Jump to content

Talk:Mary Magdalene: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Bialosz (talk | contribs)
203 edits
→attributes: added new section
Bialosz (talk | contribs)
203 edits
Line 121: Line 121:


==Artibutes ==
==Artibutes ==
In Western art there is not only ointment jar as an attribute, also very common was skull, when she was depicted as a penitnet.There are also other attributes <ref>http://www.academia.edu/4072926/Magdalenes_Iconography</ref>, this is only to give you some impression that there is not only the jar. For ex. when looking at a picture depicting a female saint, and three is a skull, the skull is identifying the person as Mary Magdalene.[[User:Bialosz|Bialosz]] ([[User talk:Bialosz|talk]]) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
In Western art there is not only ointment jar as an attribute, also very common was skull, when she was depicted as a penitnet.There are also other attributes <ref>http://www.academia.edu/4072926/Magdalenes_Iconography</ref>, this is only to give you some impression that there is not only the jar. For ex. when looking at a picture depicting a female saint, and three is a skull, the skull is identifying the person as Mary Magdalene.Other attributes were mirror, book, etc.[[User:Bialosz|Bialosz]] ([[User talk:Bialosz|talk]]) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:54, 1 June 2016

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateMary Magdalene is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted

"In Art" Section

With all the art images throughout the page, isn't the "In Art" section somewhat redundant? Considering editors continue to copy in more artworks throughout the actual text of the page, my suggestion is that we delete the section and all the artwork images in it. Nothing personal - but this page is starting to get heavy with all of it - even if they are beautiful. Ckruschke (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

I have renamed this properly as "Gallery"; there is already an "In art" subsection higher up, which I presume is not what you meant. I agree it could go, though I have now trimmed it to one row of 4 - one of them was a duplicate anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right Johnbod - I saw the lower section when I scrolled down to see what the new painting that was inserted looked like and when I put in this thread I didn't check to see if there was another one. Your change is good, but I'd still suggest the rest be deleted as there is already a "Gallery" of 18 paintings/artwork throughout the article which is, in my mind, bordering on "too much". Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Fine with me - I think it's quite new. If no one else comments after a while, I'd just remove it. Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art editors! ALERT!

Greetings! I was wondering if any of you vanitas -art editors were interested to help to provide a a better description for this Wikipedia Commons art piece: Maddalena svenuta? Is it a vanitas style of Mary Magdalane piece of art? If so, perhaps we can add it to the description even? Thanks in advance! :) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Maddalena svenuta means "Maggdalena fainted." Looks like this is representing her as an pentitent, she is prespresnted as an pentitent when she has a skull, and here we also see the whip in her hand, it relates more to her ascetic practises, and she is depicted in a state of rapture.A much more precise vanitas style would be a picture of Mary Magdalena with skull and flame, candle, as for ex. like Georges de La Tour, Penitent Magdalene, Wrightman's collectionBialosz (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply, Bialosz. I really appreciate that :-) Would you be interested in helping to add a description to the Wikipedia Commons perhaps? :-P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican section inadequate.

This article does not state whether Anglicans accept Magdalene as distinct from the many ither Marys, or jumbles them all together into a "composite Mary" (ex-prostitute, annointed Jesus hair, Mary of Bethany, etc.) as some denominations appear to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.119.236 (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xenosaga, Mary Magdalene and KOS-MOS

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Mary_Magdalene

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/KOS-MOS

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/T-elos

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Rennes-le-Ch%C3%A2teau

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Shion_Uzuki

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus_Christ

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_Jerusalem

http://xenosaga.wikia.com/wiki/Chaos

All of the reveals are 7 hours in of this playthrough (start at the 7 hour mark):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYCfzf3BpTk

And the source for the game is already listed as Episode III, chapter 9. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

