User talk:Ms Sarah Welch: Difference between revisions

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ms Sarah Welch!

Afrikaans | Alemannisch | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Bahasa Banjar | català | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | Esperanto | euskara | estremeñu | français | Frysk | galego | hrvatski | Bahasa Indonesia | interlingua | Interlingue | íslenska | italiano | Kiswahili | Kurdî | Latina | lietuvių | magyar | Bahasa Melayu | Mirandés | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | Plattdüütsch | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | rumantsch | Scots | shqip | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | Basa Sunda | suomi | svenska | Tagalog | Türkçe | vèneto | Tiếng Việt | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | Ирон | македонски | нохчийн | русский | српски / srpski | тоҷикӣ | українська | ქართული | Հայերեն | नेपाली | भोजपुरी | मराठी | हिन्दी | অসমীয়া | বাংলা | தமிழ் | മലയാളം | සිංහල | ไทย | ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး  | မြန်မာဘာသာ | 한국어 | 日本語 | 中文 | 中文（台灣）‎ | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | 粵語 | עברית | اردو | العربية | تۆرکجه | سنڌي | فارسی | +/−

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sarah, Tx for the graphic:

It is simple but straight! I have been working on my graphic skills recently and created this.

I waived off all the copyrights (which I normally do for all my pictures.) You may use it wherever appropriate. You may also let me know if you need a graphic for something relevant. (I am still a learner, so please consider me for simple graphics.)

Best regards, - Veera.sj (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah - Can you please explain the criteria by which you recently added various images and categories to idolatry? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: See the wikipedia article on Idolatry for criteria, reliable sources and support. Mariolatory is a form of idolatry in reliable sources, for example. If there is a particular image you have concerns about, please let me know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article gives multiple definitions, including the worshiping of anything/one other than an Abrahamic understanding of God. Are you proposing that all-non-Judeo-Christian religions should be placed in this category? You've also included various Catholic and Orthodox icons, including Marianist ones, which may have been the subject of debate with regard to idolatry, but are hardly npov examples of idolatry. I don't see how there could be a "reliable source" on whether any of these are idolatry. Isn't it inherently a sectarian judgement call? It's like filling up a Category:False prophets. I think this is a problem, especially with no clear definition/explanation written out in the wikimedia category. - Themightyquill (talk) 23:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: The non-Judeo-Christian religious images were already added there by other editors. They are fine by me, as a category brings "related pages and media", serves as a navigational convenience to find relevant images, and meet the COM:CAT categorization tips. I do not see why, or according to which commons policy we must restrict ourselves to Judeo-Christian images in a category, when non-Christian pictures from Africa, Americas, Asia are profusely called idolatry in Christian missionary literature. According to WP:NPOV, "neutrality means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". It does not imply WP:CENSOR, nor does it mean that it agrees with your or mine or a particular POV. Mariolatry has historically been included in the idolatry debate. These links are to sources that have been published by Oxford University Press and similar, so are reliable scholarly sources. Mariolatry and related images therefore belong in Category:Idolatry. @INeverCry: any guidance for us? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be the kind of issue I could intervene in on my own. My opinion is only one of many, especially when it comes to religion. I doubt you could ever get a definitive policy set up for a topic like the above. If this leads to any edit-warring, you can take that to COM:AN/U. You could start a discussion about this at COM:VP, but any discussion focused on a religious subject is probably going to attract more disagreement than agreement. lNeverCry 02:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: Thanks. Indeed, religious subjects are contentious. I appreciate the procedural guidance. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how it can apply to anything without applying it to almost everything. en:Idolatry in Judaism and en:Shirk (Islam) present a good case for including all Christian and Islamic art. I would propose limiting the content of the category to images that are intended to represent idolatry, like those in Category:Idolatry of Solomon rather than images that depict "what some might call" idolatry. - Themightyquill (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Mariolatry has been called idolatry by Protestant scholars, it is not a case of "might call". I have already linked above some reliable sources (and there are zillion more). African/Native American/Asian idol/image-facilitated worship/procession/reverence and related religious practices have been historically called idolatry, per reliable scholarly sources, it is again not a case of "might call". According to COM:CAT tips, if the noteworthy features of an image relates to idolatry, then it belongs to Category:Idolatry. Definitely so if the image relates to something that is verifiable in reliable scholarly sources as an example of idolatry. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be talking past each other. My point is that there is no, and can be no general consensus on what is idolatry, which makes it inherently different than other commons categories. I don't deny that you can find religious sources describing something as idolatry. I accept that protestant scholars call all kinds of things idolatry, but can't you recognize that other religious scholars surely call all kinds of protestant artworks idolatry. The category would grow so large as to be useless. If you have an image that explicitly shows protestant descriptions of mariolatry (or whatever) as idolatry, I'm fine with including that. Look at Category:Immorality - surely there are protestant scholars who have written on immorality, but that's doesn't mean we fill the category with every pornographic image on commons, because then we'd also have to fill it with every image of that would meet the definition of immorality according to Ultra-Orthodox Jews or Salafi (Wahhabi) Muslims. It's effective as it is because it has images that relate explicitly to immorality. If we can't agree here, I see no other option than to take this to village pump. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Then we may be close to an agreement. I too have no interest in making this into a large useless category. Further, I am delighted to read, "if you have an image that explicitly shows protestant descriptions of mariolatry (or whatever) as idolatry, I'm fine with including that." Are there specific images that you suggest we remove from or add to this category? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we include images like File:The Phillip Medhurst Picture Torah 586. Idolatry with Baal-peor. Numbers cap 25 vv 1-8. Pool.jpg, File:Plate 14 of 22 for the Macklin Bible after Loutherbourg. Bowyer Bible. Mattathias Punishes Idolatry.gif, File:Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia e8 033-0.jpg, File:Brockhaus and Efron Jewish Encyclopedia e8 034-0.jpg, File:The Phillip Medhurst Picture Torah 585. Idolatry with Baal-peor. Numbers cap 25 vv 1-8. Kraussen.jpg, File:Weltchronik Fulda Aa88 321r detail.jpg and File:Jeroboam sets up two golden calves.jpg, and categories like Category:The Scripture history of idolatry, showing the connexion between the traditions of pagan mythology and the Bible (1838), , Category:Idolatry of Solomon, Category:Golden calf, . These are a) images created by recognized legitimate sources and b) images created with the intention of displaying idolatry. Most (if not all) of the other images and categories in Category:Idolatry should not be there. Unfortunately, I didn't see any images that explicitly address mariolatry as idolatry, but perhaps I just missed them. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: I like your add suggestions. I also like your suggestion that the image should "display idolatry". On rest, how about [1] we avoid making category Idolatry to be nothing more than Idolatry in (ancient) Judaism and Christianity, because the term idolatry has been used in a zillion reliable sources for Mariolatry, Infant Jesus/Child of Prague worship, Saint worship, and religious practices of Africa, native America, Asia etc; [2] let us keep images that simultaneously show statue/icon/image and display its reverence/worship in some form; [3] remove all those images which just show an idol, but no obvious display of idol reverence/worship? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a good start, anyway. If you want to start removing things that don't match that description, I'd be supportive.

Beyond that, though, I'm still a little worried about commons users imposing their own views. If I find a picture of someone placing a coin on an eastern orthodox icon, I could see that as idolatry or not. Because the images was not produced by someone as an image of idolatry, it's a criticism without specific attribution. If someone draws a picture of the same act and labels it "icon worship as idolatry", then the description comes from the source, not from the uploader. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill:: I agree. We should not take an uploader's description as final. For example, just because an uploader or someone labels an image of giraffe as a sparrow, doesn't make it so. If we have an image that shows an idol, with some form of reverence, such as "bowing, praying, kneeling, performing rites or rituals or ceremonies, lighting candles, making a ritual offering, prostrating, carrying it above their head, etc" then it is more than idol, it is idolatry of some form. It reasonably belongs in the idolatry category if reliable scholarly sources specifically call that idol plus reverence as idolatry. I have begun clean up of the category. Give me a few days, and please do watch, question and challenge me. I appreciate your kind oversight. If you are okay, I will also copy-past this discussion on the category's talk page for the consideration and review of future contributors. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience in discussing this. I understand what you're saying, but I worry that you're missing my slightly different point. It's one thing to say, in a wikipedia article, "Scholar X says that <religious practice Y> is idolatry" and another thing to put a category "idolatry" on an image of religious practice Y. The wikipedia statement has clear attribution to a particular person (with the implied caveat that others might feel differently), whereas the category suggests more of a statement of general consensus that something is idolatry with no particular attribution (even if it *could* be defended with references). If we had a category "Religious practices that Scholar X considers idolatry" that would be different. Do you see what I mean? - Themightyquill (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, simply moving something from Category:Idolatry to Category:Idols is playing with semantics, but fails to resolve the basic problem I've raised here. I was rather disappointed to see that, as it seems to be in bad faith given this discussion. - Themightyquill (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: Are you claiming the images I moved from category:idolatry into category:idols are not idols or that they are some random artwork and not generally considered idols? You are frankly mistaken, and your semantic argument seems bad faith to me. See any WP:RS that discusses idol and you will find support (1, 2, 3, 4, etc). If there is a particular image you believe I added that is not relevant to idol or idolatry category, please identify, I will reconsider or provide you with specific reliable sources. Or, please identify some of the your sources that suggest that these are not idols (or idolatry). As I noted above, Mariolatry is widely referred to as Idolatry in reliable sources, I have already guided you to multiple sources. I can readily provide you with RS on idols and idolatry of "Infant Jesus", Nazarene, statues and images of African/American/Asian/Egyptian/Norse deities, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Themightyquill: BTW, the same objection applies to the images you list above. It is one thing to say, "Bible or such and such collection says <image> is idolatry" and another to put category "idolatry" on it. Every claim of "idolatry", with reference to the Bible or otherwise, is by a particular artist/author. May be we can add a standard disclaimer in the description of every image we include, such as "Idolatry is a contested topic. Carlos Eire states "one man's devotion has been another man's idolatry" (Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-37984-7). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@INeverCry: I'm afraid I'm done trying to argue here. Can you take this, in a neutral fashion, to the village pump or some other means? Otherwise we will end up in an edit war. Thanks. - 14:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themightyquill (talk • contribs) [reply]

@INeverCry: Since @Themightyquill has requested you specifically, I will hold off further activity on this, and welcome your efforts/VP guidance. In good faith, @Themightyquill and I both have good points here. I do not know if there are further commons guidelines on category selection, other than COM:CAT, that can guide us here (@Blofeld Dr.: do you know of any?). Perhaps village pump can help us. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.The image exists on the Internet.Is there information about the artist?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a derivative work on a wikimedia file with creative commons license. I did not download from internet. I downloaded it from wikimedia commons. Please see wikimedia guidelines on what creative commons means. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I made this way back in 2008, when I was sort of uninterested in provided sources for things I made. Unfortunately I simply do not remember, I probably used one or two more maps I found online somewhere. It's most likely highly innacurate and should probably be deleted, or replaced if possible. -Javierfv1212