Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaaba mirror edit jj.jpg

Kaaba edit

Original - Pilgrims performing Tawaf (circumambulating) the Kaaba during the Hajj. This picture taken from the gate of Abdul Aziz seems to divide the Kaaba and the minarets into mirror images of one another

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Then care to enlighten us on which shot we have you think is better? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        
        It shows up first linking to another page not wikipedia. --Muhammad(talk) 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I would also go so far as to say that for overall quality, this is better than all the other images on that first page, having looked at them all. upstate NYer 01:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Mostlyharmless -- mcshadypl ^T ^C 04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]
        There were a number in that flickr pool I linked to taken with a 5Dii. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Links? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        [1], I would assume [2] is too (same author). [3] (5d). Noodle snacks (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Metadata on this says D70, but it looks like crap, so who knows. link. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 07:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Just went through the whole pool, didn't see any DSLR images from within the mosque of the Kaaba, except for the one above that is skeptical that it is a DSLR based on quality, (Didn't look at birds-eye views of it from the high-rise buildings outside of the mosque since those would not be relevant for a FP of the Kaaba, maybe of the mosque but not the Kaaba, and no camera restrictions would be in those hotels to my understanding.) Are the images your referring too one of the ones taken from a hotel and not inside the mosque? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Taking this as a working example the focal length is 175mm. It is clearly possible to get a longer lens for the kaaba if required. That particular shot would be better from lower in my opinion though. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe, but you'd need one heck of a powerful telephoto lens to get a high resolution closeup of the Kaaba from one of those high-rise hotels around it. And as you said it would be better to have a picture from ground-level or lower instead of a overhead shot from the high-rises. The linked too image is cropped to give the illusion of a closeup, but the image becomes small when you do that. An image like this would be most ideal, imho. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 10:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Assuming the shot with the 175mm was not cropped then 300mm would be more than adequate for tight framing. I wouldn't take the image from one of the tall high rises, but rather one of the shorter ones (10 stories or something). Agree that such an image is ideal. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]
      - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment Your logic is odd. Sure, a conservative Saudi Arabian who thinks photography is sinful has no right to complain about the lack of good pictures. But our perspective in this forum is not as anti-photography Saudis but as Wikipedians. We didn't ban photos of the Kaaba (including the nominator). To us, a ban on photos just means good photos are hard to get. Anytime a photo is hard to get, you have to balance the rarity against the desire for good technical quality. For example, it would be stupid to hold a picture from Antartica to the same high standard as one from London or New York. Not that we want bad quality, but let's just keep in mind the point of an encyclopedia is to convey information, not to have a gallery of pretty pictures. Fletcher (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your logic is odd. There are much much better examples of photos of the Kaaba. As far as photos of the Kaaba go, this one is just awful. Yes, it may be difficult to get one from the ground - but plenty exist. Even more exist illustrating it from a high vantage point. This thing has been there for some time, at least a few decades (so I've heard), and it's not likely to be demolished any time soon. Exceptions in the quality are there for things that are exceptional. I've demonstrated very clearly that this is in no way so. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been more insulted for my pictures Mostlyharmless than your just awful comment. This nomination is probably going to fail due to its quality but I would love to hear what you find so awful about it. The tens of people who used the image worldwide clearly didn't think so and neither did the wiki editors who placed it in the articles. --Muhammad(talk) 09:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that it is very obvious that the entire image is extremely unsharp and overblown all over the place. As a result, it looks like a watercolour painting. It's very obviously a cellphone image, and as such comes with the limitations of the technology. I really do appreciate that you took the effort to make this image at some personal risk, and I feel bad for criticising you as someone who makes a strong contribution to FPC. "Just awful" was rude. I'm not going to censor my opinions completely, but I'll endeavour to be nicer. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is not extremely unsharp. It looks extremely unsharp on the image page, because of an unfavourable ratio between its actual resolution and the resolution it is shown in on the picture page. Viewed at Full Resolution, the image is not "extremely unsharp" by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase. --JN 466 12:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Full Resolution it is extremely unsharp by any reasonable interpretation of that phrase. Just look at the minarets. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, upload the better pictures to Commons so one can be nominated. Fletcher (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the last three days, I have received three requests from people asking to use this image --Muhammad(talk) 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While clearly a rare picture with a huge amount of EV, I don't think that this photo meets the FP technical standards. Its current status as a valued picture seems highly appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per Raeky and caveats mentioned above. upstate NYer 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I'm disappointed to see people forgetting that this is an encyclopedia not a photo contest. This is a good composition and a very encyclopedic image showing one of Islam's most important rituals and holy sites. While technical quality is weak, the criteria state: "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images." This image is "otherwise unique" in that it is very difficult to reproduce: if I am right that the Kaaba is not open to tourists, you must be a Muslim worshipper, or lie about being one, and you must be willing to break the rules against photography risking your camera. Even for Muslims, the Hajj is something many are able to do only once. Thus the pool of Wikipedian photographers able to take this shot has got to be quite small compared to the pool of nature and landscape shooters in Western countries. I also note that people saying it can be reproduced, are not offering to do so themselves. And it doesn't work to cite non-free images on google and flickr, which can't be used on this project. Most of them I looked at are not much better quality anyway, if at all. If a better, free image is someday found, there's no reason we couldn't delist and replace this one. Objecting to a rare high EV image on technical grounds just shows a lack of perspective. Fletcher (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very difficult to reproduce (which I dispute also) times 1.57 billion Muslims (according to the wiki) = reasonable chances imo. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That fact actually works against your argument, because with that many Muslims, all of whom are supposed to visit this site at least once (if physically able), we would expect to have tons of high quality photos to choose from by now. That we don't indicates something is getting in the way of good photos, maybe security is too tight, or photography is too widely considered offensive, I don't know. But we have very little in Commons, and even non-free searches of Flickr or Google turn up mostly lousy undersized P&S images. I noticed some that were a bit better quality than this one, but still non-free. So good images do seem hard to get. Fletcher (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, logically, it does not. Including Muhammad's image there are about 25 of the Kabaa on commons and it is only a matter of time until a featured quality one is available. We even had another Kaaba nomination here recently.There are 110 images in the exterior of taj mahal category on commons, but only one or two could be featured. The image is not irreplaceable (another shot can be taken) or historic (doesn't show the structure 100 years ago) consequently the criteria exceptions do not apply when applied consistently. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't say it's not historic. The main structure has not changed much during the last century. The major constructions have all been made to the grand mosque not the kaaba. --Muhammad(talk) 07:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm saying the photo isn't historic, not that the Mosque and Kaaba aren't. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I know but what I'm saying is it wouldn't matter whether it was taken a 100 years ago, the structure has not changed --Muhammad(talk) 09:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I still think due to the high encyclopedic value this is a better one to delist and replace in the future if a better one is nominated.Fletcher (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I think this should be a valued image, not a featured one. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Best we currently have doesn't override other quality criteria. If it did then the lead image in every article, if it's free, should be a featured picture since it must be the best we have (or it would have been replaced). Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not every article has equal encyclopedic value (compare Kaaba vs., say, filing cabinet). And the argument is not that it's the best we currently have but that it's the best we have in light of the difficulty of producing alternates. Many articles can be illustrated by a tourist or local resident with a good camera, so there is no reason not to be demanding of technical quality. We can be more lenient with pictures of places that are difficult to get to, or places where cameras are banned. The goal is to help the encyclopedia, not to have a gallery of perfect pictures... the technical requirements are just the result of competition - we don't have to settle for an ok image when great images are easily obtained. Unfortunately this is not true of every subject. Fletcher (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you completely miss the point of Staxringold's argument. The argument from supporters of this image has been: this is the best Wikipedia has, ergo this is the best that has been made, ergo it is a featured picture, if a better featured picture comes along we can d & r. I have demonstrated very clearly that there are much, much, better versions of images of the Kabaah, and supporters of this image decided to completely ignore that fact. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please try and address what I wrote instead of distilling it into a simplified version you can easily knock down. I did not say the best we have should be a featured picture, full stop (and I have opposed other recent nominations that could well be the best we have of the subject). I also did not say the best we have is therefore the best that has been made, which doesn't even make sense. Obviously not every picture in the world is uploaded to Commons. As far as I can see your only suggestion was to do a google image search, which includes non-free images that are not eligible for consideration. That's like arguing the runner cannot win the race because your car can go faster. You need to pay attention to context and not misrepresent people. Fletcher (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The photo is very encyclopedic and has good composition. I think it able to be a FP. --.ds m. 01:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Rare photo, not easily reproducible, and outstanding EV. Viewed at full resolution, the sharpness is satisfactory. --JN 466 12:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted --Caspian blue 03:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]