Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia

Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia

 * Reason:Hard to find a more encyclopedic image of Islam than this. This may not be the highest resolution image, but it's strongly encyclopedic, evidenced by it's use in 10 articles. I feel it's a great composition and artistically nice. Shame it isn't higher resolution, but baring that shortfall I think it deserves another shot at a FP status here. (Note this was nominated before in 2006 and in 2007) not for vote in 2007
 * Articles this image appears in:Five Pillars of Islam, Pilgrimage, Prayer, Haram, Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi, Tawaf, Islam, Banu Hothail, Kaaba, Hajj
 * Creator:Ali Imran


 * Support as nominator --— raeky ( talk 00:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per the many good reasons given in 2006. Blurry, person blocks the shot, etc.  Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly Support I'm pretty sure the person is supposed to be the subject of the image, you know, religious reverence etc. --I′d※&lt;3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Nezz. Definitely a subject that could feature some excellent pics, but this is blurry in several areas. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose IMO this picture of mine does a better job. --Muhammad (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think either of them would be fine if the quality were better. Are you allowed to take a DSLR in with you, or is that considered disrespectful? &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  13:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you can't, the best images I've seen from inside are from tiny point-and-shoot, the MAJORITY is cell phone cameras. I'm going to bet you can't take a SLR camera in. If thats the case that would explain why ALL these images suffer in quality. The linked image is good for illustrating the Kaaba, but the proposed image illustrates far more of the Islamic faith and prayer and thats why it's used on 10 pages. If you was allowed to take SLR's in then I would image there would be PLENTY of great images of this. This is of course one of the most visited places on earth. Because the overwhelming vast majority of images of this are from tiny easly consealable cameras and cell phones I'm betting no large SLR's allowed, see below. — raeky ( talk 14:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This image says it was taken with a D70, so maybe SLR's are allowed in, but I'm not sure where in the temple that was taken, clearly a high vantage point and theres some high rise hotels around the temple, so a good zoom lens could make that image from one of the hotels probably. An image like This would be great, it illustrates the circum-ambulation quite well with the timelapse, but this is clearly taken from one of the high-rise hotels. Every image I see from inside the temple is cell phones or tiny point and shoot cameras... According to a comment here, "btw....nt a single camera is allowed in ...the mecca premisis" and here it says not even the king has "permission to carry a camera inside the kaaba", and "As we all know, Cameras are not allowed in most holy places". Then this image is clearly within the temple complex with a SLR, but the top comment is asking "How did you get access to this place that is usually a no-no even for Ahl al-Kitab?", so I don't know. — raeky ( talk 14:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cameras are strictly prohibited inside the mosque (not temple Raeky :)). According to their understanding of Islam, taking pictures is not allowed according to sharia. If you are caught, the security confiscates your camera and in some cases breaks it right before you (at least it was so a few yrs ago). When I was there, the security used to check our possessions before we entered so sneaking in a compact was difficult, let alone an SLR. And one may risk a cheap compact but imagine if an SLR is confiscated. --Muhammad (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry on the Mosque and Temple thing. ;-) Thats my understanding from reading various comments and such about it. So that explains why almost every image of the Kaaba is on cell phones or cheap POS cameras. So we should really be ignoring the technical issues of a bad camera here, if this is about the best we can expect quality wise. — raeky ( talk 00:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Encyclopedic and nice work. FP at Turkish Wikipedia. --. ds m . 17:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't like the composition, and the colours are bland. -- Silversmith Hewwo 22:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Colors are going to be an issue of the poor quality of camera due to rules of the mosque. Composition wise this image isn't meant to illustrate the Kaaba. — raeky ( talk 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, colors are going to be an issue because of the dress code. There won't be any photos that are not white on white. As for composition, this image is the worst of those shown so far. Half of the image isn't even mosque, it's Mecca skyline, and it's more white on white, Half of the gathering area is cut out and there is a man (with no indications as to who the man is, blocking off a significat portion of the shot. I ask, what is the shot's focus? For all I know, it could be the man, as that is the only thing that looks remotely in focus or of contrast in the shot.  Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The title is "Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram", one of the I'm sure someone who is Islamic could explain it better but going to this particular place is one of the things that all able bodied Islams are required to do if they can afford it, the man in the foreground is doing what people do when they go there, pray. And your faulting the image's colors based on the dress these pilgrims wear at the mosque, not colorful enough for you? — raeky ( talk 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would raise the same objection if the people were all wearing hot pink, the buildings in the foreground were hot pink, and the skyscrapers in the background were hot pink. It's not a matter of colorfulness, but that the large number of white objects, combined with the poor clarity, make this image one giant white blob at anything less than fullscreen view. <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  04:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[undent] How dare you use evidence and my own words against me, that insults me... LOL... right. I'll go over the list soon, it does need redoing. <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  16:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reaffirm Oppose after Request to Reconsider by Raeky I am well aware of the issues, but that is the Mosque's fault, and with all due respect to the faith, if they ban cameras, they aren't going to get good photos, its their own fault. The photo has a host of problems, the blurriness being the least of them, and as I said, all of them are listed in the failed 2006 nomination. My vote stands. <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  00:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I don't know how to respond to that, it's not the mosque but the faith that dictates the no cameras. So your saying "sorry Islam, you don't deserve featured status of some of the most visited holy relics in the world because your faith isn't in congruent with western values on cameras?" — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk
 * Well when you word it that way, sure, I guess that is what I said. So much for AGF. I am saying that just because something has religious importance, that does not allow it to circumvent the same criteria that other things have to go through. I don't care what it is or how many people like it, this isn't an Islam thing, it's a human thing. Feel free to believe what you want, but that doesn't make things special. This is a terrible picture and as such, I oppose it. For the record, I have updated my talk page to address FPC concerns. It now says that I no longer entertain direct requests for vote changes, only requests to reveiw alternate images. I made my decision, and I will change it when I feel the need to. <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  04:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You're becoming more and more stubborn, it seems... That is not the sort of attitude that is particularly welcome here. We should all be capable of changing out mind when a legitimate and persuasive argument is presented. That's the purpose of discussion. &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  08:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My banner specifically says that I do reconsider my opinions, but I do it myself. I was rather annoyed to get a message that essentially said reconsider this because I told you to. Normally I get along fine with Raeky, but everything he said was already presented at the page, and I can read, so I felt a bit insulted. <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  15:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But my problem with that is that you are so damn easy to offend. As for all of your 'rules' on you talk page, I find them a little ridiculous. Just because you state them on your talk page, it doesn't mean people should be obliged to follow them to the letter. They make it pretty difficult to engage with you and to be honest, they also make it a little unpleasant. I don't see why the world should change in order to interact with you in the matter that you demand and apparently enforce. Instead, perhaps you could just be a little more flexible and easy-going? Anyway, I apologise for bringing this up in a nomination instead of your talk page, but your own rules would have it promptly removed as an apparent insult intended to goad you... ;-) &#208;iliff    &#171;&#187;  (Talk)  16:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Thanks for showing me how harsh I was being. <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  17:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Note Please review the difference between a Featured Picture and a Commons Valued Picture. WP:FPs are the best there is on Wikipedia, regardless of subject. WC:VPs are the best image within the scope of a field. This might be the best shot of Masjid Al Haram, in which case it deserves VP status, however if it is not the best picture overall, it is not a WP:FP. <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  15:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It looks nice as a thumbnail, but at even preview resolution it's overblown all over the place, unfortunately. The composition is okay, although I'm not sure if the focus is of the man in supplication, the Masjid al-Haram, or the Kaaba; it captures both moderately well, but not exceptionally so - there are better pictures for illustrating these at all those articles. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, needs to be higher quality. This can be retaken any hajj.  We need a good hajj picture but this one isn't it. gren グレン 22:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That we have been waiting for for a a couple of years now. Isnt the purpose of FPC to honour the best that wikipedia has? Sure if a better version comes by, we can always delist the old one. --Muhammad (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this may be our best picture that combines all these elements, but is it "Wikipedia's best work"? That contention is obviously disputed. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is very possibly the best work for this particular subject we have, the camera limitations of these mosques will greatly limit the mega sharp high pixel DSLR quality images we've come to expect from modern photography. The FP rules make allowances for this, when there simply isn't better out there. Sure someone could get special permission maybe to shoot the Kaaba or the mosque from this angle or whatever, but until that day comes that we can get better, we have to accept there will be quality issues of this particular subject. Objecting on quality grounds in this case I think is a bit against the spirit of this project since quality is going to be an issue here based on already explained reasons. There are other pictures we have that better illustrate say the Kaaba, or any one element in that photograph, but they can't be used in as many different topics as this one. I think that this image has been placed over the years in 10 solid articles by many different editors and has never been replaced with anything better is evidence that it has solid EV for the subject and that we probably won't get anything better anytime soon. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 06:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Insha'allah we get one, until then I'm opposing. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I never guessed anyone would dredge that up :D  I understand your point, and it might take some waiting but I do think we need a better quality photo but we really are lucky that we have that. gren グレン 03:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rule 1 & 2 are excusable due to limitations of cameras in mosques. It meets #3 under "It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more.", it meets 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8. I'm not sure what rules your looking at but this image falls clearly within the guidelines of the FP criteria. #3 is the only one your arguing against I think, and if you don't feel this image is compelling causing a viewer to stop and read the article if they see that image, then thats your opinion, mine is it does. — <i style="color:#6600FF;">raeky</i> ( talk 16:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rude and abusive comments removed by Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rest of the conversation expunged for same reason by <font face="Courier"> Nezzadar  [SPEAK]  01:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Many historic images with far worse quality than this have and are being featured. Sometimes exception can be made with quality. --Muhammad (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

-- Zoo Fari  22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)