Talk:Qur'an/Picture Controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This sub-talk page is about the controversy surrounding a picture originally posted in the Qur'an article. After nearly two months, on January 4, 2006, the Qur'an article was protected by User:Harro5. It was once again protected on January 17, 2006 by User:Sean Black. The picture was deleted from Wikimedia Commons on January 30, 2006 by original photographer and administrator User:Quadell without consensus, thereby halting this discussion.

Most of the discussion surrounding the Qur'an picture controversy from before January 6, 2006 can be found on the archive page.

Contents

[edit] Straw Poll

No discussion in this thread. Just say what you think should be done. A Keep vote without a descriptor signifies that you are in favor of keeping the controversial picture, while a Delete vote without a descriptor signifies that you believe it should be deleted.

  • Keep image till better one that has a consensus is found is my vote. Jwissick(t)(c) 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia policies. Polls are evil, BTW. Kaldari 23:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete image; approve search for new image per quality, relevance issues. A poll??? Why??? joturner 23:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep till better image with talk-page consensus is found. BYT 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure what this straw poll can hope to achieve, buried as it is in subpage of a talk page. It would need to be more widely publicized, for instance at Wikipedia:Current surveys. -- Curps 01:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
True, it seems the opinions of those active in the debate have said their sides repeatedly. The poll has been added to Wikipedia:Current surveys per request. joturner 02:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I would say this is relevant.Bjones 02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep till better image with talk-page consensus is found. Zora 03:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete picture, then try to get one which is acceptable to Muslims. Personally, I find it offensive that some Muslims object to a woman appearing in this picture, but that's not the point. Any article on Wikipedia should not contain images which contain material likely to upset people who genuinely wish to find out about the subject of the article. An image of a penis is fine on the penis article. A picture of the qur'an is fine on this article. A picture of the qur'an along with something that people wanting to read about the qur'an will be upset by, and which adds little or nothing to the subject, is not necessary.-gadfium 05:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    This picture is not offensive to all muslims, just the more fundamantalist ones. Kaldari 16:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's really not that good of an image. --Carnildo 08:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Crop. I think the picture of the calligraphy is beautiful. If the picture of the exposed female shoulders offends, then crop it out. —James S. 11:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Your opinions is a disgrace to everything that is just and free. Shameful. Despicable! --Anittas 21:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, voting is a disgrace to justice and freedom? The irony overwhelms Sherurcij 19:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with women reading the Qur'an. No one has said that. joturner 13:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and change only in case a better substitute is found. Cheers -- Szvest 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  • Keep not censored for the protection of fundamentalists. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but seek better quality photo - The woman is on the focus of the photo - although there is nothing wrong with the current photo, it is not ideal. DrIdiot 19:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No censorship. --Jannex 20:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP! - No censorship! Wiki should not be influenced by Islamists! --Anittas 21:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers.". the wub "?!" 00:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove (from article - that's the question, not deletion of the image.) It 's too poor quality for such a general illustration purpose. --Ikar.us 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, as the photographer (but do not delete). The model would also like it removed. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Fayssal and wub Babajobu
  • Remove. This is the best image available to illustrate the concept? I would like to think that wikipedia has a more professional standard than this. Would you find this image in a print encyclopedia or National Geographic? --Andrew c 16:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - but seek better quality photo The cropped version seems the best encyclopedic(sp) quality photo that is avaliable. Until a better photo is found leave this one as is.Kode 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove - This picture as such is not bad but not appropriate for this article. I think this picture reduces the seriousness of the artcile. I would vote the same if it is a man standing in a holiday dress. --Soft coderTalk 10:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove As an outside observer, I believe the picture should be removed, and the article improved to add more information about the varying size of the Quran. Thus making the information in said picture obsolete. GL12 19:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is a son of the Enlightenment. We are not hostile to religion, quite the contrary in fact, but we ought to be hostile to superstition. EVERYbody is offended by SOMEthing in Wikipedia. People who are offended by this picture need to ask themselves if a web site dedicated to the free and uncensored flow of information is really the right place for them. Herostratus 08:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. -- Curps 08:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove per photographer and subject's request. It might also be worth doing a separate poll on whether the photographer's request should be honored. Many of the votes here were placed before the photographer's statement, and might have been different if they took that into account. Elonka 16:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, the picture can be removed with the other ones sized larger or with a replacement of the image. The picture doesn't add much to the article and also the photographer and subject have wanted it removed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the photo with the thighs cropped but the arms and the rest of the human figure still included. JamesMLane 20:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove not informative , not related , contradicted to what Quran says.Waleeed 03:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove if it cannot be cropped, it's got nothing to do with "freedom and justice" anymore than you reserve the right to be indignant if WP illustrated Our Lady of Fatima with a picture of the statue with a woman lifting her bra to flash it. *shrugs* Exact same scenario, somebody feels that a major religous icon should not have images of exposed bodyparts, and it's not adding anything that a cropped version wouldn't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherurcij (talk • contribs)
  • Keep People, instead of complaining, come up with a better picture. I'm sure there are some out there, get it. Just because something is offensive to you personally is no reason to remove it, and there is no Muslim consensus that that picture is offensive.Saltyseaweed 03:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe it really is that hard to find a comparable picture. Otherwise, this would have been solved already. joturner 04:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove, really bad photo and what the hell is that infidel woman doing there? She ain't clothed properly also. - Darwinek 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - if wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, then by analogy this ought to be kept. --Pierremenard 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove Not a flattering picture of the tourist. Or of the religious artifact. American Tourist bum + lens flare + religion = bad picture.--Colle 07:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep TestPilot 08:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia should not be censored. dr.alf 06:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Remove. Is there really no better picture? I'm not a muslim but I could easily imagine why it could be offensive. It's like having a picture of a naked man posing with a cross. CG 15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No. It is nothing like a naked man next to a cross. This is a conservatively dressed woman next to a page. If it was a naked man next to a page, then i could see your point, but this is a conservatively dressed woman. Jwissick(t)(c) 22:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • In your culture, that is a conservatively-dressed woman next to a page of a Koran. In most of the Muslim World, that is not a conservatively-dressed woman, and the comparison to a nude man next to a cross is apt. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Count

Keep - 20 (54%); Remove - 16 (43%); Crop - 1 (3%); 02:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

About what Elonka stated, it is important to note the change in overall opinion following the photographer's statement. Since the photographer's statement, six of nine votes have been for removing the photo. Someone suggested that the poll should be closed within this week. But right now, there is hardly a consensus although the trend appears to be towards removing the photo. joturner 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Several of the "keep" votes said to "keep until a better image can be found". A new image has been placed in the article as a potential replacement, from the Library of Congress. If it is acceptable as a replacement, can we proceed with removing the other image? Elonka 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That picture has been in the article for awhile, since before the Straw Poll was initiated. Therefore, I'm doubting those who voted to keep the picture until a replacement could be found would consider that a suitable replacement. joturner 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

This poll has been open for 2 weeks. I think it is time to close it down. Jwissick(t)(c) 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not quite at two weeks yet (still about twenty more hours). And what would the decision be? a) There is no consensus. b) Some will argue that because the picture was there to begin with and there was no majority for removing it, the picture should stay. c) Others will argue that the trend is clearly towards having the picture removed. d) Wikipedia is not a democracy. Essentially, the straw poll means nothing; we need a consensus here. I know, I know... we're never going to get one (unless a new picture is found). But that is Wikipedia policy. joturner 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I hate to propose this, but ...

Someone who is better with Photoshop or Gimp than I am could extend the shirt to cover the offending shoulder. The least alteration possible -- don't photoshop a burqa onto her! I hate this solution, but it might be preferable to all this fighting.

I'm just afraid that our sockpuppety friend wouldn't accept anything save an abaya with khimar and niqab -- i.e., complete coverage, Saudi style. Zora 11:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Zora but that is crazy! Someone w/ Photoshop could better crop it instead of alterating it. Cheers -- Szvest 11:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
I did crop it ages back, but this image apparently didn't give enough scale to the article. See the top few sections of the page. [[Sam Korn]] 13:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Just leave it the hell alone --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you MSK! However, I just see words like hell and heaven not suitable for Wikipedia. I hope we understand that we are not in a market place. Please, try to avoid them. Cheers -- Szvest 20:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Hell, sorry, WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. All the angels in Heaven cannot changing that fucking rule. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't swear unnecessarily. That isn't censorship, just civility. And civility, need I remind you is a Wikipedia policy. [[Sam Korn]] 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, MSK. I don't believe anything in my comments merited that response. It is not necessarily censorship to crop an image just because someone who believed in censorship would have done the same. Mine was an editorial decision, before the horrific debates above came about. Your comment was way out of order. [[Sam Korn]] 21:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
WP articles are WP:NOT censored for the protection of minors. WP talk pages must adhere to WP:CIVILITY, and I have a feeling that while gratuitous use of words like "hell" and "heaven" may constitute a borderline violation of that, gratuitous use of sexual vulgarities on a talk page clearly crosses the line.
If I may continue the point. We are well advised not to censor this image if it is relevant to the page and no other available image will do the same job. We are well advised, too, to treat complaints that such usage is insensitive with an open mind, and to respond to such complaints civilly. BYT 21:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


How about getting permission to use THIS image: [1] I would assume that no one save the Prince of Wales' new wife finds him distracting :)

Of course, this version doesn't have the gorgeous, astonishing calligraphy. Zora 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


This is a much better quality photograph! Does (basically) the same job! Offends no one! If we could get permission, I would use it in a heartbeat! BYT 21:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
That picture is quite small. I agree that Photoshopping the picture is a terrible idea. I'm almost certain I'll be able to make a trip to the Freer Gallery tomorrow to see if I can find the Qur'an pictured (or at least one of similar size) and then photograph it both with a human scale and without. I'm fairly certain I'll be going, but don't hold me to that. joturner 21:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked the Freer Gallery website and found that the Qur'an page was part of a special travelling exhibit on Central Asian art, which was closed on August 7 or 8, I forget which. So the page was probably borrowed from another institution and is probably long gone. Don't make a special trip, Joturner, unless you're sure the page is there. Oh dear, I'll feel guilty if you had to make the trip for nothing! Zora 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And, if for some reason you should decide to trek out to this or a similar exhibit on a photo shoot, just make sure there's no streaker lurking anywhere nearby, hoping for a shot at WP immortality. :) BYT 21:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another picture I found, googling [2]. The Qur'an isn't as large, but it's prettier. Also, the back wall shown is a great illustration of the range of Qur'ans available to the choosy shopper. But I think this picture might be harder to pry out of copyright. Presumably the Prince of Wales' publicity outfit would be happy to let loose of an image that showed the Prince in a good light. Zora 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture mentioned above is a good choice. joturner 23:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Since the hunt is on to google a new picture, I've found this picture of small quran. I guess the only way you know it truly is a quran is becuase the file name is koran.jpg. That is, unless someone understands the language on the page. I don't know how you tackle images under a copyright though.Pepsidrinka 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Removed

The picture has been removed from the page, due to copyright reasons. I just called the Sackler and Freer Gallery (where the original was taken) to see if they had a large folio of the Qur'an on display. Not only did they not have one but they also informed me that visitors are not allowed to take pictures inside the museum. I believe, therefore, that uploading the picture to and using the picture on Wikipedia is therefore prohibited. Am I correct on that? In the meantime, the picture has been removed. joturner 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone has taken a picture, it can be used, whether or not they were allowed to. It is possible that the picture was taken when the rule was not in force. The image was clearly taken by a non-professional, for two reasons. 1) The quality of the image is poor. 2) Quadell is not known to lie. The image may be used. [[Sam Korn]] 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, there can be NO copyright issues if the object is 2D and older than 1924. The guy who snapped the picture may have been breaking museum rules by taking it, but once he gets the picture safely out of the museum, the picture is fair game. I suppose it's evidence of a crime if the museum wants to hunt him down and prosecute him for taking pictures against the rules, but as I doubt that they're going to do that ... I'm restoring the picture. Please, don't try to get your way re the picture by making ersatz copyright claims. Zora 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have already done that. [[Sam Korn]] 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I cannot believe you accused me of that Zora. I did not just make up some copyright claim just to get my way. Surely you can see how I could have mistakenly believed that because a picture was taken against museum rules the picture could not be used. Think before you make such an allegation. joturner 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


School, museum or other organisations' rules are not the same as government law: Under "it's against the museum rules" you could censor a lot of information from articles for similar reasons: "It's against this organisation's rules to reveal potentially damaging information the public" (for a company involved in gross enviromental damage or fraud) etc etc --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Somehow I don't think this article is going to be nominated for Wikipedia:Harmonious Editing Hall of Fame. The tone of argument on this page has been extremely unproductive, IMO. I would like to encourage everyone to step back for a minute, take a few deep breathes, and relax. Remember, Wikipedia is not a discussion board, it's an encyclopedia. We should treat each other as peers and editorial colleagues, with the same respect and civility that we would use if we were all coworkers at Encyclopedia Britannica. Maybe that's a lot to ask, but let's at least make an effort. Kaldari 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. Maybe this should be moved to Talk:Qur'an/Picture Altercation. Or maybe Talk:Qur'an/Picture Squabble for the alliteration? joturner 23:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you Kaldari. Next time, I'll start blocking any user disrespecting others. It is just too much and this kind of behaviour, if acceptable in the street, is never welcomed here and I think rules should apply. If words like f**k are acceptable here than I must remind the offenders that applying policies is the rule. Cheers -- Szvest 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

What exactly is the problem with using "hell"? It's not a swear word.. and definitely not used in a religious context by me, cos well, I don't believe in either of the two myths.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you think the same message could have been delivered more tactfully, MSK? BYT 13:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with religion, it has a lot to do with the market place. I believe you are mature enough to make a difference. Cheers -- Wiki me up™
Excuse me? Did you just threaten to block me for using the word fuck? That is a MASSIVE violation of the blocking policy. I have brought this to the attention of AN/I. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You did very well in bringing this issue there so I'll not be the only admin to warn you about using such words. Cheers -- Szvest 16:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Incivility is bad. Don't be incivil. Completely ignoring the blocking policy is also bad. Don't do that either. Which is to say that everybody is wrong. Phil Sandifer 16:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

People have the right to use vulgar language, so long it's not to insult other people, so what's the fucking problem? This was the line that was used: "all the angels in Heaven cannot changing that fucking rule". Someone tell these housewives who were made admins that they have no right to censor people! Shame on you, redneck housewives! Shame on you, you new-born Christians! --Anittas 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

People are entitled to use words like fuck and hell. Whether they should do so is another matter. Threatening someone with a block for using such words would be an abuse of admin powers. If any user is blocked for using such words they will be instantly unblocked by other admins. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Using gratuitous profanity that another has said he finds offensive is bad manners. Incivility can be disruptive. I did not search this page for examples, but it is not beyond belief that it could eventually get so bad as to be disruptive. I guess it's a judgement call. Tom Harrison Talk 17:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what he finds offensive. The language was not directed to any person. No censorship on Wiki! --Anittas 17:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In some cultures, what others call "profanity" is seen as a method of adding emphasis. Saying "for frig sake", "for fuck sake", "for feck sake" and "for God sake" means the same to many. "Feck" is a Hiberno-English version of "fuck". "Frig" is a polite middle class version. Others see using "God" as more offensive as "fuck", because it refers to a deity rather than a sex act. If "fuck" is unacceptable, then so is "frig", "feck" and in some circumstances "God". Who decides? Whose use of English is decided to be acceptable? Saying "You fucking idiot. You are a fucking disgrace with that edit" is unacceptable not because of the use of "fuck" but because of the overall tone of the sentence. It would be equally wrong if it read "you idiot. You are a disgrace with that edit". It is content and tone, not individual use of words, that breaches civility rules. Banning people for using a word would be a gross abuse of admin powers. If that is the new policy, should I ban a user who used the offensive word "faggotry" in a snide attack on gay people yesterday? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Banning people for using a word might be an abuse. Blocking someone for disruption might not. Tom Harrison Talk 17:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Disruption is measured by content and action, not use of a particular word. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Use of the word must be measured by intent. If someone means to offend by use of a word, that is disruption. Blocks for this behaviour is permissable. [[Sam Korn]] 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the whole point is that the use of "profanity" is not what constitutes the disruption, it's whether or not the person engaged in a personal attack. Use of "unrefined" language is any person's prerogative, and we don't ban for it, for heaven's sake. Wikipedia isn't a monastery or an etiquette school. Babajobu 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone decided to say "fuck" in every possible usage without attacking anyone, would you not consider that a disruption? I'm not commenting on this particular incident but rather your very general comments. Pepsidrinka 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Where I live, this is a class issue. Working class speech in Dublin is peppered with "fuckin"s and "feckin"s and "shit"s and "shite"s. And I do not consider it a "disruption", no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but one written by a wide range of people from different backgrounds and habits of speech. Let's not waste time policing other people's language in hope of making it conform to our preferences. A personal attack is a personal attack. Repeated use of the word "fuck" is not a personal attack. Babajobu 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The language was not "unrefined". It was intentionally offensive. [[Sam Korn]] 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If one user was intentionally offending another user, then that is the problem. But use of profanity is not proof of someone intent to offend. Babajobu 19:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but the context above is proof. [[Sam Korn]] 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Which context is that. The context I see is that Fayssal told two users that "words like hell and heaven not suitable for [the talk pages of] Wikipedia". Hipocrite, presumably irritated by this, as I would have been, said that Wikipedia is not censored and "all the angels in heaven cannot change that fucking rule". Is Hipocrite the one who is guilty of a personal attack? Babajobu 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't see a personal attack there. What I do see is someone coming into a discussion about use of language on Wikipedia talk pages and inserting one of the worst obscenities to grace our schools' playgrounds. I find it impossible to assume good faith on Hipocrite's part, particularly as he was defending that rule. "No censorship" only applies to the article namespace. The relevant policy here was Wikipedia:Civility, under which words like hell and heaven (when used as expletives in these already confrontational circumstances) probably shouldn't be used. [[Sam Korn]] 20:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, he was already in the conversation, he had voted in the straw poll just above the "profanity" thread. I agree with you completely when you say "words like hell and heaven (when used as expletives in these already confrontational circumstances) probably shouldn't be used." But that's entirely different from what we see above, which is an admin telling users which words (irrespective of context) are or are not "suitable for Wikipedia" (And I like Fayssal a lot, incidentally). And from what I can make of the above talk, the issuance of the "not suitable for Wikipedia" remark was what precipitated this entire conversation. Until that, one user had said "hell". But the "not suitable" remark led to angry/annoyed comments from several users. So I don't think such declarations are a very helpful way to keep the tone of talk pages civil. Babajobu 20:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I entirely agree. However, I also think that Hipocrite's comment was out of order. [[Sam Korn]] 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed photo again...

I see it has been changed again. W/o consensus. I think the new image looses all scale of the page and should be reverted back again. Jwissick(t)(c) 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted. With the completely cropped version you can't appreciate the size of the folio. Babajobu 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
At least y'all have some more options to work with, since someone just talked about cropping the image and it was not acted on. But, I will step aside and let yall fight over it. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Nothing to fight over... the consensus is clear to keep the photo. Jwissick(t)(c) 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see your consensus, but alas, that's not my problem. [[Sam Korn]] 12:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A statement from the photographer and the model

Sorry to chime in so late, but I just found out about this controversy today. I'm the photographer, and the woman in the photograph is my wife.

It was never my intention to be disrespectful to the Qur'an, and I apologize. I wanted to include a person in the photograph in order to show scale, but it never entered my mind that it could be objectionable. I wish she had photographed me in the picture instead, but it'll probably be a while before I visit the museum again. My wife is particularly saddened that a picture of her is causing distress - she compares it to an image of a woman in a small bikini holding a bible in the Bible article - and she has asked that the photo be removed from the article. I personally feel that the image belongs in Timur, where the woman is needed in the image in order to show scale (at least until a replacement image of the folio with a different person is found), but that it is inappropriate to include it in the Qur'an article. The gain from the additional image, in an article that already has images of four different Qur'ans, isn't worth the loss of chasing away users and giving Wikipedia a bad name in the Muslim community.

As an aside, I'm saddened to see how many people many people have made disparaging comments about both my wife and my photography skills. About the former, she is a very modest person, and was not intending to be revealing; it was simply a very hot day, and her clothing was appropriate for the location. About the latter, it's quite difficult to get a good photo of an item behind glass. I'm certainly not a professional photographer, but I do like to contribute photographs to help improve Wikipedia, and it's unhelpful to be too rude when criticising others' work. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm one who mentioned the poor quality, but I didn't want to say anything about your skills. The best phptographer sometimes creates poor pictures, if difficult circumstances occur together with missing possibility or intent to make much effort.
What I wanted to say was just that I don't see a reason to defend a poor picture in a place where it doesn't add information.
--Ikar.us 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I was feeling a little touchy. No hard feelings. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Per request of the photographer, I went ahead and removed (commented out) the picture. I know that this has been a controversial issue, so I hope I am not considered to have acted out of line. As a third party new to the discussion though, it seemed the right thing to do. Elonka 19:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you did wrong in wanting the photo removed. [ Personal attack removed by User:Quadell] --Anittas 19:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what Wikipedia policy is, but I would think that once the picture is released under GFDL the photographer no longer has any special say over what is done with it. I think it's appropriate that it was restored. Babajobu 23:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the photographer cannot claim copyright or control of the picture. But it just seems to be me that the honorable thing to do would be to abide by his request. Is the picture really so important to the page, that it has to stay there, despite the request of the person in it, and the person who made it? Elonka 00:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the photographer does not have control of the picture. But like Elonka said, his opinion should be weighted significantly. joturner 00:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time I've seen this happen. There is controversy over a picture, and the person who took it shows up and asks that it be removed. I don't think it's a particularly good resolution. Wikipedia needs to deal with these issues regardless, and guilting the photographer into asking for it to be taken down seems a problematic conclusion. I'm happy to give Quadell's wishes some extra weight, out of courtesy, but I don't support using it as a debate-stopping resolution to the issue. Someone also tried to use spurious copyright claims to close down the discussion. I think we just need to be grown-ups and let the discussion take its course. The picture has already been cropped significantly to cater to some people's sexual anxieties and fear of women, but a few readers still objected. We're now taking a strawpoll to see whether even a female arm is too scandalous for the article. I don't think we should now preempt that debate, with all respects to Quadell. And I'd also point out that this is not a Muslim v. non-Muslim debate. There are several Muslim Wikipedians above who have registered their opinion that the picture should be kept in the article until/unless a better one is found. So we can offend a few Salafist readers by leaving the picture up, or we can offend numerous secular editors by catering to what they see as a misogynistic point-of-view. Either way we'll offend people. There's no way around that. So we might as well just let the strawpoll continue. Babajobu 05:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu - the controversy over the picture is not about the "bare arm" or catering to some editors' "fear of women". For some reason, this idea is being brought up primarily by the pro side as a way to defeat the con side. The vast majority of the con side is using quality and relevance to back up their opinion. In addition, the "spurious copyright claim" you were alluding to was not spurious at all. It was incorrect, but not an intentionally bad (and "spurious") copyright claim. Please stop thinking otherwise. joturner 21:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, I'm happy enough to characterize this talk page as a protracted disagreement over the aesthetic merits of the photograph. Apologies for implying that the copyright claim was knowingly false, I realize that it wasn't and didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Babajobu 22:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Observation the First: It's a secular encyclopedia.
  • Observation the Second: Once the photographer releases the image and it's fair use, he or she should not, in my view, have any additional weight in the development of any consensus regarding the disposition of the photograph. (Might be a different situation, though, if an individual's face were visible, because of the possibility of personal attack or harassment if the photo lands in a controversial setting.)
  • Observation the Third: Thus far, no consensus has emerged to move this photo; to the contrary, vote seems to me to be inclining slightly to keep.
  • Observation the Fourth: This really shouldn't go on forever.
  • Question: When and how should we close out this vote? BYT 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


It's been running 9 days.. I say give it another 5 and close it on the 18th. Two weeks should be more than enough. Jwissick(t)(c) 22:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of the ideas presented here

I'm going to try to run down (briefly) the pros and cons presented here; let me know if I err too egregiously.

[edit] Pros

  • Image illustrates very large folio
  • Person present in image lends useful sense of scale
  • Folio presented is of noteworthy age/quality/size, and is on display in a major institution (the Smithsonian—Freer Gallery?)

[edit] Cons

  • Concerns exist about appropriateness of figure with bare head/arm etc. in picture of this particular subject
  • Technical problems exist with image, especially the distracting flash reflection from glass. (Shame on you Quadell for using a flash in a gallery!)
  • Picture may be of lower quality than other article images.

Comments? Thoughts? Has this article been to Peer Review recently? Perhaps someone has another image of a large folio we could use...? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would add a con that the photographer and model want the photo removed from this article. It's not legally binding in any way, but it's a request that many editors have said should be given more weight. I'd also note that the image is used on Wikipedia elsewhere, and many "remove" voters (including me) think the image would be appropriate in pages about that particular folio, or even an article about notable printings of the Qur'an. About the flash: yeah, but I don't have a tripod, so the photos taken without a flash looked worse. It's clear that no suitable replacement exists at this time, so that could be a Pro argument as well. Quadell 14:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a good way to advertise a request for a replacement image to the Wikipedia community: preferably to someone who is near this museum and has a good digital camera and a tripod? Jonathunder 11:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That Qur'an page was part of a travelling exhibit and is no longer at the Smithsonian. What no one says about the picture is that its notable because the calligraphy is so beautiful. I'm willing to give ground on the picture if a better one can be found but ... I'll miss the calligraphy. It's astonishing. Zora 12:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Zora...the calligraphy is astonishing, and never have I seen anything like the sheer size of the folio...I think the picture is a perfect one for its section, namely "Writing and printing the Qur'an". The only drawback is the glare, which affects only a small portion of the picture and which I find relatively unobtrusive. I wonder whether someone could photoshop away some of the glare, to appease those who find it distracting. Babajobu 13:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
So is the purpose of the picture now the beautiful calligraphy? We can easily find a picture of Qur'anic calligraphy. I thought the issue was over the use of this photo for demonstrating size versus removing it for quality reasons. joturner 13:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the whole first sentence of my reply to Zora, or did you run out of steam half way through? I was agreeing with her that the calligraphy is astonishing, and also pointed out again that the size of the folio is unbelievable. The fact that such calligraphy was done on such a scale is doubly impressive. Perhaps this is part of the reason it was brought to the Smithsonian? Because it's exceptional? Babajobu 13:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, my reply was to Zora. I tried to imply that by adding just one indent more than her post rather than one indent more than yours. joturner 14:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep cool, guys. We've pretty-much acheived civility here, but the talk page is still perilously close to descending into negativity. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, missed the indent tip-off. In fairness to Zora, then, this is hardly the first time she's mentioned the beauty of the calligraphy. Babajobu 14:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Message to the photographer and the model.

Thanks for your request , and i appreciate your request from my deepest heart , and I would like to stress on this , I'm not against your picture nor against your wife , my protest was against that the picture is not suitable in this context , that is it. I apology for you if i cause any troubles or bad feelings , but believe me this picture in this context is hurting all faithful Muslims (Sunna or Shia ) and you will not find any fiqh opinion says it is suitable , in our Islam faith covering the head and the body is ended topic , there is no debate over this , only debate is about covering face and hands or not , that is it , only debate about the way women cover her head , but the principle is not debated topic , and if somebody want to make sure of this issue , he can ask in any Islamic studies section in respected universities and this way he can verify . So in my opinion this is so contradicting that the quran says that and you put picture like this .

Thanks for all persons want to remove it because they respect other people faith , and who is doing this is real secular person.

Waleeed 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This is Wiki. In Wiki, those rules don't apply. There is no debate over this. Also, I don't think it says that the woman most cover her head. It merely says that it's decent, but not as a requirement. Am I wrong? Even if I were wrong, this is still Wiki and we shouldn't discriminate based on someone's patriarchal beliefs. --Anittas 08:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say women should , i said the Quran says and the picture is contradicting to what quran says , and Quran is the belief of millions of people not "someone's patriarchal beliefs", i hope you will read the whole discussion again and discover this your self , i didn't speak about discrimination , i just mentioned the "Context" and I will say it again : YOU CAN USE THE PICTURE ANY WHERE ELSE RELATED TO ITS MAIN TOPIC , BUT IN THIS "CONTEXT" IS NOT SUITABLE . my statement is very simple and doesn't refer to any discrimination or any thing , I just mentioned the context of the article. Waleeed 09:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What the Quran says is irrelevant to this site. This is Wikipedia. Do you get that? Wikipedia doesn't follow the rules written in the Quran. --Candide, or Optimism 05:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
another thing , there is no debate over women should cover their head in Islam , this topic is not debatable , and i can say that you are wrong , and also you will find rare and strange opinions says they shouldn't cover , so to be honest with you , 99.99% fiqh opinions , based on Quran statements says the women should do that , the debate is ony about the way , not the principle it self.Waleeed 09:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Back it up. Post the line here with the reference. --Candide, or Optimism 05:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to do this , for simple reason you already gave it to me , "What the Quran says is irrelevant to this site" read your comment again , I'm not interested to prove this , you can search this if you want ( and I think you are not interested you just bring dead argument here , or try to start flame war ) so i will not post this here upon your request , FYI i consider my self lucky person because i have the chance to discuss this topic beside having the chance to know this site and the people behind this for me considered big gain , and now I'm confident that all of you are doing great job , but some critique will not hurt. Salam Waleeed 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Waleeed, you said "YOU CAN USE THE PICTURE ANY WHERE ELSE RELATED TO ITS MAIN TOPIC , BUT IN THIS "CONTEXT" IS NOT SUITABLE". The picture has been moved from where it was originally several days ago, yet you still complain. It was in The Qur'an and Islamic culture and is now in Writing and printing the Qur'an. It has been moved as you wished, yet you still complain. So, one of two things is going on here. Either you just want the photo removed cause you think it is offensive OR you are a troll. Given your behavior here, I think it is the latter.Jwissick(t)(c) 06:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think he's a troll. I think he's an Islamist. The photo should have never been from the first place. You people made a horrible mistake in granting this Islamist his wish. --Candide, or Optimism 06:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Jwissick, I'm sorry if i miss used English terms , since English is not my first language , so forgive me if i give fuzzy words like that , my objective is you can use the picture under its main topic ( museums or photography ) , so if you have key topic talk about Islamic museums , OK , use this picture in this topic , but here under Quran (key topic) ( in this context) is not related in my opinion , i hope i had clarified my point, if you still find it fuzzy , please let me know. Waleeed 08:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Waleeed, the problem here is that it is deeply offensive to many of us--indeed, it contradicts our beliefs--to remove a photo just because a woman's arm is showing. So as long as we're making these decisions based purely on trying to avoid offense, it seems that we're at a bit of an impasse. Babajobu 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Waleeed. I understand and respect both of your points of view. For myself, I would simply rather that if there is to be such a controversial image on Wikipedia, that it not be of my wife. That's not much to ask. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
lol, yeah, seems an understandable enough position! lol again! Babajobu 17:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, I understand what you are saying here , but it is not war between believes here , this is encyclopedia and should have certain rules to deal with issues , for example if i was the owner of secularism topic and put very offensive pictures there to support my belief and to force other people to think about secularism this way ? will you try to change this ?! contradiction should happen and there is no way to avoid it , but in this case at least we should respect each other , and respecting here in this case is very simple , keeping the topic in scientific way without hurting other people faith , it is like putting picture of birds in topic speaking about mars !!!! the problem is not the woman arm or not , but the problem is the context , there is no single relationship , if you want pictures about the printing of the Quran you will find millions of them , if you ask universities to help you , they will welcome providing you with these pictures , so it is not unique or rare picture and this shouldn't be the only reason to keep it . I'm telling you , no one of those who want to keep the picture give me reasonable reason to keep it , all reasons in my opinion is that they hate religious way of removing picture and in the same time they behave the same way religious behave , so there is no wonder that the war will continue between the religious people and secularism people as long both parties behave like this . and one last think , a lot of Muslim when they see this picture under this topic (not any where else)they will be offended by the picture and they will stop using wikipedia. So I don't want it to be removed because i believe that women should be covered , NO NO NO , I didn't say that , every person had the right to wear and to think and to behave as he would like , but in the main time he should respect other people faith , if he want other people to respect his faith as well.

Quadell, I really support your request since it is very simple and polite request. Waleeed 17:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Waleeed, but the problem is that this is not at all like the case of a picture of birds in an article about Mars. Indeed, if the photo were, say, merely of a woman dancing, then I would absolutely support the removal of the photograph from this article, because it would be totally irrelevant. But in this case, we have a picture of a woman standing next to an astonishingly large folio from the Quran, with exceptional and elaborate calligraphy to boot. The Smithsonian was impressed, and so are many of us. Moreover, a human is necessary in order to demonstrate the great size of the folio. So this picture is entirely relevant to the section it's in, which is "Writing and printing the Quran". If we are to remove it, there must be another reason. Respecting your beliefs is one possible reason...except that some of us would be disrespecting our own beliefs in honoring yours. So it's a bit of a conundrum. Regards, Babajobu 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, why you are going to remove it if the woman was dancing ?! it can be dancing beside the picture and with the same size and you can keep it because there is no equivalent picture , and another thing , if you want large pictures , ask for it and you will find , all of you give me the impression that this is the only picture on the earth and this is the only picture that will impress, if you see that the picture is relevant OK , I had no problem to live with that. I want the picture to be removed ( changed ) not to honor my believe , but to show respect to the most holy book for all Muslims around the world , it is so simple issue , really and i wonder why you keep arguing about this , you know i was expecting topic about the quran to be more informative not this way , why ?? you can attract a lot of people to help you , but this way you are discouraging many of them even to look at the topic.. Waleeed 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Waleed, we have all already agreed that if someone can produce as useful a picture, and one that we are free to use, then we will happily replace the picture. But as of yet, no one has done that. And whatever one thinks of the picture, it certainly is informative and relevant. It's true, some people may be discouraged to look at the topic because of the woman's arm, but Wikipedia would also discourage a great many readers by becoming the type of place that removed content because it conflicted with someone's pieties somewhere in the world. And you say that all Muslims around the world feel as you do, but several Muslim Wikipedians have already said that the picture should be kept. So perhaps there is rather more intellectual and religious diversity in Dar al-Islam than you know. Anyway, I do hope you continue to enjoy Wikipedia. The picture may end up being removed, even if we can't find a replacement that is as good! That would discourage some secular people and some women, but others would obviously feel encouraged. We shall see. Regards, Babajobu 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu , I totally agree with you , i hope i had clarified my point , and GOOD LUCK to all of you.

Salam. 134.134.136.4 19:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Waleeed, I understand your concerns, but as has been said, we cannot tailor to the beliefs of one religion. Unfortunate as that is, that does not mean you cannot disagree with keeping the picture. Go ahead and record your vote in the Straw Poll to make it official.
However, I'm not sure if I agree with Babajobu's prediction that removing the photo will deter some secular people and some women from reading the article. As I have said several times before, I am unhappy that the topic of the "right to bare arms" keeps being brought up by the side in favor of keeping the photo. If the picture were to be removed, it would most likely be a combination of reasons, although one of them may be the potential offensiveness of the picture. But that alone is not what is fueling votes for removing the photo. Much of the con side is saying that the photograph is simply not of encyclopedic standards. You would never see this kind of photograph in a print edition of an encyclopedia because, although the woman does provide scale, the woman is too involved in the picture. Looking at the picture, it is unlikely one would see just the Qur'an. Instead, it is likely one would see a Qur'an and a woman standing next to it. Similarly, if someone on vacation were to have his picture taken while he is standing next to a totem pole "for scale", the photograph would portray not just the totem pole, but the totem pole with someone posing next to it. The woman in the picture isn't subtle enough to not seem like a main part of the picture. If she were more covered, she may have seemed less subtle, like an afterthought or "human scale". Unfortunately, we will never know.
So yes, the pro side can continue to use this "women's right to bare arms" issue as a vehicle to disagree with those in favor of removing the photo. But I would like to see more of them addressing the issue the majority of the con side is raising. Is the woman too prevalent in the picture? Is the quality of the photograph really up to the standards of an encyclopedia? And aren't the photographer's and subject's wishes worth considering? Take a look at the rationales for remove votes and you will see that those are the main concerns. joturner 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Jotourner, we are advocating the "right to bare arms", as you felicitiously put it, because many of the "remove voters", and especially many of the editors who keep removing the photo, say that the female arm is offensive. I've already addressed how I feel about the other aspects of the photo. I respond to the "how dare you show such a picture" because this is the reasoning to which I strongly object, whereas other arguments I find more reasonable. If the photo is removed, I want it to be because of the aesthetic concerns, and not because the female arm is scandalous to some people. Babajobu 07:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to attarct your attention , i have here a good link about old printing of the quran and form the site it self it says: "The Chester Beatty codex’s historical and artisitic significance lies in being the earliest known Qur’an in Naskh script and the only surviving work of the great calligrapher and illuminator Ibn al-Bawwāb. Moreover, it is the only fully illuminated manuscript of the Buwayhid period." see this link for your info , and you can contact the owner of the site to ask for photos. http://www.ziedan.com/English/HolyQuraan/ibnalbawab.asp http://www.ziedan.com/English/windows_islam.asp?bm=244&_section=15 134.134.136.4 19:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's funny. As it happens, the Chester Beatty library is in Dublin and I live right near it. They are pretty proprietary about their stuff, but I can ask. Babajobu 19:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
you can contact the site owner , since it is published on the site , i think it will be easy to accomplish this task.

134.134.136.4 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure it would be easy to contact them, securing permission to freely distribute images of their collection will be more difficult. I'm leaving town for a week, when I return I'll call and ask. In the meantime, I would suggest that the people who want the picture removed should take the lead in finding a replacement photo of equal or greater usefulness. Babajobu 05:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
this is personal site for one of the most important figures in the arabic manuscripts , this is personal site for Prof. Dr. Youssef Ziedan , and i'm sure he will wlecome providing you with any manuscript , he had a quite unique collection of them and he is currently working in Library of Alexandria in egypt as the director of manuscript section , sure he will wlecome your request. Waleeed 08:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
And actually, looking at the photos you showed, the calligraphy in the first one is fantastic, but we already have photos of Qurans with nice calligraphy. Ideally we could find a photo of a Quran that was exceptional in a different respect, as the huge folio is. Babajobu 05:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Just my own 2 cents, (as a Christian btw), is that the image is not integral to the article as-is. This has nothing to do with bare arms, and simply a matter of "It is an amateur snapshot, not a deliberate photograph" - in an article that isn't lacking images, I would probably make a note on the talk page asking if I could remove it, even if it was the woman standing before a painting of Winnie the Pooh. On a second note, I can't help but think photoshop could easily crop the photograph so it was contextual ("Here is an image of a large folio", rather than "Here is an image of my wife in a museum, looking at stuff"), and again, is probably something I'd suggest even if this were a picture of Winnie the Pooh. Finally, just to play Advocatus Diaboli, there was [article about the Vancouver Skybridge] in which a Wikipedian kept insisting we had no right to remove his image of the bridge with topless women on it. It was a picture of the bridge, and we don't censor Wikipedia for minors..., so why would we remove the picture just because it bothered some "puritanical westerners"? Well because the subject of the controversy, in both cases, the figures in the photograph, were not essential to understanding the article - even if something else in the image was - so why create trouble? As per the question of scale, look at all the images of artwork in the David article, we don't have people pose beside the Statue of David, just to "give a sense of scale" *shrugs* Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 06:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sherurcig, many editors think that a person is necessary in this picture in order to indicate the exceptional scale of the folio. There is a cropped version of the picture, but several editors objected to its use because then it is no longer evident that the folio is several feet high and a few feet wide. I agree that the lack of an indicator of scale is a drawback in the article on David. It's hard to see how that could be mitigated, though. I doubt anyone is allowed to stand on David's plinth. Babajobu 06:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've heard that people who have only seen the statue in pictures are surprised by its scale -- it's 17 feet high, three times the height of a normal man. That's the reason why the hands and head are larger than one would expect -- they have to look "normal" to someone staring up at the statue from 17 feet below. Yes, without a human for scale, all that is lost [3]. Zora 07:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the picture countless times, and I had no idea that it was 17 feet tall until I just referred to the article on it. Wow. Perhaps we can get Quadell's wife to climb up on to the plinth and have a picture taken! Babajobu 07:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There's just one problem with the above argument. Wikipedia has many, many, many images of museum pieces (painting, sculptures, and many other art objects) and hardly a single one has a live human being in it for scale (or a ruler, or any object that indicates scale). To a close approximation, zero percent of them do. This is not just true of Wikipedia images, but also for images in art history books, museum catalogs and guidebooks, coffee table books, etc etc.
Among literally thousands of other examples, our image of the Winged Victory of Samothrace has no human figure "for scale". And if someone substituted our Mona Lisa image with a poor-quality image of the painting with a person next to it and flash reflection on the glass, it would be reverted quite quickly.
How is it then that this "showing scale is vital" argument has been invented for this one image and this image only? It seems to be simply a pretext to keep this image at all costs. Censorship is never a reason to remove images from Wikipedia; however, it is equally true that "crying censorship" is never in and of itself a sufficient reason to keep an image. Yet when the specious "human scale" argument falls away, all that remains is "the terrorists will have won". This attitude is disappointing.
PS, if you ever get to see the Mona Lisa up close, it's actually surprisingly small. -- Curps 07:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Curps, short answer: because the size of most museum pieces and books is not exceptional; their noteworthiness comes from other characteristics. In the case of this photo, the scale is absolutely essential to appreciate what makes the piece noteworthy. However, all of us who want to keep the image have agreed that it can be removed if a better such image is found. So we're not trying to keep the image at all costs, but only objecting to its removal if it is for reasons of censorship. FWIW, you are the first person on this page to mention anything about "terrorists". Babajobu 07:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Please look up the Wikipedia article on the phrase "The terrorists will have won". It's not actually about terrorists; it's about a cliché and a certain style of argument.
Contrary to what you say, there are many museum pieces that are very large, including many famous paintings (the canvas of The Raft of the Medusa, for instance, among hundreds of other possible examples: it's 5 × 7 meters, or 16 × 23.5 feet). The David statue has already been mentioned above. Many of these are as large or quite a lot larger than the Qur'an in question.
In North Korea there is a 27-meter statue of Kim Il Sung. If we ever have an article on it, feel free to include a picture with a human being in it for scale. The statue is famous solely for being the largest one-piece statue in the world, and not for any inherent artistic quality. That is not the case here. You really haven't provided any justification at all why this particular Qur'an belongs in the "one in a thousand" category along with Kim Il Sung. -- Curps 08:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC) -- Curps 08:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Because I've seen a great many folios from Qurans, Christian illuminated manuscripts, et cetera, and never in my life have I seen one this large. Babajobu 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Curps, Perfect argument and i noticed this also, the real Mona Lisa is small , the one published here on wikipedia is beautiful , really size is not essential , but size is also information , and instead of reading/searching article for this info about size i want to find it easily from the human/other scale indicate the size of the picture, i think you can propose standards for indicating size for images or you put some indication ( i mean new template for displaying images).Waleeed
Actually, our Mona Lisa article gives its size in the caption: 77 × 53 cm. We could easily do the same here if it was considered absolutely essential.. but in most other comparable Wikipedia images other than paintings, even this is not considered necessary, such as David or Winged Victory of Samothrace, or countless other examples. -- Curps 08:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I mean you can add small indication , like photos , or some visual figures , somtimes using one scaling system cause confuse to other people using diiferent one , and this will not remove the size information it self , but it will be added as a visual aspect,Waleeed 09:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
And Waleed, I have to agree with those above who say that, though you argue that Quran requires women to hide their arms, Wikipedia just doesn't adhere to Sharia. A Sharia-compliant Wikipedia might be an interesting fork, though. Babajobu 16:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I have considered this more than once during these kinds of conversations. When we are faced with such a situation as this, I could say, "Brother, that is precisely why we have Islamopedia!" Seriously, if we have a Wookiepedia... BYT 19:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Babajobu, I agree also with you , I hope somebody can figure out my real intention , all what i said that Quran Said that , and you display that and this and that is contradicting , I swear it is very simple issue , and i'm not trying to bring religious talk.RegardsWaleeed 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Waleed, I do understand that you think the picture is irrelevant to the Quran article...this is a fair enough argument. I'm just saying that when you've stated a few times above that the picture "contradicts the Quran", this is not, in my mind, a helpful argument. But I'm not attempting to be critical of you, personally. Babajobu 17:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, thanks for clarifying your point , yes we shoudln't agree , at least we can still discuss.Waleeed 19:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Waleeed, it is irrelevant what the Koran says, wikipedia is not governed by the Koran. I think the Muslims will be mature enough to understand that there are women out there who are not Muslims and consequently do not cover their head. Why is that concept so offensive to you? In my opinion, you have overblown a trival point and wasted everyone's time.Saltyseaweed 03:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This section of the Talk page has confused me significantly. I lost track a long time ago. joturner 03:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The latest removals

Quadel, the photographer, and Anonymous Editor have both removed the picture. Joturner argues that this is "fair", because lots of people want it removed. I believe that it was agreed that the picture would stay up while the vote was being held. I'm not sure that the vote is officially ended, but there is, so far, a majority in favor of keeping the picture. I find it disturbing that those who are losing the vote would take unilateral action.

Can't one of the deletionists make an effort to get a replacement picture? That would solve the problem, as those arguing against censorship seem to have agreed that the picture can be replaced if no information is lost. Zora 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion has definitely died down significantly. I'm not sure you can consider it still open. People can obviously still vote, but the interest has clearly turned to apathy. All I'm hearing from the pro side is that keeping the image is a stand against censorship (which relies on the idea that the "deletionists" are deleting the picture for censorship). But what do you think the image brings to the article that the other pictures can't portray? And what do are you looking for in this "replacement picture?" joturner 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, The picture shows the skills of the craftsmen in Timur who created this page. As you know, a replacement image for this image could not be easily found because it is very rare to find large copies of Quran. --Soft coderTalk 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Your rationale for why the picture helps the page explains why it belongs on the Timur article, but does not seem to explain why it belongs on the Qur'an article. joturner 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
"We had a sufficient number of votes in favor of removing the picture." Uh...how so? Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but this is not a blanket warrant to disregard the will of the majority and impose your own viewpoint when your opinion is in the minority. The "keep" majority has been very fair in offering to remove the picture as soon as a suitable replacement is found...if no comparable picture exists, then this enormous, exquisitely drawn folio is even more exceptional than I had realized. But I suspect you will be able to find something. Babajobu 07:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said in my re-addition summary (which no doubt you saw), I re-added the picture in accordance with the photographer. I have not been deleting the picture repeatedly throughout this discussion. Must you direct all the blame of imposing a minority viewpoint upon me? I'm not saying you should get on the photographer or even AnonymousEditor either, but I am surprised that I am the target of all the criticism when I am at the same time trying to reason with the pro-keep side. joturner 11:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not blaming you for anything, I'm just disagreeing with your removal of the picture, and responding to the citation of "Wikipedia is not a democracy" as well as the claim that there are a "sufficient number of votes in favor of removing the picture". The reason I have responded to you and not Quadell or Anonymous Editor is because neither of them has defended their removal on the talkpage. But this is not a fight, and you should not take disagreement as an assault. Babajobu 11:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I would ask that anyone removing the photo not tag it as a minor edit, as AE did...I think the existence of this talk page makes clear that there is nothing minor about it. Babajobu 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know that this is a controversial subject, and I wish the vote could have revealed a consensus about the matter, but it didn't. Since there is no consensus, there's no difinitive answer as to what's appropriate, sadly.

The fact is, I'm just not comfortable having an image of my wife misused in this way. Yes I uploaded the photo, but I never intended for it to be used in an article on the Noble Qur'an, so I'm going to remove it. I know that many of you will disagree with me, and I respect that, but I'd ask that you use a photo of your own wife, and leave mine out of it. It pains me to be so stubborn about this, but I take this very personally. Thank you, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Quadell, the thing is, though...the whole point of uploading an image under the GFDL is that you are surrendering the right to OK every use of the picture. If you had specific criteria for how the picture was to be used, you really ought to have considered that before choosing to so freely license the picture. You no longer have any special control over the picture, except to the extent that other editors do you the courtesy of acceding to your wishes. Announcing that you have decided to remove the picture isn't really an option. Babajobu 16:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And of course, we can't stick our wives (or anyone else) into the picture, because we don't have access to the folio. You did, which is why it was worth uploading to Wikimedia Commons. Babajobu 16:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I have to say that I'm troubled that the remove voters, having failed to obtain a consensus (or even anywhere near a majority) seem to have decided that they will simply try to revert-war their way to their desired version. Babajobu 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand your position. I am not claiming that having the image on this page is a copyright violation; I'm asking you to please leave my family out of this. Having this image here is intolerable to me, it's a violation of my wife's privacy, and it's a slur against her reputation. Just because something is legal, that doesn't make it right. I'm not trying to convince you that the image is inappropriate on the page; I'm asking you to be a decent human being here. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Quadell, take Jotourner's word for it: as he's said a number of times, this really has nothing to do with the "appropriateness" of the picture, it only has to do with the aesthetic merits of the picture. Some "keep" voters have disingenuously attempted to make this about your wife's arm, but no (or vanishingly few) "remove" voters ever noticed such a trifling thing. So, that being the case, I can't imagine why you say the use of the picture here is a "slur against her reputation". Nobody is bothered by your wife's presence here, despite what some of the keep voters may have wanted you to believe. Babajobu 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Quadell, again, you are somehow under the misapprehension that remove voters are responding to the presence of your wife's arm: you are internalizing misogyny that no one else feels! As Jotourner pointed out, the "remove the scandalous arm" is a red herring canard circulated by disingenuous "keep" voters. Remove voters do not actually feel that way. Anyway, how in heaven's name is the existence of this picture a "slur against [your wife's] reputation", especially as her face is not visible and no one is bothered by her presence in the picture. And how is it a "violation of her privacy" to post a picture that will remain freely available on Wikimedia commons under a free license? Babajobu 19:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that I'm finding the opinions of at least one pro-keeper (Babajobu) favorable. Jazakallahu Khayran.
But Quadell, I am quite disheartened that you have reverted the page back to the version without the photo not once, but twice since my postings yesterday and this morning. That makes three times within the past twenty-four hours. When I removed the picture yesterday (note that that was not a revert), I was going along with you as a courtesy. The discussion seemed to have had died down with little consensus. And so, given that you had a decent reason, given that many (albeit not a majority of) people had agreed with removing the photo, and given that images are often removed from pages during relative peacetime, I went along with your relative peacetime edit. Unfortunately, your rationale has turned from a decent one to one of fervor. It is unfortunate that one of your pictures is a subject of great debate, but that does not mean you can continuously delete it as it now appears you are doing. Since you are an administrator, you should know not to repeatedly prolong/start revert wars. I have not at this moment reverted the page back to the version with the picture (because that could be perceived as continuing the revert war), but I hope that if and when someone does return the page to the version with the photo that you not revert again, but instead continue the discussion on the now-revived talk page. joturner 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacement Picture

Let's move our collective energies towards an equitable solution. As far as I can tell almost every one still involved agrees that if we can find a replacement picture this whole issue can be brought to a close. So, what steps, if any, have been taken to find a replacement picture? If some one can supply the date and location that this picture was taken I can track down the owner of the work and explain what's going on and ask for a higher quality photograph. (Or even find where it's traveling to next so a wikipedian can visit the exibit and take a new picture.)
Kode 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The photo was taken at the Freer Gallery in the Smithsonian (Washington, D.C.) in May of 2005, but the folio is no longer there. I'm not sure where it is now. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Quadell, I assumed that when you said "will discuss on talk page" that you would be offering an explanation for why you removed the picture without consensus. A majority of voters want the picture retained. In the past you said you agreed that since the picture had been released to the Creative Commons, you no longer "owned" it. Have you had a change of heart? Babajobu 16:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(See above - I'm just slow.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Quadell, before your post I contacted the smithsonian and they refered me to the information request at asia.si.edu. I have just finished sending them a copy of my letter when I came back here. Dave Burgevin of the American History Photographic Archives directed me to the Freer-Sackler galleries since they deal primarily with Near East and far East objects d'art.
Kode 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The Freer and Sackler galleries definitely does not have the picture there anymore. I called them at the beginning of January because I was going to go take another picture, but they had absolutely no idea what I was talking about. In addition, they don't allow pictures to be taken there (although I would have been willing to break that rule to end this protracted discussion). joturner 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moot

This discussion is now moot, as the photo no longer exists on Wikipedia. This talk page is no longer on my watchlist. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow...Quadell just wildly abused his admin privileges to delete a useful picture from Wikimedia commons without any support whatsoever. Can you say "rouge"??? Babajobu 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Quadell, that was an incredibly terrible thing to do. Completely unethical. joturner 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A discussion revolving Quadell's abuse of powers can be found on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quadell. Feel free to weigh in on the matter. joturner 23:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Since he uploaded it, it is fine for him to delete it IMO. Why are people so concerned over removing it anyways? It's just a picture. We wouldn't do all this for any other ordinary picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Although I do not want the picture in the article, the undiscussed deletion and revert warring certainly must be considered wrong for an admin. That is why I initiated the request. If he had gone through the process for getting the picture deleted (which is what any ordinary editor-photographer would have had to do), it is highly unlikely this picture would have been deleted. joturner 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Quadell, you just abused your admin powers in a huge way. I understand you have changed your mind about having your wife in the photo, but you uploaded it so as far as I am concerned, you are SOL. You made your choice and now you can't live with it? She's not even identifiable in the least. That you would disregard the results of the poll and the wishes of the majority with abuse of your priviliges disturbs me. Not good. Jwissick(t)(c) 06:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a person at the gallery who is willing to provide an alternate picture and he e-mails me back saying that the picture link is dead. I need a copy of that picture to show the gallery what we're looking for. Thanks for making me look like a fool... Even if the gallery no longer has the piece in it's collection they can tell me who does if I can provide the picture showing them what I'm talking about. I don't have a copy of the picture in my browser's cache so any one who does please e-mail me kodemage |at| gmail |dot| com
Kode 06:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I suspected something like this would happen, so I saved the photo localy a few weeks ago. I am tempted to put it back up... Comments? Jwissick(t)(c) 06:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Jwissick, good thinking...Quadell's deletion was insanely out-of-process and not his right at all. I think you should put it back up, at the very least so Kodemage can use it to try to get a new, better copy from the gallery. Babajobu 07:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be most unhelpful to re-upload the picture. Quadell did right by his wife, and he probably felt that was more important than sticking to the letter of the rules or perhaps even his adminship. And he might not have been wrong. E-mail it to Kodemage if you think it necessary. -- Curps 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it will not be good idea to put it back , why we can't see beautiful topic here under quran , informative topic , rich topic ??? can any body tell me what is wrong with this topic , why i can't see more info under this important topic, only fighting and religious talking and angry people for one single picture ?!!

I got sick of hearing topics like voting and democracy here , all the crimes around the world are committed with UN voting and democracy , we should listen to our minds and think freely without need to raise dead arguments about such picture , the author it self doesn't want it any more , your are destroying his life by insisting keeping this picture here , he simply said , go and put your wife photo , can i find mature person here understand this simple request , i just wonder will this be your behaviour if you put a picture support Holocaust ? i doubt .

why keeping arguing and arguing about useless picture ??? this gives me feeling that the problem is not the picture the problemin tight minds and looking from single view to the topic , I really got sick of the whole discussion and feel that I'm wasting my time here , if i need info any more i will go and buy academic and respectful encyclopedia , rather than looking at one will cause me blood pressure. Now i understand that you are not presenting information , you are cooking it.Waleeed 07:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Waleeed, while your ruminations on the UN and democracy are interesting, they are not relevant to this discussion. If you do not think the picture is worth discussing, then why not just disregard it altogether? Babajobu 07:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Babajobu, i see it is very relevant , wikipedia is not separated from real world , you are effected by real world , you are living in real world and you are interacting with it every day , can you explain to me why some people insist on this picture ? you will tell me the rules and democracy , what type of democracy that enforce Muslim person (aha again religion you see i can't forget my religion ) to see offensive picture every time he visit this topic ? can you explain this to me ? what democracy enforce the photographer to use his picture even he don't want it to be used ?? what type of democracy is that , if you speak about voting the general tend was either remove or "Keep image till BETTER one that has a consensus is found e" can you explain this statement to me again , BETTER , yes they speak about BETTER picture , "approve search for NEW image" , can you tell me what this means ? should we keep offensive picture for just we didn't found "BETTER" or "NEW" , and now every week you have revert war for what ? for "BAD" picture and "OLD" picture , and "UNSUITABLE" picture ? is this makes sense to you ??! if we obey the rules without thinking we will end in situation every thing will be meaningless , so under what rules we have topic about quran and shouldn't QUOTE from it , because this "HURTS" some people ? is this make sense ? for me I'm human being , I'm happy to be free in my thinking away from these "UN LOGICAL" rules.Waleeed 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Waleeed, the problem is that we have now offended numerous female and/or feminist editors who find your views offensive. Either way we will have offended people, either by honoring your views or theirs. In this case, your views won out. In my view, Wikipedia should handle such conflicts of belief by just going through normal procedures and using normal criteria of notability and relevance, without attempting to evaluate and choose between different groups' pieties. Babajobu 08:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I have reuploaded a version of Image:Big Quran page.jpg that excludes Quadell's wife. As other's have noted, it's not the greatest image in the world, but hopefully this will be a suitable temporary measure while a better picture is found. Dragons flight 20:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That edited picture looks better than I thought it would be. But it still doesn't look very good since the right side is flooded with light. Of course, finding a different picture is the best option. joturner 20:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quadel I Support your action.

Quadel, your action doesn't hurt me , i support what you have done , you are a real human being, i don't care for this un human rules, i don't know how to support you here on wikipedia , I'm not rule guru , this is my simple approach.Waleeed 08:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)