Talk:Mask/Archive 1

Archive 1

Prosthetic Masks

What about prosthetic masks, like in Mrs Doubtfire? Why is there nothing here about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.217.134 (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC) hep gay

older picture removed

I removed the older picture i hope the author didn't mind since i think (IMHO) this picture emphasis much better the article --Chmouel 02:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC) Yes i think so aswell. This should be merged with masks. From Josh Hill

identity mask picture added

I am going to add a picture to the mask article, as suggested by two other people already.[1]

What if this is used in an article about masks or ski masks? WhisperToMe 06:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC) It is a user photo, taken from the user's website. We can easily use this photo for the ski mask article. Keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There could be external links

There has been some discussion (and confusion), for example, about what type of mask to use to protect against the avian flu virus. What works and what doesn't? 69.6.162.160 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

That wouldn't go in this article anyway. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

New Section Proposal

I'm going to begin looking into state legislations and create a new section specifically for State Legislation. When I get enough info regarding the mask laws in other states I'll create a new section for it. The section will include the State, laws, and conditions for the prosecution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadwal (talk • contribs)

Personally, I'd say not here. Perhaps this could be an excellent new article, but in the more general article on masks, I wouldn't. Just a couple of examples to verify the point is about all we need at this location. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We should either have all or none. If we're going to indicate one incident of a man being arrested for violating a Virginia Statute, then every state should be indicated. Because its complete idiocy that we indicate one, but not the rest.

You do realize that you removed the legislation points 876.12 through 876.155. Which indicate all places a mask may be pursued (876.12-876.15)and what circumstances must be met (876.115). Cadwal 05:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You realize I'm not specifically against listing state laws regarding the wearing of masks. I just don't think that this general-information article is the place for it. For instance, we have a general-information article called Fire drill. Then we have a well-referenced spinoff article called List of fire drill regulations. We could easily do that here as well. We could have Mask with general information, and then a separate article called List of laws concerning masks, or something along those lines. For the general-info article, the one example is fine as a "for instance". You want to get into more detail about specific laws, great. Let's create a separate article. I'll even help out with it. Just not on the main Mask article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you're not against listing laws regarding the wearing of masks. I just don't think that one small incident should be noted because of one guy's decision not follow the state statute (which is entirely blown out of proportion). I actually looked at the state statute to see why the guy would be arrested, and that state strictly prohibits the wearing of masks at all times unless it is for holiday celebrations, for medical conditions, on-the-job protection, or actually participating in a theatrical production or ball. But if it gets that one incident off of the main page, I'll start pulling up statutes from different states tonight to start a new page as soon as possible. I'll admit that the statute may need to be rewritten since it was originally created to prevent the KKK and similar hate organizations from gathering, but I can't support one state being favored over any other. Cadwal 06:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Five years after the start of this discussion Im going to weigh in on the mask laws issue. There are in fact many laws against wearing masks under various situations. I believe that is relevant to the topic of masks. We can have a section that generally states that there are such laws and provide a few examples. For example this article describes how several protesters were arrested for wearing masks. I don't see that it's necessary to list the relevant laws in every state and country. 00:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And you're right - not necessary to have it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ceremonial and Ritual Uses

I wouldn't be qualified to write them, but I'm surprised by the absence of information on ceremonial or ritual masks (like the one in the image) and theatrical masks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.134.171 (talk • contribs)

That is what I came here for as well. Sunshaker--72.140.175.249 04:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a section on African ceremonial and ritual uses, but it was in a separate article. The two articles have since been merged - HammerHeadHuman (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture References?

Should this section be added, or would the list be way to long. Two examples off the top of my head are "Phantom of the Opera" and "Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask" with links to the corresponding references? Megadecimal, 9 March 2007

I think it's a good idea. I was thinking of The Mask, V for Vendetta and The Man In The Iron Mask. I'm adding all of these; if anyone else feels like adding or removing stuff, we'll find out as we go. :) RagingR2 13:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikification

I've began to improve the layout, referencing and content of this page, and would be grateful for comments. There's still much to be done including adding sections on other regional Ritual Masks. Bob 19:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• The {{To do}} template should stay permanently so others can add their thoughts; also, there is always something that can be added or worked on to improve articles. Items within the list can be edited or removed by simply clicking the edit link in the actual todo list. I have re-added the todo list, and removed all but one of the entries. - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 17:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for that HHH - I didn't understand the protocol.Bob 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

References

This article is getting tremendously better than it has ever been in the past, however, without page numbers and more specific references (the title and author has been included, but also included should be the publisher, year, and ISBN) this article is not going to get very far on a quality scale. If whomever added these references could get a little more specific I think there is a good chance that this article could be elevated to A or B, perhaps even GA status... - HammerHeadHuman (talk)(work) 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Artefacts!

