 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Fact template
editThe 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)
- Refs added. - BanyanTree 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Tabot image
editShould 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 Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content.
GordonGlottal (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Against. I'm unconvinced that it is encyclopedic. There's already a picture of a covered tabot, in its intended context, showing the way that it typically appears and is typically used. This article explains (and cites a source to that effect) how the tabot is supposed to be hidden from public view, and the current image depicts a covered tabot (like the text says) in its usual context. Later the article goes on to explain how tabots were looted. What do we gain by depicting a bare tabot, without regard to its intended context, set in a museum (where it quite possibly ended up as war loot)? I also don't think it would be encyclopedic to use a nude photo of a person, when a clothed photo is available (at least not at the top of the article; if it's otherwise relevant, e.g. the person is a performance artist, then that's a different matter). Nor, for example, should we put a photo of a victim of a dictatorship or an invasion to illustrate human. I believe it's very relevant that the Linden-Museum (where the photo was taken) has removed the bare tabot from its website, and it no longer appears in their inventory (results for tabot; results for inventory number "90290"). There's at least one other photo of an uncovered tabot at Commons: that one was taken at the MNW which has also seen fit to remove it from its website, if not its collection (results for "tabot"). On a related note, but not (currently) relevant to any tabot photos at Commons, the British Museum has removed it from their website and from physical display (link); Westminster Abbey still has (or until recently had?) one in a chapel but at least had the sensitivity to cover it (link.). I understand WP:NOTCENSORED but we don't have to be disrespectful just because we can, particularly when the museums whence these two photos at Commons came, evidently no longer think they (the museums) ought to display them uncovered, either. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- There are religious sensibilities around images of Mohammed, as discussed at length previously. Are we going to remove those, too? What about images of women without veils? Where do we draw the line? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- (I have a feeling that I will be posting a lengthier comment along these lines at Commons, but anyway…) We don't have to (only) consider religious sensibilities. Exactly how did the 2 uncovered tabots (currently depicted at Commons; one of which was included here) end up in museums on another continent, and what happened when those museums asked for the rightful owners' consent to display the tabots uncovered? I strongly suspect that the answer to those questions, and the reason(s) neither museum currently displays the tabots on the web, nor shows them in their inventory, are related. I also suspect that the museums were not forced, but instead chose, to stop displaying them. Meanwhile, Commons declares both images to be in the public domain and, while that genie can't be put back in the bottle, it also doesn't mean that we are required to use either image here. I get that we are "allowed" to use it in this article, I don't understand why we should (which, now that I re-read it, is the original question in this RfC: we know we're allowed, the question, again, is whether we should). What value/enrichment does the inclusion of an uncovered tabot add to this article, which describes an object that is supposed to always be covered, when even the museums that formerly displayed them this way no longer do so? WP:NOTCENSORED does not answer that question. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I note that you have avoided addressing each of the three points in my comment; but here's a fourth: If we are to avoid using the images because of the circumstances in which these subjects were obtained, or the pictures taken, or because it is against the wishes of the owner of the object depicted, will that apply more generally also? Again, where will we draw the line? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Again, though, the RfC question is "should", not "can" nor "may" (both of which are a settled "yes"), and regarding uncovered tabots. But anyway: First, I don't see the images of Muhammad as problematic, but for a reason that I think ties into my concern here: there are depictions of Muhammad made by Muslims, and until a later time, that's all that there would've been. Unlike the bare tabot, those images were intended to be seen by the public. Someone else might disagree with the artists' (or their patrons') decision to depict Muhammad, but we're not going against the artists' wishes by displaying them (although where and how these works were obtained for public viewing today is a different issue, to which I'll return in a moment). Second, as for unveiled women: If a woman, or anyone else, consented to being photographed (and that the photograph might be widely distributed) then that's their business, veiled or not (now, if a picture was taken without permission, I believe we and/or Commons already have, or at least had, some sort of rule in place about that, though that might depend upon whether the picture taken in public etc.). Third: Sorry, I can't answer exactly where we'd draw the line, though that brings me to the fourth: Yes, I realize that this has ramifications for other images throughout Wikimedia. I was alluding to this in the second point, but if an artwork, artifact, etc. was taken from its owner or custodian without consent then it really should not be up to Wikimedians to hereby declare that said image is now in the public domain, nor to decide whether to publish it for unfettered distribution. (For something really old where there is no one remaining as part of that culture, and realistically no one still around to object, then there still ought to be an agreement between, say, the government where the work was found, and the government where the institution would host said work.) Museums are already realizing this and repatriating objects from their collections (and, again, the two tabots no longer appear at either museum's website); in other instances they are including the provenance of the artwork or artifact, or admitting they don't know when they don't. Ideally our (Wikimedia's) upload or licensing wizards might include the question, "does this image depict an object found in a museum?" which, if yes, followed by "does the museum show the provenance of this object?". If no, don't upload it (or the wizard can flag it as such); if yes then paste it in. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Individual museums may or may not share our guidelines. I would not support outsourcing our content policy to their curators. We use many images that were never intended for public view, including images of the inside of Mormon temples, Masonic lodges, representations of the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temples, etc. Further, every source on the page discussing the prohibition is from the last few years, while the Linden-Museum tabot is far older. I have no idea if the original artist held to what is now the Orthodox view, and neither do you. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- From this 1866 description it sounds like they used to only cover it for the ceremony. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- this 1868 one says there was an annual public viewing GordonGlottal (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- The 1866 description describes Timkat and sounds, rather, like the priests uncovered the tabot only when they sprinkle it with water. But "ignorant clergy" makes me suspicious as to exactly how the writer was able to see the bare tabot, and leaves me with the impression that this isn't the most reliable of narrators (this is also in the runup to the Napier expedition when numerous tabots [not necessarily the one in the Linden-Museum] were brought back as war booty). The 1868 article (an account from the Napier expedition itsdelf) is describing the curtain that closes the mekdes (or makdas as the article renders it; there's an example at File:StMichaelEOTC01a.jpg), not the tabot's coverings, and it (the mekdes curtain) is raised for part of every service. While these are likely the only English-language sources from that far back, I'd hardly consider them reliable (and in this day and age, I am compelled to say, they're incredibly distasteful to read). By "orginal artist," do you mean whoever carved the tabot? You're right, neither of us know what they were thinking, but I could just as easily suggest that we err on the side of respect. Wikipedia is, more often than not, the first search result on Google, et al and a search for "tabot", if we put that image back like it was, is going to push the bare tabot right to the top of the search results. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- It isn't difficult to find a picture of a tabot. There are at least 5 on wikicommons right now (I uploaded 2 more today from the sources I linked) and dozens more in easily accessible books. The Linden-Museum one is probably the most modern and anyway one of 2 on wikicommons in color.
- The history of the tabot is interesting, it's obviously evolved rapidly since the first 17th-century Western testimonies, but it doesn't ultimately matter to this decision. Similarly, we have only the testimony of IP edit summaries that images of the tabot are banned. Religions can distinguish between images and the thing itself. While Orthodox Jews avert their eyes from the Priestly Blessing, they don't insist that no one photograph it. But again, this also wouldn't affect our policy either way.
- This encyclopedia exists to ease the spread of information, not to enable theocratic attempts to suppress it. We have a radical purpose. It isn't compatible with intentionally preserving religious mystique. On many pages we include this or that piece of information, which this or that party believes there is a social, religious, political, or philosophical imperative to suppress. Unless legally obligated, we never do. In a democratic process, everyone gets the same amount of control. It's better allow no suppression at all than to allow everyone the right to declare some knowledge off-limits. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- The 1866 description describes Timkat and sounds, rather, like the priests uncovered the tabot only when they sprinkle it with water. But "ignorant clergy" makes me suspicious as to exactly how the writer was able to see the bare tabot, and leaves me with the impression that this isn't the most reliable of narrators (this is also in the runup to the Napier expedition when numerous tabots [not necessarily the one in the Linden-Museum] were brought back as war booty). The 1868 article (an account from the Napier expedition itsdelf) is describing the curtain that closes the mekdes (or makdas as the article renders it; there's an example at File:StMichaelEOTC01a.jpg), not the tabot's coverings, and it (the mekdes curtain) is raised for part of every service. While these are likely the only English-language sources from that far back, I'd hardly consider them reliable (and in this day and age, I am compelled to say, they're incredibly distasteful to read). By "orginal artist," do you mean whoever carved the tabot? You're right, neither of us know what they were thinking, but I could just as easily suggest that we err on the side of respect. Wikipedia is, more often than not, the first search result on Google, et al and a search for "tabot", if we put that image back like it was, is going to push the bare tabot right to the top of the search results. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- this 1868 one says there was an annual public viewing GordonGlottal (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- From this 1866 description it sounds like they used to only cover it for the ceremony. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Individual museums may or may not share our guidelines. I would not support outsourcing our content policy to their curators. We use many images that were never intended for public view, including images of the inside of Mormon temples, Masonic lodges, representations of the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temples, etc. Further, every source on the page discussing the prohibition is from the last few years, while the Linden-Museum tabot is far older. I have no idea if the original artist held to what is now the Orthodox view, and neither do you. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Again, though, the RfC question is "should", not "can" nor "may" (both of which are a settled "yes"), and regarding uncovered tabots. But anyway: First, I don't see the images of Muhammad as problematic, but for a reason that I think ties into my concern here: there are depictions of Muhammad made by Muslims, and until a later time, that's all that there would've been. Unlike the bare tabot, those images were intended to be seen by the public. Someone else might disagree with the artists' (or their patrons') decision to depict Muhammad, but we're not going against the artists' wishes by displaying them (although where and how these works were obtained for public viewing today is a different issue, to which I'll return in a moment). Second, as for unveiled women: If a woman, or anyone else, consented to being photographed (and that the photograph might be widely distributed) then that's their business, veiled or not (now, if a picture was taken without permission, I believe we and/or Commons already have, or at least had, some sort of rule in place about that, though that might depend upon whether the picture taken in public etc.). Third: Sorry, I can't answer exactly where we'd draw the line, though that brings me to the fourth: Yes, I realize that this has ramifications for other images throughout Wikimedia. I was alluding to this in the second point, but if an artwork, artifact, etc. was taken from its owner or custodian without consent then it really should not be up to Wikimedians to hereby declare that said image is now in the public domain, nor to decide whether to publish it for unfettered distribution. (For something really old where there is no one remaining as part of that culture, and realistically no one still around to object, then there still ought to be an agreement between, say, the government where the work was found, and the government where the institution would host said work.) Museums are already realizing this and repatriating objects from their collections (and, again, the two tabots no longer appear at either museum's website); in other instances they are including the provenance of the artwork or artifact, or admitting they don't know when they don't. Ideally our (Wikimedia's) upload or licensing wizards might include the question, "does this image depict an object found in a museum?" which, if yes, followed by "does the museum show the provenance of this object?". If no, don't upload it (or the wizard can flag it as such); if yes then paste it in. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I note that you have avoided addressing each of the three points in my comment; but here's a fourth: If we are to avoid using the images because of the circumstances in which these subjects were obtained, or the pictures taken, or because it is against the wishes of the owner of the object depicted, will that apply more generally also? Again, where will we draw the line? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- (I have a feeling that I will be posting a lengthier comment along these lines at Commons, but anyway…) We don't have to (only) consider religious sensibilities. Exactly how did the 2 uncovered tabots (currently depicted at Commons; one of which was included here) end up in museums on another continent, and what happened when those museums asked for the rightful owners' consent to display the tabots uncovered? I strongly suspect that the answer to those questions, and the reason(s) neither museum currently displays the tabots on the web, nor shows them in their inventory, are related. I also suspect that the museums were not forced, but instead chose, to stop displaying them. Meanwhile, Commons declares both images to be in the public domain and, while that genie can't be put back in the bottle, it also doesn't mean that we are required to use either image here. I get that we are "allowed" to use it in this article, I don't understand why we should (which, now that I re-read it, is the original question in this RfC: we know we're allowed, the question, again, is whether we should). What value/enrichment does the inclusion of an uncovered tabot add to this article, which describes an object that is supposed to always be covered, when even the museums that formerly displayed them this way no longer do so? WP:NOTCENSORED does not answer that question. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. It is clearly relevant to the article, and a shrouded one does not provide the same educational value. We should not remove information, to include images, from articles because members of some religion dislike it. We don't do that at Muhammad, we don't do it at Scientology, and we shouldn't do it here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Suggestion. Maybe let's move the image to the Looting and repatriation section. I don't know if the depicted one has been looted, but both looting and uncovering removes an object from its context. Alaexis¿question? 10:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- (Summoned by bot) Suggestions
- I would definitely support moving it to the Looting and repatriation section as well. That might mitigate what is otherwise a very palpable sense of entitlement and cultural appropriation.
- As another idea, we could include a picture via Template:External media. This would mean it's available to view without being displayed by default.
- Another question to consider is how representative the particular examples that we have are. An unrepresentative example can be worse than no example.
- Hope this helps. Regards, --Andreas JN466 17:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above. WP:NOTCENSORED is clear. Wikipedia has pictures of Muhammad, pictures of women without veils, pictures of sexual acts, pictures of corpses. Finding something objectionable on religious grounds is not grounds for exclusion because Wikipedia is not censored. Encyclopedic value per above. JM (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Against. I'm persuaded by Gyrofrog's observation that the existing image of a tabot on the page is already fulfilling the educational purpose of providing a visual depiction of a tabot.
There's already a picture of a covered tabot, in its intended context, showing the way that it typically appears and is typically used.
There are many images that, at a technical level, can be added to all sorts of articles (this is irrespective of their religious or irreligious connotation). But just as not every single possible painting or photo or portrait of, say, Andrew Jackson is added to that article (because there are not only diminishing returns to doing so, but it eventually becomes an inhibition to the article), so too is it reasonable to be prudent and reasonable about how many images are added to this article and which images those are. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
The RfC expired and I am not sure whether we reached a clear consensus in any direction. Though it's not the outcome I'd personally prefer, as of now I am moving the image to the Looting and repatriation section as @Alaexis & @Jayen466 suggested. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was my impression that
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
(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)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The article and talk history seem to bear this out. The RfC was created February 1 [1], and between January 31 and February 2 the uncovered tabot image is not present [2]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The article and talk history seem to bear this out. The RfC was created February 1 [1], and between January 31 and February 2 the uncovered tabot image is not present [2]. 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)
- 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)