Talk:Tabot

message: The reason that I placed this tmplate here was not that I questioned that the event happened -- but as a request for a link to the story in the approrpriate emdia. This is not meant as an invitation to delete this anecdote, & should some zealot so misinterpret my act, I will restore the passage without the tag. -- llywrch 00:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Refs added. - BanyanTree 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact template 

message: Should :File:Äthiopien Tabot Linden-Museum 90290.jpg or any image of a bare Tabot be included on this page? It has been added and removed many times, because Ethiopian Christians do not want to see uncovered tabots but the encyclopedic value is obvious. WP:NOTCENSORED tells us that  GordonGlottal (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope this helps. Regards, --Andreas JN466 17:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

text: It was my impression that  (quoting WP:ONUS). If there isn't consensus to include this content—the photograph—wouldn't the appropriate course be to not include it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An RfC is asking if some change should be made. If no consensus for such a change is reached, the status quo ante remains. It is similar to a "no consensus" result at AfD—if no consensus is reached there, then the article remains and nothing happens to it. (That would include no consensus to move the image, so I will revert that as well.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think moving it to the L&R section is a better solution; it's a compromise reflecting everybody's position to some extent. To be clear, I would prefer not showing the image at all to showing it as part of the lead section. Andreas JN466 21:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure that your interpretation is correct. But maybe instead of debating Wikipedia policies we could agree to move the image lower in the article. NOTCENSORED is not an argument for having the image in the infobox, just as we don't have a depiction of Muhammad in the infobox. Alaexis¿question? 22:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

text:  Strictly speaking, the status quo ante when the RfC was opened on Feb. 1 was that the article did not include an image of an uncovered tabot. The RfC question, on Feb. 1 when this image was not included in the article, was "Should :File:Äthiopien Tabot Linden-Museum 90290.jpg or any image of a bare Tabot be included on this page?"  I didn't revert its restoration on Feb. 5, nor did I completely remove it today, thinking that maybe it was better that I try to be patient & cooperative. In hindsight, yeah, I should've brought that up on Feb. 5. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article and talk history seem to bear this out. The RfC was created February 1 , and between January 31 and February 2 the uncovered tabot image is not present . There was earlier back and forth over the inclusion of the image, as the RfC's wording observes. At the time of its proposal, the RfC was proposing a change to the state of the article to introduce the image.  Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the image to the Looting section as several users view this as an acceptable compromise (we show the image but not too prominently). Alaexis¿question? 11:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I grant I prefer moving the image down to the Looting section over displaying it prominently as a lead image, though I remain against its inclusion in general. Wikipedia not being censored is not by itself a justification for indulging in that uncensored-ness or in what in effect (our intent aside) amounts to callously displaying war booty probably obtained in the 1868 British military actions in Ethiopia. That is said by way of comment, as I recognize there was not a clear consensus in the RfC. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe there are 3 of us who'd prefer that the image isn't there at all. FYI I don't believe this particular tabot was looted following the Battle of Magdala. The file description mentions "Holz" which may refer to Karl/Carlos Holz. There is some verbiage on the Linden Museum's website about their repatriating some of the Holz artifacts, but those were from South America, and more than a few of their URLs don't work (including one apparently about establishing provenance - in general, not for this object). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabot image 

message: tabot 196.188.226.194 (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  tabot in a,haric