Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles

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)

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

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.

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.

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)

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:

1. Islamic honorifics such as raḍiya Allāh ʿanhu, lit. 'God be pleased with him', in the prose text of Ali.
2. 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)

@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:

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. (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. ; there was some agreement from other editors too ), 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)