I was too sweeping in my post. Depictions, for example, of Jesus in an
article on Renaissance Art would be fine. A photo of Michelangelo's David
would be appropriate on [[Michelangelo]], on [[Depictions of David]] (or
similar), and of course on [[David (Michelangelo)]], but not on [[David]].
I don't see how any depiction of someone that is not based on that someone's
likeness can possibly be encyclopedic in the article on that someone.
On Feb 4, 2008 8:21 PM, Meg Ireland <megireland99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's encyclopedic in view of the historical
context on how people from
the past perceived Jesus. Who knows what Jesus actually looked like?
However given the subject's significance in art, particularly
Renaissance Art, I see no valid reason to preclude such images.
On 05/02/2008, Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
All question of censorship aside, does it really
make sense to have any
image of historical persons that is not based on the actual likeness of
person on any page except [[depictions of...]]
Maybe there are a few exceptions, where a particular depiction has
universally identified with the subject. But
that's not the case with
historical figures, Jesus and Muhammad included.
Many, many depictions of Jesus look very European, which doesn't seem to
encyclopedic to me. But there's also a trend
lately to have other
of Jesus that are targeted to a particular
audience, without any concern
historical accuracy. This may be fine in
liturgical settings, but not in
encyclopedia. But this is only more obviously
wrong than a more
"historically accurate" depiction. They're both still wrong.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: