Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sadhu

Sadhu, hindu hermit

 * Reason:highly encyclopedic, good quality
 * Articles this image appears in:Hermit, Sadhu, Kathmandu Valley, Kathmandu District
 * Creator:Luca Galuzzi

MER-C 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator --Alokprasad84 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken aback by Mr. Sadhu no. 2's watch. He seems to be practicing both kama (money) and artha (appointments). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this one is a much better photo of a Sadhu, at least aesthetically and compositionally. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we nominate that as an alternative? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose That watch is a deal killer.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Should more fit Western ideals, how many Sadhu's wear watches?  Those who wanted to be photographed for Western encyclopedias don't.  --Blechnic (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment On the one hand, the wristwatch is a distracting element (ooh, sorry ;-); on the other hand, who are we to tell these guys what they should and shouldn't wear? Should an encyclopedia be descriptive or prescriptive? Why should it offend our sensibilities to find that these men don't dress and act as if they're part of a museum exhibit? If the positions were reversed, would Nepali encyclopedists be right in objecting to images of cowboys wearing wristwatches? Matt Deres (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet that's exactly what encyclopedias are in a sense, museums in written form. The watch kills the ency. value - simply because it isn't typical. If this were nominated for showing an anachronism or some such, it would be appropriate. However, it is nommed for showing a typical Sadhu, which this fellow clearly is not. pschemp | talk 16:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But these fellows aren't in a museum, are they? I mean, that's my point. We apparently want them to behave and dress in a certain way that appeals to our concepts - concepts usually based on simplistic, apocryphal accounts. This picture isn't from 100 years ago; there's nothing anachronistic about it at all. They're not attempting to look like Sadhu from the 1500s, they're Sadhu from today, right now. And they apparently wear watches if they feel like it. To me, objecting to the watch is like objecting to a photo of the Colosseum because there are electric lights in the background. See similar arguments here. Matt Deres (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that it hasn't occurred to anyone that the watch might be an indication that these guys are just posing for tourists. They may not in fact be recognised as proper sadhu in their own culture at all. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I considered it, but think that a couple of frauds would most likely not be willing to go the whole nine yards with the extreme hairstyles. :-) faithless   (speak)  09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Question When did encyclopedias become museums? Where's the ban on modern culture, pschemp?  I missed that.  --Blechnic (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Diliff comments. The other photo is better. Wikidās-ॐ 09:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose (just to make it clear). I also allowed myself to de-indent some comments, please change it back if you're unhappy. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose because of the bright background at right - would maybe support a crop of just the left person, but the size might be too small. But... I definitely don't oppose this because of the watch. Rejecting this image because of speculation about the appropriateness of an ascetic wearing a watch borders seems to just be caving to stereotypes. de Bivort 22:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider the possibility that some of us are actually knowledgeable about Eastern belief systems. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't quite understand why people are opposing based on the watch. Presumably, the rationale is something along the lines of, "a real Sadhu wouldn't be wearing such a thing." Well, considering this image, that would appear to be patently incorrect. But if these men are the genuine article and one is wearing a watch, wouldn't it stand to reason that that must not be such a bad thing? I mean, surely they would know what is acceptable in their culture better than we would. faithless   (speak)  09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is not whether they are Sadhus (in the general sense of the term) or not, but whether they are particularly representative of Sadhus. There are plenty of adherents to various religions/philosophies that don't necessarily follow the dogma particularly well, but it wouldn't be a great idea to feature a picture of them unless the point was to illustrate nonconformity in religion or something. Ultimately though, it does seem that freeing oneself from earthly possessions and a life of devotion to its purity is a fundimental part of what makes a Sadhu and I think we should feature an image that best illustrates one (as long as it also meets the other criteria too). Featuring this would probably be the rough equivalent of featuring a picture of a Rabbi or Imam eating pork! Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well put; my only point is, are we sure that this picture doesn't illustrate the subject well? That is, is the watch such an egregious offense that this man is no longer representative of his people? Mind you, I don't know, which is why I'm not arguing support or oppose, just raising the point.Honestly, even without the watch I'm not 100% on whether I would support or not. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  07:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I don't understand how a watch can spoil that picture Blieusong (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadhus are meant to be free from earthly possessions. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then whose clothes, beads, weavings and paint are they wearing? The assumption, not backed by any research on this page, appears to be that clothings, makeup, weavings, and beads are not earthly possessions while watches are.  I doubt this dividing line holds true among the Sadhu, but I don't know.  I haven't researched it, and I'm unwilling to support or reject the picture based upon my guesses.  Is a watch against the Sadhu equivalent of Kosher law?  (And Halal to a Muslim is not the same thing as Kosher to a Jew, but, sure, throw the Muslims and Jews in.)  Is a bead allowed?  Is a belt allowed?  Is clothing allowed?  Is paint allowed or required?  --Blechnic (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Our article on Sadhus doesn't say they give up all worldy possessions, what it says is they often are the people who give up all worldly possessions, "Sadhus are often sanyasi, or renunciates, who have left behind all material and sexual attachments and live in caves, forests and temples all over India." So we need one in a cave, not on a street.  --Blechnic (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article states very clearly that they reject kharma, artha and dharma. I'll leave it to you to look up what those are and how they relate, especially as I feel I've already rather clearly stated that at the beginning of this discussion. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to look up anything, as Im not afraid to post the whole line: "In Hinduism, sadhu' is a common term for an ascetic or practitioner of yoga (yogi) who has given up pursuit of the first three Hindu goals of life: kama (enjoyment), artha (practical objectives) and even dharma (duty)."  And which is the watch?  Or do you need original research to tie that in?--Blechnic (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Artha includes material prosperity, for which you need non-essential material possessions. A watch would be such a material possession - you don't exactly need a watch to live.  No WP:OR necessary. -- Shruti14 t c s 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)