Re:edit by 70.49.45.150(→North American masks). Note the spelling 'artefact' isn't wrong, but the correct Eng. spelling. 'Artifact' is the US spelling. As a matter of interest what is the wiki protocol on regional variations? No big deal, just interested. Bob 07:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of spellings is that first of all, the article is either entirely in American English or entirely in the Queen's English. That said, if the topic lends itself to one way or another, use that way. For instance, we will look at the color of George W. Bush's hair, while we will admire the colour of Tony Blair's. If the subject matter doesn't lend itself one way or the other, then whichever way gets there first is what we use, and no changing it. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me, but that's my understanding of it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right, at least as far as my experiences tell me... - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 00:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

First section of the article too narrow

The article currently begins with "A mask is a sculptured object that is worn by a performer." This qualifications seems to be too narrow, since there are other uses for a mask, which are mentioned in the article, such as (medical) protection. So, a mask isn't always worn by a performer, and it isn't always sculpted; it can also be made of rubber or cloth, depending on the use and the design. RagingR2 13:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I went in and dug up the opening from an old revision and spliced it in. How's that look? SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)\

Looks good I think. I was just thinking, hey I'm comlaining about so why not fix it myself, but you were a little quicker than I was. :) RagingR2 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?

Why is this article being raided of useful content? Huge amounts of information have been removed. See this diff. In their place, we have no summary style; the content is just gone. I recommend a revert, but I wanted to discuss it here first. — Dulcem (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

— Dulcem you're dead right. I'm not certain what there is to discuss as the recent changes amount to vandalism and need to be reverted. Will do. Bob (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to a version last edited on 5th February by SchuminWeb. This is some way before the raids by Anthony Appleyard, but it's the last version I can find before some of the major cuts to referenced entries were made; for example the cutting of the section on Japanese masks. Forgive me if in so doing I've lost some valuable contributions but the recent bout of edits to the article have, I repeat, been little more than vandalism and ignored wikipedia protocols. The result has been replacing a decent article with a series of lists. Bob (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping Anthony would pipe in and explain what he was trying to do, but since he's been silent, I think your revert was the best thing to do. Thanks. — Dulcem (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I split the missing matter off into page Masks in ritual and theatre, which is linked to from section Mask#Artistry, to leave page Mask as a disambig page between sorts of mask. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I can see what you've done, but I think the decision is questionable. Given the potential impact of the changes it would have been far wiser to have posted a query on this Talk page and waited for a consensus before taking the action you did. I appreciate that the disambig issue needs to be dealt with but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We now have an entry which is very close to being a list; a second level of disambiguation links; and the highly questionable use of Artistry as a sub-heading. You have also reverted to a version of Masks in ritual and theatre which has large parts of referenced material missing. I don't want to revert your changes without giving the issue more thought, and I for one would appreciate comments on these questions from other editors. Best wishes. Bob (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought that I had copied all the external references into Masks in ritual and theatre. If you want to edit Masks in ritual and theatre, then edit it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, I'm very grateful for the kind offer, but you haven't addressed my main questions.Bob (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clearing up your intentions, Anthony. I have to agree with Bob, though. I don't think turning this page into a disambiguation page is a good idea. Rather, this page should talk about masks in all their various forms. Those sections that get too lengthy can be split off into sub-articles (which you already seem to be doing), but in their place, we need to adhere to summary style, giving a synopsis of the information that can be found in the daughter article. — Dulcem (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, I will be re-editing the Mask entry as you haven't replied to my or Dulcems comments on your decision to make Mask a disambiguation page. I'll take on the disambiguation issue rather than simply revert. Please do not revert other editors until you have participated in the discussion on the talk page. Cheers Bob (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I am unclear as to why we are still keeping this disambiguation page here. I personally do not see any reason to not revert. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I spent yesterday reorganising and attempting to improve the edit by Anthony Appleyard despite my own misgivings about it (see above). Only Dulcem had commented on the issue and I felt it worth while applying summary style to the changes to see if they made any more sense of Anthony's disambig entries. Having (literally) slept on it I must say I'm inclined to agree with Stephenchou0722. I want to avoid a revert war with Anthony on this subject, however, having two other editors agree with me on this I'm now inclined to revert to a version of the pre-disambig entry, albeit with a clear link to a Mask (disambig) page to deal with the other definitions. I'm happy to do this soon if there are no reasonable objections. Bob (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted page mask because as it stood it was only about theatrical masks, and the matter about other uses of the word "mask" had disappeared. I have reverted Masks in ritual and theatre to a full file, where I intended matter about theatrical masks to go (unless Masks in ritual and theatre is split into Masks in ritual and Masks in theatre). We do need a disambiguation page between the many things that the word "mask" can mean. Relevant matter in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mask&oldid=203487991 can be merged into Masks in ritual and theatre. Or please discuss it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC

Oh. I see that the other matter is now in Mask (disambiguation). But your move depends on ritual and theatrical masks being a dominant meaning, which I doubt. I have never seen a play where the actors wore masks, and not many ritual uses of masks, but I have seen or used gasmasks and diving masks and computer masking booleans often. The disambig page should be the plain name. Anthony Appleyard (talk)

The discussion about these issues has been going on in the Talk Page for over two weeks. You have chosen not to have a dialogue about these issues. I gave several days warning of a revert and again you did not respond. I even tried to accommodate your suggestions but other editors have agreed with me that the result was unecessary. Please follow protocols. Assume good faith and argue your case in the Talk Page before raiding the entries. Please accept the consensus. This is taking up a lot of my time and could be avoided if you chose to discuss things in advance. This has to be a final warning. Bob (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, let's please assume good faith on this issue. I understand your points and you will see that I have previously tried to deal with the disambiguation issue. It is also easily possible to argue that the older meaning of mask is the generic one and more modern meanings such as your examples are derived from the older (i.e. the mask as a performance and ritual object). Also please note that the current entry is part of the Wikipedia Anthropology Project. By all means continue to argue your case. I'll listen - but do it in this forum and wait for a consensus. Best wishes Bob (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

After User:Dulcem's message, I DID answer twice. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but an answer isn't the same as a dialogue. Cheers Bob (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dulcem complained in an edit comment at 10:36, 5 April 2008 "rv; this article should cover ALL masks, not just ritual and theatrical ones. Why the arbitrary split?".

I split off the ritual and theater matter into its own page to stop page Mask from getting too big and to keep plain Mask as a disambig-ish page with only short descriptions. User:Bobf is treating the ritual and theater use as a dominant meaning and the other meanings are now in Mask (disambiguation). The subject of all masks is too big for one Wikipedia article, it must be split. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't disagree with you more. This article can and should talk about all masks. We have summary style guidelines for a reason, and this is the third time I've brought them up. Encarta pulled it off; why can't we? — Dulcem (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

One page about all masks would get too big. It had to be split. Same as Frogman got too big and I had to split off it Anti-frogman techniques and pages about various nations' frogman groups. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I doubt that talking briefly about each type of mask would make this article too big. Right now, the article is only 26 kb in size. There are numerous articles that are twice or even three times as big. A brief summary of each type of mask is essential. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Anthony, you still haven't explained why you think Wikipedia's summary style guidelines won't work in this case. In fact, those guidelines are designed specifically for cases like this. Think about it this way. I'm a random Wikipedia reader. I want to learn about masks, all masks. Why should I have to look in two or three (or more) different places to find an overview of how masks are used? I shouldn't. I should be able to get a broad overview, in one place, of masks in theater, of masks in religion, of masks in sports, of masks for other uses. Then what if I want to learn more? That's when I click on the "main article" template at the top of each section. In other words, your splitting of this article is a solution in search of a problem. Let's not worry about splitting things up until we need to, which is not now. — Dulcem (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a dilemma between that, and the page getting unwieldily big. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's just it. Summary style prevents the page from getting too big; that's why the guideline exists. — Dulcem (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my problem. We had proper split-outs, with Masks in ritual and Masks in theatre articles. Now the general Mask article has been appropriated for these specific topics. We had it right before, but now it's messed up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As long as the summary does not get long, like happened with Berlin#History of Berlin and History of Berlin in the past; the stub-and-pointer section expanded until it became major content forking with the main article that it pointed to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Back at square one

