Talk:Saints Sergius and Bacchus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

I've moved most of the caption of the picture into the body of the article, deleted some irrelevant or redundant external links, added other external links, added material about churches and dates, and made some copyedits. JHCC 15:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) (MOVED FROM TALK:SAINT SERGIUS)

[edit] Non-reference

"-- This article includes material from the 9th edition (1886) of an unnamed encyclopedia."

Right. Un-huh. Why is that useful to know?--Prosfilaes 19:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] This Makes No Sense

Under controversies, we find this sentence: The most popular evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, in the Greek language.

It makes no sense and is incomplete. Can someone who knows what this is supposed to say please fix it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by PaladinWriter (talk • contribs)

[edit] Fair use

I don't understand the fair use rationale for Image:SerBac.jpg. It is copyrighted, and a free equivalent image; namely, the old image of the saints. I think it should be removed.--Cúchullain t/c 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you hadn't removed the part about the artist who illustrated them as a gay couple, perhaps the rational for showing one of his pictures might be a little more obvious.--Prosfilaes 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a free image of these saints available; therefore a copyrighted image can't be used here. The bit about the artist's interpretation is thoroughly non-notable; he's not a very notable artist, and his painting doesn't need to be mentioned here, lest it recieve undue weight.--Cúchullain t/c 05:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, before I'm accused of something, note that I didn't remove the commentary of Dr. John Boswell, who says basically the same thing with much more authority, being a historian rather than a painter.--Cúchullain t/c 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Authority isn't everything. Popular belief and appearance are also interesting and important.--Prosfilaes 22:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for questioning the notability of Robert Lentz? The image exists on Wikipedia, has a good fair use rationale and is discussed in the article - seems like a good case for inclusion to me. WjBscribe 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The image fair use is not based upon its merely showing the two saints, but that it depicts them as a gay couple. This is distinct from the ancient (free) image, which shows them, but not with that particular interpretation. Aleta 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Robert Lenz is a painter, and not a very notable one. His view recieves undue weight by being mentioned here as if it were representative of a major trend or line of thought, when it's actually pretty ideosyncratic. He doesn't even have an article here. The fair use claim on his image is very dubious at best: the image is only fair use if it's mentioned in the article, and it is only mentioned in the article based on the image. Perhaps an RfC is needed.--Cúchullain t/c 04:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Notability is a requirement for being included in Wikipedia - I don't think you can turn that round and use the fact that someone has not yet been included to conclude that they are not notable. How much do you know about Robert Lenz? I would have described him as one of the most well known living iconographers and would certainly hope we end up having an article about him one day. WjBscribe 04:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly inclusion on Wikipedia wasn't my only concern. I believe he's not notable enough to matter in this discussion. The inclusion of him and his image here give undue weight to his interpretation.--Cúchullain t/c 19:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There is also the serious question as to whether, as stated on the Robert Lentz page, which I agree was only created today by User:Aleta, who among other things is a member of the LGBT project, whether his imagery, as is quoted on that page, may help "to serve [his] own religious sociopolitical agenda". Given the existence of that quoted statement on that page, I would myself have to say that the copyrighted image certainly cannot be used, particularly as there is another image available. Personally, I actually aesthetically like Lentz' image more, but that really doesn't matter. It isn't free use, we have an equivalent free use, and on that basis there's no just cause to include it in this article. Not saying it couldn't be included somewhere else, maybe in his article, but there's no need to use that copyrighted image here. Also, the quoted statement regarding the artist's possible lack of total objectivity might very well make mention of that matter in this article a violation of WP:Undue weight, unless someone can demonstrate that that particular image is in and of itself extraordinarily notable. John Carter 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, that quote calling his work propaganda was written as the opinion of one person. I've altered the sentence qhere I make that quotation to make it clear who said that. Aleta 21:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
So noted. Hart doesn't appear to be really notable himself, but the place where he made the comment is. I inserted a link there, hope you don't mind. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing sometehing about what contributins he made to the books, text or images or both, if that's readily available. John Carter 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course I don't mind! I'm glad for the help. I *think* his contributions to the books are primarily images, but I'll have to see what I can find. Maybe I can get the books from the library, but that won't be immediately. Maybe we should continue this conversation over on Talk:Robert Lentz since it's migrated a bit from the focus of this page. :) Aleta 21:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
We still have the topic at hand to deal with, re the image's fair use rationale and the mention of Robert Lentz. I believe, as John mentioned above, that unless this image is particularly notable in and of itself, including the material on Lentz constitutes undue weight.--Cúchullain t/c 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Why? Its a depiction of the subject by a notable iconographer and it illustrates the passage in question - the analysis of Sergius and Bacchus as erastai. How is that undue weight? There is no requirement that illustrations of Wikipedia illustrations must be iconic. WjBscribe 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Because it is represented out of proportion with its importance. Lentz' image is one of only two images on the page, and mentioning it in the text gives the impression that it's very important and carries weight in the discussion of these two saints. This is aside from the fair use concern.