Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 10 January 2006

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.

Cropped image

Without the human figure, the page loses its scale. It could be two inches high for all we know. Could you leave enough of the figure to establish the scale? Zora 11:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Pious hands at work-

I don't know WHO -- I think it might have been a long string of anonIPs -- edited this article to remove or counter any criticism or disturbing observations, replaced the woman looking at the huge Qur'an with the cropped picture sans woman, and in general, mangled it. Many of the changes turned sentences or even entire sections into nonsense. I'm angry and upset by what I see as blatant intellectual dishonesty. Zora 01:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually a lot of those edits were done by well-established editors like Sam Korn who replaced the image with a cropped one. And it seems a lot like you reverted to an older version. If you wish to add or remove so much material, please take it step by step rather than one large edit. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't revert, I rewrote. Zora 05:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What the ???? You reverted just about everything I wrote -- and put up the cropped picture of the Qur'an page again. I didn't introduce ANYTHING new or controversial, I just took out stuff that had snuck in without discussion. Your position seems to be that if an anonIP comes here and makes changes without discussion, and they're in the direction of Muslim piety, they can't be removed without discussion. That is simply not fair. Also, we have had endless discussions of the Qur'an page and everyone save Muslim censors seems to agree that the human figure is needed to show the scale of the page. Otherwise it could be ANY size. As a woman, I am upset that someone would feel that bare legs and arms are SOOO disturbing that they must not be shown in juxtaposition to the Qur'an. Why cater to that sort of misogyny? Oh, I did add that bit about decorating everyday objects with Qur'an verses, because someone stuck up that picture, and I knew that there were Muslims who objected to the practice. I'm glad that you left that. Zora 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "pious editing" at all. I said your edits were major and should be done step by step with discussion. I had no opinions on the differences between the versions. I don't agree, however, with your edits to the translation section because it mingled and mixed that section and the one above it. I am fine with the rest of your edits. I agree with the user below on what he says about the picture. Is the lady with the bad posture rally necessary. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

When I looked at the two sections, they were basically restatements of the same thing. I didn't leave anything out, I just removed duplication. Concise is good. Clear rather than meandering is good. That's copyediting. I'm a copyeditor. I didn't remove ANY relevant info re how Muslims feel about translation of the Qur'an. Zora 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Zora, why do you insist upon that woman to be there in the picture ? I don't have any trouble with that picture but it does not have anything to do with Quran, anyway. If this article is regarding any physical structure, it is fine that a person standing nearby would help appreciate the size of the structure. But this displayed image is just an enlarged version of an old Quran page and which is enlarged just to display it in an exhibition. So size of this enlarged page has no significance to size of a person. If you go down to the edit history you will find this edit was not done by anonymous editor but Sam Korn and he has specified the filename "Oversized_Koran_folio_cropped". Just because some Muslims don't like this image here, does not mean it must be there in this page.

As I understand it, the Qur'an was really that big. The page has not been artificially enlarged. I believe that this Qur'an was commissioned by Timurlane, a controversial historical figure. (He ravaged Sistan and destroyed the irrigation system there, among other atrocities.) Hence the SIZE of the page tells us something about the physical versions of the Qur'an -- that the Qur'an was written and displayed in many different formats. I believe that there are other very very large Qur'ans, usually calligraphed for mosques. There are also very very small Qur'ans. I had a friend once who had bought a one-page Qur'an in Cairo, a large page with tiny writing. (It would be nice to have a picture of one of those, with a human for scale.)

If we had another picture of a very large Qur'an to replace this one, with a human figure for scale, I could possibly overcome my rage at censorship and allow the picture to be replaced. But if you remove it, or remove the figure, without replacing the info, it's destruction of INFORMATION -- just because some Muslim men think that a woman's body is somehow frightening, disgusting, disturbing, something to cover up and hide, something that contaminates the Qur'an.

If those men can't control their sexual impulses, it's THEIR problem, not mine. I should be able to walk naked down the street and not be bothered. (Well, I'm old and fat enough that I wouldn't be bothered, but let's assume that I look like Aishwarya Rai.) Sheesh, MEN. Zora 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"just because some Muslim men think that a woman's body is somehow frightening ..." With all due respect, I think you're doing a little projecting when it comes to the motivation behind changing the image. --72.25.8.86 15:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not Muslim. I am a British Anglican Catholic, so this was not motivated by my thoughts on religion. There was an email to the info-en email address requesting that the image be cropped. The justification was indeed the point about the scantily clad woman standing next to it. I can see this point. I don't think Misplaced Pages should be offensive for offence's own sake, and I can't see any real reason why the woman should appear in the photograph. The picture as cropped is more illustrative of the subject and isn't offensive at all. The image is in fact more encyclopaedic as it is, looking far less like a holiday snap and more like an illustration. Firstly, I resent having aspersions cast on my motives. Secondly, I don't consider the change one for the worse; quite the opposite. Unless anyone can give good reason for moving back to the old image, I shall put my version back. ] 16:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you remove the human figure, you remove all visual information wrt scale. I wouldn't be offensive for the sake of offense, but dang it, this is INFO. As a woman, I am infuriated by all these male assumptions that a woman who is modestly clothed by the standards of her time and place is OFFENSIVE. Find a picture of a huge Qur'an with a human figure for scale to replace this one if you find it offensive. Ditto for one of the one-page Qur'ans in teeny tiny writing. Zora 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me. I thought I said I didn't find it offensive myself. I happen to be of the opinion that the image without the woman in it is a better picture. I am not censoring the image. I would do the same to any image that someone uploads if it isn't as focused on the encyclopaedic content as it could be. Repeat, I made the change because it improved the picture, not because I'm a misogynist. As for the question of scale, the picture cropped still conveys the size adequately. That image could not be anything other than the size it is even without the object of reference removed. With the potential for offence, the improvement in the image, and the failure to become worse, I don't see a good reason for keeping the full image. The question of offence is minor, but it still does play a part, particularly when placed next to the section about Qur'an desecration. ] 22:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Without the human figure there is nothing to establish scale. Your cropped picture could be of a two-inch-high Qur'an. That's what I mean by losing information. Zora 22:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Here I am afraid I must disagree with you. It's my opinion that just as much information is conveyed. The size of the flash reflection shows the size clearly, and the size of the frame means it can't be too small. After all, the exact size is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that it's bloody big, and that comes across perfectly well. ] 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. There is no way to judge the size of the frame without some other reference. This is why, when architects make drawings of proposed projects for clients, they scatter human figures about the drawing to indicate scale. That's how humans intuitively judge size -- by reference to human figures. Take a look at this Qur'an picture . Can you tell how big the original is? Guess. Now here's the answer: Zora 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Size of the Quran created by Timur is not relevent here. It would be more appropriate in an article regarding Quran Calligraphy or in an article regarding Timur of Iran. 59.93.39.76 06:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversial picture, caption

I think it was an anon who removed the controversial picture without mentioning it here, and the loss wasn't noticed for a while. Jwissick and I agreed that it should be put back. If the museum allows women in shorts to look at the Qur'an, and Muslims aren't picketing the museum in protest, then it seems silly for a few ideologues to object to the picture of the horrendous act of looking at the Qur'an (not even touching it) while wearing shorts. It may be information that the picture is objectionable, so I added that to the caption. If other editors think that the extra bit could be rephrased to be blander, or think that it's unnecessarily provocative, I suppose it could be changed or removed. Zora 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Your caption seems to give the impression that this is a famous picture, considered as Quran desecration by Muslim world. You have deducted from your own mind that all the anon editors who previously removed this picture were Muslims. Actually the cropping of the image was done by Sam Korn, who is a Christian(see talk above).--Soft coder 05:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

He thought that the picture offended Muslims, because of the continual removals. Well, if you remove or crop the picture, you offend ME, as a female. I don't think my limbs are obscenities that have to be hidden. I am perfectly willing to have the extra info in the caption removed, if the other editors agree. I'm not willing to show a cropped picture or remove the picture. Zora 05:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Although as a Muslim, I don't feel offended by the picture. However, your complete unwillingness to crop the picture if it offers an equal quality seems rather selfish. The topic at hand is not the woman or women at all, but the Qur'an. If this picture was cropped to include just the Qur'an or an even better picture displaying the same foilo, I for one would be in favor of the better picture. Also, regarding the caption, I think the extra info regarding why the picture is contentious has no merit in this instance. Pepsidrinka 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The woman adds alot as far as the scale of the foilo in question. I am also not willing to remove the photo or crop it. There is no right on the Wiki to not be offended. I am sure thousands of people find Piss Christ to be offensive, but I don't see anyone attempting to remove that image. If some zealots have a problem with it... tough. Jwissick 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

christian faith is different topic and please don't mix topics together , Christians are free to deal with their icons , but for this case it is not appropriate , since you are talking about Quran in key topic , not subtopic , so please use this picture somewhere else , any topic related to Islam else and i will not complain. Saytah 08:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Without a human figure, there is nothing to show the sheer, awesome size of the page. Because of the glass and the reflections you can't see the calligraphy all that well, so if it were just a question of putting up another picture of a Qur'an page, there are much better pictures. IF someone can get a shot of that huge page with a male human figure, I'd be willing to do that as a compromise, though it sticks in my craw. Or any shot of another of the giant, mosque-size Qur'ans, with something else in the picture to show the size.

It would also be nice to have a picture of a one page Qur'an. A grad-school acquaintance of mine had one, an artwork she had bought in Cairo. Just one large sheet, with teeny-tiny calligraphy. I was unable to find any public domain pictures of such on the web. We could also have a picture of one of the TINY Qur'ans. I saw a photo of a man holding one between his thumb and forefinger. But that wasn't PD either. Zora 06:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

it seems to me that zora is protecting the picture maybe because she have some problems with fundamentalists persons , so she have personal ( not academic reasons ) to keep this picture here under the quran as a key topic , and what you are saying about the picture of Christ is not related to this at all , the Jesus picture is under photography topic , not under the bible as a key topic , so if you are going to give us reason use the bible key topic , don't use different topic and different category . Mostafa bakry 02:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture, again

I had an idea -- I cropped the controversial picture slightly, so that it doesn't show any bare thigh, or emphasize the woman's rear end. It still shows the whole Qur'an page and still has a human figure for scale. I'm thinking that the scandalized Muslims who kept deleting the picture may be somewhat more comfortable with a mere bare arm than they are with a glimpse of thigh too. Comments? Zora 02:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, someone deleted the picture again. Sheesh. A BARE ARM is scandalous? Zora 06:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I say put the first pic back up.. There is no pleasing some people. Jwissick 06:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Loool!!! Is that you Zora? ;) Cheers -- Szvest 11:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't too happy with this image myself. It is quite below the standard of most our images. It's a museum snapshot with a random tourist standing in the way, and there is a flash reflex on the page. I say throw it out without replacement (or rather, with replacement, if we can find one that is of better quality). dab (ᛏ) 12:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the quality of the calligraphy and the sheer size of the page tell us something important about the many forms in which Muslims have created the Qur'an. I have said all along that if there were a better picture of a large Qur'an page with a human figure for scale I would take that. I actually spent quite a bit of time googling for images, but didn't find anything PD. Zora 12:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems the photo is starting to draw sock puppets to remove the image.... Jwissick 05:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Plus I'm just upset that the vandals seem to regard a woman not in hijab as something that defiles a Qur'an page just by looking at it. I'm the only WOMAN here and I feel that my limbs are not obscene. Zora 05:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed: Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not censored - Sorry, but women are not "obscene" and even if they were Misplaced Pages is *not* censored for the benefit of any political or religious group. If it was articles like Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person and Xenu would have already been deleted and protected against recreation: Scientologists view it as very serious offence against their religion to reveal such information but we don't censor that (thankfully. See Operation Clambake).

Our serial reverter and sockpuppet user deleted this section and posted this explanation (to be fair, he may have done that out of ignorance):

In the name of ALLAH the most merciful the specially merciful, My name is Mohammad and i'm an arabian muslim. When I was navigating your site telling about Noble Quran, I found something urgent i must tell you with

At the first I'd like to thank you for giving information about Noble QURAN, But I'd like to attract your attention to something very important, that's at the picture named "Big_Quran_page.jpg" there was a woman with no clothes on her arms and that action the Noble Quran forbides it for women as mentioned in SURAT ALAHZAB- AYA 59 ( so the picture isn't suitable at all ) If you cut the woman part and maintain the page of Quran or any thing you see to fix this misunderstand, we (muslims) will appreciate this and will give us more trust with you.

Many thanks for you all sorry for my long words and bad english, but I hope you do it quickly

Actually, he's wrong about the Qur'an. That ayah just tells women to "draw their veils close about them". From there to "head to toe covering" is quite a leap. Many Muslims do not accept the Arabian interpretation of hijab. Nor do they believe that mutaween should go about beating women who don't cover up, or forcing schoolgirls back into burning buildings to die because they weren't covered. Feh. Yes, I'm upset. Zora 13:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I suspect whether he is a real Muslim or not. I don't think any one will call himself an "Arabian Muslim". --Soft coder 14:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

My name is Mohammad and i'm an arabian muslim is a déjà vu, especially the thigie thing about arabian/arab! Mohammad = Arabian = Muslim! MaMmmmm! On the other hand, I guess we should be very careful commenting on that, including edit summaries! Cheers -- Szvest 16:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)  

There is an addition to remove dubiosity

Dear all, specially softcode What I told about Hijab in Surat ALAHZAB-AYA 59 is true not wrong,

why ?

The SUNNAH came to explain the true wanted meanings in Quran. And we must resort to it when we are different.

We find this meaning in Surat AN-NISA-AYA 59

'O ye who believe ! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if ye have a dispute concerning and matter, refer it to Allah and the messenger if ye are (in truth) believers in Allah and the last days ... '

and also in Surat ALHASHR-AYA 7 'And whatsoever the messenger gives you , take it, and whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstan (from it)'

And we've found many evidences in our messenger MOHAMMAD' SUNNA provide women must wear neqab ( hiding her all body from men ) And this what women did in our Prophet age.

This is one of them telling the woman not to wear niqab or gloves in Hajj, what does it mean ?

It means, if she finished Hajj she return to her first state of wearing neqab and gloves.

And this what believers' mothers had done as came from our messenger's wife Aisha - contentment from Allah on her - (who was erudite with Islam) in her Hajj with Rasoul Allah, she said ' when the ridings (men) pass side us, we let it down to cover our faces and when they go we raise )

And also, you can read the true meaning of this Aya in IBN-Katheer's illustration - mercy from Allah upon him-

Because, if we (muslims) want to understand any AYAH meaning in Noble Quran, we don't understand it from ourselves, so every one will have an openion different from others ( as every one has his own mind ), but there is only one understanding way, you know what ? It's to follow our SAVANTs who were with Rasoul Allah to perform our Islamic instructions truely with no lowest doubt in meaning.

Why we take with their understand ?

Because they were with Rasoul Allah (Muhammad- peace on him)all the time and knew from him what are the true meanings of Quran instructions.

And Quran told us to believe in what they had believed, in Surat Al-Bakara-AYA 137 'And if they believe in the like of that which ye believe, then are they rightly guided. But if they turn away, then are they in schism, and Allah will suffice thee (for defence) against them. He is the hearer, the knower'

And also in Surat Al-Tawbah Aya-100 'And the first to lead the way, of the Muha'jirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness Allah well pleased with them and they are well pleased with him and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph.'

I repeat my call to the responsibles of the site, it's so wrong to show this woman with Holy Quran page, please take this request seriously and if you want to keep the scale of the picture, I can manage this and give it back with no scale and ready without naked arms.

Thanks alot for all mohhed@yahoo.com

You acted like a clown here by making your remarks right into the main article. Later edits of yours show that you are intelligent enough to remove the picture, post into talk page etc. I am not commenting whether this picture is appropriate here or not whether due to its poor quality or any other reason. I think it is too silly to waste time on this matter, when there are people who insist that it should be here. Misplaced Pages editors contains people with varying beliefs and ideology and its contents are build upon by discussion and debate, so that they reflect a neutral point of view. It is natural, since there are lot of editors, everything will not suit your point of view. If you are really new to Misplaced Pages, I think you follow how things work here for some time before starting "editing".--Soft coder 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New pictures

I've said that I'd be willing to compromise on a picture of a big Qur'an page, with a human figure for scale, if one of the objectors could furnish a good-quality public-domain jpeg as a substitute. That way we wouldn't lose any information to censorship. I've also suggested that photos of tiny Qur'ans and one-page Qur'ans, also PD, would make a nice contrast. I live in an area with next to no Muslims (Hawai'i), where the museums feature Asian and Pacific art instead of Islamic art. I've tried googling for images but haven't found anything PD. We could end this whole farce if the objector, who claims to be a Saudi Muslim, could just visit a Qur'an museum and take a few pictures. Or get a museum to donate such pictures, or some such thing. I really don't LIKE being told that my bare arms (in evidence right now as I type) are scandalous, but I'm willing to overlook that as long as I make sure that no information is lost. Zora 03:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Technically he shouldn't even be talking to you, me or any unmarried female if he's so fundamentalist that he thinks human arms are "obscene" --Mistress Selina Kyle 03:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got no objection re the pic but I don't understand why it should exactly be a human figure for scale! Does that follow any context in the article and does the rest of the pics out there know any condition? -- Cheers -- Szvest 03:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes rulers are used for scale, but they don't have the visceral meaning that a human figure does. Architects show projects with human figures for scale. Archaelogists taking pictures of sites include humans for scale. Cars are shown with human figures (females in bikinis!) for scale. It's how we naturally judge size. I'd bet that there are psychological studies showing this, but if you just stop and think for a bit, you'll probably agree. Without scale, the size of that awesome Qur'an has no meaning. Zora 04:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I say leave it as is... No reason to bow to edit warring just cause some zealot muslim has a bug up somewhere. There is no right to not be offended anywhere. Jwissick 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If you refrain from calling zealot muslim, surely the vandal would respect you and try to understand. Cheers --

The key element that this image intends to illustrate is verses of the Qu'ran. As per suggestion above, I have found a public-domain (Library of Congress) image that illustrates verses of the Qu'ran with the calligraphy shown at large scale for easy viewing. -- Curps 21:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of Qur'an pages are easily obtained. If the page is older than 1923, any photo is PD because it's two-dimensional. The problem is finding a photo of one of the large-page Qur'ans used in mosques, with a human figure for scale. If it's not two-dimensional, then the copyright problem is harder to solve. We have to find someone who will take the picture and donate the copyright to WP.

Some time ago I found a photo of a page from a beautiful hand-calligraphed and decorated seven-inch high Qur'an. You couldn't tell from the photo that it was that small. So the photo was PD, but useless for demonstrating scale. Zora 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that a suitable replacement has been made, there is absolutely no reason to have the picture with the woman. I don't think we should appease those who find the picture with the woman offensive, but I also don't think we should pester them. You can crop the woman out of the picture entirely because she is not actually covering the Qur'an. The size of the page can be described in the caption of the photograph. Even without that descriptor, the fact that the page is framed implies that it is large. You don't need to tell me that the picture right above the one with the woman is that of a page as opposed to a large-scale Qur'an. It's quite obvious. Likewise, no human standing next to this picture of a hydrogen bomb is necessary in telling me that it is big.

Lastly, you state that you believe "the problem is finding a photo of one of the large-page Qur'ans used in mosques". Clearly, that page is not in a mosque and therefore does not demonstrate that (I understand it may be hard to find one still in a mosque). So I think either a) the picture should be removed completely or b) cropped so the woman is no longer visible, but the size is mentioned in the caption. For the record, I am not offended by this picture. But the fact that others might and the fact that the picture has little value lends me to believe that the picture should not be present. A similar conclusion occured on the Muhammad talk page where it was decided that there was no value for a potentially offensive picture. The same rings true here. joturner 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not censored - Sorry, but women are not "obscene" and even if they were Misplaced Pages is *not* censored for the benefit of any political or religious group. The current image (removed out-of-process after the page had already been protected by another admin by Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)): if it was articles like Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person and Xenu would have already been deleted and protected against recreation: Scientologists view it as very serious offence against their religion to reveal such information but we don't censor that (thankfully). --Mistress Selina Kyle 03:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I see the page has now been protected. However, the protection occurred in the seconds between the time I clicked on "edit this page" and the time I clicked on "save page". I'm not sure what's the procedure here... I didn't in fact edit a protected page, so I personally have not reverted my edit. I suppose someone else could go ahead and do so if they have a m:Wrong version issue. I'm not really sure protection was warranted for that matter.

In any case, I would also argue that the original picture adds nothing that is not available from other pictures. The essential element being illustrated is the calligraphic writing; there is nothing particular unusual about a big piece of paper, these existed even in ancient and medieval times. There is no particular value in illustrating the scale of the parchment; certainly, for the overwhelming majority of our images, this is not done. For instance, our images of the Mona Lisa and the Raft of the Medusa do not have persons standing next to them to illustrate the fact that the latter is in fact a vastly bigger canvas than the former (however, the height and width are given numerically in the caption).

The original photo in this article is not even of particularly high quality: there is a flash reflection in the glass. An illustration of the Mona Lisa with a flash reflection in the glass and a person standing next to it would undoubtedly be considered inferior to the Mona Lisa image we currently have, which is simply a high-quality reproduction of the canvas itself and nothing but. A "flash-reflection-person-standing-next-to-it" Mona Lisa image would be substituted at the first opportunity by the current image we have now, and there would be no particular need to retain the original image. Similarly, in substituting a new calligraphic writing image for the original photo in this Qur'an article, I made just such a substitution, and likewise, there is no particular need to retain the original image.

And finally, it is not "giving in to censorship" to note that the juxtaposition of elements may be jarring to some of the very audience who will be most likely to look up this article. To translate this into Western terms, it might appear to them to be a bit like putting a woman in a bikini in a photo of an original copy of the United States Constitution. Such an image would serve no purpose and convey no important information (particularly if it was of less than optimal quality) and would be edited out of our "constitution" article despite any claims of censorship. -- Curps 04:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do that I will support you Misplaced Pages is not and should not be censored for anyone. --Mistress Selina Kyle 04:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I perfer the orig. image as it added alot more than the new image. The scale of the page needs to be expressed. That it is displayed in the Smithsonian is notable. The new image just does not express nearly what the old image did. Granted, some muslims think it is a scandal to have bare arms near a page of the qur'an, but I really do not care. There is no right to not be offended. And WIkipedia is not censored for the protection of anyone. I vote for the origional image and unprotection Jwissick 04:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The argument that it would be like a woman in a bikini next to the const is invalid IMHO. She is conservitivly dressed considering how hot it can get in DC. Ask yourself if you would be offended if she was standing next to the Const. I would not be offended. I still vote the origional image be restored. Jwissick 05:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Offended? No. Wondering why they didn't use a picture without this woman in a bikini? Yes. joturner 05:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Curps, the voice of reason...

Before I continue my statement, I would like to point out a faux pas committed by Mistress Selina Kyle. In one of her previous statements she referenced Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not censored. In the consensus version of the policy, the Misplaced Pages is not censored section appears instead as the Misplaced Pages is not censored for the protection of minors section. Essentially, she edited the policy before making her statement. As it says in that same article, under Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point. Adhere to that please.

That aside, just because something is omitted does not mean it's censorship. The sexual intercourse article does not contain a single picture of real people having sexual intercourse. The torture article does not have pictures of people getting their fingers broken with pliers and the execution article fails to have a photo of someone being electrocuted. That's because on top of being disturbing, disgusting, and/or offensive, they are all unnecessary. And so that is what we are dealing with here: putting up something potentially offensive versus posting something more neutral yet still informative. This is not censorship; this is courtesy.

If we look at when this all began back in November, it was a Christian editor (not a pious Muslim) who originally cropped the picture down. In the ensuing debate, statements, especially from Zora, have highlighted the portrayal of women more than usefulness of the photograph. It seems as though more interest has been taken in proving a some underlying (political?) point. That point may be that "if those men can't control their sexual impulses, it's THEIR problem, not " (Zora 21:48 29-Nov-2005). It may be have something to do with women being able to wear what they want (Zora 22:04 30-Nov-2005). It may be that "women are not "obscene"" (Mistress Selina Kyle 03:32 4-Jan-2006). Frankly, this is not a debate about women's rights or what they should or should not be allowed to wear. This is a debate about whether it is necessary to have a picture with this woman considering a) some find it offensive, b) it is not of good quality, and c) the scale of the photo can be determined in other ways. An article about the Qur'an does not need this picture.

I hope this gets resolved very soon or I might have to go down to Freer Gallery (which is where that page from the Qur'an should be on display) and take a new one. Don't make it come to that. No honestly. Don't. joturner 05:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, please DO take a new picture, with a human for scale -- if you can get a better picture. I'm willing to bend that far. I'll let the Muslims censor the dang picture if no information is lost.

I'm feeling kinda beleaguered because I may be the only woman here. All you guys think it's just FINE for a woman's body to be covered up because it's offensive to Muslims. I should stop insisting on a woman's right to bare arms and just get with the program. But it's not YOUR bodies being declared obscene! There was an interesting article by Muqtedar Khan, progressive Muslim intellectual, where he said that the Muslim law relating to women was skewed because it was created by men, without women's input, and forced upon women . Why shouldn't women protest? Why shouldn't I represent women here?

Remember the first Gulf War? U.S. servicewomen were stationed in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government allowed as how any women should wear hijab when they were off-base. The U.S. high brass agreed, and told the servicewomen to wear abayas. At which point the women protested. Vigorously. Loudly. I think there was enough fuss that the brass and the Saudi government backed down. There's a point at which you have to say, "I don't care if you think that it's POLITE for me to swelter in this black sack -- I won't do it; that's too much to ask." Zora 07:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Any new picture should not have a human in it for scale, for the same reason that a picture of the Mona Lisa should not have a human standing next to the canvas for scale, as I wrote earlier. It is not only unnecessary but it makes for an inferior picture.

Reading between the lines (and not so in-between the lines) of what you wrote above, I get the distinct impression that there's an element of "we're going to ram this down their misogynistic throats" here. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to pursue personal agendas. -- Curps 08:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't the place to pursue religious agendas either, though: And trying to remove any picture of women not covered head to toe in a black sack from articles related to Islam is censorship, and against Misplaced Pages policy. There's no reason to change this just because of religious objections (as well as the point that looking at the edit history it's pretty obvious that Mostafa bakry is a sockpuppet of Zanoon ( --Mistress Selina Kyle 08:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistress Selina Kyle and Zora - try presenting your arguement without mentioning women's rights. The side against having the picture has been able to present its side with other rationale. You two, on the other hand, have complained about women's rights being infringed without addressing the other points made (necessity of a human scale, quality, etc). joturner 11:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How far are you taking that? If you are saying that we need context for size and there is no reason to remove the woman then that seems to make sense since we lack a better and less obtrusive scale. If you're taking that to the level of it's good to have a woman there then no... it really does detract compared to a simplistic measuring implement. gren グレン 08:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've loosely read this debate and... well, I don't think wikipedia is not censored applies in the least to this. The issues as I see them are: does the woman add anything to the image (conversely does removing her detract); can we find another version that's better? So, a lot of this whole debate really just seems irrelevant to me. Many of those things may be points but they shouldn't surpass these main issues. Surprisingly when I saw it completely cut down I thought it was ugly. It was slightly off and you really couldn't tell the size of the folio. So, it comes down to do we need a measure for size or not. I would say we do and if that measuring stick is a woman than so be it. I would also highly support anyone going down (up? over?) to D.C. in near future take a pictures with something else to measure. Maybe you have a measuring stick or... I don't know what's good for context. As dab stated above this really isn't a great image. In fact any other over sized folio of merit would be great to replace this... we don't need the one from the Freer and maybe other museums provide better context. But, it should be a big one... which, the emphasis on the big is lost without context. gren グレン 08:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article from editing due to the ongoing edit war about this image. I'm not involved in the debate, but feel it cannot go on as a revert war and must be settled on the talk page not in edit summaries. Thanks. Harro5 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The settlement of this edit conflict should be respectful towards the consensus policies of Misplaced Pages. For instance, we have a rule that Misplaced Pages is not censored. Therefore, the objections to this image on grounds such as "not suitable to Quran holiness" do not have any standing here whatsoever. Mentioning them is simply going to arouse rightful anger about censorship and will not move the conflict toward resolution.

It's useful to the discussion, rather, to ask whether the image is generally in compliance with Misplaced Pages policies (e.g. copyright status); whether it illustrates its subject well; whether it says something that is otherwise unsaid; or whether it otherwise improves the article. --FOo 08:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That image is incredibly ugly. The verse is obscured by flash, the man or woman in the image doesn't seem representative of the Muslim community, and the cropping is poor. If there happend to be a quote from the Bible or New Testament on the cardboard box of some Chinese takeout I get for dinner, and once I finished my meal, I took a photo of it and uploaded it to Misplaced Pages, I'm sure Christians or Jews or anyone with aesthetic sense would object.

In summary it detracts from the article and does not illustrate the subject well or in context. 10:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.203.199 (talk • contribs)

Then quit complaining and make a new image that everyone can get behind... Jwissick 10:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands of images of the Quran, here is one that has human scale in it (didn't read all arguments above sorry). The image has been floating around on many sites, I believe that "fair use" applies. Furthermore, this link links to "Which Quran - (article in PDF format)" http://www.free-minds.org/articles/science/WhichQuran.pdf

What has an in-depth look at the texual variants and history of the Quran. Furthermore it is supposed to have historical significance as one of the oldest Qurans around (though there may be older ones in Yemen?). Here's the link to the images:

http://www.taymullah.com/notes/History_Quran.html (source article -- not particularly precise)

http://www.taymullah.com/notes/quran.jpg

-- anon 10:54 , 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We already have a new image of calligraphy. The hangup is the artificial insistence on a) depicting this one particular object rather than some other, and b) including a human for scale even though the overwhelming majority of such images on Misplaced Pages (paintings, etc) do not have any such human figure and don't need one and look far better without one. The scale of the object isn't even significant or relevant to the topic of this article, which is after all the Qur'an in general and not this one museum object in question.

If I took a poor quality photo of myself standing next to the Mona Lisa and added it to the article on Painting (not even the Mona Lisa article mind you, but the Painting article), it would be silly to cry censorship and demand that the photo remain unless someone else took another photo of a person standing next to the Mona Lisa. There are many other possible images that can be used to illustrate the concept of "Painting" and could be used just as well, and such images (as used in Misplaced Pages or in art history books or coffee table books or museum guidebooks, etc) invariably simply show the painting itself and nothing extraneous.

And what relevance is it to the general concept of painting that one particular painting happens to be a particular size? How is this some kind of vital information that must be preserved at all costs in an article that is not even about that particular painting, but about paintings in general? And if it's really so terribly important, could you not just specify the size (in meters and feet) in the caption?

Actually, even the above is an exaggeration, because the Mona Lisa is an iconic painting, perhaps the best known painting in history and in the world, whereas this particular big Qur'an depicted in the original image is hardly the most famous Qur'an in the world, not even close, and there are hundreds of equally suitable Qur'an calligraphy images that could be used. -- Curps 11:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds? Perhaps. But it is hardly the least famous one or especially objectionable, I think. Also, human scale does help, visually, when it comes to objects in which size is an important component (such as gigantism). Point is that the offensiveness of the image has been overstated by its opponents, much as its alleged importance has been overstated by proponents. I'd be pleased if an equally sleevless women appeared at a picture of the New or Old Testament, etc., and someone tried to add it to respective religious article. I'm sure there would be more objections, which is good, I like those things to be out in the open. To what extent such exchanges further the goals of the project, is another question, though. El_C 14:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

News flash: It's a secular encyclopedia, not an Islamic one. Short of a photo chosen for manifestly lascivious intent, which this isn't, I personally don't have any problem with such a photo. I don't believe this one was chosen in order to be offensive or anything.

There is perhaps a logistical question about whether the page will be vandalized more frequently as a result of this image, but personally I'm inclined to ignore that issue, because I think people are being unreasonable about this. It's not a big deal.

If we were building an Islamic encyclopedia, we'd make a different editorial call. But we're not, and WP is about pluralism. BYT 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the notability of size -- I'm starting to suspect that we are so used to dealing with art as computer image files that we are ignoring the physicality of art objects, such as books -- one component of which is size. It is relevant that some paintings are tiny and some are huge; reducing them all to 150px wide images destroys all the physical variation. I went to the article on Book to see if variation of size in books was mentioned -- not a word. Yet in most of the 19th century book ads I've proofed for Distributed Proofreaders, books are specified as quarto, octavo, duodecimo -- standard book sizes.

We were discussing the archiving of page images at Distributed Proofreaders. One proofer pointed out that to really save a book for the ages in computer form, you'd need photos of the cover and binding, as well as physical dimensions. We were thinking exclusively in terms of page images (typography) and etext, NOT of the book as a physical object. But that is a big part of our experience of a book.

That's why I was so taken with the picture of the big Qur'an when Quadell put it up -- it emphasized the range of forms in which Qur'ans were created. That's why I've been saying that we need an image of a little Qur'an (with human for scale) as well as the picture of the big Qur'an. Zora 16:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sizes are on bookbinding. I agree with most everything except that we need a human for scale. Ideally we can find some more neutral object that takes away less from the Qur'an folio itself. However, cutting down the image size only loses the scale instead of gives us a better scale. gren グレン 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I gave this some thought. Manufactured objects don't work well, because they can be made any size. If you put the Qur'an next to a TV set -- is it a 15" or a 42" set? Animals and plants don't seem to me to work well. I'm not sure it has be a whole human. For smallish things, a human hand is enough to show scale.

How about Joturner goes with a dignified Muslim friend in clothing suitable for salah to the Freer Gallery and takes a picture of his friend holding a small Qur'an next to the BIG Qur'an. If flash reflections could be avoided, that could be a great illustration. Zora 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny how easily you make that sound. It's a piece of art at a dignified museum, not a cartoon character from Walt Disney World. joturner 21:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Wait just a moment here. What sort of message will this be sending should we replace the photo? It sends the message that we kowtow to threats and revert vandals. It weakens our position when we have to deal with other controversial issues. Don't like something on WP? Fine. Just revert like hell till the editors remove it. I know its a strong word to use, but this is terrorism by reversion. I think we need to look at this from a point of view of policy. Do we want to set a policy of reverting just cause someone is offended? What's next? People find photos of genitalia offensive here at WP... Yet we still host the images. Is this really the road we want to go down? Jwissick 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I told you that I was trying to walk a fine line. I chose to draw it at "not losing information". Deleting the picture would be losing information. However, replacing it with a better picture would be gaining information. Of course I dislike letting the censors win. It pisses me off. I can only take comfort in the fact that they're making themselves ridiculous with their furor over a a woman's right to bare arms. Zora 21:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Surely a picture that is less offensive is better than a picture that is more offensive? You make the comparison about genatalia and this quran picture. That's like comparing apples and oranges. In the former case, in a appropriate article, say penis, a picture of a penis would be appropriate, regardless of any offense. But we aren't arguing about having a picture of any qur'an, as we already have several. The discussion lies in showing a certain type of quran, in this case an oversized one, whether it adds to the article. Your argument does not hold. The only comparison you could make would be to compare an oversized penis to this oversized quran. Not being funny, just drawing an exact parallel. Pepsidrinka 22:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think Zora is right on-target here. The picture in question serves a purpose -- showing how huge the Qur'an in question is, which would otherwise be unclear. It is not a great idea to delete it on the grounds that it offends a certain small constituency, though replacing it with a better image is another matter, I thinhk. If we can find a picture that serves the same purpose without offending that group, so much the better. Part of the reason I'm saying this is that it is, or should be, obvious to any Muslim that the picture has not been chosen with the purpose of inflaming or offending. In other words, anyone who argues that the presence of the woman in the photo is intended as a provocation is probably either disingenuous or at the extreme delusional end of the curve of complainers. BYT 22:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with Zora, the current image is fine, but if a better image of the same subject can be found, I have no objection to replacing it. Removing the image simply because it is offensive to some, however, is not in line with Misplaced Pages policies. Kaldari 23:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we involve the Smithsonian?

Had a thought -- if there's a public relations officer for the Smithsonian, perhaps he/she would be interested in using this controversy to get publicity for the institution and its holdings of Islamic art. We could ask the MUSEUM to have their staff photographer take a photo of a conservatively dressed person standing next to the big Qur'an, as well as a picture of that person next to their tiniest Qur'an. Those pictures could appear on Misplaced Pages and also as part of a news story. If it worked, we could get professional-quality pictures and they'd get publicity. Zora 03:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems a little over-the-top. And I don't think the Smithsonian is really begging for publicity. joturner 03:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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 23:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Keep — WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is NOT censored. What's wrong with allowing women to read the Qur'an? Nothing. It's much more offensive to remove a picture on the basis that it has a woman in it. --Mistress Selina Kyle 12:07, 5 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)
• 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. "Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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. ] 13:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Just leave it the hell alone --Mistress Selina Kyle 13:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you MSK! However, I just see words like hell and heaven not suitable for Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages policy. ] 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. ] 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: 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 . 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 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 13:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Somehow I don't think this article is going to be nominated for Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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 --

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\ 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 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\ 17:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Disruption is measured by content and action, not use of a particular word. FearÉIREANN\ 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. ] 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. Misplaced Pages isn't a monastery or an etiquette school. Babajobu 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages". Hipocrite, presumably irritated by this, as I would have been, said that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Civility, under which words like hell and heaven (when used as expletives in these already confrontational circumstances) probably shouldn't be used. ] 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 Misplaced Pages" (And I like Fayssal a lot, incidentally). And from what I can make of the above talk, the issuance of the "not suitable for Misplaced Pages" 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. ] 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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 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 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to fight over... the consensus is clear to keep the photo. Jwissick 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see your consensus, but alas, that's not my problem. ] 12:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, and it's unhelpful to be too rude when criticising others' work. – Quadell 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)