Talk:Islamic calligraphy/Archive 1

Thuluth image gone

What happened to Image:Thuluth.png ?

There's a possible replacement image at de:Bild:Izzet_09.png , but the author de:Benutzer:Baba66 didn't leave any copyright tag for the image, and hasn't responded to my previous comments on his discussion page de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Baba66 . Maybe someone who knows German would have better luck... AnonMoos 16:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no Islamic calligraphy

But there is Arabic, Turkish, or Persian Calligraphy

Calligraphy in characters based on the Arabic script would be a more neutral term, but Islamic calligraphy has become the most widely used term in English language. It is not so for other languages - the Arabicized al-khatt al-islami is unused by Muslim calligraphers, while in French calligraphie arabe is more common. Apparently the existence of the term must be understood in the context of the history of English speaking countries in their relation with areas of Islamic culture (yet again term with difficulties of definition).

The problem is that there are few terms that can objectively be applied to all the instances they claim to cover. "Islamic calligraphy" obviously stems from the desire to link calligraphy and religion, which is fine if the initial intent wouldn't be overstretched. Not all calligraphies have a religious content, so applying the term "Islamic" to them is forcing a certain view on calligraphy, the one that everything happening in a society with Muslim majority is "Islamic" (and the question is which conception of Islam). For the sake of consistency one also has to exclude calligraphies done by non-Muslims, with all the oddities that this implies (e.g. Christians numerous in the Medieval administrations of the Middle East, Copts, Jews, Zoroastrians, pre-Islamic Arabs etc. producing fine writing, European font designers...).

In brief, certainly that following Wikipedia's guidelines, Islamic calligraphy couldn’t be considered as a neutral point of view if it is applied in a monopolistic way. But it can be acceptable given that it is the established term. / Abjad 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with abjad, Islamic calligraphy imply that there is Islamc script and Islamic letters, while it shoud be Arabic Calligraphy becaus its the art of writing arabic letters. --Ali Obeid 17:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The alphabet is the Arabic alphabet, but calling the art of Arabic calligraphy would imply that the art is practiced only by Arabs. In any case, Islamic art and Islamic calligraphy are well known terms and should not be renamed according to our opinions. --Free smyrnan 18:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have felt offended to find the term "Islamic calligraphy" instead of the proper term "Arabic calligraphy" (i.e. with Arabic letters). I would find it more adequate that all calligraphies be referred to after the alphabets in which they are performed (Western/Latin, Greek, Russian, Hebrew, Indian, Chinese, Arabic, etc.) and not to religions making use of them. If Wikipedia wishes to stress the role of calligraphy in Islam, it then should create a "Calligraphy in Islam" entry. However, equating Arabic calligraphy to "Islamic calligraphy" is simply an outrageous choice that undermines my opinion of Wikipedia.