--Cúchullain t/c 02:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I think you're attaching too much weight to the significance of images. I don't think the image being there gives the impression that the part of the article it illustrates is more important than any other - just that this is an image relevant to the article. I've never seen WP:UNDUE applied to images in this way - the general approach is that images relevant to articles are included. If you have a problem with the image's fair use rationale, you can of course nominate it for deletion. But I really don't think a case about undue weight is made out here. WjBscribe 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't tihink it is undue weight either. It illustrates the point being made about some people's interpretation of the lives of these two men; no more, no less. Aleta 02:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Undue weight certainly does apply to images; it's even discussed at the policy page (it applies "not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."). And it's not just the image; the painting is discussed in the text, making it sound like it's something much more important than it really is.--Cúchullain t/c 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well the text says that the erastai interpretation is favoured by one historian and an inconographer - which is true. Its actually more popular than that, those are just what's presently verifiable. My recollection from reading about this a while ago is that there are some older historians who have also described the saints as lovers but I can't cite anything at present. Returning to the subject at hand, I didn't say UNDUE couldn't apply to images - just that I had never seen it argued in this way before. I still can't see how those short descriptions are giving undue weight - its a very brief discussion of that interpretation. WjBscribe 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
While I acknowledge that it may be more popular than is verifiable, I hope you can understand that we can't really take anyone's unsupported word regarding a given subject's popularity as a reason for inclusion of material in the article. I think undue weight may enter into this because of the amount of space the image receives, and the fact that it is currently one of only two images in the article, which gives it an effective weight in that regard of 50%. Were the article to be substantially longer than it is, that would be different. But, given its present length, undue weight could be a factor. John Carter 13:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
So you think its undue weight because its one of two images of the saints? How many images of these long dead saints would we need for it not to be undue weight? Would 20% of the images be OK, or 10%? I am finding this a very problematic application of UNDUE - it's designed to avoid giving to much weight to "the earth is flat" theories. This is hardly comparable. Its a pretty significant depiction of the saints, worthy of inclusion. The modern noteriety of those saints is very much based on Boswell and Lentz's works. WjBscribe 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I did not say that, and I frankly find your statement above to be insulting and couterproductive. Raising the false question about it being "worthy of inclusion", when to the best of my knowledge no one has argued against it being worthy of conclusion, is also counterproductive. And I note that you did not address the first, most relevant, part of the statement, instead focusing on possibly intentionally restating things in a NPOV, inflammatory manner. Several earlier comments have been made by me and others to indicate that the image cannot be justifiably included in the article. To the best of my knowledge, we have not yet received sufficient argument to the contrary. If you can produce more evidence that the theory is justifiable than the statement of two writer and one artist over several hundred years, good. I would welcome seeing it. At this point, the article can definitely bear additional content. However, as one of the few people who does actively work to any degree with these biographies of saints, I can say that there are over 3500 on wikipedia already, leaving a lot of work for a very few people. I at this point cannot say that the degree of weight the article gives the theories of these two individuals is entirely in keeping with WP:Undue weight. To do that, we would have to have more information than we do on any other writings about them, their reliability, etc. We don't. Neither can I really say that it isn't, and have not in fact made the argument that the content regarding the subject should be removed. The point I had made above was simply to indicate that, in addition to the fact that no good argument has been put forward that the image needs to be included, there are also, potentially, arguments that including it in any event might be problematic. I acknowledge poor phrasing in my earlier comment, however. At this point, I think any discussion would best focus on justifying the inclusion of a non-free image in an article which already has one. I have yet to see any good argument but forward to necessitate its inclusion. I think that, the more fundamental question, still needs to be addressed. John Carter 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The rationale for inclusion is pretty obvious surely? This image is not designed to simply show what the saints look like (indeed its prob inaccurate if it were for that purpose). Were it used for that purpose it would clearly be replaceable by another image. However the image is being used because it specifically aims to depict them as lovers. As such a depiction it is not replaceable by the other image. Were there a free image that depicted them in that manner, I would prob accept that it could be replaced by that image. It is fair use because it illustrates a discussion in the article of the interpretation that the saints were lovers (which the other image could not) and that section references Lentz's work. WjBscribe 15:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As per WP:NFC, I do not believe the image meets requirement #8 ("Significance", that it "would significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Frankly, to me the image does not increase understanding of the subect, and may even inhibit it, as I cannot see how it in any way explicitly portrays them as lovers, which would be required if it were to be used to increase understanding. I acknowledge the significance of the clothing as worn by the two parties might be relevant in some way, but no explicit evidence that the clothing does so can be instantly inferred by everybody, and that would be required. Also, I have seen no crying need that that particular section requires an illustration, so requirement #3 ("Minimal usage"), may also be called into play. Also, as a regular reviewer of articles for A-Class and other statuses, there often is a complaint that a page can be overloaded with images. Such a complaint, on such a short article, could easily be raised here. Right now, on my viewer, I see at least part of an image on every scroll-down. So, as is, the image at least to someone not involved in LGBT issue, actually somewhat inhibits understanding, as it makes a claim about the image doing something which is it does not clearly do in my eyes, failing "Significance", and that as such is not "required" to illustrate a point it doesn't clearly illustrate in the first place, thus failing requirement #3. In fact, it's inclusion itself could be seen as being detrimental to understanding, which would mean that it's inclusion would run exactly contrary to requirement #8. If you can provide explicit evidence which would prove to anyone that the image does inherently illustrate that the two were lovers, of course, that would be welcome. John Carter 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

