I have changed my !vote above to keep. Having been provided the sources and read the sources. The claim that the picture illustrates mohamed forbidding intercalation is clearly reliably sourced. Given that fact and my opinion that the article is easier to read with the break in whitespace I see no reason to remove the image. SPACKlick (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The source that Hillebrand uses is a discourse on the subject of intercalation. To show how ridiculous the claim is imagine a webcast of a company's Annual General Meeting. One of the resolutions is to change the end date of the company's financial year. A screenshot of the Chairman is taken and inserted in the Annual Report. A city journalist reviewing the results says the report shows a picture of the Chairman announcing the change of reporting date. But he never viewed the video.

AstroLynx's argument is a strawman. He raised the issue of whether or not the painter was a Muslim. I agree it's unimportant. The idea that a simple illustration has a deep theological significance is absurd whatever the painter's religion. Is a simple Persian artist of the fourteenth century really going (a) to have a grasp of seventh century theology and (b) have a burning desire to reflect that in art? As for the Farewell Pilgrimage predating sectarianism, why were there so many battles? What's important is that the picture was painted by a sectarian. Anglicans don't welcome images of the Virgin Mary into their churches just because the Church was united during her lifetime.

What we have here is two editors who are determined to have their way and don't mind twisting other people's words to get it. I have read through this voluminous discussion and nowhere do I find myself saying "the image was inserted at the first instance of Muhammad's name in al - Biruni's text". The claim that Miss Soucek and Hillenbrand constitute "several printed sources" is hilarious. So far you've quoted the Bibliotheque Nationale (which doesn't support your claim) and Hillenbrand. I will take it that Miss Soucek is also a negative unless you come up with a quote from her which says different.

What actually is your motive in prolonging this time sink? Why take issue with Jimbo? Even a birth certificate doesn't trump fact. [3]. And Jimbo comprehensively demolishes your argument here: [4]. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how the BNF catalogue description of the Paris manuscript, which I supplied on 31 January, does not support my claim. If you have problems in reading French, perhaps I can help. You could also use Google Translate or an old-fashioned French-English dictionary.

As usual you do not answer any of my points directly but fly off into tangent discussions involving imaginary general meetings, faulty passports, the gender of Harry Potter, Christopher Clavius, Jesus, the Holy Mandylion, the Shroud of Turin, etc. You have a habit of selectively citing and altering other editor's remarks which borders on dishonesty. You were the person who first raised the issue whether the painter of the image was Muslim or not, not me.

You also accuse authors of not citing sources and editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate. So far, I have provided three published sources which all agree that the image represents the Prophet forbidding intercalation -- if necessary I can add more. You have not yet cited one single reliable publication challenging this view. In fact, your remarks about the contents of al-Biruni's book strongly suggest that you have not read one single page of this work. AstroLynx (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I protest strongly against people using the WP:PERTINENCE#Offensive_images argument. There is nothing offensive about a picture of some religion founder. It is not true that "Muslims find it offensive to depict Muhammad". A small Muslim sect puts forward this argument which is not mainstream. So don't argue about the picture as this was just plain pornography, which it isn't. Ilyacadiz (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear oh dear. The views of Jimbo are hardly a "tangent discussion". It is difficult to answer your points when you do not provide reasoning. In what way does the Bibliotheque Nationale support your claims? It correctly categorises the manuscript as a discussion on intercalation. Miss Soucek? What does she actually say on the topic? The rest of the comment is a Personal attack which is not even veiled. "Selectively citing and altering other editor's [sic] remarks which borders on dishonesty" - diffs please? No, it was you who first raised the issue of whether the painter was Muslim or not [5]. "Accuse authors of not citing sources and editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate." I'd love a diff here. "I have provided three published sources which all agree that the image represents the Prophet forbidding intercalation". You haven't. Of the two you've quoted Bibliotheque Nationale doesn't. That's a strike rate of 50%. So the chances of Miss Soucek supporting you are even - in fact I'd rate them much less because I can't believe that two art experts would come up with this crackpot theory.

"Strongly suggest that you have not read one single page of this work". I strongly suggest that you would not make a very good detective. From what I remember it's a very comprehensive discussion of world calendar systems and their history. It says the Alexandrian calendar had a four - year leap - year cycle from the start which some scholars (notably Skeat/Snyder) disputed. It has very comprehensive tables of the Jewish calendar. It says the Persians added 30 days every 120 years which I doubt very much. It describes the festivals and the seasons and believe it says that Persians would watch out for scorpions in August. It describes the arable calendar and how it was reset periodically to align with the seasons. The issue here that the Islamic calendar being shorter would, if it was used to regulate taxation, result in the land tax being paid more often. The farmers made a protest to the caliph about this. To the glory of the ruler, the arable calendar was finally tied to the Julian so that Nowruz would always fall on 12th Haziran (12th June). The epagemonae in the Zoroastrian calendar were periodically moved from the end of one month to the end of the next (which I doubt very much). Right at the end there is a description of the Julian calendar, which is described as Greek. There are inaccuracies in that, as there are throughout the work.

Now how about answering some of my points? It is claimed that iconoclasm in Islam is the preserve of an unrepresentative minority. I think not. In other faiths, whether or not to allow images is a basic tenet. Why should Islam be different? Next time you're in Constantinople have a look round Hagia Sophia. I don't think you'll find any images there. I may have been once inside a mosque (I remember a notice about removing shoes) but I'm confident that no mosque will have images inside it. Now let's turn to policy.

Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principal of "least astonishment": we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.

In what way does a picture of Muhammad respect the conventional expectations of those who desire information on the Islamic calendar? In what way does the omission of a picture of Muhammad make the article less informative, relevant or accurate? You may not agree with policy, but if that is the case you should start an RfC with a view to getting it changed, not ignore it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The BNF catalogue description which I cited refers to the illustration (fol. 5v) - you obviously did not read the whole description of the manuscript (pp. 35-38). Sauvan & Balty-Guesdon also refer to Soucek's detailed 1975 paper on the illustrations in the Edinburgh manuscript. Now you want me to cite extensively from Soucek's paper - I can do that after I have ordered the book from the library (it is not online AFAIK), but why should I be doing your homework? If you think that she made it all up then why would both Sauvan & Balty-Guesdon and Hillenbrand cite her work? Why don't you prove me wrong by looking it up for yourself?

Regarding the Muslim/no Muslim identity of the painter I see that you are now referring to the discussion in 2011 with IP87.194.35.154. You obviously did not read the preceding paragraph - it was IP87.194.35.154 who on 14-09-2011 (correctly) pointed out that we do not know whether he was a Muslim or not.

I am glad to see that you finally have provided evidence that you actually have read parts of the book - from your earlier postings referring to al-Biruni's text I had seriously begun to doubt that.

Referring to the Aya Sofya in Istanbul as a mosque in which you will find no images is actually a poor example. It was a church before it was converted into a mosque and contained many mosaics which were largely plastered over. It is now a museum and some of the original mosaics are still there and plain for all to see. AstroLynx (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

And as I said at the beginning, your reason for censoring the image is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two editors to respond to here, although you wouldn't think so from Neil's indentation.

@AstroLynx:Paragraph B3 on the link you have given does not link to what you say. The other link is to pages of Arabic text (no images visible).

Please indicate more clearly which links you are referring to. AstroLynx (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Your editing is like a broken record. We know you don't like it - my reference was to WP:PERTINENCE. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

How about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? "The section is called "Prohibiting Nasīʾ". We have an image of Muhammad prohibiting nasīʾ" And my indentation is fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@AstroLynx:I'm trying to track down pp. 35-38 of the description of the manuscript to which you refer.

Try this direct link. AstroLynx (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way: are 87.81.147.76 and 156.61.250.250 the same? According to Geolocate both IP addresses appear to be London based. IP 87.194.35.154, who in 2011 had a long discussion on this very same topic, was apparently also London based, but perhaps this is a coincidence. AstroLynx (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN:Since you ask, assuming for the sake of argument that this was a picture of Muhammad prohibiting Nasi, how would that aid a reader's understanding of the workings of the Muslim calendar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.61.250.250 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Astrolynx: It says "Le prophete Muhammad interdit l'intercalation d'un mois supplementaire dans l'annee lunaire (f.5v)". The typeface changes from normal to italic, indicating that the description refers to f.5v (describing the content of the text) rather than the content of the picture. What I'm looking for is an unequivocal claim that the picture is of Muhammad forbidding intercalation and I don't think you're going to be able to provide it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You should also read the preceding words: "25 peintures:". It should be obvious to anyone that the writers of the catalogue are describing the illustrations, not the text. AstroLynx (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@87.81.147.76: Some choice quotes from Pertinence with justification for this image

1. Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in
2. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation.
3. Effort should ... be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals.

So we have an image, which is relevant to the article, depicting the act that the section is talking about, which is included as part of the multimedia presentation of the article and effort has been put into the choice of this image on an article with few visuals. How does WP:PERTINENCE support removal? SPACKlick (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow the argument. Are you now saying that the cataloguer is claiming that there are 25 pictures of Muhammad forbidding intercalation? Are you saying that the picture of a man sitting on a camel is also Muhammad forbidding intercalation?

Now you are either pretending to be stupid or deliberately obstinate: there are 25 illustrations (not counting additional diagrams) in the BNF manuscript and each illustration is briefly described with a different text - surely you must have noticed the folio number at the end of each description? In a catalogue like this which describes hundreds of manuscripts the writers have to be brief and concise - there simply is no room for essay-length descriptions of each manuscript. Those you will find in the papers of Soucek (1975) and Hillenbrand (2000). AstroLynx (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick: I don't see that these pictures, whether of a man preaching in a mosque (did they have mosques in those days?) or sitting on a camel have any relevance whatsoever. I think that a picture of, for example, an astrolabe would be far more useful. That gets the reader thinking about the uses of astrolabes and how they tie in with astronomy and the calendar. People in pulpits and on camels don't really float my boat. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally like it the section discusses mohamed prohibiting the nasi. The image depicts mohamed prohibiting the nasi. The two are necessarily linked. If the section discussed calculation of months using astronomoical data then an astrolabe may be appropriate but the section's about the prohibition of the nasi and so the appropriate image is one depicting the nasi, the lack of nasi or the prohibition of the nasi. Prohibition of the nasi is what we have an image of and I'm not sure that anythong more appropriate will be found. SPACKlick (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The image doesn't appear to be vital to the article, but it fits with the content plenty fine. I don't see any problems with it from a sourcing perspective either. I haven't seen anything discussed above either that the image shouldn't be here. If it's simply because it apparently depicts Muhammad, time and again in many other related such images stay when relevant because Wikipedia is not censored. If an image is going to be included, this seems to fit exactly with the topic of the section, so I can't see any reason to remove. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a list of pictures:

• The prophet Muhammad forbids the intercalation of a supplementary month in the lunar year (f.5v)
• Isaiah sees the Messiah accompanied by the prophet Muhammad (f.8v)
• Birth of Caesar (f.12v)
• Ahriman tempts Masya and Maysani (f.32v)
• Feast of Sede on Mount Damavand (f.73v)
• Peroz at the fire temple (f.74v)
• Death of Mani (f.80)
• The Prophet Muhammad, Fatima and Ali at Gadir Humm (f.87)
• Fair of Ukaz (f.110v)
• The prophet and the messengers of Musaliyma (f.111)
• Bihafrid ibn Fawardin and a peasant (f.111v)
• Defeat of al - Muqanna' (f.112v)
• Execution of al - Hallag (f.113)
• Chastisement of one of the followers of Ibn - Abi - Zakariya at - Tamani guilty of sodomy (f.114)
• Celebration of Mihrgan (f.120)
• Faridun judges Zahhak (f.121) *Feast of Favardigan: Abel beside Adam and Eve (f.121v)
• Celebration of the autumnal equinox (f.142v)
• Death of Eli (f.146v)
• Buhtnasar orders the destruction of the temple (f.147v)
• Abraham destroys the idols of the Sabaeans (f.156v)
• Baptism of Jesus (f.161v)
• Annunciation (f.162v).

What is striking looking at that list is that this a multi - religious illustration of a book that deals with a multitude of religions. Hillenbrand has said that the first picture can only be of Muhammad forbidding intercalation if it was painted by a Muslim deeply versed in abstruse theology who had a point to make about Muslim doctrine as laid down by Muhammad. He produced no evidence to support that assertion and looking at the catalogue it is patently false. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That is just your personal opinion in which you appear to be pretty alone. I have given references to three published papers (I can add more if you wish) which all concur that the first illustration in al-Biruni's book depicts the Prophet forbidding intercalation. As soon as someone publishes a paper (perhaps you should start writing one) in a scholarly publication proving that this claim is false we can revisit this issue. AstroLynx (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your approach is common but wrong for Wikipedia as Mr Wales has pointed out. Hillenbrand says

Hence, perhaps the choice of this scene for the first painting in the book.

He didn't say the theological argument was valid, he said it might be valid. Judging by the other pictures, where theology plays no part, that's a pretty tall assumption.

The illustrations start on page 5 - judging by the length of the book and the number of illustrations that's about where you would expect them to start - no theological basis for that. Hillenbrand says

It certainly does not lend itself naturally to illustration.

which means that on the balance of probabilities it is not a picture of Muhammad forbidding intercalation but of a man preaching in a mosque, which on the face of it it is.

At its highest, you could quote the Hillenbrand reference and say

"According to [source] this may be a picture of Muhammad prohibiting intercalation."

If you don't do that you are caught by WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS (misrepresentation of sources). You are already caught by selective use of sources to make a WP:POINT because you haven't mentioned the other people who have published papers on this. If the other sources don't support you you can add WP:FRINGE to that list. Then WP:PERTINENCE steps in to stop you using the picture at all. I wonder why you bother.

You are presumably paid by the University and have free use of their resources and IT facilities. Shouldn't you be doing something more productive with your time than misrepresenting art to Wikipedia readers? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Again you try to muddy the waters by citing Hillenbrand selectively. Where does Hillenbrand say "this may be a picture of Muhammad" -- again this is your own personal opinion which you will not find reflected in the published sources. And who is wasting whose time? AstroLynx (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh how I wish I hadn't gotten WP:Involved so I could close this interminable RFC. The consensus is clear. The majority of editors Seem to believe that this image passes the test of Pertinence and is based on WP:RS and there has been no response to that except selective quotes from one source to muddy the waters. One IP editor disagrees and hears no argument against his bluster despite repeated extensive quoting from variable sources demonstrating the picture is claimed to be what we say it is claimed to be. Please just stop 87.81.147.76, even if you're right consensus at this time is against you and you're going round in circles. Accept the consensus now and if facts change come back again later. SPACKlick (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You actually missed an important argument. The image is found in a book that was illustrated for sectarian and polemical purposes. I would expect the closing party to justify why polemical/sectarian imagery/works should be given space in this article. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

al-Biruni was one a relatively small number of Muslim scholars who treated believers of other religions with respect. His book is about the calendars of not only the Muslims but also of the Christians, the Jews and other religions. Therefore you will also find illustrations of Jesus and Abraham. To call his work sectarian only shows how biased you are yourself. AstroLynx (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the sources you're citing then you would have known that this has nothing to do with Biruni. Hillenbrand clearly states that the illustrations have a different agenda compared to the text. He and other reliable sources recognize the sectarian and polemical agenda of the illustrated edition. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 14:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I didn't miss it, as yet nobody has made that argument. Some editors have claimed there is a sectarian issue but claiming it isn't making the case. Point to a quote from a source and demonstrate why you feel this negates the benefit of the picture. That hasn't been done yet. SPACKlick (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made that argument just above, and I cited the conclusion of Hillenbrand, who throughout his paper uses words such as agenda, sectarian, polemical, partisan to describe the illustrator and their work. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice that when Hillenbrand says the picture is of Muhammad forbidding intercalation the keep brigade call "no sources necessary" but when he says the art is sectarian the call changes to "cite sources to prove it". Isn't it obvious that they have an agenda on which fair discussion doesn't figure? I can't fault Hillenbrand's reasoning on the sectarianism though.

I can fault him, however, on his claim that

for an Islamic author, the Prophet's own views on time as they affected Muslims were a natural place to begin a disquisition on that subject.

I can't get inside the book, but the word "Nasi'" only appears on page 330, in the following text:

pilgrimage, because the Arabian months were back behind real time in consequence of the Nasi (postponement of certain months in the times of heathendom). Therefore he waited till the months returned to their proper places and then he performed the farewell - pilgrimage and forbade to use the Nasi'.

Which book are you now citing? The text in Hillenbrand's book Persian Painting from the Mongols to the Qajars (2000), which contains the Hillenbrand paper we have been discussing end over end, only runs to p. 323, followed by an index of proper names and subjects, none either mentioning the word "Nasi". AstroLynx (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the closing party allows the full thirty days to run to give AstroLynx the opportunity to fail to come up with quotes from the other experts who he claims support him. "Selective use of sources" can then be taken into account in arriving at a decision. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I can order the 1975 book with Soucek's paper from the library and quote her lines here as well but that will probably not satisfy you either. Anyway, why should I be doing your homework? As you hinted at yesterday I also do have plenty of other things to do. If you think that her paper is humbug why don't you look it up yourself and prove me wrong by citing where it says that the ilustration does not depict Muhammad forbidding intercalation. AstroLynx (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you realise that there are better things you can do with your time than conduct a personal crusade (or should that be jihad?) using public resources. Organisations look askance at staffers who use their equipment for their own purposes, especially when they are being paid to do something else. Wikipedia has a strict policy on paid editing. People who edit Wikipedia from government computers tend to get themselves sacked.

I'm citing Sachau's translation of Al - Biruni. As to whether editors will be satisfied by Miss Soucek, that depends on what she says. I hope her conclusions are not completely unsourced as Hillenbrand's were. It would be instructive to know what was being discussed at the point where each of the 24 pictures were inserted in the text. Did Al - Biruni really discuss sodomy in a treatise on timekeeping?

You could look this up yourself -- a few days ago you claimed that you had access to Sachau's translation (which really is not difficult to find online) and had actually read parts of the book. AstroLynx (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, you could also look up Soucek's paper yourself -- as you said yourself, I shouldn't be wasting my time with these matters. According to your IP address you are London-based (unless you are intentionally hiding your geographical location) and there really is no other city in the world where you will find more copies of the book with Soucek's paper. According to COPAC there are at least 4 copies in your neighbourhood. If even that is too much trouble for you I can order the book from my library (but will not be able to access it before Monday) but you will have to ask this nicely and include the magic word.

The image has been up for several years -- I have given sufficient proof that the image is properly sourced -- you have not produced one single shred of evidence that the sourcing is incorrect except for your own personal opinions and false allegations. AstroLynx (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

IP, Wikipedia looks askance at users who try to prevent other editors from editing articles by threatening or insinuating real world consequences. Cross the line again and I will ask admins to look at your conduct. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictures are named contemporaneously, not 800 years after they were painted (see Mona Lisa). There is no intrinsic reason why we cannot use a picture of the Pope making an ex cathedra pronouncement inside St Peter's provided we do not misdescribe it as him delivering a sermon during an open air mass in Glasgow. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

A Watford civil servant made distressing amendments to the Hillsborough tragedy article. The authorities were notified and he was dismissed. Was that wrong?

A guy created an attack article on White House aide John Siegenthaler resulting in Wikipedia getting beaten up across the globe and most of the population barred from making Wikipedia articles. The guy was traced through his company IP which he used to create the article and he was dismissed. Was that wrong?

Alleged unsavoury activities of certain Wikipedia editors were reported to the Foundation and they were globally locked. Was that wrong?

Foundation lawyers sent a cease and desist notice to Cooley LLP asking them to stop editing. Were they wrong?

Editors regularly link IPs to corporations. See the Wifione arbitration case (decision due today). The arbitrators do not censure editors who publish this information. Are the arbitrators misbehaving?

The Foundation recently stated that a certain staffer whose paid editing activities had been under discussion was no longer in their employ. Were the editors wrong to voice their concerns? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Different historians have also given this image a different name/description. For instance, a well-known canonical text on the subject describes this image using the following: "Muhammad preaching his farewell sermon". There is no mention of intercalation. See p.89 in T. W. Arnold, Painting in Islam, republished in 2002, Gorgias Press. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 22:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

T.W. Arnold's Painting in Islam was first published in 1928, long before Soucek and Hillenbrand published their far more detailed studies of the Edinburgh illustrations.

For the moment, I have decided to spend my time more usefully and to spend less time trying to convince people who only want to vent their personal opinions and to stop feeding the troll(s). It should be obvious to most editors by now that this discussion is obviously going nowhere anymore. For the time being, I will limit myself to one edit (or less) per day on WP. AstroLynx (talk) 09:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on. There was no more background information available in 1975 than there was in 1928. There is no evidence extraneous to the manuscript as to what these pictures represent. One expert's claim that the picture represents Muhammad forbidding intercalation is as good as another expert's claim that it is his Farewell Sermon. It would still be interesting, though, to hear what Miss Soucek has to say on the matter. Does she attempt to explain the dichotomy between someone obviously preaching in a mosque and claims that they are out in the open air, which is where we know the Farewell Pilgrimage sermon was delivered? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've accessed the book and it says this on page 13:

In a similar way the heathen Arabs proceeded, observing the difference between their year and the solar year, which is 10 days 21 1/5 hours, to speak roughly, and adding it to the year as one month as soon as it completed the number of days of a month. They, however, reckoned this difference as 10 days and 20 hours. This business was administered by the Nasa'a (the intercalators) of the tribe of Kinana, known as the Kalamis, a plural form of Kalammas,which signifies a full-flowing sea. These were 'Abu Thumama and his ancestors:

I. 'Abu Thumama Junada ben

'Auf ben

'Ummaya ben

Kala' ben

<snip>

Another poet says:

"The difference between the revolution of the sun and new-moon

He adds together and sums it up,

Till it makes out a complete month."

He (i.e. Hudhaifa) had taken this system of intercalation from the Jews nearly 200 years before Islam: the Jews, however, intercalated 9 months in 24 lunar years. In consequence their months were fixed, and came always in at their proper times, wandering in a uniform course through the year without retrograding and without advancing. This state of things remained till the Prophet made his Farewell pilgrimage, and the following verse was revealed to him: "Intercalation is only an increase of infidelity, by which the infidels lead astray (people), admitting it one year and prohibiting it in another." (Sura ix.37.) The Prophet delivered an address to the people, and said: "Time has come round as it was on the day of God's creating the heavens and the earth," and, continuing, he recited to them the (just mentioned) verse of the Coran on the prohibition of the Nasi', i.e. intercalation. Ever since they have neglected intercalation, so that their months have receded from their original places, and the names of the months are no longer in conformity with their original meanings.

So it's fair comment to say that the picture represents Muhammad delivering his farewell sermon. The reference to the Jews is perfectly consistent with descriptions of intercalation as 3 in 8 (9 in 24) or 11 in 30, as that is what 7 in 19 (the Jewish method) amounts to. According to an earlier thread on this page, "Fictional intercalary month", al - Biruni mentions this on pages 73 - 74. He does indeed, but the account is somewhat misleading. Safar was not called Muharram, it was Muharram because the extra month had pushed all the names back one month. Al - Biruni suggests it took 200 years for twelve intercalations to be made (i.e. the calendar was the same as when it started) but the true figure is only 33 years. The thread also mentions Burnaby (p. 367).

Burnaby says

thus, if an intercalation occurred at the end of a given year the intercalated month was called by the name usually given to the first month of the year - Muharram: then the second month, usually called Safar, became Muharram.

So the first month was duplicated.

I think this demonstrates that Sci fi writer is wrong. Maybe we should ping Joe Kress for an opinion? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - The main reason is not that I support freedom of speech but you can't ban images. This is not how a neutral point of view works. Some people don't like looking at pornography and Wikipedia has that. I mean it's not satire. It doesn't symbolise any hatred whatsoever. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The picture may not be satirical, but it's misdescribed. We can't have misdescriptions in Wikipedia. Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists weren't satirical but that didn't get them anywhere. So for pete's sake let's get it right. Sectarianism is not necessarily evil. However, the fact that ISIS may be funding some kind of social security programme with its oil wealth doesn't make them good. The only reason why they haven't been flattened (apart from the fact that few people will meet them in the field) is the money they pay to their fighters - money that isn't theirs to spend. The editor who claimed art expert Priscilla Soucek supports his completely unsubstantiated interpretation of the picture has been uncharacteristically quiet for the past three days. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Misdescribed in your opinion. Not according to sources posted above. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to name the "sources posted above" which support AstroLynx? The Bibliotheque Nationale catalogue is a convenient description - it's not a sourced statement of fact. Arnold is a well - researched book which takes a different view. Hillenbrand makes it clear that his theory is only a theory, not backed by sources, which may or may not be right.

AstroLynx, who you would have thought would be beating down the doors of the library to get the book which he says supports him, seems to have dropped out.

What is needed is reasoned, scholarly argument for his interpretation, but the issue is not amenable to that because we do not know who the artist was and what was in his or her mind. And after 800 years there is no way of finding out. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The poor admin who will close this RFC can look at the sources provided above. As you have nothing new to add, I see no reason to humor you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're not making it easy for the "poor admin", are you. And it doesn't have to be an admin. Someone who is well versed in these matters could do it just as well. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Replying to NeilN, the use of this particular image which you so vociferously advocate will only mislead our readers. They will think that the pilgrims who were present at the Farewell Pilgrimage were a handful in a mosque listening to the Prophet preach, whereas in reality there were thousands of them, out in the open air, listening to him preach while seated on a camel. I don't know why you are so keen to belittle the Muslim faith by planting this idea in our readers' heads. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, your opinion, not backed by any sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So now you're saying that Astrolynx (this thread, 10:59, 2 February) was making it all up. I know he does make a lot up but I thought that even he could be trusted on this. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You still need to get more proof. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The state of play at the moment:

Source 1: art catalogue description which does not warrant the truth of the description (not a reliable source)

Source 2: reasoned analysis which says Astrolynx may be right

Source 3: reasoned analysis which says AstroLynx is wrong.

In my book, a reasoned "no" outweighs two "maybes", whether reasoned or not. Per WP:BURDEN it's the job of the editor who adds the picture to authenticate it, and while AstroLynx sits sulking in his department that's not being done. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Source 1: Perfectly fine

Source 2: Astrolynx is right

Source 3: Different interpretation

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree that that is a fair summary of what's in the sources. We have several RS describing it as forbidding intercalation. If you disagree that's what's the image is, why are you fighting for removal rather than discussing it at the file page to query the accuracy of the descriptor? SPACKlick (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"File:Maome.jpg" doesn't say anything about intercalation. I see a huge number of places where this image is used, so one less won't hurt.

Source 1 - You should know that art catalogues always contain a disclaimer as to provenance.

Source 2 - "Perhaps" doesn't equal right - it's a word of caution.

Source 3 - The "Different interpretation" is that AstroLynx is wrong.

I'm glad that SPACKlick agrees with me that NeilN's post is not a fair summary of what's in the sources.

By the way, what are the "several RS describing it as forbidding intercalation"? I've been given one name so far, Priscilla Soucek, as someone who discusses the matter, but what her opinion is is still a mystery.

Interesting, my preview is overlaid by a huge picture of Mohammed.

I just sussed it out. This should fix it. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent me IP Single indent, edit conflict tag It was clearly YOUR summary I was disagreeing with. SPACKlick (talk)

I've had a look at other articles to see how this image is described.

Censorship by religion, Censorship in Islamic societies - A page from a 15th - century illustrated copy of a book by Al - Biruni, depicting Muhammad at the Farewell Pilgrimage.

Early Middle Ages, User talk: Nwauthoz - The Islamic prophet Muhammad preaching. (Note: 17th century Ottaman copy of an early 14th - century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex). Illustration of Abu Rayhan al - Biruni's al - Athar al - Baqiyah "The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries").

