Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose -- I'm a bit puzzled with this nomination (and with the article too) because I don't see the relevance of the scope. Forgive me for my direct way, but I know of many other people who have been lecturing for a much longer time and I wouldn't dream of nominating their portraits here. Another weird thing is that the subject of Nakshawani 's lessons is not specified either here or in the article. Should we assume it is Psychology, Law and Political Science? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - By the way, according to a known theorem in the field of the mathematics of genealogy (the theorem of Joseph Chang), it is certain that we are ALL descendents of the profet ... as well as of Gengis Khan and the Count of Dracula! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Descendants of the Prophet Muhammad are normally known since he had only one daughter and no sons. I doubt your mathematics is true in this case. I would love to know about this theorem of yours.
- It is not "my theorem" but Joseph Chang's theorem, of Yale University. It shows that after a certain number of generations, all the present population in a given territory descends from all members of the initial population whose lineage did not vanished. In the present case, we now that there are descendents of the Prophet Muhammad. The conclusion is (given the number of generations) that we all descend from him. There is no doubt about this, the Prophet Muhammad is precisely one of the examples used to illustrate the theory. Please see a simple explanation here-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The purpose of VIC is to find images for wikimedia projects which have value to where they are being used. The article for the scholar Ammar, was already present on wikipedia for a long time before I uploaded this image and nominated it. The scholar has made numerous appearances and is very well known among Muslim circles. Ammar gives a lecture on different subjects, such as Comparative Religion, Morals and Islamic History. He is mostly specialized with Ummayyad History as the article mentions. I nominated an image of the scholar on a mimbar and Slaunger suggested that the image would cover the scope of the scholar as well. Muhammad 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article on Ammar Nakshawani is flagged since 2006 due to "unverified claims", "peacock terms" and absence of "references and sources". One particular thing in the article that shocks me is the suggestion that someone should be put in a position of social prominence because of his ancestry. As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I really believe that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. In my opinion, the article should be erased. Finally, and since the object of Ammar's lectures is religion, I wouldn't use the word "scholar". -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to let you and other reviewers know that Ammar is not put in a position of social prominence because of his ancestry. He is well known for his lectures. It is true that all humans are born free and equal. However, what is funny is that the media does not treat all humans this way. Say for instance we had a picture of Prince William with his girlfriend. This picture would probably get supported for its great value with comments like "rare", "free image" etc. But why is the prince known? What has he done? The only reason for his importance is his ancestry. Do you suggest that his article be deleted and his images considered of no value? Muhammad 13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you not use the word scholar? Muhammad 13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the question of Prince William is hypothetical. All I can say is that I don't sympathize with that kind of gossip envolving "famous" persons. I suggest the article to be deleted because of the reasons stated above (unverified claims, peacock terms and absence of references and sources). But maybe we should continue this discussion in here. As for the term "scholar", maybe it is just my poor understanding of English. For me "scholar" means something like "academic" or "scientist", someone who does research and teaches science. Which is not the case of Ammar, who lectures on religious and moral subjects. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So if the article of Ammar was properly written, without peacock terms and with verified claims, you would not mind it (the article) being there? If so, why do you oppose this picture? Regarding the use of the word scholar, my pc dictionary (WordWeb, Princeton Uni) defines it as, "A learned person (especially in the humanities); someone who by long study has gained mastery in one or more disciplines" or "Someone (especially a child) who learns (as from a teacher) or takes up knowledge or beliefs". IMO, Ammar definetly falls under one of the definitions. I urge you therefore, to kindly reconsider your vote. Muhammad 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My first and main reason for opposing (stated above) is the lack of relevance of the scope. Yes, I might reconsider my vote if the article were re-written and I could finally understand why a living 28 year old man with a MS, who gives lectures on religious matters, is so important and deserves an article and a VI. But frankly, I doubt it will happen. But there are alternatives: I would probably consider supporting this same picture if nominated with a non-impersonate scope. --- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Alvesgaspar that existing article about the nominated person is rather terrible. I do not think that is really relevant though for assessing if an image is the most valued of a given scope. It is not even a requirement that an article already exists in which a given image can be used for it to become VI. I have several VIs of arctic plants for which there does not exist any Wikipedia article. So could we please close that aspect of the discussions so far? It is not an article we are reviewing. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The next question is if the scope is relevant? This brings us into questions of notability. Alvesgaspar questions the notability with reference to age and education and the POV-like article. Well, as I see it, the mere fact that the article has existed on en for several years now and has been regularly edited by many different editors without being deleted so far seems to indicate that quite some Wikimedia project users finds the scope relevant. If I look up the lecturers name on Google I also get lots of hits indicating a wide interest for the scope. So, the relevance criterion seems OK for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
