Talk:Skull (symbolism)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • Archive 1 (18:17, 18 April 2004 - 00:55, 1 January 2006)

Contents

[edit] RfC

Note: This article has been listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature, with a call for a wider range of editors with competence in the Humanities, in order to bring it into better accord with Wikipedia standards.

[edit] Mediation

So, there is an argument (verging on a revert war) as to which version to use. One version with a lot of text, but not much citation and one version with very little text.

I'd like to make a few points clear:

  • as a sysop he can presumably check for himself whether any of the IPs involved belong to me. - Only users with access to CheckUser can do this. These number around 5 I think. Normal admins do not have this power.
    • My mistake. Soo 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DreamGuy describes this version as "vandalism", on account of the amount of material that was removed, and has threatened to ban anyone restoring this version. - That is a template and doesn't really constitute a threat when used against an anonymous user who has just removed huge sections of the article.
  • Both User:DreamGuy and User:Wetman have engaged in personal attacks in contravention of wikipedia policy.
  • The anonymous user removed sourced parts of the article. The Skull Tower, with the embedded skulls of Serbian rebels, was built in 1809 on the highway near Nis, Serbia, as a stark political warning from the Ottoman government: the skulls are the statement. and Cross at Golgotha, "the place of the skull."
  • Some of Wetman's version is dubious and unsourced. Specifically, I can't find a reference for a Lombard king named Alaric. An appropriate tag might be {{verify}}. Reference policy: WP:CITE.
  • Calling a user incompetant for removing sourced information when attempting to keep sourced information might be tactless but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a personal attack per se as he has only used it once. A careful reading of WP:NPA is in order. Furthermore, criticism is not necessarily a personal attack. In one case was specifically attacking the edits made rather than the people.
  • Wetman's version is written in an unencyclopaedic tone. The tag for this is {{inappropriate tone}}
  • Wikipedia advises against Weasel words, Wetman's edit here is valid. However instead of stating best the person who's opinion this is should be stated. Contributors should read: Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
  • Agentsoo has probably broken the WP:3RR by using a sockpuppet account User:JonONeill [1] and [2].
  • Agentsoo's edits are not vandalism within the context of WP:VAN. It constitutes bold editing, that is ...while having large chunks of text you wrote removed, moved to talk, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.

Could you please lay out below your reasoning (with reference to Wikipedia policy if you wish) as to why each of your versions should be maintained as the working article. - FrancisTyers 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wetman's version

While I do not necessarily support Wetman's version as is, I object strongly to simply blanking the whole thing and simply complaining that it "sucks". I also object to the obvious use of sockpuppets and anon IP accounts to try to get his way. The proper way to deal with an article with info you believe needs sources is to either detail the SPECIFICS here on the talk page or to label the individual sections on the article with facts tags... When this was attempted in the article by Wetman as a concilatory gapstop measure, the vandals simply blanked the article again. They (or, probably more accurately, he, as it's likely it's only one person playing sockpuppet games) have not done that, and so their edits must be undone as the vandalism and wholly unsupportable actions that they are. If Soo would like to take the time to be a real editor instead of a vandal and look for the sources himself, as I can guarantee that most of the article is common knowledge and not really lacking in support, then we'd have a better article. Instead he seems to have a problem with Wetman... which, OK, granted, I've had my problems with him in the past, but there's a right way and a wrong way to try to solve a dispute, and vandalism, name-calling, sockpuppeting, and refusing to follow policy are not the way to do it. DreamGuy 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I have not resorted to any of those. Unless you can show some evidence to the contrary? Soo 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agentsoo's version

  • Its style befits an encyclopaedia.
  • Its content is sourced, and so is a good basis on which to build. It's not the finished article (ha!) but it's in a fit state to grow organically into the good article that this heading deserves.
  • It's easily read and understood by everyone, even those with no background in the subject.

Soo 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets and vandalism

It's clear from his edit comment here while reverting to Soo's version and his contribution history that User:JonONeill is a sockpuppet of User:Agentsoo. IT's quite likely that one or more of the anons on this discussion page and who were doing the exact same edits as Soo are also sockpuppets. That behavior is simply not acceptable here, so knock it off. Also, blanking is vandalism, if someone had a real dispute over content allegedly not being sourced, then they'd accepted the -fact- source tags, but those were balnked out too. Disputes need to be discussed and go through proper procedures, simply erasing tha majorit of the article and claiming it "sucks" is not at all following the policies here. DreamGuy 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the edits made by Agentsoo constitute vandalism as he also altered the text of the article. This is being bold and not vandalism. - FrancisTyers 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the fact tags will be very useful in resolving this dispute. - FrancisTyers 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The fact tags were there, but the vandals removed them. It's not "being bold" to undo what it was you supposedly were asking for and replacing it with blanked sections. Being bold is going out and finding the sources yourself, or rewriting the article, or something that actually improves the article. DreamGuy 03:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The article was re-written to a certain extent. I refer you to this diff showing that the lead was rewritten, among other parts. This is not vandalism. I have restored the version with the {{fact}} tags and added the {{verify}} and {{inappropriate tone}} tags. Agentsoo argues that his version is improving the article. - FrancisTyers 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's also clear from the earlier vote for deletion that erasing the article was not an acceptable solution, and gutting the entire thing but a few stray sentences has the same effect. The deletion vote failed, we can't have a guy using sockpuppets trying to ignore the earlier votes and force his way. DreamGuy 03:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Deleting the article and changing the article are not the same thing. Agentsoo never said that he didn't want the information including, his complaints were specifically about tone and sources. Please do not accuse a user of using sockpuppets without evidence to back it up. - FrancisTyers 03:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I invite anyone with suitable powers to check IPs and prove once and for all that I have no sockpuppets. Soo 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not necessary. This arguing about sockpuppets is not getting us anywhere towards resolving the dispute. If you were to take this to RfC then perhaps this could be looked into further. See: Wikipedia:Mediation. I really don't think this will be necessary though. As a note, CheckUser is not infalliable as you could be using a proxy. - FrancisTyers 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought proxies were banned? Anyway I agree that's it not going anywhere. If someone wants to check IPs then they can feel free. Soo 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Issues with Wetman's version

