Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 5

''The following discussion is closed and should not be edited.

↑ Intro

<- Question 4 | Question 5 | Question 6 ->

Question 5: Figurative-art depictions vs. calligraphy
(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

Depictions

 * Any result other than this would be ridiculous. It would mean we would have to create one or more computer images of Muhammad's name in order to balance out each depiction of Muhammad in the article. FormerIP (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly in favor of giving depictions more prominence, but considering the context, I'll have to place my comment here. There should be as many depictions (and calligraphies) in the article as is useful for educational purposes. There should not be a balance of any kind. Using more calligraphies because the majority of sources (originating in the Islamic world) use them over depictions in this case would not be a proper application of WP:NPOV, as these sources are themselves influenced (following local laws and religious norms rather than academic consensus).  Good raise  06:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what more than one Calligraphy gets us. Using one caligraphy is justified since it tells us about Muhammad and his stance on iconography.  Using a bunch seems unnecessary.   Note: This answer is contingent upon implementing at least one of the hatnotes, so unwary readers can avoid images.  If we actually force every non-tech-saavy reader to view all images, I'm less certain we'd have the moral highground. --HectorMoffet (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support — Calligraphy should remain the exception, e.g. in the infobox.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The evidence presented in all the prior discussions has shown that calligraphic images are only a minor part of the corpus of depictions of Muhammad, and the article should represent this - to do otherwise would violate WP:WEIGHT. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Calligraphy definitely should be covered, but there should be depictions as well. As in everything else, balance is important. Artificially boosting calligraphy's or depictions' prominence for no reason other than censorship is a no-no.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:39 (UTC)
 * Support—One calligraphic depiction, preferably in the infobox, is enough to convey that this is a common form of depicting Muhammad; but multiple images of the same do not add anything to what the first already says. GRAPPLE   X  16:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support No objections to calligraphy per se, but not at the expense of other images. Again, this is not the Muslim Wikipedia, it's the English language Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Calligraphy is minor and gets to be redundant after the 2nd instance or so if it. I'm fine with a few, but absolutely not in an either/or situation in regards to depictions. Tarc (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - I dislike this question but having reviewed the images proposed and available, it makes no sense to repeat Muhammad's name (in Calligraphy) over and over again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully support. Depictions should be used prominently, but calligraphy should also be present in at least one image. Repeated calligraphy is pointless, as it is just re-stating the article's title in a different language. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:NOTCENSORED.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isnt favoring one over the other by definition censorship?--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - this is not an article on calligraphic representations of the guy's name! -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Too much calligraphy should be repetitive and would not enhance the article (which is not about the art of the book). Mathsci (talk) 08:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support: I believe that calligraphy should be used only in infobox. If there are various historical and artistic deviations in calligraphic depiction of Muhammad, there should be an article on that, but the article about Muhammad should make clear the history of Muhammad depiction, where calligraphy is one of many entries. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Per Orangemike and common sense.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A picture is worth a thousand words. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support It should be a consequence of which images would best, for example, illustrate events in his life. That will probably be depictions. We should, however, not strive towards a certain ratio. JHS nl (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reject the question - The question should not be which should be given more prominence. The illustration should be the one which is most relevant to the accompanying text. Apuldram (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per Orangemike. Gracious! Are we going to have to "vote" Wikipedia-wide everytime someone comes up with a new depiction? (What gets me is that this was a "solved" problem for years up until recently. What a shame it got "unsolved" by somebody!). Student7 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Calligraphy is repetitive, and as stated, a single depiction of calligraphy in the infobox may give good balance. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - but didn´t you already ask this question? Weissbier (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - Caligraphic rendering of one's name is not a common practice in most parts of the world where en:WP applies. Since it is common practice in the contect of Muhammad, one or perhaps two examples should be given (to show variations), but other than that, it doesn't help the article, which is not about caligraphy after all. -- DevSolar (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support a couple of caligraphic rendering is more than enough to gives an idea, particularly if they have a caption which explains what calighraphy is. The other images shall be of usual type: images, place, ect.A ntv (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support for same reasons as Ëzhiki. -- Richiez (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - as mentioned before, as a reader of the Wikipedia, I expect to see the highest quality representation available. I believe accuracy calls for images to be displayed in the following order: figurative-art (unveiled), figurative-art (veiled), calligraphy (with an explanation), locations (for context). Displaying anything other than an unveiled figurative image of Muhammad at the top of the article amounts to censorship, and the bending of the style of Wikipedia to suit a particular group of people. Amarand (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, I could even see having a gallery that shows how depictions have changed over the years. Calligraphy shows no such potential. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per HectorMoffet, Alanscottwalker, Orange Mike, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff, Amarand, others. Ankimai (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Calligraphy

 * First choice. Within Islamic culture, calligraphic representations of Muhammad's name are far more common than depictive images. For the Wikipedia article to try and use more figurative images would be giving undue weight to those types of depictions. --Elonka 00:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The calligraphy is a cop-out. For a body that is so quick to scream that Wikipedia isn't censored when any other group is offended, this body is caving in on this one fast. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since figurative depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many of our Muslim readers, they should be used where they add to the readers' understanding, but not for purely decorative purposes. If it's deemed a decorative image is needed, calligraphic representation would be appropriate. An arbitrary ratio of image to calligraphy is silly. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A photograph being historically impossible and a contemporaneous painting being nonexistent, and considering the slightly-mythic status of the subject, using the most common sort of depiction within the relevant community in the infobox is the next best thing. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Calligraphy is universal in Islam. It is calligraphy that decorates mosques, calligraphy that decorates editions of the Quran, and calligraphy that is (together with architecture) the primary artistic medium of Islamic sacred art. -- J N  466  19:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support calligraphy for all instances with opposition to depictions per my rationale to support calligraphy in the infobox question and per above user's comment. -- lTopGunl (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per the last sentence of my comment in support of depictions. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 02:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * While I think this is a bit of a silly question, which isn't likely to reach an acceptable solution: if calligraphy and figurative depictions of Muhammad are both used in the article, then yes, the calligraphy should be more prominent, as the most frequent depiction of him in Islamic cultures. Excessive use of figurative images seems POV to me. Robofish (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reject the question - The question should not be which should be given more prominence. The illustration should be the one which is most relevant to the accompanying text. Apuldram (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How can we not make calligraphy, by far the most frequent depiction of Muhammad in Islamic cultures, the most prominent? Are we going to purposely give images undue weight just to thumb our noses at those who wish us to have no images? --Guy Macon (talk)
 * For such a superstition: oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. To my understanding, Calligraphic renderings of the name of Muhammad are more common than depictions, and Wikipedia should follow the sources in this regard. (If I'm wrong about calligraphic being more common, I'd be happy to change my vote.) I think the calligraphic should be in the infobox, but don't have any opinions on the number of calligraphic vs. figurative. (In my opinion, the infobox picture is enough to cover the weight issue.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. We would be violating the rationale behind other, long standing content policies by not making calligraphy more prominent. As I said before, WP:UNDUE anyone? This is by far the most common way to depict Muhammad. The figure is shaped by that fact as much as by anything else. This crusade to depict him figuratively is beginning to look more and more like cultural imperialism to me.Griswaldo (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

About the same for each

 * Calligraphic representations are overall more common in Islamic art, but they are, by nature, all pretty much the same, and don't justify having a large number. Appreciation of them depends very largely on the ability to read Arabic, which few readers of the article will have. About 6 (as we currently have) is as many as we need. Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll put this answer here, but really I'm thinking "no fixed ratio". Multiple calligraphic images might be taken from various authentic sources; multiple depictions might also prove to be relevant.  We shouldn't decide the ratio here. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense Yah, I don't think there should be a fixed ratio. It doesn't really matter.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Enforcing a ratio is ridiculous. Images should be present in the article where they appropriately illustrate the text. That's all that matters. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Use either where their use would normally be warranted. We shouldn't be officially endorsing one approach over another. Alexius  Horatius  15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Microscopically Weak Support: As I stated in my comments below, this is just too arbitrary. The images in the Muhammed-related articles should be held to the same standard as any other images on Wikipedia.  That is, if they contribute to the encyclopedic content, they should be included.  If not, they shouldn't.  In other words, I don't support this option per se; I don't support giving "about the same" - I support giving preference to whichever option deserves preference based on encyclopedic value, not based on an arbitrary decision meant solely to appease. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that both groups of images should be considered under the same criterion of illustrating the historical trends in Muhammad's depiction. The only exception is the infobox — it should be calligraphy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both. To argue in favor of one over the other is what a lot of the "pro-image" side is arguing against---censorship.  There is value in some of the calligraphy.  While we in the west may be more used to our art depicting people, historically in non-western countries calligraphy is an art form.  The use of images/calligraphy should be done in a manner which makes sense editorially based upon what is needed---in a manner that conveys information in both ways.  To argue any other stance is censorship.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Mu

 * Mu (unasking the question) with apologies if this is considered an inappropriate response (although there are several similar ones above). The question makes no sense. How can one balance veiled and unveiled images in figurative art with calligraphy? Counting numbers of images is a pretty daft idea. About the best one can say is that some calligraphic images should feature prominently in their placement, whereas depictions should be used and placed with care. Geometry guy 00:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This situation is complex but questions like this are absurd Bulwersator (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The question makes no sense. Does a 400px image count as heavy as two 200px images? Images should be included when they add value. The article should reflect the reality that various depictions exist. Superp (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Geometry guy. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - the whole idea of mandating what types of images and image counts is very un-wiki. Images should be placed in a location which works best for the article, without regard for whether they are offensive.  &mdash;SW&mdash; chatter 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree images of any kind should be used as and when useful to improve the content of the article, and in the place best suited for this purpose. If in doubt, I would lean towards including more illustrations than strictly necessary rather than leaving out any useful ones. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree as per SnottyWong and Superp (although, if this passes, it is not to be taken as my abrogation of above !votes). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. "Balancing" various types of depictions should not be the immediate goal. While we should include at least one of each major type of depiction, other than that the important thing is that the use is relevant to the text that it accompanies. Dcoetzee 04:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg Support Some can argue that favoring one type of image over another in disproportion to their representation is an example of WP:UNDUE. I disagree. Images are not needed to be in proportion to how widely they are known or represented in sources―rather, the more important consideration is simply whether they are useful and helpful to the accompanying text.--New questions? 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of question 5
This question strikes me as pointless - and as with the others, too direct in mico-managing images in the article. I would prefer to see community support for some general statement like; "Depictions of Muhammad are considered offensive in some Islamic traditions. No direct restriction exists on the quantity and placement of such images (per NOTCENSORED) editors should use extra care when inserting depictions - for example by avoiding purely illustrative images" Or something. --Errant (chat!) 10:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is pointless. In some Muslim countries like Iran, depictions of Muhammad are common. The Persian Wikipedia uses several of them too. I see no purpose in deciding that calligraphic versus non-calligraphic images need to conform to some arbitrary ratio based on perceptions about what Muslims find acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact, I oppose this entire section. It's just too arbitrary, no matter which way the discussion is decided. I agree completely with Amatulic. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments by ErrantX, Amatulic, and Sleddog116. This is turning into silly micromanagement when what is needed is a general affirmations of longstanding Wikipedia principles (NOTCENSORED, etc.) cmadler (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I also oppose this entire section as an attempt to improperly micro-manage content. One of this myriad of subproposals will end up "passing" in a way which the minority will laud and expand upon and wave as a banner to thereby drag out their interminable fight against consensus on what should be a relatively simple matter — images are appropriate, they should exist in proportion to the article's physical ability to support them comfortably, and their composition and placement is an editorial matter to be decided by those involved in working on the page, not by external fiat. There is already a consensus on this, but disruptive IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior continues. Carrite (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On that basis, though, shouldn't you be voting "depictions" rather than objecting to the question? Is it really micromanaging to say that depictions should not be outnumbered by placeholders knocked up in InDesign?
 * I think the best way to deal with IDHT is with HT!, rather than IDTC (I decline to comment).FormerIP (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to note, "opposing this entire section" seems to be the same thing as the "Mu" vote.--New questions? 20:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)