• We're essentially back at square one now. I've merged all the various bits about face coverings together to make a nice general article about masks. Yes, we do have a bit of a list issue, but that can be overcome without playing musical articles. We do need a general article on face coverings, otherwise known as masks. This is it. Split from this or that, toy with this or that, but all this as it stands now needs to stay out of disambiguation land. Disambiguation pages are for unrelated topics that people might be looking for. This is all related stuff that should stay together on this title.

  So in short: we need a general article on masks, if anyone wants an article on a more specific topic within then they need to start an article on that on a different title, and keep the disambiguation page free of face coverings. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better, thanks. It's a serviceable page right now, in that it covers "facial coverings" of all types and will thus not confuse readers. I agree that it could be delistified, but this should be done by converting lists to prose, not by removing them altogether. — Dulcem (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• The theatrical mask and ritual mask sections still dominate and need to be split off as a separate page, or 2 pages. Many readers will want info about one sort of mask, not about masks in general, and many of those, to save on the typing, are likely to type "mask" and expect a compact list-style index to what sorts of masks there are articles on, to find the exact name of the article on the sort of mask that he wants info on :: not an essay, as pointed at by "converting lists to prose" above. In Wikipedia we are writing a public source of quickly accessing information, not for literary effect. For example, the terms "ritual mask" and "theatrical mask" may overlap, with theatrical perforemances which are part of ritual, for example in a Hindu Ramlila; but I see little in common between a ritual mask in a religious procession and an oxygen mask in an ambulance in a side street nearby, except merely that both cover the face. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is only 31 kb at the moment. No split is necessary at this time. It's an undeveloped article; if someone ever decides to research the subject and comes up with lots of material to push the page size over 32 KB, we can split at that time (being careful to leave summaries of the content that is spun out). — Dulcem (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well done SchuminWeb and all other editors and contributors - back to square one is fine by me. I think the result is a good, serviceable introduction to the subject of 'masks'. Which is what it should be. The debate on appropriate lay-out/design is interesting and it's a concern and issue not only confined to this topic. My research and reading is that the cultural history of the term mask does indeed start with ritual/theatrical face-coverings; and the word was (sensibly) appropriated to cover the increasing amount of technical and protective face-kit that has been a (relatively) recent phenomena. The current article follows a similar trajectory, which is entirely sensible. It therefore explains why there is a cultural 'connection between a a ritual mask in a religious procession and an oxygen mask in an ambulance in a side street nearby', which is precisely the kind of insight one would hope of a good encyclopedia. Bob (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Artifact, artefact, article

SchuminWeb - I'm not at all convinced by 'article' as an alternative to 'arti/artefact'. The root of article appears (Collins Concise Dictionary) to be articulus, a small joint; whereas arti/artefact clearly derives from arte factum , skilfully made, which I would have though was precisely the meaning intended. Your change therefore weakens both the description and the definition. Bob (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems perfectly valid to me. Per WordNet [2], one definition of article is "one of a class of artifacts", and uses "an article of clothing" as an example sentence. Thus it seems like a perfectly valid use of "article", and contrary to what you said, it is not detrimental to the thought being conveyed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi SchuminWeb. Yes, it's interesting, the English language. 'Article' seems to me common-place, like the articles that line supermarket shelves. An artefact on the other hand implies something hand-made or crafted. So the difference in the two terms is on one hand an implication of the common and mass produced, set against the individual and crafted. Hence artefact is the better term. But I accept that one persons artefact is anothers article, which is why I didn't simply revert your edit. Interestingly I would be happy to describe functional masks (smog masks etc) as articles, whereas theatre or ritual masks certainly feel to me to be artefacts. As I say, interesting thing language. Best wishes Bob (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Masks in Contemporary Theatre

As a theatre practioner who works extensively with masks, I'm going to have to dispute some of the information stated here.

Whilst what is said is, as far as I can see, not wrong; it seems fairly US-Centric. In Europe, the use of masks in the 20th Century developed very much out of the work of a variety of Post-Naturalistic practitioners, especially Jacques Copeau and his succesors, especially Jacques Lecoq's work with Theatre Piccolo and at his school. This is highly linked up to the influences of Commedia Dell'Arte and Noh.

Whilst I'm not denying the work of Craig at all, I think it's important to contextualise that work within a wider movement of practitioners who were using masks in their Post-Naturalistic theatre. To cite Schumann too seems odd. Whilst maybe in the US his work with masks was significant, as a European he's not really on the map in terms of mask-work (Puppets definately, masks no). When Bread and Puppet started, there was already a rich use of masks being developed in European theatre. On top of this, Schumann, to my knowledge, didn't contribute to the theory on mask-work i.e. how masks might be used? What makes a good performing mask? etc. He simply used them as one element among many. Again, this isn't at all to discredit his working with them, just that I would argue that he was one of many practitioners who happened to use them, rather than I practitioner that influenced significantly how they were used by others. Again, in the US his contribution might have been more vital, but I don't live that side of the pond. Sebbi (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think that the article can be improved, then by all means, take a whack at it and see what you can come up with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SchuminWeb. I think your comments make sense - so add them to the article, it can only strengthen it. Bob (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are a useful addition to the entry Sebbi. Bob (talk) 16:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Venetian masks

Some information on Venetian masks should be incorporated into this article, as it is an old and well-known tradition connected to the Carnival of Venice. I have a hard time fitting this into the current body of text though. --Steerpike (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I threw it in as a see also to get it on the page, though a better implementation is likely possible. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Have merged this with the European entry. I'll seek out better referencing later. Bob (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Improved and better referenced. Bob (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Protective masks

Besides older masks as those of the romans and samurai, I was under the impression that more recent (renaissance, Art Nouveau) style masks also existed. They are being popularised today in games and movies (eg Kingdom of Heaven, Chronicles of Riddick), comic books as Le scorpion (6:Trésor du Temple). I figure the original renaissance, and Art Nouveau masks should be mentioned.

Also, I was thinking about whether [Riotsquad_helmet|protective helmets]] exist on which a fake "face" is projected unto the visor. This would thus show a disguise face to other people, functioning as a mask. As eg sunglasses already are capable of shielding the eyes by showing a yellow/redish glare to other people, I'm guessing this shouldnt be hard to do. Perhaps include some info in article.

Musicians

Do you think it would be a good idea to add informational regarding say; Kiss or Slipknot. They are two of the most popular bands in modern rock and their use of face-paint and masks have a lot to do with them as performers. REZTER ^TALK ø 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

horror masks

Perhaps the mask in Swimming Pool (film) can be mentioned, a picture of it would also be useful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.180.245 (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Arab knight mask

Can we add a picture of the Arab knight mask? http://amonamon2.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/masque-furusiyya.jpg Mewoone (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one month

Just long enough for the constant barrage of vandalism to end as vandals realize it's game-over here. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Sad Masks

Loaded up the follwing image File:TheGreeksHaveAWordForIt.jpg and wondered if Wikipedia could tell me about the masks which I recall seeing in many theatrical settings, but find no mention. Should they be featured ? (found this source http://www.angelfire.com/art/masks/maskhistory.html) thanks GrahamHardy (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Since article locked, suggestion to improve citation

Since much of the section on masks in the Middle East focuses on Iran, and presents content derived from Willem Floor's book on Persian theatre, the full source of that information should appear (with the bracketed "ref" markup language removed for sake of appearance):

  Change text from:
        The History of Theater in Iran/Willem Floor: MAGE 2005/ISBN 0-934211-29-9
  Change text to:
        Willem M. Floor, 2005, The History of Theater in Iran (Washington, D.C.:Mage Publishers), ISBN 0-934211-29-9, see [3], accessed 13 October 2014.</ref>

A tag is also added, since the page number was not provided by the original editor, and must still be researched. Note, some of the content of the paragraph appears to have been lifted verbatim from the publisher's (e.g. book jacket) information, so there is a potential plagiarism issue here as well. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mask. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061016155422/http://www.exn.ca/news/images/1998/06/17/19980617-plaguedoctor.jpg to http://www.exn.ca/news/images/1998/06/17/19980617-plaguedoctor.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mask. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212190019/http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2.7443/1.810061-1.810061 to http://media.www.thedailyaztec.com/media/storage/paper741/news/2002/12/05/Tempo/Who-Was.That.Masked.Man-758787-page2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mask. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610053431/http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/970321/purim.html to http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/970321/purim.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726191659/http://www.cs.okstate.edu/~subhashk/Ritual-Masks-Sacrifice.pdf to http://www.cs.okstate.edu/~subhashk/Ritual-Masks-Sacrifice.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111101611/http://www.endicott-studio.com/gal/galmasks/masks1.html to http://www.endicott-studio.com/gal/galmasks/masks1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://africa.si.edu/pubaccess/pages/classifs/divqry1.asp?ClassificationID=13&ObjectTypeID=-1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mask. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829092915/http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~bcr/African_Mask_Faces.html to http://cti.itc.virginia.edu/~bcr/African_Mask_Faces.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is very sad to mention that there is no space for Sri Lankan masks which have good historical  value . Please let us to add more information about Sri Lankan Masks. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.W .R. Hasantha (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC) 

Heading text

'Sri Lankan Masks'

Since time immemorial, in Sri Lanka, masks have been formed for the purpose of dancing .Masks are mostly turned out from the timber of a tree locally Known as ‘Kaduru’ (stychnos nux vomica). This tree grows in marshy lands bordering paddy fields. This wood is light, soft, and easy to carve.

Sri Lankan Mask dance can basically categorized into two , such as ‘Kolam’ and ‘Ritual ‘ .

Ritual Performance -

What is meant by ritual performance is chasing away the evil spirits or affects from ones’ self. It is an effective cure for some people who believe that certain illnesses are caused by evil spirits. So, to chase away evil sprite or affect Sanni, Yakku and Pali dances are performed. In ritual performance, most of dancers wear masks. In past, Ritual system had spread throughout the country.

Kolam Basically, Kolam provides the audience with entertainments and aesthetic interest. In the older day Kolam was confined to certain areas of the Island,

Ambalangoda is the most famed city in Sri Lanka for traditional Mask and Mask dancing. The pioneers of this traditional art is Tukka Wadu lineage . The set of masks more than 250 years old, belongs to Tukka Wadu generation still being displayed at National Museum - Colombo , Sri Lanka. Further lots of masks belongs to them have been dispatched to various museums in the wold and that was happened around in 1900 through agency called Umlauff . To appreciate their immense contribution to the field and to keep this priceless art alive for future generation a Conservation Center was formed under the sponsorship of Southern Provincial Council- Sri Lanka.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2018

Su Maimulu (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

In Sardinia existed the tradition of Mamuthones e Issohadores of Mamoiada; Boes e Merdules of Ottana; Thurpos of Orotelli; S'Urtzu, Su 'Omadore and Sos Mamutzones of Samugheo; Su Maimulu of Gairo. Masks used during Sardinian Carnival date back to the pre-Christian and pre-Roman period. The raisins of these Carnivals are linked to pagan rites and to rural communities. During the representations people wear animal skins and heads, with big horns and give life to an ancestral fight between the good and the bad, between men and wild nature.

A bad character (s'urtzu, is boes ecc...), usually wearing sheepskins and an horrific mask, advances through the village attacking and scares everybody with an aggressive mood. He represents wild nature and winter in particular. He is the representation of how winter used to attack rural communities. This character is put on chains by other characters, the good ones (maimulus, mamuthones, merdules, buttudos etc...). These characters represents good spiricts protecting the community. They also wear animal skins and animal heads (cows, sheeps, goats or other horned animals) and lot of bells in their back. During the representation they advance with a regular rhythm (given by the bells on their backs) and beat the bad character, forcing him to follow their rhythm. The meaning of this representation was a hope of the whole community: wild nature dancing at the rhythm they wanted (with regular rains etc...).

This representation ends with good characters hardly beating and killing the bad character (because of his refusal to follow the rhythm). It is the end of winter and the beginning of celebrations involving the whole community. However, while these big celebrations are having place, the bad character raise again and begins attacking everybody, once more. This was to remind the community that they do not have to celebrate too much: their win is only a temporary win and next year a new fight will be required to survive. This is the main meaning, but every village (above all in the middle of the island) has a different tradition and characters have different features, giving the island an execptional richness of masks and traditions.

The Carnival period usually begins on the 17th of January (enormous falos in the main squares of the villages) The most famous Carnivals have place in Mamoiada (Mamuthones), Ottana (Boes e Merdules), Samugheo (Mamutzones) and Orotelli (Thurpos). But very particular and traditional are Carnivals having place in Gairo, Sardinia (Su Maimulu), Seui (Sa Mamulada) and Escalaplano (Boes fui janna morti).

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Alphabet and tongue.

Есть "воздушно-капельные" звуки. "с"(s), "ф"(ph) или (f), "з"(th) или (z), "т"(t), "ш"(sh), и другие.

"Маска" останавливает "капли". Они очень маленькие. Но увидеть можно. Так работают "датчики дыма" "пожарной сигнализации". "В тёмном поле".

Расстояния 1,5м может быть достаточно штоб остановить капли. Но лучше если быть "в маске".

176.59.206.172 (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semitic etymology (servant)

In modern Arabic/Hebrew it means Buffon, but the original Semitic verb is Sakhar سخر (Servant), ridiculous (mashkara) and monster (maskh) are downstream derivative etymologies.

Secular Example: The owner instructed his mamelukes to sack the rebellious peasants.

Its still used in its original Semitic meaning.

Quran example:

• Ridculed: وَيَصْنَعُ الْفُلْكَ وَكُلَّمَا مَرَّ عَلَيْهِ مَلأٌ مِنْ قَوْمِهِ سَخِرُوا مِنْهُ قَالَ إِنْ تَسْخَرُوا مِنَّا فَإِنَّا نَسْخَرُ مِنْكُمْ كَمَا تَسْخَرُونَ
• Subverted: وَسَخَّرَ لَكُم مَّا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا مِّنْهُ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ

Executiveservant (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

I would like to edit the mask section. I see it has typos and needs more information on it Eggthekegg (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. To re-open the request just change "answered=no" to "answered=no" in the template. Volteer1 (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2021

Macey burr07 (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DanCherek (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Request on adding information

If possible, I request users who have the access to edit this page to add some information about the N95 masks which has been in wide use during COVID-19 pandemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JumboWriter (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

49.36.118.251 (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) there are incorrect references

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

Please remove this image caption:

Life mask of Ludwig van Beethoven, c. 1812 CE. The Wellcome Collection, London

and add

Life mask of [[Ludwig van Beethoven]], c. 1812. The Wellcome Collection, London

The other people mentioned in the gallery captions are linked, and obviously Ludwig van Beethoven didn't live in 1812 BCE. 64.203.186.111 (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done I added the Wikilink. I did not remove CE because that is correct and does not mean BCE. See Common_Era RudolfRed (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's extraneous, because nobody would guess that he lived in BCE. There's no CE in the captions of the 19th-century baleen mask, or the 20th-century dance mask, or the 1860 date of Abraham Lincoln's mask. 64.203.186.111 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

There is a troll entry under "functional masks" which calls cloth masks "anime masks". Marcus Truman, local clown (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I don't think it was a troll entry but I removed it as unsourced regardless. ––FormalDude talk 01:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

How are the masks of the modern world eclectic

Answer 43.225.2.64 (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

change "rights" to "rites" 2A00:23C8:6301:DD01:96:2423:3152:552B (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Masks in theatre contradiction

hi I don't I don't edit Wikipedia often so I wanted to post here before changing anything drastically but it looks like there's a contradiction in the "masks in theater" section of this article.

It starts off by saying "Masks play a key part within world theatre traditions, particularly non-western theatre forms." But then just a few paragraphs later it says "Masks and puppets were often incorporated into the theatre work of European avant-garde artists from the turn of the nineteenth century." And the paragraph after that talks about other common uses of masks in European theater (imo implying it's not unusual in European theater) + in the "history in performance" section it talks about the use of masks both in Roman and Greek performances, even mentioning how it affected the words used to describe performance. (persona meaning "a mask")

So at one point it was part of European theater tradition, I'd understand if this is no longer the case that mentioning it would be important but currently it's confusing.

I think re-wording something here to clarify would be best. Whosiewhatsie (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I reworded that paragraph at the section you are discussing. It has no reference so I don't know where the original author got their information from. It's better to be safe here and state simply that masks are relevant to world theatre until a good overview for the use of masks in theatre is found... Reconrabbit 12:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)