Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

Sub-sections

Talk page sub-sections:

Epithets:

• prophet
• martyr
• fundamentalist
• terrorist
• clergy
• Ma malakat aymanukum

Translations:

• names
• God vs Allah

Citing standards:

• Citing Quran
• Citing hadith
• Citing scholars
• Partisan and extremist websites

Other:

• Point of view
• miscellaneous
• family tree
• Formatting articles
• Dates

RfC on images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy

Should the text of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY be

• A changed as in proposal A below
• B changed as in proposal B below
• C changed as in proposal C below
• D kept in its current state

☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Proposal A

In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics (whether in Arabic or English) should generally be omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations or images. Images containing Islamic honorifics or Arabic calligraphy must have verifiable usage outside Wikipedia, except where those images are used specifically to illustrate Islamic or Arabic calligraphy, or to aid in nagivation (e.g., in sidebars). Digital modifications (such as vectorizing, cropping, or adding a transparent background) of such images are permitted, provided no new stylistic elements are introduced. If images (such as photographs or scans) depicting notable works of Islamic calligraphic art exist, these should be preferred. Example of permissible digital modification Scan of Ottoman ink-on-paper containing the Basmala, c. 1604–1605 (JPEG image) Vectorized version (SVG image)

Proposal B

In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics (whether in Arabic or English) should generally be omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations or images. Images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy must avoid giving the appearance of honoring Islamic subjects in Wikipedia's voice. In order to do so, they must have verifiable usage outside Wikipedia in significant real-world contexts, and preserve that context in a recognizable way. Images may be modified (e.g., through cropping), provided the visual style of the original is retained and no new stylistic elements are introduced. Digital recreations of pre-existing work should not be used. Preserving real-world context Y Calligraphy of Ali on display in the Hagia Sophia, containing the words raḍiya Allāh ʿanhu ('may God be pleased with him') N Digital recreation with real-world context lost; honorific appears to be in Wikipedia's voice

Proposal C

In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, honorifics, including Islamic honorifics (whether in Arabic or English), should generally be omitted from articles, except where they are part of quotations or images. Images containing Islamic honorifics should have a well-documented usage outside of Wikipedia. This rule does not apply to images in WP:SIDEBAR navboxes, because the rules for images in navboxes are the same for all subjects.

Current text D
In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, Islamic honorifics should generally be omitted from articles (whether Arabic or English), except where they are part of quotations or images. Images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy should have a well-documented usage outside of Wikipedia and not be user-generated.

Editors at WT:ISLAM, WP:NPOVN, WP:VPP and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images, as well as the participants in the discussion which lead to the creation of this guideline, have been notified of this discussion.

• I wonder where your personal inclinations are? What is in your opinion the perfect fit? _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 11:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B, as the clearest explanation of what it looks like to apply NPOV to this subject and why that is needed, and as the only option that will effectively stop digitally recreated Islamic honorific images for which no photographs or scans exist (example) from being added to Wikipedia. I also believe it's not a good idea to allow (as option A does) user-generated Islamic calligraphic images in navigation templates, which will make original digital images prominently featuring Islamic honorifics (example, example) show up in numerous articles. Better to have no image at all, or where available something that neutrally preserves real-world context like this. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry on why these images deserve a special rule

We already have WP:IMAGES and WP:IMAGEPOL, so why should these images deserve a special rule? M.Bitton (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Because they appear to honor Islamic subjects in wiki-voice. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Apart from the fact that it doesn't apply to images, what's the difference between doing that using an image and its vectorized version? M.Bitton (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Real-world context. It makes it clear that the honorific image is used in the real world and was not created by a WP editor for purposes of puffery. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Since that applies to every image, it doesn’t explain why these images deserve a special treatment. M.Bitton (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC) A detailed explanation of why special treatment may be warranted can be found in the original discussion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC) I don't see anything in that proposal that explains the difference between an image and its "digital recreation". M.Bitton (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC) Or why they shouldn't be used in a way that isn't just a content dispute if they don't contain novel honorifics. I still have procedural concerns with this, and the fact that four of the editors working on this have expressed concerns that mostly seem to be getting ignored in the drafting process isn't helping. Better to have no image at all isn't a policy stance we can hardcode into an MOS when we're talking about images that otherwise don't fail WP:IMAGEPOL or WP:PUFFERY, and the two example images provided in B do not have a clear reason why one should be favoured over the other at the level of an MOS and not just a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC) What I meant to say above is that the current guideline (option D) already provides a special treatment for images containing Islamic honorifics or calligraphy, the rationale for which can be found in the original discussion. I agree that it's problematic to single out Islam for a MOS page that is really about NPOV, but that's an issue affecting the entirety of MOS:ISLAM (cf. its first sentence) rather than just the part under discussion in this RfC. Cf. these 2022 comments by three users, the last of which I think answers the question best: we have a specific NPOV page about Islam because we encounter some very specific NPOV problems in articles relating to Islam. Calligraphy created or enhanced by internet users to honor rather than to illustrate Islamic subjects is just one part of that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Can you give me examples of these encountered problems that our current guidelines and policies cannot address? M.Bitton (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC) They are in the original discussion. But for any such example it would be possible to say 'that's already covered by policy such-or-such'. It's the nature of WP guidelines to be an application of policy to specific subjects. The question is not whether there's already another policy broadly backing the guideline (which is more a requirement than a reason not to have it), the question is whether there's a specific problem that needs specific addressing. Now there was a specific NPOV/PUFFERY problem with regard to images of Islamic honorifics and calligraphy (it was easy to link 114 articles affected, 106 of which contained explicit honorifics), and MOS:CALLIGRAPHY specifically solved it. The current proposals are to clarify the existing guideline. The question thus becomes is clarification needed? Those who think it's clear enough what kind of (modifications to) images qualify as 'user-generated' or not, or who think that editors should discuss this on a case-by-case basis, can !vote D. Those who rather think that the guideline itself addresses no specific problem or is otherwise superfluous can perhaps add an option E, reverting to the state before MOS:CALLIGRAPHY was in place (note though that not having an exception for images, it recommended the removal of all Islamic honorifics, including in theory those in images of any kind). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Since this seems to be not entirely clear, I'll also add here that the subject of this RfC is not whether there should be a special guideline governing images of Islamic honorifics (there already is one, implemented after this 2023 discussion; see option D), but whether that existing guideline should be clarified, and if so, how? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option A, per arguments made in lengthy discussion above: § Proposal: clarify "user-generated" in MOS:CALLIGRAPHY. See a summary below. If I have time I will summarize my points made there here. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC) (edit 11:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC))

  My initial goal in the abovementioned discussion was to clarify the term user-generated within the MOS:CALLIGRAPHY guideline. I emphasized the need to distinguish between original user-created content and digital modifications of existing works. I argued that while original creations without external verifiability should be avoided, digital enhancements of established works—such as vectorizing historical manuscripts—should be permissible. This distinction aims to prevent the use of purely decorative, non-encyclopedic images while allowing improvements that enhance image quality and relevance. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  And I think you did a great job too! Even though I personally prefer the stricter and somewhat different focus of option B, option A's clear explanations of the type of digital modifications that can be applied without becoming non-neutral user-generated decorations rather than illustrative encyclopedic images are a stellar improvement over the vague "not be user-generated" of the original guideline. It also aptly allows user-generated images where they are perhaps more relevant to use, such as in illustrating Islamic or Arabic calligraphy, or in nagivation templates (where having a clear high-quality logo-like recognizable image may be a more important concern than having something used outside Wikipedia). ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Inquiry on what in option A is not already covered in existing image policy

Is there a difference between what's in option A and what is already covered in the images' guideline and policy? M.Bitton (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC) @M.Bitton: Images do not need to be verifiable in the same way that text does per WP:VERIFIABILITY. However, MOS:IMAGES and WP:IMAGEPOL do set certain expectations for image reliability and appropriateness, and provide general guidelines on user-generated content. However, they don't address the specifics of user-generated content in the context of Islam-related articles. Option A requires images of Islamic honorifics or calligraphy in Islam-related articles to be verifiable—meaning they must have documented use beyond Wikipedia and established significance—enhancing the reliability and neutrality of such content. waddie96 ★ (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Thank you. In that case, option A makes no sense to me since it single out a religion for no valid reason that I can see. M.Bitton (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC) The original reasoning for the specifics for Islamic-related articles lie in the 2023 RfC which drafted MOS:CALLIGRAPHY: Islamic honorifics such as raḍiya Allāh ʿanhu, lit. 'God be pleased with him', in the prose text of Ali. Articles containing images with Arabic calligraphy taken from verifiable sources such as Y Muhammad but not user-generated images that fail to be significant and relevant in the topic's context (MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE) such as: All those listed at RfC collapse list titled "Non-exhaustive list of articles featuring user-generated..." but their historic versions, such as Aban bin Uthman bin Affan which contained File:Aban ibn Uthman ibn Affan (A.S.).png. Hence, the RfC states: This is a [...] problem involving user-generated Islamic calligraphy, which even if not containing explicit honorifics is still clearly created to 'honor' the subject. User-generated art does have its purposes elsewhere on Wikipedia, but in the case of Islamic calligraphy it will be unencyclopedic in almost all cases. [...] there is no clear guidance which [experience users] can cite to remove it." waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC) @M.Bitton There were questions by me and fellow editors regarding why Islam in particular? For example this comment: The papal seals in Catholic articles are mostly vectorized and that’s perfectly acceptable. waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC) I agree that this should be "agnostic" about the religious tradition. We don't want fan art with flowery sayings about Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama, either. It isn't even about religion: A drawing that incorporates words like "Best Politician Ever" or "Most Handsome Actor" isn't wanted, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC) We have all the policies and guidelines we need to deal with those. M.Bitton (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC) In addition, unlike text, there is no strict requirement for images to be "verifiable" in the sense of requiring independent sourcing. However, for images that represent a subject in a potentially contentious or misleading way (e.g., depictions of religious symbols, historical events, or living persons), verifiability can be relevant to ensure accuracy. waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC) While WP:IMAGEOR is not as strict as the rest of the OR policy, it still prohibits us from illustrating or introducing unpublished ideas or arguments. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option D. Having read all the discussion so far, and thought about it a bit, I'm still not seeing any need for a change here. The second sentence of option D should be no stronger than a guideline to avoid adverse interactions with the general image policy, the first works as either. Thryduulf talk) 13:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Summary of the problems this guideline may solve & discussion

@Thryduulf, AFAICT the problems to be solved are: There's a bit of calligraphy that was probably made in the 19th century. Should we always prefer: File:A calligraphic composition in the form of a lion, Persia, 19th or 20th century.jpg (color scan that shows old/yellowed paper for the background), File:Shiite Calligraphy symbolising Ali as Tiger of God.png (a black-and-white bitmap image), or File:Shiite Calligraphy symbolising Ali as Tiger of God.svg (a vectorized SVG that looks as close to the black-and-white bitmap image as possible)? Or should we not have an official preference, and let editors decide for themselves depending on each article's needs (e.g., depending on image size size, whether the article is talking about the writing itself vs the overall image, etc.)? What constitutes "user-generated"? For example: Do you believe that any of the above images "user-generated"? Two editors have previously argued that converting a .jpeg or .png image to an .svg makes the resulting image "user-generated". Do you agree with them? Does the existing "no Islamic calligraphy" rule apply if the image does not contain any honorifics about any person? For example, why is it [apparently] okay to include the logos of multiple businesses in Arabic calligraphy#Modern examples – something we'd normally minimize as WP:PROMOTIONAL – but not okay to include similar, honorific-free examples using the names of people or places? Nobody wants to see "Her Serene Illustriousness, the Beloved Princess WhatamIdoing" in any article, regardless of whether it's text or in an image. But could you have a person's name (e.g., "WhatamIdoing"), all by itself, in an image? One of the disputes leading to this RFC was over the WP:NAVBOX image in Template:Usul al-Fiqh. There are no honorifics there (I understand that the text translates to "principles of Islamic jurisprudence"). NAVBOX images are generally given some latitude in style, but we literally had the OP complaining that it was user-generated because the original showed the letters in black text on a white background instead of white letters on a green background. The navbox Template:J. R. R. Tolkien has his monogram, so why should the equivalent in Arabic script be specially banned? Quite a lot is agreed upon. Nobody objects to seeing a photograph of an actual historical image that happens to contain a traditional honorific text, or even the honorific wording itself being discussed in an obviously relevant article (e.g., Titles of Mary, mother of Jesus). Everybody objects to current or recently popular political figures getting "honored" with WP:PUFFERY. The question is mostly about where to draw the line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC) To answer your questions: We should not have an official preference - this sort of question is far too dependant on the context of the article and available images for anything else. Converting an image between formats does not make it "user generated" by any even remotely reasonable meaning of the term. How has this got to level of an RFC? (and first sub-bullet) If an image (of calligraphy or otherwise) contains no honorifics, then the rules about honorifics do not apply. Islamic calligraphy should be treated no differently to any other sort of calligraphy - it should be included where contextually relevant and its inclusion improves the article and excluded elsewhere. If we have a rule that differs from this it should be rescinded as incompatible with various core policies like WP:NPOV and avoiding systematic bias. (second sub-bullet) The OP seems to have a definition of "user generated" that is somewhat at odds with common sense. Minor modifications like that do not make an image "user generated" any more than rendering a coloured corporate logo in black and white make the b&w image user generated. Again, this should be so obvious that an RFC is not required. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC) No one ever argued that converting a file format makes something user-generated. There seems to have been a worry that prohibiting "digital recreations" might preclude a simple change of file format, but I have always made it very clear (and option B also makes it very clear) that "digital recreation" refers to a change like this into this. As I understand it, raster vectorization always is more than a mere change of file format: it fundamentally changes the nature of the image, giving it a clearer but 'digital' look. More importantly, the example given seems to do much more than vectorize: there is a fundamental loss of detail involved. It's like describing the conversion of a real-life recording of a Beethoven symphony in MP3 format to synthesized musical sounds in MIDI format, or to a chiptune recreation in MOD format, as 'merely converting the file format'. Cf. my comment here. I'm kind of stumped to see this straw man being resurrected. Also note that at Template:Usul al-Fiqh what I regarded as 'user-generated' was the addition of the decorative frills and the shadow (this vs original). Multiple editors have since agreed with this, including (!) the editor (Waddie96) who originally posted the image, who changed their mind re this issue (note that option A allows modifications provided no new stylistic elements are introduced). I too have changed my mind since on the meaning and usefulness of the term 'user-generated' (note that is absent from all proposals to change the text). If the term is kept per option D, there will often be discussions as to its meaning on a case-by-case basis, and I respect the opinion that this should be for the best. The misrepresentations though are grieving me, and I really wish that they would stop. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC) "No one ever argued that converting a file format" is a problem, begins a paragraph arguing that converting a file format is a problem. Whether vectorization changes the appearance depends on the original image and the method for recreation. Some bitmap to SVG transformations merely import the bitmap into the SVG, resulting in an identical image and a needless waste of disk space. I doubt that anyone looking at File:Shiite Calligraphy symbolising Ali as Tiger of God.png andFile:Shiite Calligraphy symbolising Ali as Tiger of God.svg for the first time, without seeing the file names, would instantly be able to tell you which is the vector version, and I'm confident that none of them would say "Wow, there has been 'a fundamental loss of detail' from the first to the second, and it has a much 'clearer digital look'!" When comparing File:Istanbul - Santa Sofia - Medalló (cropped).JPG and File:Rashidun Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib - علي بن أبي طالب.svg, I agree that it is a transformation, but I would probably not agree that the transformation is material if it were presented in a simple black and white, and I would not describe that as "a fundamental loss of detail". Preserving the appearance of flaky paint on an old sign is not an encyclopedic priority. (I'd probably describe the new versions as "very shiny metallic colors" and "not my favorite aesthetic style".) IMO the photos should be used because they are better, and not because the shiny green vector copies contain "Islamic honorifics" (the photos do, too) or "Islamic calligraphy" (the photos do, too). Sometimes you actually need a "loss of detail", e.g., because the image size needs to be smaller than usual or to have an accessible level of visual contrast. For example, if the writing is going to be displayed at 110px, as is the case in Template:Islam, then removing the diacritics (a "loss of detail") may aid legibility. One of your other arguments has been that these digital versions were "obviously" created to "honor" the people whose names are written on them. I suggest to you that something that could be mistaken for modern fan art confers less honor than photos of historic signs in a world-renowned mosque. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Since some vectorization only slightly changes the look, and since all vectorization changes the file format, anyone arguing against fundamental modifications (whether through vectorization or not) must be arguing against changing the file format. Naturally! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC) On another note, yes, digital recreations of Islamic calligraphy look like fan art (in a way are fan art), and thereby tend to degrade rather than honor their subjects. This actually is my primary reason for opposing them. I tried to explain this in the discussions above (e.g. [1][2]; there was some agreement from other editors too [3][4]), but since people stumbled over my use of the word 'notability' (which I didn't necessarily mean in the WP:N sense, just in the everyday sense of being or appearing prominent or important), I thought it might be too complicated an argument to repeat here. Anyways I don't think you agree, and you certainly don't need to, but it would be really nice if you would stop turning and twisting my arguments until they somehow fit the opposite narrative. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC) I'm not trying to twist your arguments. I'm trying to accurately represent both them (as I understand them) and the weaknesses in them (for the ones I believe to be weak). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC) In the OP's defense, there is a lot of adulatory behavior in some of these articles, some of which has a skin-crawling level of non-neutral content (e.g., puffy phrases like 'God will eternally reward him', which we don't want in general, but it's even worse when it's being put in the infobox of a mass murderer), and we've only got a few folks who are able to read Arabic and willing to keep an eye on them. It's no wonder if they're frustrated and need help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC) out of interest, which mass murderer are you referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Mine is a made-up example – and One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter – but someone mentioned this edit in one of the discussions. I don't know what the image actually says. Google Translate indicates that the third (bottom) line is the honorific, but does not give a consistent translation, so I don't know what it actually says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC) That image is pure WP:OR that anyone can challenge (no need for an extra rule). M.Bitton (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC) This is the translation of the third line. M.Bitton (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Thank you. It makes me think of May God have mercy upon your soul, but I suppose that it's meant to be something closer to Rest in peace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC) "May god have mercy on him/her" is a common Islamic expression which means just that. M.Bitton (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Like Bless your heart, only without the occasional sarcasm? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC) It literally means "may god have mercy on him", though this is irrelevant since the image is original research. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option A, Per all the discussion above. Kaim Amin (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with Apaugasma. Option B is the clearest choice and the most suitable for this specific issue. But I suggest adding the last phrase in option D, which is "and not be user-generated" to be included with the option B as well. All the best, anyway.--TheEagle107 (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

  I recommend against that addition, because we seem to have had ongoing disputes over where, exactly, to draw the line between "user-generated" and "not user-generated". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think A sounds fine preferably with a minor addendum that, textual captions where relevant should be provided as well, to explain what people are seeing and the use of honorifics where present, with relevant links to enable readers to easily access more information if desired. The caption in option A seems like a good example ("Ottoman ink-on-paper. containing..."). For one, this is English Wikipedia and the assumption should be that readers aren't Arabic/Turkish/etc.-fluent. Informing the reader and providing historical, cultural etc context is the objective. The reader ought to understand what they are seeing and why it is there. --Slowking Man (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• Procedural close as a non-neutral RFC. The options presented above mostly assume that editors should agree with the submitter's perspective in a content dispute, where their definition of WP:USERGENERATED appears (and apologies if I've misunderstood this) to be distinct from how it is generally understood on Wikipedia. As pointed out by multiple editors above during the drafting phase, Digital recreations of pre-existing work should not be used. is an opinion in a content dispute, and there is no consensus to override WP:DECORATIVE in cases where minor neutral variations exist:

There is no mathematical formula for drawing the line between being merely decorative, and being something that adds significantly to understanding. This distinction is a subjective one that can only be made through editorial discussion. Instead of stating baldly that the image is purely decorative, explain how it fails to help our readers understand the page.

(emphasis added)

We can't pre-adjudicate any and all content disputes on the basis of one or a few editors disliking the use of vectorized images and believing that there's more inherent value in photographs. Those should be handled individually on the talk pages of the articles in question and beyond that nothing is proposed here that doesn't already have policy behind it. As was pointed out in the drafting process, there are already policies against WP:PUFFERY/non-WP:NPOV images that apply here, so the primary "new" thing is the exclusion of digital recreations. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the above proposal for a procedural close, because it is based on the claim hat "[t]he options presented ... mostly assume that editors should agree with the submitter's perspective in a content dispute." On the contrary, this RfC is excellently formulated and presented, in the required neutral tone and offering distinct choices. Whether the editor that opened the RfC has expressed in the past their persepctive on the subject under discussion is irrelevant, because the focus should be on the correctness of the RfC itself. And the RfC stands on its own. -The Gnome (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, mainly because Digital recreations of pre-existing work should not be used is an opinion which shouldn't be elevated to the MOS without consensus, and the example images in B are basically bang-on a content dispute, let alone an example of something so unacceptable it should be in the MoS. The RfC is predicated on users accepting the view that photographs are always better than any other type of image and that vectorization of pre-existing calligraphy suddenly transforms that to Wikivoice, which is not Wikipedia policy, and we're called to weigh that on a case by case basis. The cart is put before the horse here, because deciding on one of the proposal changes inherently decides on the photos vs. vector issue, which isn't the scope of the RfC and is a content dispute. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 16:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

What, then, is the "horse" in this predicament? Which is the discussion that, as you claim, should take place before opening an RfC such as this one? -The Gnome (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Which is the discussion that, as you claim, should take place before opening an RfC such as this one?

My suggestion above was

Can an MoS state that photographs are preferred over digital recreations regardless of image quality?

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Suppose an RfC concluded that no MoS directive to that effect is required. How would that affect this RfC? The RfC does not presume any permanent preference of photos over digital recreations - and, in my humble opinion, quite rightly so. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The MOS could make such a statement, but it would be unwise of us to do so. Such a statement would preclude, e.g., some technical drawings and anatomical diagrams – two areas where the real world prefers to avoid photos because the photos are less clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards option D, with the first sentence being policy and the second sentence being guidance, but mostly I find myself agreeing with Warren that this is a non-netutral RfC arising out of a content dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The two main disputants in that content dispute worked out option A together. This is a good-faith attempt to clarify the guideline. The rest is framing from one editor who believes some of the outcomes would be unacceptable because they believe the MOS should in no case prioritize photographs over digital images, and who has been trying to prevent this entire discussion from happening from the very start for that reason. I get why that framing may be persuasive, but it is false. Letting the RfC run its course would be, I believe, the best way to show that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like you're discounting or not realizing that the person you’re accusing of trying to shut down discussion and the person you’re saying helped you work on proposal A were both the same person, and that raising a procedural concern was done by more editors than just myself.

  who has been trying to prevent this entire discussion from happening from the very start for that reason

  I literally rewrote option A including your verbiage and didn’t object until other editors raised concerns I also agreed with. I’d like you to either directly cite where I tried shutting down discussion or strike the aspersion, please, because each time I've suggested rewordings or alternatives that would either directly address the question you seem concerned about or sidestep it if it's secondary, which isn't shutting down discussion. Framing this as bad faith on my part because I don’t believe this RFC is appropriately neutral isn’t reasonable. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Since I'm not welcome at your user talk, I'll answer your question about behavior here. However, that does not mean I think this is the right place for it. If you want to reply, please do so at your user talk or some other appropriate place like WP:ANI. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Comments on behavior in preceding discussion

Option A was written by Waddie96 (the user who put up an image I disagreed with at Template:Usul al-Fiqh) and me, with some constructive comments from Iskandar323. Little or no wording is left from Warrenmck's initial effort. Warrenmck took a position that encoding a prohibition on digital recreations in policy is an unacceptable view over which two editors cannot agree to disagree [5][6], started to call my efforts WP:CPUSH and emotional [7][8][9] and made some pointy edits to mainspace [10][11], all with the effect of inciting other editors against me and a breakdown of the discussion. After I was able to make amends with Waddie96 and Warrenmck declared their intention of leaving the dispute [12], constructive discussion got going again, until they 'unbowed out' and outright started accusing me of wanting to pre-adjudicate content disputes [13], accused me of WP:GAMING [14], all while making it clear that it's really still just about their personal view that the vector displays the calligraphy more clearly than the photo [15]. Warrenmck made no effort to craft a proposal in accordance with their own views, but waited to come up with procedural concerns when the RfC was ready to launch, concerns which once again turned out to really revolve around their own view that the MOS cannot state that photographs are preferred over digital recreations regardless of image quality and that the RfC could only be neutral if it adheres to their suggested principle and cut out the lines about prioritizing photos over other images [16]. Now that the RfC has launched, Warrenmck is calling to close it, basically because some of the possible outcomes do not adhere to a rule they believe should be in place. Instead of making a case for that rule to be applied, either to MOS:CALLIGRAPHY or more generally, they are trying to block any proposal which does not already adhere to it through behavioral accusations and procedural objections. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Response to comments

I was one of four editors to raise specific concerns about this looking like an attempt to pre-adjudicate a content dispute. I never called for the discussion to be shut down and routinely suggested modifications to either make the question more neutral while achieving the same stated goal, or to ask for a comment on the question you seem more concerned with. Almost all of this I did in its own subsection so it didn't interfere with or bludgeon your other draft discussions. You cannot take reasonable procedural concerns or the concerns of a near-majority of the editors involved that this looks like it may be a content dispute issue as a personal attack, which is why at one point I suggested you look into the process if you don't feel you can formulate an RfC question non-neutrally. You have then gone on a rampage accusing me of personal attacks (for saying this looked like it may be a WP:GAMING/WP:CPUSH concern, which, to be clear, I wasn't the first editor to raise that concern), pointy edits (which were simple reverts for things that didn't yet have consensus, because this RfC is attempting to establish that guideline in the first place, one I actually had missed a prior consensus on and you reverted it with no argument from me) or shutting down discussions for suggesting there may be a procedural concern. This is highly inappropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• In keeping with the neutral nature of Wikipedia, honorifics, including Islamic honorifics (whether in Arabic or English), should not be applied to individuals. The current wording gives scope for the removal of facts. Tiny Particle (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Do you mean specifically for proposal C? Looking at the entirety of MOS:ISLAMHON (to which the proposed texts here are introductions), the addition of "honorifics, including" in proposal C may be too generalizing (the other proposals don't have this, and MOS:HONORIFIC has important exceptions that do not necessarily apply here). MOS:ISLAMHON is specifically about a certain set of Islamic honorifics (a traditional form of religious praise), each of which is discussed separately (mostly with "recommended action is to remove"). I can imagine some situations where this might be problematic, but I guess the guideline just counts on common sense for these. What kind of facts were you thinking about? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean specifically for proposal C? No the offending bit is in most of the options? Tiny Particle (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tiny Particle, is this your suggestion for better wording? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Lang § langar vs. Script/Arabic in "Native name" parameters, and other cases

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Lang § langar vs. Script/Arabic in "Native name" parameters, and other cases. waddie96 ★ (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § MOS:APOSTROPHE and letters resembling apostrophes

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § MOS:APOSTROPHE and letters resembling apostrophes. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Islamic Honorifics: "Omit" instead of "remove"

The wording of "recommended to remove" is very off-putting to me. Wouldn't the wording "recommended to omit" be better for this MOS? Would go ahead and make the change per WP:BOLD since it feels like a minor change, but I wanted to raise it for discussion first since it would involve changing so many instances of the phrase in that section. Buglover100000 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

"Recommended to omit/delete" would be good as well. Buglover100000 (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

They mean two different things. With "omit", it's an instruction to editors not to add it when it isn't there already. With "remove", it's an instruction for cases where it's already there. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Which I think is a good reason to include both terms. Buglover100000 (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Inappropriate changes following RfC

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.

---

Unless I'm missing something, the above RfC did not at any point have a consensus to go ahead with the changes that were proposed. Nonetheless, @Apaugasma Waddie made those changes and then systematically removed every single image they disliked from articles citing the MoS (such as this). There was no consensus for those changes and the nature of editing right now appears to look a lot like the MoS is being used to sidestep content dispute discussions in these articles by elevating the perspective of one editor to that of a guideline. Apaugasma, what was your basis for determining there was a consensus for the changes you wanted? Because this looks, unless I'm missing something, very inappropriate, and mirroring the exact concerns raised by a few others that this was attempting to use the MoS in a content dispute.

Pinging other participants in the above, since this seems to have gone stale:

@Aafi: @Waddie96: @TheEagle107: @WhatamIdoing: @Slowking Man: @Thryduulf: @The Gnome: @Tiny Particle: @Kaim Amin: Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree that there was no consensus for anything in that RfC. I don't have time now to look into anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I have not made any change to this MoS page since before the RfC started. In the mainspace edit you refer to I removed an apparently user-generated and certainly not well-documented image (this one, labeled by uploader as "own work", without reference to any external source), which is well within the current purview of MOS:CALLIGRAPHY. I am sick and tired of your aspersions regarding this matter. Seriously, leave me alone. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I owe you an apology on the editing the MoS front, that apprears to have largely been Waddie and it was a check on historical edits that missed yours was from Feb. You still removed dozens of added calligraphic elements and, with all due respect, you've been so singular in your use of "user generated" despite repeated objections above that I can't tell if what you removed was user generated (as Wikipedia undertsands it) or user generated (as Apaugasma wants it to be). I don't know the topic, but you've backed yourself into a bit of a corner here with your insistence on language around user generated images above. If they were created from whole cloth, then no problem but citing the MoS as opposed to WP:NOR is going to create confusion, as plenty of editors above brought up in advance. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

As an addendum to the above: I missed that Waddie did a lot of the editing. Apaugasma is right in that the images they were removing probably should have been removed, but I think there's a bit of a poison well problem here after the above RfC around the use of the term "user generated" and how it applies to vectorization/digitized images. An MoS reason shouldn't be necessary to remove WP:OR and given that OR carries much more weight than an MoS I'm back to wondering what the point of the above was, here. But I just want to be clear that I owe Apaugasma an apology pretty unconditionally for the above. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I believe Waddie96 prefers the term 'user-created', and although I'm fine with that, I'm using the term in the current MoS for clarity's sake. The intended meaning is 'created from whole cloth', as you say, like all the images I removed seem to be. Note that I did not remove images like this or this since the start of the RfC, precisely because they claim to be based on an external source (without evidence to make that claim verifiable though, so 'well-documented' is still a problem). I have adapted my interpretation of 'user-generated' in this way as result of the initial discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:34, 3 April 2025 (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.

Is "NPOV" a verb

The text tells us ... recommended action is to simplify and NPOV to just "Muhammad". Is NPOV a verb? And are simplifying and NPOVing two distinct actions? Largoplazo (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)