174.2.98.24, you may want to familiarize yourself with some of our key policies, such as WP:RS or WP:PSTS. Meanwhile, WP:EDITWAR is no way to go. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is worth pointing out that Xenosaga is already listed in the "Animation" depictions section, and that's all the mention this deserves. It's not fair to spam us with fan-generated sources and 7 hours of video. Who is going to watch that? Elizium23 (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Xenosaga is a beautiful series with an AMAZING story with Mary Magdalene at its core. "The Animation" does not cover the entire Xeno series. If you think that section was too lengthy, fine, but I only included it because it's confusing otherwise since Xenosaga uses an unconventional interpretation of Mary Magdalene. I also meant to go to 7 hours IN on that video (as in, start at the 7 hour mark), you don't HAVE to watch ALL of it.
This is supposed to be an unbiased list of all of her depictions, regardless of portrayal and medium (video games are a medium, just like novels and movies).
Instead of Mary Magdalane portrayed as some pasty pale-skinned blone-haired blue-eyed white girl, she's portrayed as a dark-skinned woman in Xenosaga. COME ON, SHE LIVED IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Same with Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Jesus have been so whitewashed, it's ridiculous and embarassing.
At the very least, I'm going to re-add the video games section, but keep it succinct this time. No one should have any issues with this (after all, NONE of the "depictions" are sourced either). It's also possible there will be more video games in the future which portray Mary Magdalene. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jayaguru-Shishya, you are a complete hypocrite. I never said "Xenosaga should be mentioned because 'cuz it's a beautiful series", I already gave my reasons above. I said "This is supposed to be an unbiased list of all of her depictions, regardless of portrayal and medium (video games are a medium, just like novels and movies)." AND THE ENTIRE LIST UNDER DEPICTIONS DOESN'T HAVE ANY SOURCES OR REEFERNCE LISTED EITHER. And reliable source? I ALREADY PROVED MARY MAGDALENE IS IN XENOSAGA ABOVE. This ALONE should be enough of a reason to include it. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox art of her by Domenico Tintoretto

I believe the art of her by Domenico Tintoretto in her infobox should be removed and moved to her gallery. It's extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely, from a historical viewpoint that Mary even looked like that. Like I said before, I HATE it when Mary Magdalene is portrayed as some pasty pale-skinned blone-haired blue-eyed white girl. Same with Jesus. Chances are, she would have had darker skin, darker hair, and probably look something more like this:

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2x4605857/middle-eastern-women-in-burkhas.jpg

We need to stop whitewashing history and being historically inaccurate. No offense to the white Europeans who made these paintings, but these paintings are interpretations and nothing more. I think it should be done out of respect to her, since there's no way of knowing what a human who died about 2000 years ago would look like. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no physical description of Mary Magdalene except that she is a woman. The illustrations in this article serve mostly to exemplify how she is portrayed in art, rather than how she actually looked, which is cause for speculation such as yours. And I would emphasize that that is speculation, pure and simple, which has no place in Wikipedia. Unless you can provide reliable secondary sources which can accurately describe Mary Magdalene, then you cannot presume to know her complexion and hair colour. Elizium23 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that being biased? I mean, there could be hundreds - THOUSANDS - of portrayals of Mary Magdalene in art. Why should we only cater to ONE interpretation in her infobox? It's historically inaccurate. Historically and geographically, there's less than a 1 percent chance she even looked like that. And my speculation is actually superior: chances are, a Middle Eastern woman from the Middle East would look... I dunno... MIDDLE EASTERN. There's a 98 percent chance her hair would be black or dark brown.
All that art will do is probably confuse future generations. I'm not saying we should remove it from the article entirely, just move it to her Gallery (of various historically inaccurate interpretations by white people). And like you said, speculation is usually frowned upon on wikis, however, that "art" is still speculation. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Luke 7:38 suggests she had long hair. But that's as far as the physical descriptions go. I think most of the notable depictions of Mary, which are all interpretations, will tend to show her as more European-looking. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it this way. For a long time, humans believed Earth was flat. Imagine if I went on the Wikipedia article for Earth, and THIS IMAGE was in the infobox. And I was told by the editors, "we're keeping this flat earth image in our infobox because it's for artistic purposes." Well, this is kinda like that, except with white Mary Magdalene. If there is no known images of her, and all we have are inaccurate paintings, then I believe we shouldn't have ANY images in the infobox. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies here. Elizium23 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline is quite clear. It's suggested that Mary's ethnicity might have been misrepresented for some 2,000 years. But this article is not the place to try and correct the balance. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC) p.s. but I see you have just been blocked for edit warring on this article. p.p.s alas no, that was a whole 12 days ago.[reply]
I would prefer that you do not make this personal, 174.2.98.24. Elizium23 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent for now)

"But this article is not the place to try and correct the balance."