Here is a preliminary list of issues with Wetman's version. Agentsoo and others, please add to it if you see fit. According to DreamGuy, the main author of that article has already said he is open to that once real discussion about perceived problems are raised. So lets get them raised! :) - FrancisTyers 03:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Lack of sources - WP:CITE - There is no shortage of information on this out there [3] [4] [5]
  2. Unencyclopaedic tone and formatting - WP:MOS
  3. Opinion stated as fact - WP:NPOV#Rewording_a_potentially_biased_statement - "The skull's huge emptied eye-sockets contrast with Jerome's closed eyes, in one of the best evocations of the interior vision of contemplation, focused on Eternity perhaps, ever realized in Western art." says who?
  4. The article asks questions "on the forearm its apotropaic power helps an outlaw biker cheat death?". The article shouldn't ask questions.
  5. The article possibly mis-represents theories. "where there is metaphor there is humanity". This could be referring to the idea held by George Lakoff and others that some cognitive functions are inherently metaphorical, see also conceptual metaphor. This part should be rewritten to something like "According to theorists working within the conceptual metaphor framework, metaphor is a basic human cognitive process, they would argue that metaphor is an inherently human capacity". Now you'd have to read up a bit more on the theory I'm just doing that from memory.
    Yes, I'm convinced that lots of the currently dubious content can be rescued with reference to appropriate philosophers, if suitably rephrased. Soo 04:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Then go out there and find references! :) I'll do a bit to start off with and then if you like you can continue my work, or just leave it tagged. He was right about King Alboin Alboin defeated the Lombards' hereditary enemies, the Gepids, a powerful nation on his eastern frontier, slew their new king Cunimund, whose skull he fashioned into a drinking-cup, and whose daughter Rosamund he carried off and made his wife.. To show good faith, after your previous mistakes, I think instead of removing sections you think are unsourced arbitrarily, you should just add {{fact}} tags. People can then tell what is sourced and what isn't. - FrancisTyers 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I don't know enough about philosophy to find the sources myself, but the thoughts themselves seem eminently plausible. I really dislike the idea of plastering the article with fact tags, it seems like we're just deferring responsibility on to the reader. Soo 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    The point of fact tags is not to defer responsibility onto the reader. I don't know anything about philosophy and I was able to find sources. If you aren't going to put the effort in I suggest you find another article to work on and leave this one for other editors. I have restored the contributions of the anonymous user (great vandal fighter I hear), but he clearly isn't well versed in this topic. He removed sourced material and removed material for which a source could be easily found. I think it is prudent to assume good faith, but wholesale removal of sourced and unsourced content really isn't helping us make a better encyclopaedia. - FrancisTyers 16:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    Further note, this article is listed for an RfC, this will hopefull bring in more qualified editors to work on it. - FrancisTyers 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I can see there is something wrong with this article without necessarily having the ability or energy to fix it. I am now leaving it to other editors, as I trust that it is now in safe hands. Soo 17:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    If you didn't have the knowledge ot desire to fix it, you sholdn't have been deleting it or pretending you knew what you were talking about. Good riddance. DreamGuy 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    DreamGuy, please be civil. There really wasn't any need for that comment, you might just inflame the situation. I realise you and Agentsoo don't see eye-to-eye, but this doesn't really help the article. If you want to help out, cite some sources like User:Ihcoyc has done. - FrancisTyers 22:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    What, trying to educate a person that their behavior was completely against policy and common sense so that they perhaps learn from the experience and avoid making such incredibly messed up actions in the future is uncivil? I improved the article plenty by undoing what that vandal (yes, vandal, your rationalizations why it shouldn;t be considered vandalism don't hold water) did. I'm trying to help the whole encyclopedia, and with him running around with 10,000 edits with his screwed up idea of how things work, he needs to know that what he did was inexcusible. DreamGuy 23:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    I think you need to (re-)read WP:CIVIL and WP:VAN before commenting any further. I note you haven't actually edited this article for content. If you'd like to argue with me further about the definition of vandalism you are welcome to email me, but it doesn't belong on this talk page as it is quite clearly defined in the policy. I am not excusing his actions, I think he knows quite well what he has done and he has decided to leave the page alone. Your confrontational tone is not improving this article. If you feel the need to have the last word, by all means go ahead, but I would prefer to keep discussions not relating to the article content off this talk page. - FrancisTyers 23:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    My actions don't need excusing. No one has drawn my attention to any policies that I've abused. The upshot of my involvement in this article is that it has improved a little and will improve a lot more. Feel free to call me a vandal or whatever you like; I don't much mind, given that you have no power to act on your amusing accusations. Soo 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    You were in an edit war remember? Thats why you came to the mediation cabal. Read (or re-read) the 3RR, which you probably violated in practice (I wasn't going to take the sockpuppet allegations any further, but I see that User:DreamGuy has) and definately violated in spirit. You have failed to edit harmoniously. Please stop being inflamatory. - FrancisTyers 02:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    I reverted only the same number of times as DreamGuy, and I certainly didn't accuse him of vandalism for his reversions, so I can't see any scenario in which I'm the one that needs excusing. Soo 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radness

I just looked over the article...clearly there is a great deal of work that needs to be done to make it encyclopedic, and a quick glance at the talk page shows that these issues are being hashed out. But this article has the potential to be utterly rad. What a great topic! Babajobu 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting

I received a request to look at your article again. It's good to see some organization and citations. The largest part of the article, "Examples," is still diffuse. I suggest using subheadings and organizing this section by culture and chronology. Things may be contentious but you're on the right path. Best wishes, Durova 19:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging/Link changes

I made a few, somewhat unrelated, changes in a single edit a few moments ago, and just wanted to explain them. I replaced the {{verify}} tag with the {{copyedit}} tag. I felt there are ample sources on this page now, but some effort needs to be put into merging some choppy sentences, etc. I thought about doing this myself, but felt that if I added the copyedit tag that we could get some experienced copyeditors here. Also, I saw that there were multiple References sections, so I merged those. I also moved the "See Also" links to above the External and Reference links, so we're preferring internal links. This page has the potential to be great, and I wish its regular contributors the best of luck! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REDIRECT

I was just messing around and typed in "death's head" in the search. I thought I was going to be sent to a disambiguation page but I was redirected here. I think there should be a disambiguation page for "death's head" because I know that there are at least two other things with that name (an Imperial Star Destroyer from Star Wars and the 2nd SS Panzer Division). I'd do it myself, but I don't know how! User:MrFuchs 18NOV06

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/k/u/Talk%7ESkull_%28symbolism%29_05b5.html"