Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 8

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

↑ Intro

<- Question 7 | Question 8 | Question 9 ->

Question 8: Number of figurative images
(question should be rephrased to be clear, are we talking about pictures of Mr 'mo, or calligraphy ? one is deeply offensive to our new readers/editors, the other is just a fancy font which they don't care about afaik Penyulap  ☏  16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC))
 * "Figurative" = "not calligraphy etc". FormerIP (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you read the background up top, this RfC distinguishes figurative (images of the man) from calligraphy (images of his name). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

 * One image, in the "Depictions of Muhammad" section, and then other images can be placed in the Depictions of Muhammad article. --Elonka 01:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am happy with 6, the current number, or one more or less, with the article at the current length. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit, provided they truly add to the readers' understanding of the text they illustrate. At present, I can see 2: one in Muhammad and one in Muhammad. The rest are decorative, attractive to non-Muslims and repulsive to many Muslims, but add nothing to understanding. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Enough to include all major depiction styles (full-person and flame), so at least 2. Any exact numerical upper limit seems highly arbitrary. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit. Each depiction that adds to the educational value of the article should be included, short of turning the page into an art gallery, just as we do it with every other article.  Good raise  06:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the current page. No special limit, but we do need extra scrutiny to avoid inserting images just for the purposes of upsetting readers.   Truly educational images that improve the article should be as welcome here as on any other page.  Don't bash people over the head with images, but don't avoid images either.  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) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this idea. Why, is this thing necessary?-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Current number 6 seems right given the article length and subject matter.(Further thoughts here ) Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * At the least we should include a representative sample of any historically significant images. Without overdoing it, the article should be richly illustrated to enhance the content in the body. Ocaasit &#124; c 12:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit. Use as many as needed, so long as they're useful or interesting.  --CapitalR (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No arbitrary limit. Each image should be individually assessed in terms of relevance to the article, weight, etc. both locally and to the article as a whole. The number of images the article has, and what proportion of them are figurative will likely change as the article does. This is exactly what happens on every other article in the encyclopaedia and it works well there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit given non-free restrictions, why should there be any special limit for the use of free images? Skier Dude  ( talk ) 14:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be an arbitrary limit. If adding a picture makes sense, it should be added. If some of the pictures are redundant, some can be removed. It's just like any other article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:43 (UTC)
 * Opposed to the existence of this section. This is ridiculous. We shouldn't be discussing numbers. Whatever images are appropriate for inclusion, should be included, regardless of how many or few there might be. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No more or less than 42 sarcasm, obviously. A limit on the number of images seems particularly extreme, unnecessary, and bureaucratic.  There should be no limit imposed.  &mdash;SW&mdash; chatter 16:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've opposed a set quota, but to give a number, I'll say 11. The six images presently in the article appear to be well-chosen, but more will doubtless turn up with further research.  There are a few unillustrated sections that there must be something for somewhere - the quotes in "appearance", for example, must have led someone to try to make a portrait that follows every word available.  And there are notable images, e.g. the Muhammad figure in the South Wall Frieze of the United States Supreme Court Building, which are not currently in the article.  I'm picturing a modest growth of the text (~30%) accompanying a near-doubling of the current number of illustrative figures, occurring over the next three years (the term suggested about the RFC). Wnt (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1–2 in the Depictions section. One should perhaps be the famous miraj image. -- J N  466  19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any basis on which to pick a number. However, I would point out that we are currently more conservative in our use of images of Mohammed than either Persian or Kurdish Wikipedia, which suggests to me that the current number (6) is too low. FormerIP (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as vehemently as civility permits: Per Amatulic above. Again, enforcing a decision like this serves no purpose but appeasement. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit - I oppose setting an arbitrary number on this article. Images should be used as appropriate and not subject to removal for religious reasons. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit. Per Sleddog116/Amatulic. There is no reason to set a limit. Appeasement has no place on Wikipedia. Equazcion  ( talk ) 23:54, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 per each style: enough, still not too much. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose No quotas. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The appropriate number of images will vary based on article length, availability of suitable and relevant images, and variety of such images. cmadler (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As many as it takes to illustrate a Featured Article, no more and no less. The most offensive thing we could do on this issue would be to single it out for special treatment, whether that's uncommon courtesy or uncommon denigration.  As FAs on differing topics have differing numbers of images, depending both on the topics themselves and on how, precisely, they are organized and written, so too we cannot decide a priori that n images is OK, but n + 1 images would be unencyclopedic or (worse) offensive.   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No arbitrary limit - As many as the article can support comfortably, same as for any other page at WP. No special exceptions. Carrite (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree there should be no quota but you editors are not being very helpful here. The purpose of this question is to ask you to look at the article, and make a recommendation if you can.  You can discuss "no quota" elsewhere but, here please give Wikipedia the benefit of your editorial judgment, so that this article may be put to rest, for the next three years. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose Should be based on Wikipedia is not a gallery and each image should be directly pertinent to what it is associated with. They can go to commons for galleries. Dmcq (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As much as stylistically reasonable, as per WP:NOTCENSORED.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 19:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose setting an arbitrary limit. While I agree we should be conscious of the sensibilities of all our readers, placing a definitive number is just wrong.  The questions should be: 1) Is the image necessary? 2) Does it provide an educational purpose? 3) Would the article be hurt if it was removed?  4) [repeat] Is the image necessary?  If the answer to those 4 questions is yes, then include it regardless of the count.  If it is no, then remove it.  Same as any other article, but with the caveat that we can be conscious of the controversy surrounding it.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The current number is about right although not necessarily the images already chosen. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit. There should be as many as are relevant to text.  