Ummmmmm, I don't see why NOT? I mean, this IS literally the main encyclopedia of the planet, which is meant to provide reliable and truthful information. We shouldn't have inaccurate information. I figure Mary Magdalene's Wikipedia article would be the best place to correct misinformation, especially about her ethnicity. There's literally a 99 percent chance that her ethnicity HAS been misrepresented. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anyone is expecting to see a Facebook selfie of Mary in the infobox, are they? In fact, one might very well argue that her physical appearance has nothing whatever to do with her significance to millions of people across the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what she did for Jesus mattered more than her physical appearance, but we should still try to aim to be historically accurate. I wouldn't expect to see a white girl with blonde hair and blue eyes on Hua Mulan's article, I'm not sure why it's somehow justified on Mary Magdalene's article. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why should historical accuracy be the overriding principle? If you think you can gain WP:CONSENSUS for that position, by all means try. See WP:DR for Dispute Resolution methods. So far you do not have consensus. Using flawed analogies will not help your case. The physical appearance of Mary Magdalene was not a priority for the writers of the New Testament. I would daresay that her physical appearance was not a priority for the Early Church Fathers and theologians and Biblical scholars throughout the ages. She is, however, an important figure in Christian art, and the portrayals we use should be representative of the most notable works of art. Perhaps there are Oriental Orthodox icons which depict her with the features you want. Elizium23 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We can't be "historically accurate", as there are no historical images of Mary. Looking at the lead image of Hua Mulan it's hard to determine if she had any eyes at all. But this doesn't detract from the appropriateness or saliency of the image with regard to the culture in which she was venerated. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Christian art is, well, just Christian art. However, we should NOT use art (especially inaccurate art) in her infobox. That's what I'm saying. If you want it to remain in an "art" section, fine, but like I said before, it's inaccurate and confusing.
Also, what makes a NOTABLE "art" is subjective. Why is some art notable, and other art not notable? Exactly, it's pure opinions and subjectiveness. I don't want ANY art of her in her infobox because it has the potential to be wrong, and the infobox is supposed to treat her as a real historical figure. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone be "confused" when no one knows what she looked like? Notable art is generally produced by notable artists, like Domenico Tintoretto. You obviously have quite strong views on this, judging by the demands you are making for what you want. So I think, as Elizium23 suggests, you need to have a look at WP:DR for Dispute Resolution methods. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Readers will be confused because they'll view her as a Caucasian European white ethnicity, when in reality, there's a 99.98 chance she WASN'T. And tell me, what makes a "notable artist"? Oh right, it's, again, ALL opinionated and subjective. And I'm not "demanding" anything, I'm just being provocative. If I was "demanding", I would have said something like, "CHANGE IT NOW OR ELSE", but I've been very rational so far. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this whole encyclopedia is "opinionated and subjective". But it relies on opinionated and subjective consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that there is something in the IP editor's logic. Maybe a compromise can be achieved here. Maybe a dark haired, dark skinned renaissance woman? -- Marek.69 talk 00:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but why would she even resemble a Renaissance woman? The Renaissance occurred about 1500 years after her death. Also, why is it normal to pose with dead skulls (which is creepy and gross), and wear long-ass robes? Her clothing would get so dirty and filthy, dragging across the dirt and sand. At least the Xenosaga interpretation has her dress above her ankles. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no chance of you actually reading the article to find out why, I suppose? Johnbod (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and didn't find any answers to any of my questions. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A section about art and iconography could be added, mentioning that there are no descriptions of Mary Magdalene, etc. Bialosz (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artibutes

In Western art there is not only ointment jar as an attribute, also very common was skull, when she was depicted as a penitnet.There are also other attributes [1], this is only to give you some impression that there is not only the jar. For ex. when looking at a picture depicting a female saint, and three is a skull, the skull is identifying the person as Mary Magdalene.Other attributes were mirror, book, etc.Bialosz (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.academia.edu/4072926/Magdalenes_Iconography
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary_Magdalene&oldid=723147648"