Talk:F. Holland Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Use of "Christ" versus "Jesus"

I reverted two relatively unimportant changes, substitutions of the word "Jesus" for "Christ," because in context it seems appropriate to use the language F. Holland Day and his contemporaries would have used. Also, the "seven last words of Christ" is the common form, 12,000 Google hits on exact phrase versus "Seven last words of Jesus."

The use of the word "simplify" for the edit comment seems dishonest to me.

The substitution of the word "Jesus" for "Christ" seems to me to imply a point of view, specifically a point of view that does not accept that the historical person Jesus was necessarily the Messiah. Regardless of the merits, there's no reason to inject such a point of view into an article about a photographer of the 1900s who pictorialized a religious theme. It would be similar to saying that Mel Gibson's film depicts "the Passion of Jesus." It doesn't make sense because the very language "the Passion" implies a Christian point of view.

Such a point of view could be appropriate for certain articles, but Day himself was trying to present a conventionally pious point of view. The "seven last words of Christ" belong to scriptural tradition, not historical fact. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The original version had a link labeled Christ which redirected to Jesus Christ which in turn is a redirect to Jesus. I simplified that, labeling it "Jesus" which is where the link wound up to start with. It made sense to change the other reference to "Jesus" to match, for simplicity. I have absolutely no problem with changing the second reference back to Christ if that better fits your views. Please don't make assumptions about my motives, however. Jonathunder 21:05, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

I apologize for misconstruing your motives. Sorry about that. I've since discovered that you've been systematically fixing double-redirects to Jesus in many articles.

My last edit to the wording is:

...using himself as a model for Jesus. Neighbors in Norwood, Massachusetts assisted him in an outdoor photographic reenactment of the Crucifixion. This culminated in his series of self-photographs, The Seven Words, depicting the seven last words of Christ.

Obviously, I'm happy with that wording. I think the use of [[Jesus]] rather than [[Jesus|Christ]] makes sense. He is presumably using himself as the model for the human being, Jesus. So (obviously, since it's my last edit) I'm happy with

I don't care whether that reference is linked or not—my personal perference is not, but then I tend to like less linking that many Wikipedians do. But if you think it should be linked I'd certainly have no problem with

...using himself as a model for Jesus. Neighbors in Norwood, Massachusetts assisted him in an outdoor photographic reenactment of the Crucifixion. This culminated in his series of self-photographs, The Seven Words, depicting the seven last words of Christ."

Finally, I don't see any need at all for the two references to use the same word, but you have a strong feeling that it should that the same word should be used both time, I'd have no problem with

...using himself as a model for Christ. Neighbors in Norwood, Massachusetts assisted him in an outdoor photographic reenactment of the Crucifixion. This culminated in his series of self-photographs, The Seven Words, depicting the seven last words of Christ."

Yes, I'm overanalyzing. Again, my apologies; I misinterpreted and overreacted to your edit. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)