Jump to content

Talk:Divine countenance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SD

[edit]

I've tagged this for speedy deletion; it's a re-creation of Countenance divine with even less point. Tb (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except Countenance divine was an obscure phrasing with no real notability, while "divine countenance" is a legitimate and notable concept in Christian theology. Thparkth (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, this article doesn't seem to be in any way related, in terms of content, to the previously deleted Countenance divine. In my opinion the previous deletion cannot be used as a reason to speedy-delete this one because the article has changed significantly. Thparkth (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, so I guess it needs to be an AfD. Thanks for looking into it. Tb (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pop culture

[edit]

"Use in pop culture" is explicitly disfavored, and the Ultima reference is particularly silly. I get that the original author of this article wanted to create it only as a place for that reference, but that's irrelevant, and it's not appropriate here. The Blake reference is better, but still doesn't belong. Blake uses many phrases. To suggest that it is especially notable that he uses the phrase "countenance divine" is incorrect. (Note that the poem is not mentioned at Jerusalem! Is the reference "countenance divine" more central to the poem than the word "Jerusalem"?!) Listing it here suggests that the phrase is especially notable in the context of the poem, that is, that the phrase is among the more important things the poem says or is critical to its understanding. To that there are two responses to make. First, it needs to be sourced as such. Second, it seems to be wrong. The poem uses many phrases and images to mean divine approval in asking its question of whether God approves of what England had become in Blake's day. Indeed, the images are: the walking of Jesus' feet, the presence of the holy Lamb of God, the countenance Divine, the building of Jerusalem. Nothing suggests that the divine countenance is more or less important than the others, except perhaps that it is less important than the first image (ancient feet strolling on the green mountains) sets up the pastoral ideal he pictures, and the last, a contrast between the holy Jerusalem and the "dark Satanic Mills" of Blake's England. (By the way, while many English people may think that Blake was approving of his England, it is hardly so; the first two stanzas ask the question with an implied "NO!" response, because the point of the poem is not the question or its answer, but Blake's commitment to actually accomplish the goal of building Jerusalem "in Englands green & pleasant Land", thus happily returning us to the opening image of the green mountains.) So, I hope it's clear that Blake is one of my favorite poets, and this splendid poem part of the reason why, but it misrepresents it to drop it in here as if the mere use of a phrase or an image in a famous poem warrants listing it in a "use in the arts" section--especially when such sections are explicitly disfavored in Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that sensible "use in the arts" .. "sections are explicitly disfavored in Wikipedia" ? They are not, although lists of random mentions in tv shows and video games are. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Explicitly disfavored" according to who? Just because YOU think "countenance divine" has no more importance than other things mentioned in Blake's poem doesn't negate the fact that "countenance divine" IS mentioned in his poem and is notable enough for inclusion in this article because so. The whole POINT to a pop culture section is to show examples of the article's usage IN pop culture! Now, if you want to go scouring for WHY the usage is present in a particlar pop culture work, go for it, but that's even further notability for inclusion in an article's pop culture section and is not necessary for the pop culture example in the first place. Besides, just because something may be "explicitly disfavored" doesn't mean it can't be done anyway. Oppression sucks. —Eekerz (t) 09:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet, WP:TRIV is policy. If this were a notable fact, if people often remarked on it, it would make sense, but listing every image in a video game, because a video game fan created an article about a theological term, is ludicrous.
  • WP:TRIV is not policy - it's a guideline. Moreover, it is a style guideline not a content guideline. Its point is that we should not have incoherent miscellania in our articles; we should make some effort to group the material into related sections so that there is some flow to the narrative. This article has a reasonable section structure and so is compliant with this guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting quotes

[edit]

Please stop putting the quotes as italicized block quotes. WP:MOS is clear that 1) block quotes are for large quotes, not short ones; and 2) italics are never correct either in block quotes or quotes with quotation marks. Tb (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, it better than removing quote marks completely, as you have done. I have reverted this, and also your removal of the arts section, which is obviously relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The missing quote marks were a typo. But then you simply reverted wholesale. I assume from the above that this was not your intention, so I'm putting proper quote marks. Please don't violate WP:MOS. Tb (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was my intention - if a change makes the article worse I revert it. Please be more careful in future. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still prefer the blessings as they were presented. Being verses, they have a poetic quality which is conventionally presented in this way. Burying them in a wall of text tends to obscure this and so is unsatisfactory. I shall not revert just yet as I wish to give Johnbod some space in which to complete his additions. More anon. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done, thanks. To clarify, the quote style objected to did not come from me. Johnbod (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arts section

