Jump to content

Talk:Black Madonna of Częstochowa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

English syntax

One of the oldest documents from Jasna Góra states that the picture travelled from Jerusalem, via Constantinople and Belz, to finally reach Częstochowa in August 1382 by Władysław Opolczyk, Duke of Opole.

"The picture traveled ... by....?" This is not English. Perhaps we could say, "in August 1382, the duke of Opole, Władysław Opolczyk, brought the picture [or icon] from Jerusalem ..." etc.

Jasna Góra (English: Bright Mount)

Since 'mount' in English can also mean a horse (noun) or to climb upon (verb), the name of the town would more usually be translated as "bright mountain." However, since the town is not generally known to anyone by the English equivalent, the sentence should include, "which means 'bright mountain' [not capitalized] in English."

Sca (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Madonna of Częstochowa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Black?

Why is this Madonna called Black? It puzzles me, but the article does not answer the question. Does anybody know? Eissink (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC).

Black Madonna is linked in "See also", though I'm not sure that will answer your question. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but indeed the page doesn't really answer my question: the only other reference to a painting seems to be a painting of a statue, just like all other 'black' madonna's mentioned are statues. I wonder when and by whom Our Lady of Czestochowa was first called a Black Madonna, because the painting might be dark, the depicted persons to me are far from black. One of the sources tries to answer the question "Why Is She Black?, but even there I see no real reason to equal the painting to the black madonna statue tradition. I'll leave it there. Eissink (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC).
I’m pretty sure it’s due to the varnish blackening over time. Volunteer Marek 09:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Here is some write up about it in general[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Rainbow image

