Talk:Christian symbolism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] POV
I removed the NPOV banner and it was restored due to excessive coverage of the Jesse Tree. By my count there are exactly two sentences about the Jesse Tree in the entire article. What is the POV dispute? I read the talk page and archived it as every thread was from last summer or earlier. Now, what is the real issue here? -- SECisek (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- according to Wikipedia policy:
- Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
- I believe the emphasis on the Tree of Jesse violates this. Certainly there are other symbols that are more prominant and deserve better coverage. Bytebear (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, in principle I do not disagree with you. Since you feel it is unbalanced, what do you propose? -- SECisek (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think we need to decide what this article is about. If I were a non-Christian, I would think the Tree of Jesse was a central tennant of the faith, but I do not believe that to be the case. I would focus on the Cross and Crucifix, the trinity symbology, but also things like the stations of the cross, even go into Easter and Christmas symbols. I don't know the subject matter as well as some, but I certainly think of these symbols when I think of Christianity. I had never heard of the Tree of Jesse prior to reading this article. Bytebear (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with your comment. I agree and will try to do some work on this article, perhaps a full rewrite. -- SECisek (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- it may be just a matter of adjusting the headings so things are easier and more clearly defined. Bytebear (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
No you are right, this is a poor article. A major overhauled was acomplished. -- SECisek (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please discuss things a little bit more!
First off, the whole bit about the Tree of Jesse was actually ancillary and subordinate to a discussion of the Christmas tree, and the discussion of the Christmas tree was not to pretend that the Christmas tree is an important or basic Christian symbol (in fact, the opposite is specifically disclaimed), but as an in-depth examination of one particular semi-random symbol to examine the general methods of symbolism.
And Secisek's edits were rather unfortunate, in that the first section after the introduction seems to give the impression that the the majority of Christian symbols were plagiarized from other traditions. AnonMoos (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not my intent at all. The article is clearly a work in progress. Wikipedia sholuld not be "semi-random" or have lengthy passages that are acknowledged to not be about the the subject of the article. The Christmas tree section was totaly out of place here and I believe I have laid the ground work for the article to move forward: 1. Pre-christian symbols. 2. Early Christian. 3. Symbols of the Church. Add relavent material to each section. Please let's all just try to keep it relavent. BTW, there was no discussion here since last August. It is December. I felt given that fact I could be bold. Instead of complaining about the cuts, be bold and add cited material that will help this article reach B and GA status. Best. -- SECisek (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think Secisek's edit was in good faith, and I will remind you to follow WP:OWNERSHIP guidelines. Bytebear (talk) 06:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I have begun the process of making citations. Most of what was kept was easily cited with source around my house I will continue to develop the article. Please contribute where possible. -- SECisek (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