Pass a Method   talk  15:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Form of this question is not correct AFAIK there is a big difference between images of a person (especially mohammed) and images of things that were never alive, like writing. This question needs research and re-phrasing. So for now, Zero people depicted, limitless calligraphy and places. (though I think trees are kind of frowned on by some, not sure, but I wouldn't worry, as it's not Wikipedia so blatantly taking a stand trying to deliberately offend anymore if it's plants and such) Penyulap  ☏  16:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1 or 2, more if discussing depictions, unlimited thumbnails at the end. Neotarf (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit. There should be as many as are relevant to text. Span (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit - the article should contain as many images of the man as is required to appropriately illustrate all areas where they fit. It can also contain as much calligraphy, if so decided, as it wants in places where that fits. An arbitrary limits is just that, arbitrary and a bit random. A le_Jrb talk  10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No set arbitrary limit - what a ridiculous idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is another pretty silly question, and strict quotas are a bad idea, but since you asked: I think 1 or 2 would be appropriate, enough to show that figurative depictions of Muhammad exist and what they look like, but not giving a misleading impression by overusing them. Robofish (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No limit - Is this question here to mock some of the editors? Is wikipedia a joke now? Let's request comment for every single detail for every single article. :) Brendon is   here  17:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - As many as are needed to illustrate the text and are available of a high quality. Apuldram (talk) 11:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * None — This debate has made me reflect on the parochialism of my own (Western) culture's impulse to depict individuals through images, even when those images cannot plausibly be considered accurate likenesses of the person in question. So what does a "figurative image" of Muhammad actually contribute to an article? Nothing of real worth; moreover, it tends to give a misleading impression to (esp.) young or naive readers who will not reflect critically on the history of an image. A further point: In Islamic tradition it is normative to represent Muhammad with a calligraphic image of his name, while it is unusual to create figurative images. Using the calligraphic image has the value of familiarizing readers with a historically and culturally significant symbol from Islamic culture. That seems more valuable to the typical reader than a figurative representation which can have only aesthetic or ideological value, not representational authority. To sum up, the only grounds I can see for insisting on a figurative representation (except in an article such as Depictions of Muhammad or Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) seems to be based on trivial considerations unrelated to improving the encyclopedia. — ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  18:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, since figurative, narrative images, in general, existed long before Western culture existed, and exist in multiple non-western cultures. There is also, I gather a fundmental disagreement over whether narrative, figurative images can illuminate text, but that disagreement seems far outside a cultural construct and leans more toward a universal theory of education (where I take it either they do or they don't). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, short of settling on a universal theory of education — a task at least slightly beyond the scope of this discussion — I think you'll allow that we cannot assert that the use of figurative, narrative images is universally valued. Suppose, then, that we turn to the norms of the culture or ideology we are documenting. In Buddhism, the Buddha was represented figuratively as an ideal of male beauty, or else as an archetype of e.g. asceticism or contentment or some other concept. These images don't have any representational authority but they can tell us something about Buddhism if presented in context. In Islam, as I understand, the name "Muhammad" in calligraphy is symbolic, and I admit the same could be said of images that represent Muhammad as a flame, or as a human figure with a flaming halo. But the act of figuratively representing a prophet also, and more typically, constitutes a sin and a form of idolatry in most Islamic contexts. (This goes right up the nose of many typical Wikipedians, who find concepts like "sin" to be offensive, to the extent that we can't even write about it as a foreign or historical subject.)
 * So my concern is that, rather than improving the encyclopedia's coverage of Islamic topics through judicious use of images, we are scouring the fringes of Islamic tradition in order to find images that can be deployed to gratify our own idea of what images are supposed to be used for. When challenged, we get chesty about our liberty and rights. It's not the most elevating spectacle I've ever seen. — ℜob C. alias &Agrave;LAROB  19:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument would have more purchase, if we were discussing the illustrations for the Muhammad in Islam article, which is an article arguably intended for "documenting culture or ideology." The article under discussion is primarily meant to document the biography of a man, who it is believed by history, lived some 1400 years ago, and had very eventful life, we are told. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan, we are using Islamic illustrations, and within the pool of Islamic representations available to us, we are going out of our way to make prominent use of fringe images rather than covering the bases of mainstream, culturally relevant imagery. That is something we don't do in other articles. -- J N  466  10:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are choosing the most suitable medieval and early modern images from the small pool of elite manuscript images available, and avoiding later images from the time of printed books. This is exactly what we do for Western medieval political figures as well, and what we should do. Fortunately there is a much wider choice for Muhammad than for most medieval kings - look at the articles. Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Suitable according to what criterion? Presumably, as you stress the narrative nature of these images, you mean suitability for providing a pictorial narrative of Muhammad's life. And that is exactly the point where you graft a Western mindset on Muhammad, because, unlike Jesus, such pictorial life stories are not at all representative of how Muhammad has been received. If you don't trust me, trust Gruber. I know you have a high regard for her work. (Not that it matters much what you and I or Gruber think, in this overall Facebook-like avalanche of mostly uninformed opinion.)  J N  466  12:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, biographical accounts of Muhammad's life following normal historical principles, illustrated or not, are a very important and regular feature of medieval Islamic (and later) literature, in total contrast to Jesus, where medieval accounts of this type don't exist at all, and notoriously only a selection of incidents are normally described or pictured in the Middle Ages, not including most of the events recounted in the Gospels (see Life of Jesus). The case is exactly the opposite of what you say. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you square that with the info from Christiane, below, which seems to say the exact opposite of what you say?  J N  466  23:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No upper or lower limit. This is not MicroManagementPedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2,147,483,647. Oppose arbitrary limit. OSbornarfcontribs. 22:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Guy Macon. Don't overload nor limit. Just like any other article. Student7 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Silly question. Number of images is a subjective editorial decision based on aesthetics (e.g. image density) and the value of the images, and is entirely irrelevant to the concerns that raised this discussion. Dcoetzee 04:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As many pictures as necessary (compare other articles). --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In perfect agreement with Dcoetzee Shaad lko (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3 maximum (figurative, not counting other depictions) to be reconsidered as needed - I'm seeing a lot of comment that folks don't understand why such a limit would be necessary. Having an image at all is the issue with POV-oriented Muslim editors, but the unfortunate side-effect of that is some editors seem to have taken WP:NOTCENSORED and used it to justify adding as many images of Muhammad as possible as a jab and then bring up this conflict to prevent the removal of any images, even excessive and redundant ones. In light of this situation, I think that a reasonable limit for the purpose of keeping the situation in-hand is prudent. I'd also like to note that the good article and featured article guidelines should take precedence here, I'm just putting forth a number that seems reasonable to me. Peter Deer (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with Guy Macon, the questions are going into ridiculous detail. - Richiez (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - treat this article no differently than we treat any other article on a medieval figure - there are no quotas there, this is an editorial decision to be arrived at on the talk page of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - I believe Wikipedia should display a number of high-quality images of the subject, particularly in relation to the subject's notability - which is high. A visual balance should be struck between images and words, which is something that the encyclopedia strives for in its style definitions anyway. With too few images, you are not representing the individual visually as accurately as you could, and too many images upsets the visual balance. Amarand (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - This is getting into a little too much detail now.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota Per above. The correct amount is "as many as needed". Regards  So Why  17:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no limit. As many as are relevant to the article and otherwise pass image-use policies. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of question 8

 * This question is not about setting a quota or limit, and "no quota" does not really answer it (see the next two questions for that). It asks for editors' views as to the appropriate number. Some editors will have views on this, some won't. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The question erroneously assumes that there is a "magic number." The number of images is a function of article length, image size, and complexity of layout, which is variable. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true and a fair critique. But perhaps if editors expanded a bit on "no quota" it could provide the closers with better information. "No quota" could mean "any number is acceptable, please carry on arguing about it until the subject of the article returns to give you a definitive answer". FormerIP (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There has to be an actual number, magic or not, for any particular version of the article. Indeed the article may change, but answers relating to the current (and actually rather stable) version were what were sought. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exept that it's not just contingent on the article itself but also on the availability, quality, variety, etc. of images. Let me offer a non-contentious example: given the images we currently have on Wikipedia and Commons, the appropriate number of images for Ypsilanti Heritage Festival is 2, and that is what we have on the article. If/when more images are found or created, the article as it currently stands could easily fit 4 or 5 images. It would be wrong to set a quota of 5 images for that article, because it might result in editors adding lower-relevance or lower-quality images (and by the time we have 5 suitable images, the article may well be quite different), and it would be wrong to set a quota of 2 images, because that would suggest that there is no need for more images of good quality. cmadler (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it be wrong also if I were to draw your attention to this page and its subpages, and suggest that Ypsilanti Heritage Festival doesn't offer a good comparison? FormerIP (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly - to spell it out, we currently have some 70? figurative images of Muhammad in the Commons category, of which we use 6. These include many high quality images we are not using. Choice is not the problem, though space is a constraint.  Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

what kind of images, the question is not clear, there is as far as I know, a huge difference in the kind of image. Penyulap  ☏  16:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thoughout this Rfc, "figurative" is used to mean images showing a human body, so is the opposite of calligraphy. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)