[edit]

Certainly an arts section is relevant, but it needs to be about depictions of the divine countenance and not of the divine hand, or God the Father generally, which is already the subject of its own article. Can you explain please how "the divine hand" is within the subject of this extremely specific article? I fear that the desire to prove that this article needs to be here is producing what I feared from the beginning: duplication of articles such as Hand of God (art) and God the Father in Western art. I insist that this article be about the face of God and not about whatever else you can throw in to make it seem like a real topic. Tb (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the question of the depiction of the face of God is inseparable from the question of the depiction of the whole body of God. A brief section linking to the main articles on the topic is therefore entirely appropriate. If they had been able to depict the face, they would not have needed just to depict the hand. I fear you are being afflicted by poor loser syndrome over your unsuccessful Afd nom. Your initial edit [1] was extemely negligent, removing material directly related to the depiction of the face of God as both Jesus and the Ancient of Days, as well as more general stuff. Had you bothered to read it? Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's avoid the personal attacks, shall we? I mean, we could ask about why adding irrelevant material, and making quotes visibly huge is there, except that would suggest that those doing so are simply trying to magnify a page with near-zero content into something else. So we won't go there, ok? Yes, I "bothered to read it". If it were confined to non-duplicative material, and simply said something along the lines that depictions of the face of God were traditionally prohibited, with a link to God the Father in Western art that would be fine. But otherwise, this becomes a content fork from that article. It is not ok to scour Wikipedia for potentially connected things and copy them all here to make the page look more real; still less is it appropriate to make it look real by formatting two short quotes to be huge (and in italics? did you deliberately violate WP:MOS when you tried to correct my mistake?), adding comments about video games, and pictures whose only relevance here is that they are not pictures of the topic. Tb (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the edit history you will see the quotes I added were all in the text, as they remain. I could of course have reformatted your cock-ups, but couldn't be bothered & just reverted to the less-bad version, still improving the article. Nor did I add anything about video games. Your views about the art section are just wrong. Given you have not so far attracted ANY support for your attempt to have the whole article deleted, let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad that you are taking that tone repeatedly. You are responsible for all your edits, and clicking "undo" is not sufficient. To refer to a simple formatting error as a "cock-up" is offensive. You have attributed bad faith to me, and attacked me personally, and I ask you to desist entirely from that crap. Tb (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not representations of God or visual depictions of God, but specifically the face of God. A simple note would be sufficient that depicting the face of God was traditionally proscribed, but later depictions of the Ancient of Days became more common, which might be understood as depictions of the face of God. Then, links to the actual articles on this topic, in place of the existing content fork, would be sensible. Tb (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple note you describe would be wildly inaccurate; better leave it as it is. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that countenance refers to appearance, not just face. When I recreated this article, it was about the overall appearance of the Judeo-Christian god and not just its face, per se. Thus, the article should reflect this and allow other depictions of that god in all its forms--not just its face. —Eekerz (t) 11:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If so, the lead should be adjusted to say that, with refs of course. Currentl, it just says "face". Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hebrew word at stake is specifically "face", not appearance, and metaphorically, "presence". Tb (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not content with the replacement of the image of the Blake poem with the image of the sacrifice of Isaac. The former was directly relevant to the topic while the latter approaches the topic in a more indirect way. Perhaps we can find room for them both as we add more text? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you prefer it now? At the end of the day the Blake is just text though. Johnbod (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff to add

[edit]

I am sure there is plenty more to add on the pagan side - the Gorgon may relate to some pagan restriction, & I think there are veiled cult-images, & similar stuff.

Is there evidence of "divine countenance" in a pagan context? And the "some pagan restriction" is too vague--yet--absent some secondary source to say just what. Tb (talk) 00:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm not saying anything. As I said at the Afd, the name should be changed to Face of God. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section “In Baha’i Faith” is missing

[edit]

Used often in the Writings or at least English translation done by the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi. Technophant (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Divine_countenance&oldid=1198401098"