Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Portrait of a Turkish Woman

Portrait of a Turkish Woman

 * Reason:It is very encyclopedic and great for illustrating the articles. It is culturally significant, there aren't enough high-quality portraits on Wikipedia, and the woman's intriguing expression makes the articles a lot more interesting. Much better version of the photo than the previous nomination.
 * Proposed caption:An elderly woman in Selçuk, Turkey, wearing traditional Islamic dress. Due to Secularism in Turkey gradually increasing since Atatürk's Reforms in 1923, it is now much less common amongst the younger generations for the hijab to be worn, particularly in urban areas.
 * Articles this image appears in:Hijab, Selçuk, Turkish people, Secularism in Turkey, Religion in Turkey
 * Creator: Kitkatcrazy


 * Support as nominator Kitkatcrazy 10:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Was this not submitted once before? --84.90.46.116 12:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, per above, but since that version the photo has been cropped, brightened, and put at a more realistic colour level. Kitkatcrazy 12:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, was just making sure XD. --84.90.46.116 13:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Question. The nom, as well as captions on this image in the articles, claim that this is "traditional Islamic dress". Um, is this correct? Take the long pants for example. Looking through the Hijab article I can't verify this, but considering how recently women in Western societies started wearing pants I have to wonder. Overall it doesn't really look traditional Islamic dress to me. If it's not traditional it probably weakens the nom somewhat. --jjron 13:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Salwars are loose pajama-like trousers, with legs wide at the top and narrow at the bottom. They are a traditional form of dress across the Muslim world, having originated in South Asia. Hope that clears it up :) Kitkatcrazy 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The woman is not in hijab. her neck, hands and feet are showing. This is NOT the traditional Islamic dress.  Muhammad Mahdi Karim 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Traditional Islamic dress varies according to which Muslim country you are referring to. Hijab can be interpreted in many different ways and does not necessarily mean that the neck must be covered. Followers of hijab in your own country Tanzania for example will have a different interpretation of hijab from those in a more liberal Muslim country such as Turkey. However, even in more strict Muslim societies the hands and feet are rarely covered as these are needed for everyday tasks. Kitkatcrazy 15:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The hijab I was referring was the actual hijab that is mandated by Islam. According to the Islamic defn of hijab (according to most Islamic scholars), all parts should be covered except the hands from the wrists downwards and the face. The body shape ie figure should not be noticeable. Unfortunately the woman in the picture does not meet the requirements. Perhaps you can change the caption and mention that the woman is wearing the "liberal hijab". Muhammad Mahdi Karim 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As a Muslim you obviously have more experience and say on the matter than I do, but before the caption is changed could we perhaps find another person to give their idea of the interpretation of Hijab? Also, regarding the photo itself, would you support its nomination as a featured picture? Thanks Kitkatcrazy 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I cant understand the subject of the discussion. Hijab is not related with this matter. Dress of this elder woman is traditional-rural dress than can be seen similarly in central,west Anatolia and also in Balkan countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Greece-western thracia, Macedonia and Albania. Religion has no so much affect on this style of dressing but life-working style.
 * Please try to follow the discussion. Hijab is relevant because the proposed caption above, along with image captions in various articles, state that this is "traditional Islamic dress"; it links to hijab, and is in fact in the hijab article. If it just said it was 'typical Turkish rural dress' or something, without all the references to hijab, then you would have a point, but the nom itself has made hijab relevant. --jjron 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So, take out the word "Islamic" and everybody is happy? 129.215.191.74 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps replacing traditional Islamic Dress with something more accurate would be more useful then just removing islamic, which would just leave us with traditional dress... --84.90.46.116 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been asked for some imput, I'm not really an expert on the subject, I agree with some of the points made above, the clothing (to me) doesn't seem that traditional. If the caption were to change then maybe it would have a better changes of getting through. I think the image needs more focus, if it were about a certain famous building in Turkey, or a more obvious cultural aspect unique to Turky, it would make more sence to go on the front page. It's not obvious enough that it's connected to the articals it links to. Steveoc 86 23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support for FP.Regards. Must . T  C 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose She is wearing a traditional anatolian headscarf. The laws in Turkey do not interfere with wearing this style of headscarf.  The caption should be corrected.
 * Oppose So-so technical quality, poorly-nominated, confuses more issues than it illustrates and frankly irrelevant to most of the articles it appears in. --mikaultalk 15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Caption? Thanks for all the comments - what do you propose the caption should be changed to? Should the photo be taken out the hijab article altogether? Kitkatcrazy 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Technical quality is not so great, it's not particularly encyclopedic if we're not using it to illustrate something about hijab, and the composition/expression of the subject is not my favorite. Also this really is not much different than the previous failed nomination, which in my opinion should be given considerable weight. Calliopejen1 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a slight point of order here. Seeing as you're not a regular on FPC Kitkatcrazy I'll assume good faith and think that you don't necessarily know all the details of the process. However canvassing other users to come and support your nom (1, 2, 3) is generally frowned upon. There are a few other messages in a similar vein, though it's not quite such an issue if it is just a request for people to come and look. Cheers, --jjron 07:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sorry but the technical quality is substandard and the composition is not very appealing. Plus that sort of canvassing is a bridge too far. --  Chris B  •  talk  14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

MER-C 05:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)