Talk:Quran/Picture Controversy/Archive

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cropped image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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   t 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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   t 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)

text: 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 Wikipedia 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.  Sam Korn 16:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Sam Korn 22:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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.  Sam Korn 22:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Pious hands at work- 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 coderTalk 05:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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(t)(c) 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial picture, caption 

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can we involve the Smithsonian?