Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Kaaba: - bullets |
|||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
****Re NS, according to some people's understanding of Islam photography is considered forbidden. Unfortunately, these people are the vast majority of Saudi Arabians. And you must remember, this is SA we are talking about, T\there is not much democracy going on there. I have taken pictures inside mosques in Tanzania without any problems but I did face some opposition in Indian mosques. --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']][[User Talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|<small>(''talk'')</small>]] 09:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
****Re NS, according to some people's understanding of Islam photography is considered forbidden. Unfortunately, these people are the vast majority of Saudi Arabians. And you must remember, this is SA we are talking about, T\there is not much democracy going on there. I have taken pictures inside mosques in Tanzania without any problems but I did face some opposition in Indian mosques. --[[User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|'''Muhammad''']][[User Talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim|<small>(''talk'')</small>]] 09:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
*****I was forgetting that Saudi Arabia has Sharia law. It therefore does make sense that a camera could be confiscated if it is interpreted to be against the law. My opposition still stands however. Some photographs just require risking camera equipment - many of my own photos would not be possible without considerable risk to my equipment (standing in salt water swell). I did not have any trouble in the Indian Mosques that I visited whilst I was there, though they were more likely to be tourist destinations, and it was in a different area. I doubt anyone would legally be allowed to take your camera in India. [[User:Noodle snacks|Noodle snacks]] ([[User talk:Noodle snacks|talk]]) 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
*****I was forgetting that Saudi Arabia has Sharia law. It therefore does make sense that a camera could be confiscated if it is interpreted to be against the law. My opposition still stands however. Some photographs just require risking camera equipment - many of my own photos would not be possible without considerable risk to my equipment (standing in salt water swell). I did not have any trouble in the Indian Mosques that I visited whilst I was there, though they were more likely to be tourist destinations, and it was in a different area. I doubt anyone would legally be allowed to take your camera in India. [[User:Noodle snacks|Noodle snacks]] ([[User talk:Noodle snacks|talk]]) 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
||
'''Oppose''' Somehow, despite getting my @$$ handed to me last time, I feel the need to bring this up again: ''If your culture bans photography in certain areas, don't complain that those areas have no good photographs.'' This is not anti-muslim, it's just a general statement. I would look over the Flickr image pool for a better one, if not, no featured picture. It's what has been done for the longest time. Sorry, but I oppose this image for its lack of quality. I would love to see a good Kaaba image finally get through, but this isn't it. <font face="Courier">[[User:Nezzadar|<span style="color:Green">'''Nezzadar'''</span>]] </font face>[[User talk:Nezzadar|<span style="color:Black;"><small><sup>[SPEAK]</sup></small></span>]] 18:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- additional votes go above this line --> |
<!-- additional votes go above this line --> |
||
{{-}} |
{{-}} |
||
<noinclude>[[Category:Featured picture nominations]] [[Category:Featured picture nominations/November 2009]]</noinclude> |
<noinclude>[[Category:Featured picture nominations]] [[Category:Featured picture nominations/November 2009]]</noinclude> |
||
Revision as of 18:09, 27 November 2009
- Reason
- Different edits of this picture were nominated twice before, first in 2007 and then in 2008. Each time, there was a clear consensus on the encyclopedic value of the image and the only reason for opposing was quality and "...we'll get something better". In the last 2 years, we have not received any picture which surpasses this one in quality or EV. IMO, the latest edit fixes some quality issues as well. Since the purpose of FP is to recognize the best we currently have, this is a good candidate IMO. If and when a better version shows up, I will personally put this one up for a delist but since taking pictures in the place is prohibited , I doubt we'll receive any in the neat future. FWIW, I have been approached by tens of writers and students who wished to use my images in their books, brochures and projects. The picture was also used by travel agencies (without my permission) to promote their packages. Third time's a charm?
- Articles this image appears in
- Arab people, Most sacred sites, List of mosques, Masjid al-Haram, Islam in Saudi Arabia, Tawaf, Muhammad in Medina, Mahdi, Kaaba, Hajj
- Creator
- Muhammad Mahdi Karim
- Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 16:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Support Most likely the best image we have of the Kaaba and most likely the best we'll have for a long time. Doesn't illustrate the circumambulation, you'd need a longer exposure from a higher advantage to show that, but it does a great job of illustrating the Kaaba. — raeky (talk | edits) 17:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. The rarity of this shot is not so much that the poor quality can be opposed. There are thousands of shots of the Kaaba - this is a bad one. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then care to enlighten us on which shot we have you think is better? — raeky (talk | edits) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- here are a few. You're essentially telling us to ignore any semblance of quality. A shot of the Kaaba is difficult, but not so difficult that we should throw our standards out the window. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Key words there was we have and with the photographs being forbidden there, quality may of course be a problem considering I doubt many people would risk loosing their fancy DSLR if caught with it there. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've just shown you that plenty of much better examples exist. None of them appear to be under free license? Well that's too bad. No Featured Picture. Mostlyharmless (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mostlyharmless, the google image search you linked to, I followed the link and guess what? This image is the first one there. And it appears again on the first page. Doesn't this just show you how feature worthy this image is? --Muhammad(talk) 05:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. All it shows is that Google's algorithm thinks that Wikipedia content is more likely to be linked to than random pages on the internet. It says nothing about its quality or encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hooray for Markov Chains. Also, I feel it fair to point out that the image shows up on other websites, not Wikipedia on that first page. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. All it shows is that Google's algorithm thinks that Wikipedia content is more likely to be linked to than random pages on the internet. It says nothing about its quality or encyclopedic value. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Key words there was we have and with the photographs being forbidden there, quality may of course be a problem considering I doubt many people would risk loosing their fancy DSLR if caught with it there. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- here are a few. You're essentially telling us to ignore any semblance of quality. A shot of the Kaaba is difficult, but not so difficult that we should throw our standards out the window. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Then care to enlighten us on which shot we have you think is better? — raeky (talk | edits) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weak oppose per Mostlyharmless -- mcshadypl TC 04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image has obvious EV, but I don't think it meets the standards otherwise unfortunately. I'm afraid that there are better examples to be had on the internet. The "until a better one comes along" argument is inapplicable given that the shot is ultimately repeatable. To raeky I highly doubt that anyone has the right to confiscate camera equipment. It would most likely just be a matter of apologising profusely if caught (this is my usual attitude when climbing fences and the like). I think it might be emailing a few people about the best examples on flickr, hoping for a CC-BY-SA release or two. There are 250 images in the kaaba pool. Noodle snacks (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- No apologies would work. I know people who lost their p&S there. Good luck with the e-mailing, I would be happy to see something good come along. --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I must admit I am quite surprised. Unless it is regarded as evidence for some crime not even the police could legally confiscate a camera here. Do you think that it would be possible with written permission from the appropriate authority? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- By here do you mean Saudi Arabia? I'm going to defer to Muhammad here since he's actually been to this mosque. My understanding is the prohibition of photographs in Islamic mosques isn't by national law but Islamic law, ergo no one is going to have power to grant permission to take these photographs per Islamic law. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also like to add, i've spent some time looking for good images of the Kaaba, almost all the images I've seen taken clearly within the mosque grounds was by cell phones or P&S cameras. Only SLR images I've seen was taken from the high-rise buildings outside of the mosque grounds that overlook it. If you can find someone who does have high-quality close-up images of the Kaaba that will release it under a compatible free license, that would be simply amazing for this project. I'm not going to hold my breath on that though. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- There were a number in that flickr pool I linked to taken with a 5Dii. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Also like to add, i've spent some time looking for good images of the Kaaba, almost all the images I've seen taken clearly within the mosque grounds was by cell phones or P&S cameras. Only SLR images I've seen was taken from the high-rise buildings outside of the mosque grounds that overlook it. If you can find someone who does have high-quality close-up images of the Kaaba that will release it under a compatible free license, that would be simply amazing for this project. I'm not going to hold my breath on that though. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Re NS, according to some people's understanding of Islam photography is considered forbidden. Unfortunately, these people are the vast majority of Saudi Arabians. And you must remember, this is SA we are talking about, T\there is not much democracy going on there. I have taken pictures inside mosques in Tanzania without any problems but I did face some opposition in Indian mosques. --Muhammad(talk) 09:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I was forgetting that Saudi Arabia has Sharia law. It therefore does make sense that a camera could be confiscated if it is interpreted to be against the law. My opposition still stands however. Some photographs just require risking camera equipment - many of my own photos would not be possible without considerable risk to my equipment (standing in salt water swell). I did not have any trouble in the Indian Mosques that I visited whilst I was there, though they were more likely to be tourist destinations, and it was in a different area. I doubt anyone would legally be allowed to take your camera in India. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- By here do you mean Saudi Arabia? I'm going to defer to Muhammad here since he's actually been to this mosque. My understanding is the prohibition of photographs in Islamic mosques isn't by national law but Islamic law, ergo no one is going to have power to grant permission to take these photographs per Islamic law. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I must admit I am quite surprised. Unless it is regarded as evidence for some crime not even the police could legally confiscate a camera here. Do you think that it would be possible with written permission from the appropriate authority? Noodle snacks (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- No apologies would work. I know people who lost their p&S there. Good luck with the e-mailing, I would be happy to see something good come along. --Muhammad(talk) 05:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Somehow, despite getting my @$$ handed to me last time, I feel the need to bring this up again: If your culture bans photography in certain areas, don't complain that those areas have no good photographs. This is not anti-muslim, it's just a general statement. I would look over the Flickr image pool for a better one, if not, no featured picture. It's what has been done for the longest time. Sorry, but I oppose this image for its lack of quality. I would love to see a good Kaaba image finally get through, but this isn't it. Nezzadar [SPEAK] 18:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