List of Wikipedia controversies - A 17th century copy of a 14th - century Persian manuscript image of Muhammad, one of the depictions of Muhammad which raised objections.

Talk:Muhammad/Archive 14

I believe that WP:V either requires us to change the caption or to remove the image, as the current assertion that this is an actual literal depiction is clearly unverifiable, unless some breakthrough has been made in artistic scholarship.

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 7

What it tells us

• Muhammad was a teacher.

• Muhammad was a leader of his society.

• Muhammad was greatly revered during his lifetime.

• Muhammad had a diverse group of followers.

• Muhammad was male.

• Muhammad was from a culture that wore robes and turbans, in which men were bearded.

• Muhammad was regarded as a prophet (or otherwise seen as holy).

Talk:Muhammad/Mediation Archive 8

The current image (Image:Maome.jpg) at the top of the Muhammad page has such a reference, verifying that it is:

1. A depiction of Muhammad

2. Drawn by Al - Biruni

3. Made in the 15th century

4. Is of Arabian origin

All based off of this reference: Le Prophete Mahomet Al - Biruni, al - athar al - baqiya (Vestiges des siecles passe). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)

The picture was probably created by some ill - paid artist hired to decorate the book, either by a bookseller (creating a copy on speculation) or by a patron...

Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in Image:Maome.jpg however, in Kaaba image we can...

That article does not seem to mention that image, just events that could be interpreted as being what that image represents...

4. The images illustrate other aspects of real historical information about Mohammed besides his looks such as outward traits of the culture he came from (clothing etc.) or certain aspects of the role he played.

Maybe, but these things are either trivial enough to fade into insignificance compared to the main issue at stake ("he came from a culture where men wore beards and turbans") or they can just as well be related through words alone ("he used to preach and people looked up to him")...

Just two questions, which I think may be important. One, which is the reliable source that you say verifies the image as Muhammad (it should be linked to the image caption, if it is to be kept); and two, which museum featured this image? Was it an Islamic one?

The reference for that image is: Le Prophete Mahomet Al - Biruni, al - athar al - baqiya (Vestiges des siecles passe). BNF, Manuscrits (Arabe 1489 fol. 5v)

It is French (from the "Bibliotheque nationale de France"), I don't see what the ethnicity of the source has to do with anything. I have read WP:RS and I don't see anything about that.

That citation has been with the image for weeks.

Alright, thanks.

I think the link should be added to the caption. Would that be fine, or is it against policy?

Not against policy, just against the WP:MOS, there is a link in the caption to the references section. Clicking that link highlights the reference and takes you to it.

Ah, it does not anymore, a side effect of the transclusion I suspect. May be worth adding a link till we get this worked out.

Talk:Muhammad/images/Archive 2 - 15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al - Biruni, depicting Muhammad preaching the Qu'ran in Mecca. (Le Prophete Mahomet. Bibliotheque nationale de France. Retrieved 03-02-2007.)

User:Adam Cuerden/Censorship, culture, and the law: WMF dilemma - The image of Muhammmad singled out in the 2008 petition. 17th century copy of a 14th - century original. Deemed acceptable for Wikipedia.

User:ElijahOmega - Image of Mohammed from The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. See Depiction of Muhammad.

User:SchmuckyTheCat - Mohammed.

User:Stoopster - <Abu l - Qasim Muhammad ibn 'Abd Allah al - Hashimi al - Qurashi Muhammad, Mohammed, Muhammed, Mahomet)

User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1 - As for Western reception, I'd favour replacing the present "Muhammad preaches" with a good picture of the SCOTUS Muhammad, as the latter's physical place says more about Western reception than either image alone does.

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 21 - The prophet Muhammad

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Muhammad image - The 17th century copy of a 14th century Persian manuscript image showing Muhammad, specially singled out for removal by the petition

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-01-07/In the media - A 17th century copy of a 14th century Persian manuscript image of Muhammad, one of the historical images which raised objections in 2008.

ang:Mahomet Mahomet in Mongol persicum gewirte (paes 14. gearhundredes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.147.76 (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange how you missed The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries" is the book by Al - Biruni. The pictures are nothing to do with him. Thus if Banksy adorns a house with a mural that's nothing to do with the architect. Continuing the analysis,

ast:Mahoma - Ilustracion del sieglu XV d'una copia d'un manuscritu de Al - Biruni que representa a Mahoma predicando "El Coran" en La Meca.

bg.wikipedia.org - Mohammed Arab and Islamic religious leader.

ca:Edat mitjana - Illustracio del segle XV que pertany a una copia d'un manuscrit d'Al - Biruni. Representa Mahoma predicant a La Meca.

de:613 - Mohammed vor seinen fruehesten Anhaengern.

de:Mohammed - Persische Darstellung Mohammeds (rechts) vor seinen fruehesten Anhaengern. Illustration aus Al - Birunis Kompendium Athar al - Baqiya 'an al - Quran al - Khaliya. Das Werk befindet sich in der Sammlung der Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Manuscrits Arabes).

el.wikipedia.org - O Prophetes Moameth arabiko xeirographo

Wikibooks: Ancient Civilizations of the World/The Prophet Muhammad - Persian depiction of the prophet Muhammad from the time of Persia's conversion from Mongol Buddhism.

eo:Islamo - Bildo de la 15-a jarcento kiu reprezentas Mahomedon predikante en Mekko.

es:Mahoma, es:Islam - Ilustracion del siglo XV de una copia de un manuscrito de Al - Biruni que representa a Mahoma predicando El Coran en La Meca.

es:Expansion musulmana - Mahoma predicando.

es:Dia de Dibujar a Mahoma - Copia otomana del siglo XVII del manuscrito Los signos remanentes de los siglos pasados de Al - Biruni en el siglo XIV (en el noroeste de Iran), que representa a Mahoma predicando el Coran en La Meca.

es:Libertad de expresion y blasfemia - Ilustracion del siglo XV en la copia de un manuscrito de Al - Biruni, en la que Mahoma predica el Coran en La Meca. (Le Prophete Mahomet. L'art du livre arabe. Consultado el 03-02-2007.)

eu:Wikipedia:Urteurrenak/Iraila, eu:Txantiloi:Iraila 24 - Muhammad profetak (irudian) Mekatik Medinarako bidaia bukatu zuen, hejira burutuz.

fa.wikipedia.org - This verse was revealed to the Prophet's Farewell Pilgrimage: Praise and companions in the Farewell Pilgrimage, portrayals of Muhammad and the Companions of the Farewell Pilgrimage; Video of the 15th century the manuscript Abu Rayhan Biruni left, and Muhammad is preaching in Mecca. Quran shows agonistic in Wikipedia Bhpa because Vyrayshgrany demanding clean the It had been.

fi:Muhammad - Muhammad saarnaamassa Mekassa. Kuvitus 1400 - luvulta.

fi:Teemasivu:Uskonnot/Artikkelipoiminta 15 - Kuva Muhammadista alkoi elaa hanen kuoltuaan varsin itsenaisesti, ja hanesta tehtin 800-luvulla ihmisten ja Jumalan valinen profeeta.

fr:Mahomet - Mahomet selon une illustration persane (Bibliotheque nationale de France).

fr:Representation de Mahomet - Representation de Mahomet dans un manuscrit des Signes restants des siecles passes d'Al - Biruni. xviie siecle, copie d'un manuscrit du xive siecle.

hr:Sloboda govora i blasfemijka - Ilustracija iz 15.stoljeca u rukopisu Al - Birunija s prikazom Muhameda kako naucava Kur'an u Meki izazvala je kontroverziju kada su je neki urednici pozeljeli uklonitis Wikipedije (Le prophete Mahomet. L'art du livre arabe. pristupljeno 2. ozujka 2007).

it:Portale:Islam/Sahaba, it:Portale:Islam - Sahaba (in lingua araba) o Compagni, furono i primi seguaci del profeta islamico Maometto. Tradizionalmente la maggioranza dei sunniti intende con Sahaba tutti coloro che conobbero o videro il profeta. Tuttavia il numero si limita a cinquanta o sessanta personaggi se si considerando quelli che stettero a lungoa contatto con Maometto. E stato importante, per gli studiosi islamici di tutti i tempi, identificare i Compagni per la loro valida testimonianza raccolta nei hadith, basati sull'esempio vivente del profeta Maometto.

it:Maometto - In questa miniatura dell 'XI secolo, tratta dall' Athar al - baqiya (Tracce dei secoli passati) di Al - Biruni (manoscritto della Bibliotheque nationale de France, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v), Maometto e invece raffigurato senza velo sul volto.

Japan - Preaching to Islam of Prophet Muhammad (17th century Ottoman copy of an early 14th century (Ilkhanate period) manuscript of Northwestern Iran or northern Iraq (the "Edinburgh codex). Illustration of Abu Rayhan al - Biruni's al - Athar al - Baqiyah, The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries).

la:Mahometus - Mahometus discipulos adloquitur, in libro manuscripto saeculi septimi decimi Albiruni operis al - Athar al - baqiyah depicta est.

Macedonia - Muhammad in Ottoman copy of 17th century manuscript of Iran 14th century.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.81.147.76 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ms:Penggambaran Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. - Prophet Muhammad delivered his Farewell Sermon, the 17th - century Ottoman copy of the image Parsi early 14th century. (The version pictured from the 11th century Al - Biruni Remnants of the past (Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris, Arabe 1489 fol. 5v. (Bibliotheque Nationale on - line catalog Mandragore.)

nl:Mohammed - Een illustratie van Mohammed in een zeventiende - eeuwse kopie van een veertiende - eeuws exemplaar van een werk van Al - Biruni.

pl:Portal:Islam - Muhammad preaching a sermon.

pt:Maome - Profeta Maome recitando o Alcorao em Meca (gravura do seculo XV).

pt:8 de junho - Profeta Maome.

pt:Usura - Profeta Muhammad recitando o Alcorao em Meca (gravura do seculo XV). Para o profeta, o individuo que cobra juros e amaldicoado por Deus.

qu:Muhammad - Muhamadqa Quranmantam nawinchaspa rimachkan Makkah llaqtapi. Al - Biruni qillqa, 15 niqin pachakwata.

ro:Califat - Copie dinitr - un manuscript din secolul XV.

ro:Portal:Religie - Scene persane din viata lui Mahomed.

ro:Istoria lumii - Mahomed.

ro:Istoria islamului - Predica lui Mahomedd.

ru.wikipedia.org - Anonymous illustration "Monuments of the past generations," Al - Biruni, depicting Muhammad during the Farewell Pilgrimage. Ottoman copy of the XVII century (ilhanidskoy) manuscript of the XIV century (Edinburgh Code).

sh:Zlatno pravilo - Muhammad with students.

sh:Na danasnji dan/11.01 - 630. - The head of the army of 10,000 members, the Islamic prophet Mohammed (pictured) wins Mecca.

sh:Sloboda govora i blasfemija - An illustration from the 15th century in Manuscript Al - Biruni depicting Mohammed as the Quran teaches in Mecca has sparked controversy when some editors wish to remove from Wikipedia. ("Le Prophete Mahomet". L'art du livre arabe pristupljeno 2. ozujka 2007.)

sq:Muhammedi - Views Persian with Muhammad (right) before his first followers. Illustration by Al - Biruni summary of t - Athar al - Baqiyah 'an al - Kuru al - Khali. This work is in the collection of the Bibliotheque Nationale Paris (manuscrits Arabic).

sr wikiquote:Myhamed - After a belief in God is the most valuable piece manifest love for people.

tr:Dini sansur - Read depicting Mohammed in the Koran of Mecca al - Biruni the manuscript (15th century) ("Le Prophete Mahomet". L'art du livre arabe. Erisim tarihi:14.07.2011).

Ukraine - Discussion: Mohammed - Picture the face of the Prophet Muhammad in medieval Muslim books.

So to sum up, the picture itself is not a reliable source linking it with the events narrated by Al - Biruni. That is the only source we have. If the primary source isn't reliable, then no amount of comment or analysis by secondary sources is going to plug that gap. The captions show that there are widely varying opinions at to what the picture portrays - Mohammed preaching, Muhammad with the companions, Muhammed with students, the Farewell Pilgrimage, etc. People make their own assessments, and that is the classic definition of original research.

It's getting on for two weeks since AstroLynx threw in the towel, and his acolytes appear to have made no effort either to read Miss Soucek's paper or to quote from it. That suggests they regard their fight as a lost cause. (Personal attack removed)87.81.147.76 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL. This shows how desperately you're grasping at straws. Content on other language Wikipedia's has no bearing here and trying to smear editors (and me) for trying to make sure sexually-related articles meet our content guidelines. This is what you've sunk to? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't answered the point about not quoting the sources (i.e. Priscilla Soucek). Are you afraid of her? Have you noticed that 44% of my analysis actually relates to en:wp including the comment

Without original research we cannot tell the event depicted in Image:Maome.jpg?

On this page the only editor who disagrees with that assessment is (Personal attack removed) SPACKlick. However, that !vote can be disregarded because there's no supporting argument. (Personal attack removed) stroLynx says the text links the image with Muhammad's abolition of intercalary months in the local Arabian calendar during the Farewell Speech. But that's irrelevant, because the text predates the picture by 300 years. What we don't have is a link from the picture to the text and therefore the claim is unverifiable. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@SPACKlick - it would have been more apposite if you had sent your message to AstroLynx, NeilN and yourself. I can't off the top of my head recall another RfC involving such intimidation directed at one editor. But that's by the by. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 April 22#Calendar riots (and the events of this RfC make the events of September 1752 look like a vicarage tea party) especially this comment:

The whole thing is a wonderful example of the circularity that one tends to find in certain forms of historical reportage: textbooks cited textbooks which cited other textbooks, and so on and so on! In other words, it was an event quite without witness.

I think the BNF entry can be ascribed to that, as do the few Wikipedia attributions of the picture as forbidding intercalation, and unless AstroLynx, who has now stuck his head above the parapet in a remote corner of Wikipedia, can come up with something new from Priscilla Soucek within the next few days I suggest we move to close. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already asked this RFC to be closed, as I expected just more insults and intimidation from you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for further sources. We already have outside reliable sources that have assessed this is what the image depicts. I note you haven't volunteered anything from Soucek yourself either. SPACKlick (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I've noticed your censorship (I thought your argument was "Wikipedia is not censored"). If you're going to doctor other people's comments, how about removing

• I pinged DBachmann [sic] to let him know another editor was making accusations against him.

• Actually, the IP (who seems to be very familiar with policies and arb cases) is making things up again.

• Need I point out that this is a false claim (as most of your other claims)?

• You have a habit of selectively citing and altering other editor's [sic] remarks which borders on dishonesty.

• You also accuse authors of not citing sources and editors of being biased, opinionated and obstinate.

• And as I said at the beginning, your reason for censoring the image is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

• Now you are either pretending to be stupid or deliberately obstinate.

• Again you try to muddy the waters by citing Hillenbrand selectively. Where does Hillenbrand say "this may be a picture of Muhammad" -- again this is your own personal opinion which you will not find reflected in the published sources. And who is wasting whose time?

• ...there has been no response to that except selective quotes from one source to muddy the waters. One IP editor disagrees and hears no argument against his bluster ...

• To call his work sectarian only shows how biased you are yourself.

• ... you will have to ask this nicely and include the magic word.

• ... you have not produced one single shred of evidence that the sourcing is incorrect except for your own personal opinions and false allegations.

• ... IP, Wikipedia looks askance at users who try to prevent other editors from editing articles by threatening or insinuating real world consequences. Cross the line again and I will ask admins to look at your conduct.

• For the moment, I have decided to spend my time more usefully and to spend less time trying to convince people who only want to vent their personal opinions and to stop feeding the troll(s).

Just describing someone as a friend is logged as a personal attack.

• I've already asked this RFC to be closed, as I expected just more insults and intimidation from you.

Your last comment shows that you have no idea how litigation works. Priscilla is your witness, not mine. The preceding comment shows that you have no idea how Wikipedia works either: [6] where it is neatly explained:

Reliable sources are usually third - party journals or books that cite the original research, itself presumably published in a reliable source.

Who does Hillenbrand quote? Priscilla, no less, but what good is that when you steadfastly refuse to reveal what she says? And on the subject of misrepresentation, AstroLynx has been pulled up for misrepresenting the sectarian agenda of the illustrations, and I'm going to pull him up now for his failure to mention Arnold, who blows his theory sky high. The BNF catalogue has quite a long bibliography. Wouldn't it be a good idea to tell us which, if any of those works, form part of your case? 87.81.147.76 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• 87.81.147.76 (talk) is one of several London area IP sockpuppets of banned User:Vote (X) for Change