This is a clear case of undue weight and POV push, overly focusing on LGBT issues, there are countless artistic renditions of many of the world's famous paintings, done for political, or cultural reasons, they come and go and fade from the public's attention, there are images of Mona Lisa, Putin, etc. used in protests. No point in making an entire section devoted to the rainbow image just because it made the new last month. --E-960 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The content in diff, clearly passes WP:DUE weight - given coverage in international media over the past few months. The Rainbow Madonna is a widely used icon in the Polish LGBT movement and is used in Poland and outside of Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Censorship or caving in to hate has not place in a free society. Much has been written on the Rainbow Madonna, a most important symbol of hope. Wikipedia should write too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazgul Bane (talk • contribs) 13:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks ("Wikipedia rejects hate"[2]). This is a poster displayed by somebody during the LGBTQ protest. It has nothing to do with the history of the Black Madonna of Częstochowa.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
So what? It was discussed in politics and in media, so it's part of it's history. It's non-christian use. Dominikmatus (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@ User:BuidhelBuidhe The poster is unrelated to the Black Madonna (sacred and important for Christians) and its history, please produce a separate article and link it to this one if you insist that a poster displayed by somebody at the protest is important.-GizzyCatBella🍁 05:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Really? Why are people upset over it if it has nothing to do with the original? The article is very short, I understand that it has much history but it is better to add to the article rather than remove stuff you don't like, but which drew significant international attention. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@User:BuidhelBuidhe You wouldn't add Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy to the Muhammad article, would you? Same thing with a Black Madonna. Just create a separate piece and link it here.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I think it would absolutely be reasonable to mention controversies over depictions of Muhammed in that article. Otherwise it wouldn't be comprehensively covering all aspects of the topic. (t · c) buidhe 08:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Not really, but it is covered at length in Depictions_of_Muhammad#Cartoons. The Rainbow Madonna should be included here. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
But that’s kind of the point - if there was an article on “depictions of the Black Madonna” it could perhaps go in there. But it’s just not notable here. You can start a separate dedicated article. Volunteer Marek 09:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Black Madonna is a depiction, this is _the_ article on "depictions of Black Madonna", thus this is the right place to put it. Trasz (talk) 09:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope. There have been numerous versions of this painting over the years and it’s been featured on a lot of different things. There’s no reason why this particular version should be included (especially since its not even mentioned much in reliable sources), aside from the fact that all this started as a troll by a now indef banned user. Volunteer Marek 09:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
If other versions were notable, they should be included as well. As for the provenance - first, it does not matter, only the content matters; second, you are a troll too. Trasz (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@User:BuidhelBuidhe I'm not sure about that.. this is a very sensitive matter. It would make sense to have it all in one place, but to modify articles like Jesus, Mohhamed, Abraham or Black Madonna with scarcely related stuff? I don't think it's a good idea. That's why we have "see also" section.GizzyCatBella🍁 09:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Wait, are you comparing an article on some obscure painting, relatively unknown outside of Poland, with Jesus and Muhammad?  :-D Trasz (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Old issue coming back on my watchlist... I think I said somewhere else in the past but I do think it is best to create a separate rainbow Madonna article and then just briefly mention it here in a one-line like summary. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Thanks Piotrus, I was about to fix the broken link. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Piotrus, it should not be even mentioned, just in "See also section” if rainbow Madonna is created. See Muhammad article for guidance. @User:BuidhelBuidhe just copy paste and create a new article, that covers the poster. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The rainbow image is important. I feel intimidated by the comparison to the Muhammad cartoons, people have been killed over the Muhammad cartoons. Ever Destiny (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ever Destiny have you edited this article before? Can you clarify, please? Maybe TonyBallioni should take a look at this [3]?GizzyCatBella🍁 08:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The rainbow image is held up in marches throughout Poland, it is important symbol. Ever Destiny (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Volunteer Marek 21:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Separate article is fine. It’s undue here. Volunteer Marek 21:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Rainbow Madonna is widely recognized symbol of a fight against religiously motivated hate campaign in Poland. It should definitely be mentioned here. I'd argue it might actually be more encyclopedic than the original painting itself, which is of interest only to a part of Polish Catholic community. Trasz (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Earlier you tried mislead alll English-speaking readers of this discussion that this is obscure and one of many random religious pictures in Poland (just see obscure by ctrl+F) and then after you illogical or motivational statement above (well, more notable than the thing where you just were trying the redirect kept) and emotional tendentions, now you just claimed below I wasn't convinced it's notable enough to deserve its own article, you also know that there was time when you declared on your user page at PL wiki (You semi-retired there because of you earlier have been blocked there 11 times, everything for persnal attacks and POV against religious topics despite few regular +400 edits through 7 years span) your own pov that you consider any religion as type of psychical disease – just sayng, your track record, your grounding extragation. FWIHW, nobody was oppose to create new separate about Rainbow Madonna article to building Wikipedia (Piotrus who originally suggested that instead keeping here is also the only user who have ever nominated LGBT to WP:VA) but the thing was that should not be mentioned as first in this type of article but for tenative reasons (WP:WTAF) in more relevant places/possible-alternatives or have separate article. That's all. Dawid2009 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Please take care to avoid emotionally charged, hyperbolic language in both talk page discussions and your edit summaries. Stop referring to other editors’ good faithed edits as “vandalism”. Please stop with the original research (especially of the sort that is really out there - like the claim that the Rainbow version is more notable than a centuries old icon/work of art). Stop edit warring against established consensus. Volunteer Marek 09:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Please take care to avoid calling your POV-forcing against the consensus a "good faithed edits", they are not. Stop singling out editors who oppose your POV "sockpuppets". Stop edit warring against established consensus. Trasz (talk) 09:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
By all means Trasz, please continue with the personal attacks. And please keep on falsely claiming “established consensus” when it’s clear as day that there is no such thing here. Volunteer Marek 09:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps not; but there is no consensus to remove the section either. So please don't. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod. Eissink (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC).
That’s not how this works. The WP:ONUS to get consensus is on those who wish to include it in the article. Given that the coverage of this in reliable, widely circulating sources is minimal, and the lack of policy based arguments for inclusion (just a bunch of WP:IJUSTLIKEIT really) it is clearly WP:UNDUE and stays out until such consensus can be reached. Volunteer Marek 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
info about some poster was never in the article, until entered here by this user [4]. GizzyCatBella🍁 14:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
So? You cannot declare all (reliable) knowledge and information that was once pronounced by a now blocked user taboo, that is too ridiculous to even consider. The info in itself seems legit. As stated above there is no consensus yet (but I'd say a majority is for keeping the info), so I will place it back. Eissink (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC).
@Johnbod:, @Eissink: Actually one year ago already there was serious consensus ( after this revert) to delte text but now we solved also problem of redirect (which nobody noted), created by indef banned user one year ago, which we now changed for separate article, what is good as we have relevently two diffrent pages about two diffrent things, and no removed sourced material, there is also information in this article but not so wide to add image, if we would add every new information/orophan on Wikipedia to every important for someone/wikiproject article on Wikipedia then would be not with philosophy WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE which why there is option to create new article what is trully not against adding something elsewhere on Wikipedia. Honestly, based on my all comments around I think we have somehow already reached compromise and the matter is well done, at all. Dawid2009 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Eissink Remember that this image is sacred to millions and millions of people around world. Only for this reason reprints which have little to do with this centuries old holy image should have their own separate article (linked here of course). This is of course my opinion (not only mine I can see), I’m trying to keep in mind the religious feelings of our readers. After all we are here for them, you know.GizzyCatBella🍁 15:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
We are not here to salve (other) readers. You may think people have all kind of feelings and feel that you are the one that needs to protect those delicate flowers from whatever scary truth you might find to be out there, but I don't think that is what we are here for. I find your attitude in this – apart from the current subject – rather presumptuous and overbearing, to be honest. Eissink (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC).
The fact that a likely sock puppet of a banned user came here to restart an old edit war is most certainly pertinent. And like I said, the people who wish to include this info have failed to articulate the reason WHY it should be included (“I think it’s legit” is not an argument, it is just an expression of an opinion. Ditto for “I think it’s important”). And you need consensus to include, not to exclude, per WP:ONUS. Volunteer Marek 15:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this subject might need a RfC to resolve these matters. Eissink (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC).
The fact is there were, what, four different editors reverting the removal? Let me guess, all those are sockpuppets?  :-D Trasz (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not attacking other editors - you are, Volunteer Marek. You've started an edit war on this, you've ignored consensus, which at this point pretty clearly shows this should be included in the article, and you're calling other editors names. Trasz (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Seriously, what's wrong with creating a separate article about this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't convinced it's notable enough to deserve its own article, and then there's the problem of having somebody actually go and do it - but now that User:GizzyCatBella volunteered to write it, I think that's the best (certainly the least contentious) option. Trasz (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that's the best (certainly the least contentious) option. - I also, shame there were so plenty no WP:CAREFUL here. I hope in general this is time to WP:Drop the stick. Dawid2009 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

B-class review

For WPPOLAND: failed, needs many more inline cites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I have changed rates of importance for two relevant wikiprojects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism), below I claimed my attributions and I did it the following ways:
  • For Wikiproject:Poland – from mid to high (the same level what Our Lady of Poland respectivelly) – this blessed picture as an article is by far more often folowed by either of Poles and non-Poles around the world than Coat of Arm of Poland, quite closely to Nationa Polish Flague but emotionally is important national symbol due to obvious reasons ( almost everyone see this picture in Poland everyday, especially at the prayers). Actually Polish Marian Cults are just as old as identity of Poles, note Bogurodzica is mentioned in first paragraph at List of historical national anthems as the oldest historical national athemn on the world, historically for either of Poland and actually Belarus too (see Template:National anthems of Belarus ). Theokos is more often viewed on Polish Wikipedia than for example in Spanish-speaking world, noteworthy archetype.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Madonna_of_Częstochowa/Archive_1&oldid=1118063885"