Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muhammad images/Question 9

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

↑ Intro

<- Question 8 | Question 9 | Alt Question 10 ->

Question 9: Is an image quota useful?
(place answers under the chosen subsection below)

There should be a set number of images for the article

 * This question is redundant with question 8. One or the other should be removed from this RFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the edit splitting 8 and 9 - note question 8 is meant to elicit some number; the responses opposing the existence of a quota really belong in question 9 (as do comments supporting sticking to a quota). Question 8 was originally written with the answers under several headings indicating various ranges of numbers; someone removed those later.  Sorry for the confusion. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The question needs to be rephrased to include or exclude calligraphy and such. It's a separate issue to the images of Mo'. Penyulap  ☏  16:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There should be no artificial quota on images

 * Per my answer to the previous question. I'd prefer this RfC to produce governing principles rather than a locked-down version. -Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As always, rules should be dynamic to the needs of making the article encyclopedic. Peter Deer (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems highly arbitrary. Use normal editorial discretion (or perhaps subsequent RfC). --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree - prefer binding principles to arbitrary numbers. Assuming this RFC confirms a strong emphasis to use images, will ideologically motivated people really hang around edit-warring over exactly how many?  The editors managed to make a pretty decent article so far, and I see no reason to micro-manage them now. Wnt (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Why do we need it?-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - the article should be treated no differently to any other article. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota Images (and other media--it's not impossible that we could have a video depicting Muhammad) are used to enhance content. At some point in this article, a map could be useful. At another, a picture of an object to explain in a picture what is difficult in words. At another point, it would be appropriate to show a piece of art. Explicitly stating a precise number of images is not useful for readers or fellow editors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota — There should be as many pictures as authors think are useful.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. We show the number of images as is useful as decided by editors. If hypothetically some image is proved to be a fake or archaeologists discover some new unique stuff, then we'll probably include that, not hold another ArbCom RfC to adjust the quota. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the result of this discussion, although it looks unlikely to produce particularly specific guidance, should be taken as consensus, and should only be overturned in the future with broad support at the article's talk page. I don't think it's reasonable to require an RfC for every future change to the images, but major diversions from what is discussed and agreed upon here should require some procedure to weigh the support for them. Ocaasit &#124; c 12:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota. Pointless and arbitrary. If the images are useful or interesting, include them. --CapitalR (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota, the number and nature of images that are appropriate will change as the article changes and as any new images become available to us. See also my response to Question 8. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota as per my comment on 'numbers' above Skier Dude  ( talk ) 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota. Having one makes no sense whatsoever. Whether you have just one depiction or a hundred, it will make no difference to those who disagree with having them. So, if we use pictures, we might as well use as many as the article's needs require.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 20, 2012; 14:45 (UTC)
 * No quota. No need for one. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota—Should, for instance, the article be further split as it grows, or be left to grow further, then a fixed quota of images may end up being far too generous (and seem more like a picture gallery) or far too sparse, and neither approach is aesthetically pleasing. Image number should be allowed to shift organically as the article grows and shrinks so as to best fit its scope at a given time. GRAPPLE   X  16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota per answer to Q8. &mdash;SW&mdash; prattle 16:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota Tarc (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - I can't really improve on what's already been said. Sleddog116 (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota per WP:CCC rationale. I see no reason for special exception here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota, period. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota. Per Anthonyhcole we should be seeking agreement upon principles to guide future editing rather than locking down a specific article version. cmadler (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota. The only even remotely rational reason for having an image quota (i.e. saying n images is OK, but n + 1 images isn't) is if we decide that n = 0.  Which is well beyond the pale. How many other articles have set image quotas?   ☯.Zen  Swashbuckler  .☠  17:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - No special exceptions. The problem here is that a fairly small group of highly-driven people are trying to create a special case outside of our guidelines and policies, which are themselves clear enough. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota, however -I agree it would be contrary to Wikipedia's policy and purpose to have a quota. But I hope editors give more guidance than they have, in both the previous question (Question 8) and the next question (#10). The RfC is meant to give the editors who will be "putting this to bed" for 3 years, your considered, substantial, and well informed input, please do so. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota, "We hold this to be self-evident". St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota whether or not to include an image in context should be an editorial discussion, not set numerically. A quota also does nothing to avoid offending anyone IMO. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 10:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota just be congnizant that images are controversial and that we should have a higher guide when answering the question "is the image necessary?" If it is, include it.  If the article can get by without, be more willing to let it go.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 15:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying they need to meet a higher standard is censorship. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have news for you, Wikipedia IS censored. BLP, N, RS, UNDUE, etc... those are all censorship guidelines.  When the project says that it isn't censored, it means by the WMF/government/outside bodies.  But we should have the highest standards for including materials.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 05:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for the news, however unresponsive it may be. I am not clear we actually disagree in practice (since it appears our !votes above are mostly in line), although I disagree with your formulation.  As long as you are not arguing that these particular images have to meet a higher standard than any other of our thousands of images illustrating articles. Then but only then is it not censorship.  Not censored actually does eliminate certain considerations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The images themself? Nah, they still have to meet our normal criteria.  But there needs to be a sound editorial reason for inclusion.  On high profile articles (wether the president of the US, the Pope, or Mohamed) we have to have a higher threshold for inclusion.  This is a general principle that is effectively in place throughout wikipedia.  Many photos of President Obama would not be appropriate for his page---and we have to ensure that not every photo is added "just because".  The same is true here.  We don't want to wontonly add images, there needs to be a REASON for it and the REASON needs to go beyond "NOT CENSORED."  When many people cite that mantra, they are really saying, "screw you."  It is a poor rationale for inclusion of material, Not Censored should always be followed with "And here is why this image/position is better."  If it isn't thne it is just a platatude and meaningless.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No quota Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - And this should be applied to every article. There should be no image quota on any article, period.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  14:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - the editing community will find the appropriate number of images to properly illustrate the article, in the normal way. The introduction of a quota would be a form of censorship. Thom2002 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota Whatever fits. Neotarf (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - No special exceptions. A group of highly-driven people are trying to create a special case outside of our guidelines and policies, which are themselves clear enough. These images exist everywhere, in books, on websites, in films and in art. Welcome to the world. Span (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota. The emphases should be on relevance and quality. Those two factors should determine quantity. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - it is ridiculous to even raise this as a question - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - if an image is available and useful it should be used Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quot.... Oops! I just hit my arbitrary quota on comments to dumb ideas. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - the article should be treated no differently to any other article.--Nemissimo (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota &mdash;Kww(talk) 13:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Moot. It's quite apparent by now that the respondents to question 8 are not just going to "decide on a number of images" - number of images should be determined by subjective editorial decisions over time, not by decree. Dcoetzee 04:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - Given that the appropriate number of images will vary in the articles' development, no it isn't useful. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 00:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota given that we do not have such a practice on any other page.--New questions? 19:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable Quota - The article is frequently disrupted by the addition or removal of images. Right now it is extremely hard to remove images that are excessive or redundant, and the addition of new images is the source of a tremendous amount of conflict. Because of the extremely political nature of this, particularly considering the very public Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and its representation in the media, I think measures ought to be taken to address the situation. Peter Deer (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No Quota - A quota is a form of unjustifiable and needless restriction on editorial freedom, and the article should be treated no differently from any other article. Period! (Click here) Brendon is   here  17:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support See my "slippery slope" argument above. Also, to impose an artificial quota would be to adopt to make life needlessly difficult for future editors who may decide to expand, contract or otherwise re-arrange the article. zazpot (talk) 18:16, 13 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. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - The only quota should be reflected in maintaining a healthy visual design balance. Wikipedia's editors do a great job of breaking up article text with supporting images.  Let's keep that tradition, and keep the encyclopedia balanced across all articles, with no exception. Amarand (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota - I think common sense can ensure that there aren't too many images.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 17:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No quota per comment on #8. Artificial numbers are never a good idea when it comes to editorial decisions. Regards  So Why  17:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Additional discussion of question 9
Why do we need a quota?-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 07:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Another answer is that Arbcom have, maybe, asked the community to come up with one in this Rfc. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad_images: "The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article Muhammad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly...."   Johnbod (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed they did, but the will of the community could be to look at the article in its current state and say "looks fine just as it is now" . IMO that is how this RfC is shaping up. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing with that! Johnbod (talk) 20:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)