There is no "Wikipedia" per se. If you wish to create an article about the role of calligraphy in Islam, feel free to do so. The common English name of the art, however, is independent of Wikipedia and independent of what we would ideally like to call it. Calling it Arabic calligraphy would lead to misunderstandings about the ethnicity of the practitioners and contributors to this art, namely the non-Arabs who have also created works in this art form. --Free smyrnan 21:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also think this page should be entitled Arabic calligraphy. All other scripts that have developed calligraphy as an artform refer to it by the name of the script, and not by the name of a religion. Calling it "Islamic calligraphy" implies that calligraphy created by Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists or Hindus in Arabic, Farsi or Urdu either does not exist or is somehow less important. It makes a very POV statement. I vote for making the change. If nobody else rises to the task, I'll do it myself in a couple of weeks. Remember that we also have to fix all the pages that link to this one - the list can be found by clicking on the What links here link in the panel on the left. Cbdorsett 08:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I dispute this proposed name change. This name change will make the uninformed user think that the art was solely practiced by Arabs. Some of the best pieces of Islamic calligraphy have been created by non-Arabs such as Turks and Iranians. Please look at where all this genre of calligraphy is exhibited in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art - in the department of Islamic art. This is not POV, but a simple and widely accepted classification. --Free smyrnan 00:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a correct statement. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Arabic does not only indicate the language or the ethnicity; there is also the Arabic alphabet, like the Latin alphabet. There is a category in Wikipedia called which means "calligraphy performed in Latin alphabet". In the same way, Arabic calligraphy does not mean "calligraphy which is performed by Arabs"; it means "calligraphy performed in Arabic alphabet" (it's about the point of view rather than the language) However, I think, that "Islamic" has nothing to do with the alphabet.188.3.204.180 (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cbdorsett and Free smyrnan point out two valid concerns stemming from the two alternative approaches. We need a reasonable criterion to evaluate and compare the two. On one hand, we have the potential to ignore the contributions of people of the Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist or Hindu faiths to Arabic-script calligraphy. On the other hand, we have the potential to ignore the contributions of Turks, Persians, Indians and others ethnic groups to Arabic-script calligraphy. As the contributions of Turks, Persians, Indians and other Muslim ethnic groups to Arabic-script calligraphy is much larger than the contributions of people of Christian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist or Hindu faiths, my vote would go to "Islamic calligraphy" over "Arabic calligraphy". Ukumcuoglu 16:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep the name, The main consideration here is "Kuran". As you know " Kuran" is in arabic. Calligraphy created with the motivation of "Kuran" and so Islam, not with a motivation of "Arabic".By this way it is easily understandable why majority and best pieces of this art are created by non-Arabs.Must^TC 06:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep, the current intro contains sources that state the calligraphy is Islamic (Bloom and Blair, Oxford history of Islam). Users are welcome to create seperate articles on "Arab calligraphy". Also note that before Islam, there was really no prominent calligraphy, and almost all "Arab" calligraphy we have is about Allah, verses of the Quran etc.Bless sins 20:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the first sentence of the subsection titled, "role in..." It was complete and utter nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.52.52 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

I wish this title is replaced with "Arabic Callegraphy". Guys, it's the arabic alphbet and arabic script not islamic callegraphy... islam is a religion not a language.... Also, I've noted that it's been excessively related to persians or other mulsim nations!! while I appreciate all the contributions from our brothers in islam, but I don't see the point in "intentionally" ignoring the original and pioneering work of the arab callegraphers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.120.36 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The word "Islamic" is not a mere synonym of "Muslim". It does not describe only a religion but has a more broadly cultural meanig. Historically, Muslim countries formed a "Dar al-Islam", an area united not only by a dominant religion, but by a relatively easy circulation of people, goods and ideas. At first the area conquered by Islam was united under a dominant language, Arabic. Even later, when the domination of the Arabic language was challenged by "national" languages such as Persian and Turkic, the Arabic script remained dominant throughout the area once conquered by the followers of Muhammad. Like medieval or Renaissance Europe, Muslim lands from Morocco to Khorassan formed a broad cultural region with many common traits, which allows Bernard Lewis (for example) to speak of Islam not only as a religion, but as a civilization. So the word "Islamic" makes sense here, not in a religious but in a general, cultural sense. Using "Arabic" instead would be misleading because the Arabic-speaking area is only part of the area under Islamic influence. Cvereb (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific Arabic, Turkic and Persian calligraphy styles exit, but they all belong to the same writing system and have influenced one another ; on the whole the similarities are more important than the differences. Also, the cultural role of non-Arabs in this Islamic area has not bean secondary or negligible by any measure. Many renowned "Arabic" scientists and philosophers were actually Persian. Persians, Ottomans and Indians have invented many specific styles of calligraphy (Nasta'liq, Ta'liq, Bihari...) beyond the "classical" Arabic styles. There could be a separate article on specifically Arabic calligraphy, but it would be narrower in scope. Cvereb (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is "Ariealic" calligraphy?

The dispute as to whether the calligraphy is ethnic or religious aside, I have never heard of this term "Ariealic" before, ever. I do not find it in Sheila Blair's most recent comprehensive work on Islamic Calligraphy: [1]. Jemiljan (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Main Image

Per the image use policy this main image should not be an animated gif. if you want to show the stages, you should show a series of images if its appropriate, but an animated image shouldn't be in the main article.--Crossmr (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As an aside the images need cleanup in this article. They're all over the place sitting in the middle of references, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Calligraphy!!

why isnt this article called Arabic Calligraphy, i didnt know that their was a new language in Town called Islamic Language.. with its alphabet, and letters, i think its very unfair to call it Islamic Calligraphy, its very much relevant to Islam, i agree, but its more related to the Arabic language, and Arabic Culture, then it is to Islam... Arab League User (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you use two exclamation points? Why didn't you look at this talk page? Hyacinth (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup: October 2008

How and why does this article need to be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

As of February 2010, too many links in the 'External Links' section. Some look suspiciously like self-promotion. At the very least, they should be hierarchized. The excellent "Selections of Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Calligraphy" section of the Library of Congress website should be at or near the top of the list. I found most other links rather less interesting but had to open all of them to discover the rich Library of Congress collection. Many people will miss it, which is a pity. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, I guess I'll have to check the guidelines regarding external links. Cvereb (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia stupidity

if this is an Islamic page then why the HELL are there christian crosses can someone with two eyes fix this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.30 (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Improvements (March 2010)

A section explaining the different calligraphic styles is sorely missing. I am going to add one. I will draw heavily on the French version of the article which is more detailed and to the point. Cvereb (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The French version is good but under-sourced and possibly subjective (POV / original research). As I have no paper source available right now, I will use Library of Congress section on Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Calligraphy, which I consider a reliable, scholarly source. Cvereb (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done "The Arabic alphabet consists of 28 letters and 18 different forms of writing." => deleted that sentence as there is a separate article on the Arabic alphabet. Cvereb (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Mosque calligraphy" is not a style. Actually the writings on mosques use different styles such as Kufic or Thuluth. I'll include that section in the "Instruments and Media" sections.Cvereb (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ahem, the edits from 84.97.82.208 were by me. Forgot to log in. Cvereb (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The gallery should be cleaned up somewhat. On the other hand, I would be tempted to include two "mini-galleries" of 3 or 4 images at the end of the "geometric" and "cursive" styles sections. These would illustrate the differences between styles without cluttering the text. I think this would be a legitimate use for a gallery. Cvereb (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of calligraphers is disproportionately slanted towards the modern. I am not sure there should be a list there at all anyway. The most notable calligraphers can be mentioned in the historical sections. There should be a separate article "List of Islamic Calligraphers". 84.97.82.66 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC) - sorry, forgot to log in again Cvereb (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The mystery "Bloom" quotation would be : Sheila S. Blair and Jonathan M. Bloom (1999). "Art and Architecture: Themes and Variations", in John L. Esposito, The Oxford History of Islam. ISBN .??? The book's editor is J.L. Esposito, but the chapter was written by S.S. Blair and J.M. Bloom. Don't have the book, just checked the reference on the Internet. Cvereb (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

reopening (Arabic vs Islamic) calligraphy

I think the article name should be Arabic Calligraphy. Islamic Calligraphy should be mentioned of course; may be as a section or a sub-article. Before citing the reasons why I favor Arabic Calligraphy, I would like to answer some arguments put on a previous discussion here. When the term Arabic is used (especially in this case), it is employed in the linguistic-cultural sens and definitely not the "racial" one. There is a difference between the adjective Arabic and the demonym Arab. Even most Arabs today identify as Arabs for cultural reasons more than anything else. Second, I am aware of the difference between Islamic and Muslim, however people using this argument do forget that Arabic Calligraphy did not stop at the Islamic Period! Many Arabs and non-Arabs alike continue this form, this is true also for religious and non-religious artists. More important, today's calligraphy cannot be qualified simply as "Islamic" which is actually a golden era for Arabic calligraphy (i.e. does not encompass all).

Now I will cite my arguments, remember according to Wikipedia naming policy: Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article.:

1. One method to determine the "most-common use" is WP:SET. Using Google, Arabic Calligraphy (here) beats clearly Islamic Calligraphy (here) by more than 60 thousands results (as of 11:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)). I ran a Google Fight for both terms too, click here to see the results.
2. Even if we go further and we limit the search to reliable scholarly sources (using Google Scholar this time), we will find that the term Arabic Calligraphy is far more commonly used in Literature compared to Islamic Calligraphy.
3. Arabic Calligraphy cannot be limited to only Islamic Calligraphy. The latter is an integral part of it and not the whole. Arabic Calligraphy is something that existed --and flourished during the Islamic Period--, exists today and will continue to exist in the future (i.e. not limited by a period or a style). Islamic can be seen more as an artistic style or a historical era of this art. Think of it like architecture: Art Nouveau, Modern, Postmodern etc.

Having said this, I do not underestimate Islamic Calligraphy, I consider it a very important part of Arabic Calligraphy. Bestofmed™⟨msg↵⟩ 15:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good arguments, except for one point : what do you call the "Islamic period"? When is it supposed to have ended? 86.70.55.170 (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The temporal dimension in my arguments was only one among others. By the Islamic Period I meant mainly the Islamic Golden Age. Bestofmed™⟨msg↵⟩ 09:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The suggested term "'Arabic' calligraphy" is unencyclopedic. Can you please mention ONE famous Arab calligrapher? Islamic calligraphy was invented and mainly developed by Persians (and Turks)—especially the Persian Ibn Muqla, who invented the kutout setta (Naskh, Muhaqqaq, ...). --Z 10:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

adding a reference to primary source on Nashki calligraphic style

Am inserting a reference to the Arabic Primer of Calligraphy (Nashki style). Efmcleanckm (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

First Picture on Page

Though it has some elements of symmetry, the first picture on the page ("18th century mirror writing in Ottoman calligraphy. Depicts the phrase 'In the name of God, Most Merciful, Most Gracious'") doesn't seem to be an example of mirror writing (specular, muthanna) from what I've been reading. I'm just a novice, but all the examples that I've seen so far are exact mirror images. The picture just seems to be a figurative basmala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.251.148 (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor Syntax

This article needs to be seriously rewritten as it seems to be written by someone whose English is a second language - it doesn't read all well, the headings are poor, and over all impression is that it is based on translations from "google translate". It is not to say there is not good reference material or links, but the communication is poor. While without question I understand the problem which arise from terms such as Islamic calligraphy, I think it is less of problem that the poor standard of grammar in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.6.227 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Islamic calligraphy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mhhossein (talk · contribs) 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to review this article. I've already made a very brief review on the article, but detailed investigation on the article takes time. So, I'll present my suggestion in near future. Any suggestions from other editors who hasn't contributed in writing the article are welcomed. Mhhossein (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are my comments and suggestions:

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose has no problem considering grammar and spelling. Possible violation of copy right laws is observed. For instance, you may just google these unreferenced sentences to check it: "The traditional instrument of the Arabic calligrapher is the qalam, a pen made of dried reed or bamboo." "Coins were another support for calligraphy. Beginning in 692 Coins were another support for calligraphy. Beginning in 692, the Islamic caliphate reformed the coinage of the Near East by replacing visual depiction by words." More violation cases may be found !
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section is not a summary of the article. It's suggested to add a summary of the 'Styles' section to the lead. There was no problem with "words to watch". The article complies with manual of style guidelines for layout.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	List of references are provided according to the guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Some of the references used can't be counted as reliable source. At least, this one on which the article is heavily relied, is expired and no longer is accessible.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some parts of the article is not in accordance with the reference used. For example, it is stated that "Nasta'liq is a cursive style originally devised to write the Persian language...", while Nastaliq is not cursive, according to the source it is referred to. In Fact, Shikasta Nastaliq is cursive, according to this article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Other topics may be discussed. It is suggested to add a section entitled "Famous calligraphers" or sth like this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	One or some of the above problems are not still resolved after 8 days. May be next time it make a Good article. I regret to say that I have to fail the article for now. Mhhossein (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wolfgang Kosack:Islamische Schriftkunst des Kufischen. Geometrisches Kufi in 593 Schriftbeispielen. Deutsch – Kufi – Arabisch. Christoph Brunner, Basel 2014, ISBN 978-3-906206-10-3.

https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&query=islamische+schriftkunst+des+kufischen --77.58.210.35 (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Mu'alla Style

Could someone with proper info please add in Mu'alla style (خط المعلى)? Examples: [2], [3], [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zygoptera (talk • contribs) 18:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Arabic calligraphy

I read all the previous discussions. There is no such thing as Islamic calligraphy, its Arabic calligraphy, according to most sources.--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Also, in Arabic article it is called Arabic calligraphy, along with the majority of languages.--Makeandtoss (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion on the move (below) is now closed, so could you please leave this aspect of the article alone. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I just restored what you changed, there was no consensus for that change [5]. Also there must be an Arabic calligraphy article, like the Persian calligraphy one. But why create a new article? Its literally right here, with a different name. And that is proved by the foreign languages section and the fact that Arabic calligraphy redirects here.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

You appear to be restarting the discussion just closed. There is, as I explained below, quite rightly a Persian article; all the other potential subsidiary articles, including Arabic and Turkish, currently redirect here, but it would be perfectly viable given the amount of material on both those subtopics to create articles on each of them. If you wish to do that, please go ahead; if not, we can live with the redirects. What is not acceptable is to ignore the consensus of informed and participating editors, and to pretend that a collective decision has not just been made. I do hope this will now not need to go any further. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: If you don't mind helping me create an Arabic calligraphy article, but bear in mind that a lot of content on this article will be gone (transferred).Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I've not heard of "transfer"; the Islamic article would need to preserve a detailed summary of the Arabic article as well as all the background material common to or relevant to Persian, Turkish and the other Islamic calligraphies. There can be no wholesale "transfer" if that means a cut-and-paste job, leaving a mess behind, or indeed leaving practically nothing to attempt to score a point: that would not be responsible editing. With that proviso, by all means go ahead with creating an Arabic article; no doubt User:Johnbod and I will help where needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article is pretty short, & little of it exclusive to Arabic language calligraphy. Copy rather than "transfer". Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Now Arabic calligraphy just needs to be expanded. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus against this change in scope. Jenks24 (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Islamic calligraphy → Arabic calligraphy – Should be renamed Arabic calligraphy according to the overwhelming majority of sources and according to its name in its respective Arabic Wikipedia article. Also WP:NC "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." all calligraphy articles are named after their language unlike here. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Ottoman calligraphy

Persian calligraphy

• Oppose - this would be quite inappropriate, as Islamic calligraphy encompasses not only Arabic but Ottoman and Persian calligraphy, not to mention Kufic calligraphy in Samarkand (Uzbekistan) and in Moghul India. The article already mentions many of these; if it needs some rebalancing, so be it, but the notability of Islamic calligraphy as a topic is not in doubt, nor that its range greatly exceeds Arabic both linguistically and geographically. I notice that the same points were correctly made at least in outline in 2007 and 2010. This is without prejudice to your creating an Arabic calligraphy article as a subsidiary of this article, to focus on that language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Islamic calligraphy, or Arabic calligraphy, is the artistic practice of handwriting and calligraphy, based upon the Arabic language and alphabet in the lands sharing a common Islamic cultural heritage. It is derived from the Persian calligraphy.[1][2] It is known in Arabic as khatt (خط), which derived from the word 'line', 'design', or 'construction'." This is about Arabic calligraphy not Islamic, and Islamic calligraphy content (which is barely discussed in the article) should be transfered into an Islamic calligraphy article. As I said the corresponding article in the Arabic wikipedia is called "Arabic calligraphy" as seen here.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• What happens on other Wikipedias is no concern of ours: Wikipedia is an unreliable source, they might be right, wrong or in between. As I said, if the article is excessively focussed on Arabic calligraphy, then we can create an Arabic calligraphy article with much of the existing content, leaving an Islamic calligraphy article to cover the geographic and linguistic range which certainly exists. There is no validity in arguing from what is currently in the article, which itself may be right, wrong, or unbalanced. We must focus on the topic, and on reliable sources for the topic. Since you agree that Persian calligraphy exists, we already agree that something with a wider range than merely Arabic calligraphy also exists. QED. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean unreliable source? It shows that this article is supposed to be on Arabic calligraphy not any other calligraphy.Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be relied on for its analysis of the subject as anyone can edit it. All it shows is that some combination of edits resulted in some claim, whether by confusion, error, garble, accidental copy-editing or whatever. We know that the subject has an extension greater than "Arabic" for the reasons stated and illustrated above, so the claim will have to be modified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

All I know, this article is talking about a part of Arabic language, and should be treated as such.Makeandtoss (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's about an artform with strong Islamic connections practised in many Islamic countries, making use of a variety of scripts based on Arabic. "should": no. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Then why on earth does Persian calligraphy article exist Makeandtoss (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh? There should be articles in a tree (hierarchy) as follows:

Islamic

|

_____ Arabic

_____ Central Asian

_____ Moghul

_____ Persian

_____ Turkish/Ottoman

as is usual in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care. This article is talking about the Arabic calligraphy.Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, no - much of it isn't, or applies to all. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chiswick Chap. Such an article could be started though. I doubt we need Central Asian or Moghul articles though, at this stage anyway. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Why should it be started? Its already here, articles linking to this article are calling it Arabic calligraphy.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.