{unindent) I wonder if the size of the image would make a difference. Would it help to make it less "weighty" if we shrank the image a bit? Aleta 19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Weight was only a secondary matter to begin with. Like I said above, the picture doesn't explicitly portray the two as lovers in such a way that at least one drooling bozo unfamilar with most LGBT matters, me, clearly recognizes it as such. I've seen (and actually worn) similar "matching outfits" at college sports games, where there wasn't anything remotely similar implied by me or the other members of the school wearing them. Not that I would have necessarily minded a little more "contact" with some of the girls in the film school, but... . Anyway, I still aesthetically prefer that image, but I'm far from sure that it meets the requirements of inclusion of non-free contentas it doesn't clearly indicate that the two were lovers. If there is some inherent symbolism in the way the clothes are worn and that were made clearer, or some other "proof" inherent in the picture, that'd be different, but we don't have that now. John Carter 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, I agree with John. As he says, perhaps we should deal with the fair use problem before dealing with the UNDUE/NPOV problem (though I'd like to see that resolved eventually as well). To that end, I see no necessity for including this non-free image when free ones are obviously available, and I see no pressing need for there to be an image of the saints as lovers anyway - it's only one (minor) aspect of the article. The reader gains nothing by seeing this, except the impression that the painting and its creator are more important to the subject than they really are.--Cúchullain t/c 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion seems to have died down here; I've placed a disputed fair use disputed tag on the image. It might be best to continue further conversation at the image's talk page.--Cúchullain t/c 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)