Misplaced Pages

Talk:Saint Maurice: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:21, 3 August 2007 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits Agreed, Egyegy: agreed← Previous edit Revision as of 18:56, 3 August 2007 edit undoTaharqa (talk | contribs)6,029 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 132: Line 132:
] 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC) ] 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
:Agreed. Unfortunately, several people from Egypt, particularly Alexandria and the area, are people whose ethnic identity is less than certain. If there is no specific, reliable, verifiable source which unambiguously asserts the ethnic origins of this individual, then the article should remain silent on his ethnicity, and address only his nation of origin, which does seem to meet reliability and verifiability requirements. ] 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC) :Agreed. Unfortunately, several people from Egypt, particularly Alexandria and the area, are people whose ethnic identity is less than certain. If there is no specific, reliable, verifiable source which unambiguously asserts the ethnic origins of this individual, then the article should remain silent on his ethnicity, and address only his nation of origin, which does seem to meet reliability and verifiability requirements. ] 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Afrocentric? Why is it that you Arab egyptians refer to anyone who doesn't agree with your crack pot racialist theories an "afrocentric".. Convenient, but means nothing whatsoever.. I'm merely trying to keep order and you're on some crusade against black people, which is evident from your raving edits against anything that has to do with Africa, and your wikistalking, which you will be reported for if you keep following me. And hopefully blocked..] 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:56, 3 August 2007

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconOriental Orthodoxy
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on the Oriental Orthodox Church on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Oriental OrthodoxyWikipedia:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyTemplate:WikiProject Oriental OrthodoxyOriental Orthodoxy
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSaints High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEgypt Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Island state of Mauritius

The Island state of Mauritius was named after a member of the Dutch "royal" House of Orange and not after St. Mauritius himself. WikiSceptic 09:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Good call! That was my error. I've corrected it. --Wetman 17:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The picture you had towards the bottom of St Maurice was actually Sir Morien, Also a Moor but Morien.--Gnosis 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok Riddle me this...

How is it that Wikipdeia contributors vehemently insist that the average Moor looks nothing like a Black African, but insist that Moors look like Arabs or Berbers, yet when I read the description of Maurice on this article, and I see the sculpture (which looks far more like a black african than the Wikipedian Moor) how is it that the writer describes the sculpture as being depictions of a Moor? Which way are we gonna go? Either Moors look like Black Africans or they don't! --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what my history book says about St. Maurice's color

"Always, until 1240, he was protrayed as a white man. Then, from 1240 to the sixteenth century, he was represented as a black man, as in this sandstone statue from Magdeburg Cathedral (ca 1240-1250). Who commissioned this statue? Who carved it? What black man served as the model? Only further research can answer these questions, as well as the question of his race."

Bibl.: McKay, John P., Bennett D. Hill, and John Buckler. A History of Western Society: Volume II, 8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006.

can you or the author show us where he was portrayed as a white man prior to 1240? st maurice was born in upper egypt so i doubt he would of been white.194.176.105.35 01:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)viola


PICTURE CHANGE

why does the user lanternix keep on putting that picture with the guy with angels around him? st maurice is represented by the statues and picture down the bottom.can someone change the main picture please.Viola76 04:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)viola76


COMMENT PICTURE CHANGE

Why should the picture be changed? If this is the depiction of St. Maurice then it should stay. If you have no sound reason or good argument to why this picture should be removed I think that your request should be ignored--Glynn71 21:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

well done to whoever changed the picture. glyn the picture was changed because as far as we know he looked liked the statues that represented him. i think its you who has to bring an argument to why the picture with the man surrounded by angels stays. have you got a reason why it should?Viola76 06:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)viola76



st maurice was born in upper egypt and i am from upper egypt and people think that i am italain or at least a greek .

most of Copts ( Christian Egyptian ) look like southern europain ( like ramses II and you can see his momummy and most defintly he is not a black african ) . any way there is no good on being a white or black because we are equally a creataion of God but egyptians specialy copts ( christain egyptian ) are not black and so ST Maruice is no black he is COPTS and i challenge any one that can find a balck COPT or even a Mummy for a black Egyptian one last thing please Know that COPTS ( chritian egyptian ) are no Arab , are no Moore , Are Not Black African we are onyl Egyptian which is before Africa , Before Arab and before history itself


^Give me a break, you can't be Egyptian because certainly most upper Egyptians do not look like no darn Italians?


i challenge any one that can find a balck COPT

Upper Egyptians

^These people resemble Italians in no kind of way.. One also neglects to mention anyways that Romans in fact did occupy Egypt for a pretty long time. Upper Egyptians have always been closely related to Northern Nubians (who are like, right down the street) as opposed to Italians who are relatively distant and on the other side of a huge sea tho...

And:

or even a Mummy for a black Egyptian


^All mummies are black due to embalming, so how would you be able to tell either way? And why does everyone bring up Ramses? Was he the only mummy who apparently didn't have African features or look "Black"? Apparently so because he is so frequently brought up when people try to prove similar points as this.

Well here is a picture of Ramses' mummy side by side with an Ethiopian elder

Ramses II

^Features that aren't exclusive to any Italians or Europeans. I doubt very very seriously the early Egyptians had any strong relations to Europeans when their culture was fully indigenous and they lived contiguous with Nubians for thousands of years and probably were Nubians to begin with them selves, as is even suggested by the ancient Greek writer Diodorus. Btw, Egypt can't be "before Africa" since it is "in Africa" and Nubia (at least according to some like Bruce Williams) had a monarchy even before them. Anyways, there is no reason at all to remove the picture that was always there and replace it with some whitewashed version simply because of someone's pre-conceived bias of how this man should have looked. Such actions strongly reflect Eurocentrism.Taharqa 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Afrocentrism

I will not allow afrocentrism on this page! Saint Maurice is an Egyptian and Egyptians were never black. End of story. As an Egyptian saint, the main picture on the article will be an Egyptian icon. If you don't like it because the saint appears white in it, too bad, this is how Egyptians look like. We've told that user Taharqa before and warned him on so many other articles to stop messing with pages involving Egyptians. If you have a problem with this, you can talk to Egyptologists. --Lanternix 07:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing more than filthy racial ignorance and you have provided no sources for your assertions, it is merely based on what you feel an Egyptian should look like. Egyptologists aren't anthropologists and there is an entire article dealing with the "race" of the ancient Egyptians, I suggest you refer to that.Taharqa 07:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember to be civil Taharqa. You just edited by a sockpuppet even though your blocked, which is not allowed. The icon is Egyptian, but the statue is not. It's the statue that is euro-centric. We give priority to how Egyptians paint themselves. The other thing is that if he was really black, he would have been a Nubian from upper Egypt. Everyone who is not afro-centric knows that. Egyegy 20:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

These articles were all edited by you, and you mainly reference black Africans like yourself who claim that they are the descendants of Ancient Egypptians! You want to see how Egyptians looked like in the 2nd century BC (500 years before St Maurice)? Here you go: Fayum mummy portraits. Those other articles will be corrected very soon. --Lanternix 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are Greeks!

The mummy, or Fayum, portraits are Egyptian only in that they are associated with essentially Egyptian burial customs. