Talk:Quran/Picture Controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Your opinions is a disgrace to everything that is just and free. Shameful. Despicable! --Anittas 21:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, voting is a disgrace to justice and freedom? The irony overwhelms Sherurcij 19:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing wrong with women reading the Qur'an. No one has said that. joturner 13:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Vote Count

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I have already done that.  Sam Korn 22:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture Removed 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I reverted. With the completely cropped version you can't appreciate the size of the folio. Babajobu 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Nothing to fight over... the consensus is clear to keep the photo. Jwissick(t)(c) 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see your consensus, but alas, that's not my problem. Sam Korn 12:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed photo again... 

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Summary of the ideas presented here 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Cons

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: (See above - I'm just slow.) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Replacement Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quadel I Support your action.