Talk:Skull (symbolism)/Archive 1

message: ----
Article formerly listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 18 to Apr 24 2004, consensus was to keep.  Discussion:
* Delete.  The prose is interesting, but it's not appropriate for an article, and it doesn't even really explain it--it's more like a meditation on the topic.  But it's really not even about what the title says it's about...maybe at most, an academically written section on symbolic uses could be added to the main skull article.  Postdlf  18:02 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
*Keep, but move to skull (symbolism), since this has little to do with mythology. -Sean 19:00, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

message: Did you notice how the affected spelling "Neandertal" draws the reader's attention and shows how correct we are being? This kind of bid for attention is a vulgar affectation-- vulgar because it is distracting. We all know that the modern spelling of the town near the archaeological site is "Neandertal." The standard spelling of the humans is still Homo neanderthalensis nevertheless.  I have not corrected the misguided "correction" of the text. Sometimes such vanity spellings are forced upon us: Qu'ran for example. But there is no such cultural pressure for "Neandertals."  --Wetman 23:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, if you had to live among them like I do, you'd be more sensitive to their noble culture.  Smerdis of Tlön 02:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling "Neandertal"

message: This article is a mess! Let me list my criticisms so that they can be easily addressed.
* It reads like an essay, stringing quotations with examples and artistic analyses:
**"The skull has no flesh or tongue yet it speaks. Do not rashly assume that the emblem of a skull is a mere symbol of Death. What does the skull say, when we see it so significantly placed on the writing desk of Saint Jerome in Albrecht Dürer's woodcut? (illustration, right) Not truly Memento mori. The skull's huge emptied eye-sockets contrast with Jerome's closed eyes, in one of the best evocations of the interior vision of contemplation, focused on Eternity perhaps, ever realized in Western art."
* The article is too self aware. It refers to humans as "we" in the first paragraph, despite established conventions.
* It asks questions. Encyclopedia articles should have a good reason for using the question mark, and this has none.
* It drifts lazily from one symbol to another without any semblance of organization, ending randomly with King-Kong and He-man.
Consequently, I propose that we essentially scrap the article. Here is my proposed organizational schemesif people want to comment.
*1. Introduction - covering the basic idea and reasons.
*2. Traditional uses
**a. Religious meanings
**b. A symbol of power
*3. Artistic symbolism
**a. Visual arts
**b. Literature
*4. Insignia and logos
*5. Contemporary uses
The main trouble with this is that there is considerable overlap between categories, such as religous and visual arts, or in logos and contemporary uses. I'll think about this.
Here are some ideas for examples:
Ali G's quip "why are skeletons evil?" as an example of the general symbolic trend
The "Skull and Dagger" secret society's ironic usage as a modern example
Use in videogames like the Doom series
The skull-topped fence in Heart of Darkness for literary use and/or in the "symbol of power" section.
The use in catacombs and ossuaries
Anyway, I have to leave town for a week so that's about how long I'll wait for comments. After that, if there are no objections, I'll start overhauling the page, hopefully with some help. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 05:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Skull (symbolism)/Revision: Rather than beginning with tabula rasa you have the outline format and Matthewcieplak's video games and other uses all prepared for editing. Take as little or as much as you wish from this article without damaging it. Then we'll see how the pedestrian outline fills out. --Wetman 07:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I'm guessing I'll probably get to this first, so I'll post here for comments (and maybe on RFC) when I have a viable version cooked up. But if anyone else wants to take a crack at Skull (symbolism)/Revision, please do. I'll fix I've fixed my wanged list. - Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 06:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madness! 

message: Added NPOV message. This is interesting, but it needs to be reworked to be more NPOV and to have more sources and references. Kwertii 21:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is threaded together out of mainstream commonplaces and ordinary observations drawn from the illustrations. Neutrality is not disputed, it merely does not suit the personal point-of-view of one individual. Please present your objections first, and leave the little tag for later, when you aren't getting your way. How is Skull (symbolism)/Revision coming along? -Wetman 22:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say NPOV is the problem so much as the pure chaos. The same seems to be happening with my life, which is why Skull (symbolism)/Revision is still just a skeleton (heh heh). I'll get back to it if someone else hasn't taken over by the time I make it back. -Matthew Cieplak (talk) (edits) 03:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Neutral point-of-view means the broad mainstream of informed opinion. There is nothing to violate a neutral tone in this article, and no particular viewpoint is expressed, to the exclusion of another. Like most discussions of symbolic values, the article circles around its subject, taking one viewpoint after another. There is no correct  logical order to follow in this. I wish someone would add some fresh material here, to stimulate and enlighten us. --Wetman 04:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: [moved here from Wetman's Talkpage]:The article is a meandering essay about the symbolism of the skull, reflecting a number of views that could be called unverifiable at best. I'm not certain if the NPOV tag captures that exactly, but I don't know of any better one. Either way, I don't think you should remove such a tag from an article you created yourself, especially without mentioning the removal in the edit summary. I believe that skull symbolism is a topic worthy of its own article, but I don't have the expertise to write it myself; the NPOV tag is intended to draw the attention of someone who does. However I don't need to know much about the topic to know that "The skull has no flesh or tongue yet it speaks", while neatly poetic, is nothing but POV. Have you tried Everything2? I came here from there; they are more interested in such personal explorations. Soo 09:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is someone whose edit history demostrates that they have no interest in  art history or cultural history, who can't choose between "lack of neutrality" and "original research" but just doesn't like the tone of this article. Indeed an article entitled Skull (symbolism) will be an attempt to report the uses that have been made of the skull as a symbol. It will move from subject to subject: is that "meandering"? Do you think we can we get some slightly more competent edits here from someone who has heard names like Ernst Gombrich and Irwin Panofsky, and has even read some books on art history and cultural history, like Simon Schama or Kenneth Clark or anybody? The sheer self-confidence of this is just unfathomable. --Wetman 10:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for skulls speaking? If not, that line should not be included. If you want to call it original research rather than POV then that's fine with me. I notice you skipped over your removal of an NPOV tag from your own article with a misleading edit summary. Oh, and keep the personal attacks to yourself. Soo 10:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About NPOV tags

message: The article is literate and I recognize much of the information that was deleted as unsourced.  The article also suffers from unencyclopedic tone, diffuse organization, and inadequate citation.  This looks like someone's upper level undergraduate essay.  Rewrite it in the third person, divide into logical sections, and add references. Durova 00:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently looks a total mess, because its plastered with "Citation needed" tags, which to me seems like the equivalent of breaking the fourth wall. Wetman has repeatedly assured us that these things could easily be sourced as they are so obvious, but in the four months since this article was originally tagged as POV (not by me), none have been forthcoming. It does indeed read like an essay, and a particularly meandering one. Of course Wetman refuses to acknowledge any criticism from people without a history of editing these articles so it will probably remain as bad as it is for the time being. Soo 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Citation needed" flags are a reflection of the article's shortcomings.  The way to rectify this is to supply citations. Durova 20:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC