Talk:Skull (symbolism)/Archive 1

Archive 1

---

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)
  • How much can you really say beyond "skulls are an obvious symbol of death and the dead"? Is there a page on death symbolism? Postdlf 18:53 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Concievable that skulls could have symbolism distinct from simply death. Keep, and mark for cleanup every once in a while. If in a few years no one's gone and done anything with it, it may be worth deleting, but it's not like it's a problem as such. And the article is well-written enough that I'd hate to see it go away. Snowspinner
• I started this brief stub. Sorry if it seemed sort of elite or something. It's a huge subject, bigger even than Pokemon. I just listed as fast as I could a few of the skull connotations. I suppose Golgotha rings a bell. How do big subjects get going? Wetman 20:45, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Interesting idea. The writing isn't encyclopedic; but if Wetman is working on it, I say give him a chance. Keep. Cribcage 20:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• This is a perfectly valid topic; it's too big for a subsection in skull and too broad to shoehorn into Symbols of death—so keep, definitely, but move to Skull (symbol) or something similar. —No-One Jones 22:27, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: worthwhile topic. Rename to skull (symbol). Wile E. Heresiarch 04:01, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Merge with skull - it's not too long yet. We shouldn't start making subpages when the original page is really short. The prose is cool, but needs some tweaking before it can be considered encycopedic (and translate the Latin!) Pteron 04:20, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree - long articles are not necessarily a problem when the article is well-TOCed. Snowspinner 05:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree just edit its style to more of a reportage thana piece of prose. Zestauferov 16:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopaedic in writing style and, thus far, content. Inappropriately titled. Exploding Boy 08:44, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A fairly nice little article, and I like the style: when discussing the meaning of a symbolic image, it seems appropriate. I tried to translate the Italian; someone who actually speaks Italian might want to check. Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Skull symbolism Bensaccount 04:17, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Move, check for copyvio, and NPOV -- Gamera2 23:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• FYI, I just discovered that there's a good page on the use of the skull and crossbones as a symbol. Postdlf 01:40 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Rename or rewrite if need be, but looks like a valid and interesting subject to me. Mat-C 01:48, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

---

Spelling "Neandertal"

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)

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)

Madness!

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)

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)

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)

About NPOV tags

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality tag was reapplied 12:31, 3 September 2005 by User:Agentsoo, who has been asked to express a POV concerning the article's lack of neutrality as a guide for amending the article to suit User:Agentsoo. (Wetman 21:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC))

[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)

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)

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)

Writing style too fluffy. Remember that this is an encyclopedia.

Severe redaction

I know I cut alot of it, but so much seemed like nothing more then the author pandering his views that I seemed compelled to ax it, so I did. 68.39.174.238 22:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is now considerably better. Perhaps some of the older material could be reworded, sourced, and reinserted, but per se this version is good. Soo 00:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Incompetents have deleted the following information, unfamiliar at their level:

• "The human mind is primed to recognize faces, and so eager to find them that it can see faces in a few dots and lines or punctuation marks"
• "The Neanderthals painted the skulls of their respectfully buried dead with red ochre coloring: a transfusion to carry its late inhabitant into the Next World."
• "The skull that is engraved or carved in the head of early New England tombstones might be merely a symbol of mortality, but often the skull is backed by an angelic pair of wings"
• "The Skull was an emblem of Melancholy for Shakespeare's contemporaries."
• "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"
• "When a skull is worn as a trophy on the belt of the Lombard king Alaric, it is a constant grim triumph over his old enemy, and he drinks from it. Thus a skull is a warning when it decorates the palisade of a city, or deteriorates on a pike at a Traitor's Gate. The Skull Tower, with the embedded skulls of Serbian rebels, was built in 1809 on the highway near Nis, Serbia, as a stark political warning from the Ottoman government: the skulls are the statement."
• "A skull adorns the altar of a pagan Gaulish tribe, and the rafters of a traditional Jivaro medicine house in Peru, or across the world in New Guinea. The temple of Kali is veneered with skulls, but the goddess Kali offers life through the welter of blood. The late medieval Netherlandish painters place the skull where it lies at the foot of the Cross at Golgotha, "the place of the skull." But for them it has become quite specifically the skull of Adam."
• "The symbolic image of the skull permeates the Indiana Jones movies to such an extent that skulls become décor—and even comic relief when Marion encounters multiple cobwebby skulls and skeletons during the escape from the subterranean Map Room at Tanis (Raiders of the Lost Ark 1981). Every appearance of a skull in the Jones series emphasizes the 1930s' cultural view: a gulf between the rational, modern, progressive, scientific, and vigorously physical daylight world embodied by the intrepid American archaeologist, with the sinister, dangerous, mythical, exotic, dead lore of Antiqity or the Orient in torchlit interiors of caves and temples, as well as exemplifying the fate of those who have gone before but failed."
• "What does it signify when the Serpent crawls through the eyes of a skull, a familiar image that survives in contemporary Goth subculture? The serpent is a chthonic god of knowledge, and of immortality, because he sloughs off his skin. The serpent guards the Tree in the Greek Garden of the Hesperides and, not that much earlier, a Tree in the Garden of Eden. The Serpent in the Skull always is making his way through the socket that was the eye: knowledge persists beyond death, the emblem says, and the Serpent has the secret."
• "in the catacombs of the Capuchin brothers beneath the church of S.Maria della Concezione in Rome, where disassembled bones and teeth and skulls of the departed Capuchins have been rearranged to form a rich Baroque architecture of the human condition, in a series of anterooms and subterranean chapels with the inscription, set in bones"

—and more. These examples of the usage of skulls are widely documented. This is essentially an act of vandalism. Wikipedians need not take this kind of aggressive buffoonery too seriously: these are incompetent edits. --Wetman 09:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if "incompetents" exactly inspires teamwork. I support no use of "we" for starters. Simply a statement of the facts. - MPD 14:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks MPD. Wetman can call me what he likes, those things are staying out of the article until a source is found for them. That said, this is the second time Wetman has descended to name-calling, and if it happens again then I'll take it to RfC. Soo 17:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think calling people incompetents really helps, but then I certainly can see where someone might jump to that conclusion based upon the extreme actions taken with little or no justification for them. The proper way to ask for sources is nto to remove most of the article but to tag the specific things you think need sources with the "fact" template. I would agree that the blanking of most of the article by an anon user making uncivil comments is more akin to vandalism than a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. I would agree that most of these are obviously widely documented already, and to remove them is to assume they can;t be documented, when anyone with even passing familiarity on the subject should know that they can, quite easily. And, on top of it, the NPOV tag was clearly inappropriate. An argument might be made for the verify tag, at least for those who have no background in the topic, but NPOV is clearly not the problem being discussed. I would hope that the anon user who removed the info and the editor "Soo" above would take the time to learn how Wikipedia normally handles disputes like these, and also perhaps would take the time to do some some reading on the topic so as not to be so ill-informed in the first place. DreamGuy 20:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia normally handles disputed topics by requiring sources to be found for them. If you're so confident that sources can be found for these claims then please, find them. If these claims are as obvious and well established as you say then finding sources should be no problem and then I have no dispute. To me it seems obvious that one should find a source before including claims in an article, because otherwise we could flood every page with random nonsense and could not be justified in removing it until a source was found to specifically disprove each claim. If these claims are reinserted again without any sources then I suggest we move to the next level in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, whatever that may be. I find it bizarre that you suggest I should be more informed on the topic since that's exactly what I was attempting to become when I read this article in the first place! The NPOV tag was perhaps not the right one (this area of Wikipedia is complex) so surely the correct course of action would have been for another editor to replace it with a better one rather than removing it altogether without mentioning it in the edit summary, not that this particularly matters now. Soo 22:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The tag should have been removed and replaced with a more appropriate one -- and in this case, no other tag was appropriate, because the people complaining had no clue about what encyclopedia articles should be like. If you had wanted to be more informed you should have read the article instead of erasing it. There's no excuse for your outright vandalism. DreamGuy 23:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith: surely your accusation of vandalism is your memory playing tricks. You'll notice I've only edited the article twice, once to reinsert a tag which the author of the article removed without comment, and the second time to revert to a previous version of the article written by someone who, just to clarify again, was not me. That version has since been restored by a third person, so you will surely recognise some form of agreement emerging, even if you're not part of it. Perhaps you'd like to look through the rest of my edit history for evidence of vandalism? Surely you don't think I'd build up an 11000-edit history merely to vandalise an arcane article on skull symbolism. Perhaps in the course of that edit history I might've picked up some idea of what an encyclopaedia should be like (i.e. not like a highschool essay). Of course, the personal attacks continue to fly in, and these supposedly obvious claims continue to go unsourced. Maybe if Wetman and yourself could stop insulting me on the talk page for a bit then you might find time to locate these copious sources. Soo 02:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking is a form of vandalism. The fact that some anonymous IP addresses can't be bothered to follow any policies or understand how an encyclopedia works in the slightest removes it doesn;t make it right.With anons it's almost guaranteed it's sockpuppeting anyway, so please don;t try to claim "agreement emerging" -- we need real editors here, not anonymous guests with no demonstrated skills or understnading of how this project works. Considering that you and your anonymous personalities started out by calling the article "crap" and insulting the people who made it, you are the last one to be complaining about alleged personal attacks. This is a simple matter of you not even trying to follow policies here and trying to force your strange ideas onto the article without any rationale. DreamGuy 21:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs are "almost guaranteed" to be sockpuppeting? Oh come on. If any admins are around then they can check for themselves that none of those IPs belong to me. Only people with logins (which are considerably more anonymous than IPs) are real editors? Curiously the policies of which you are so fond state "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." Again, Wetman has done this several times. Also, Wetman calls the people who edited the article against his wishes "incompetents", which is unambiguously a personal attack. If you have similar evidence of me using personal attacks then I'd love to hear it. Calling the article "crap" is not a personal attack, since the article is not a person. Another guideline page (which I can't find at the moment) states that we should "criticise articles, not people", which is exactly what I did and continue to do. And blanking is a form of vandalism, but the article wasn't blanked. Some parts of it were removed though, so perhaps you are arguing that removing anything from an article is also vandalism? Let's consult another policy,

When there is a factual dispute

Disputed edits can be removed immediately, removed and placed on the talk page for discussion, or where the edit is harmless but you dispute it and feel a citation is appropriate, you can place after the relevant passage. This should be used sparingly; Wikipedia has a lot of undercited articles, and inserting many of instances of is unlikely to be beneficial.

Well, here I am disputing a fact, and Wetman has kindly moved the controversial material here already. So, when someone finds sources, it can be put back on the article page. Your only objection to the anon's version seems to be that it's incomplete, which you can easily rectify by restoring the original material - with sources, in line with policy, of course. Soo 12:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

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)

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)

"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)

For an illuminating comparison, examine how articles penis an d phallus differ. Perhaps instead of "skull (symbolism)," we can put all this poetic/metaphorical content into "death's head." Should satisfy both scientists and artists alike. Happy Silvestre's! -MPD 00:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)