Talk:Icon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. 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.
You may also want to look at the current collaboration of the month or the project's notice board. |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |||
Archive: 23:46, 30 December 2005
Contents |
[edit] Picture of Contemporary Icon
I have recently commissioned a Ukrainian icon. I thought it might be good to have a picture of a contemporary icon on the page. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where the photo might be placed? Please let me know if you think we already have plenty of photos of icons on the page and we don't need any more. ;-) --Pied beauty 20:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe we have enough icons in Category:Eastern Orthodox icons to choose from. You may want to upload your picture to Wikimedia Commons. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Acts of John
Removed the reference to Acts of John being a generally gnostic work. First the brief mention doesn't add anything to the sentense, second, Acts of John has only a few chapters with gnostic overtones. The article on icons is not a place to discuss nuances of various interpretations in Christianity. 70.118.7.233 02:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Whether the Acts of John is gnostic is very relevant to the subject at hand. First, whatever you might think about of the first few centuries of Christianity, they were definitely not the "mainstream" Christianity by the fourth century, and whether they were earlier is a matter of considerable debate. Thus this works' view of icons is probably not "mainstream." Second, since gnostics downplay the importance of people's physical bodies, and certainly downplay the importance of Jesus' physical incarnation and resurrection, they would be expected to avoid anything that emphasized the importance of the incarnation, such as the use of icons. That's why I added it before, and why I'm putting it back in now. Wesley 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] partial merge with iconography
The Iconography article has been dominated by a less sophisticated version of this one. There are chunks of material that should really be cut from there, cleaned-up a bit & added here (symbolism section etc). Anyone? Johnbod 12:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other religions need more representation
There is tons and tons of information here about icons in the history of christianity (perhaps TOO much information), yet other religions are barely mentioned - even hinduism, which is famous for its use of icons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.254.66.109 (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Very POV section
I've marked a section that is very hardcore Protestant in its POV and is purely of iconoclasm doctrine. I'm not enough up on iconodule doctrine to balance this section, myself.Dogface 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This does not amount to a description of POV issues. The section records the first documented references, of which there are obviously few. To describe it as "hardcore Proestant" seems ridiculous, and more revealing of your own POV. If you have specific problems with the section as it is, then they should be listed here, with references. I'm removing the tag again until this happens. Johnbod 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
What would be useful is if some of the material at Iconography , which is currently nearly all about Othodox icons, and is sufficiently iconodule even for Dogface I think, were put here instead. That article's current material should be merged here so that the title can be used for an article on iconography in its primary sense. Johnbod 00:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Added Orthodoxy Project Tag
I added this tag because of the Orthodox Church's specific association with veneration of Icons. Other projects are free to add their own tags as well.Dogface 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Gee, thanks very much! Johnbod 16:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Use of the POV Tag
The point of the POV tag is to direct people to discussion on the talk page, not to ask people to discuss within the article. Thus, if a need is felt for discussion due to possible POV problems, there is a need for the POV tag in the article specifically to direct people to that discussion.Dogface 15:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Love Monkey's changes
User:LoveMonkey initally moved the sentence mentioning Hindu & Muslim traditions down to what his edit summary called "there own section" at the end of the article (edit summary:"Moved Hinduism and Islam to there own section since this article is about the greek word Icon." When I reverted this, he removed them altogether (edit summaries: "since article notes at top that it is about eastern christian icons removed unrelated comments" and "since this is a eastern orthodox wikiproject page please take up issue on talkpage or add contributions to secular icon article."). I have restored this passage, which has been in the article since Feb 06 at least. In a very long article, to object to a single sentence giving a broader context seems ridiculous to me, but I would welcome other editor's views. The removed sentence is:
"Some, such as Hinduism, have a very rich iconography called murti, while others, such as Islam, severely limit the use of visual representations."
I would point out that the note at the top says: "This article is concerned with the religious images called icons, principally in Eastern Christianity" (my emphasis). The article has much longer sections on Western Christian icon traditions also. As well as coming under the Eastern Othodox Wikiproject, it also comes under the Visual arts one. What do other people think? Johnbod 01:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Why was the information first put back into the introduction and then reinserted without consulting the talkpage? Since even the talkpage here states-
WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, an attempt to organize information in articles related to the Eastern Orthodox Church. 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.
And since I am part of that project I did the edits to the article. Also why is this article which was created to focus on the traditions of icons in my church now in its introduction supposed completely jump off topic and interject Hindu and Islamic traditions? LoveMonkey 02:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
See my comments above. Lets see what other people think. Johnbod 02:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny but why is Greece's cultural heritage's art and words and it's validity in need of consensus? Let alone from people who are not Greek? Wikipedia is engaging in or at the least enabling cultural theft. It appears to me that with a disambiguous page as well as a secular page that the page designated as the Greek Eastern Orthodox icon page should remain just that. Tell me where on the Hindu iconography page you have added Greek iconography cultural history and or if by your conduct here why that would be wrong? Say if I did it. LoveMonkey 02:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's not just Greece is it? By all means add something to the (much much shorter) Hindu page, if you can do it sensibly, which I must say given the way the tone of your comments is going, I begin to wonder. It's not "Greece's cultural heritage's art and words and it's validity" but your edits which are in need of concensus. Johnbod 03:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not true, truth and content on wikipedia are not decided by consensus they are decide by the validity of -sources. By verifiability [[1]] From Jimmy himself.
" Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Honestly there must be a different wikipedia then the one he is talking about. Because when I try to defend and institute Jimmy's own direction I am told "too bad, have a cup of tea"
or
Is that true? Is it not true? As a reader of Wikipedia, I have no easy way to know. If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.
I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar.
--Jimbo
You are doing no different then say this. http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/not-out.htm or this http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tatian-address.html Both of the above showing people trying to pervert history and undermind the integrity of the Greek culture either Hellenic or Byzantine. Either via hubris, hatred or ignorance. LoveMonkey 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Verifiability is hardly an issue here, is it? You don't think the statements are wrong, you just don't think they belong in this article. You really need to calm down. Johnbod 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- LoveMonkey has flagged as [citation needed] the following statement: "...Islam, severely limit the use of visual representations." Is this honest ignorance or intentionally disruptive? --Wetman 03:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Source it wetman. In my opinion it does not belong in the introduction let alone, the article. It belongs in the disambigious and the secular article. As for Johnbold you seem to misunderstand wiki policy as tone or the need to calm down. Talk to Jimmy -again. Also you are dodging. Ad hom about my "tone" or "need to calm down" does nothing to make your case that a Greek Orthodox Designated article about a Greek word about a Greek cultural historical tradition is not the article to express a ambiguous interruption of the word. There are already two articles about that, use them. If you think this article is too narrow in scope for the sake of length, make a new article. Hey you could call it religious icon traditions. But I am not going on say it's appropriate to post in the Coptic iconography about Hindu, Islam and Andy Warhol, it is outside of the defined scope of the article. LoveMonkey 04:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
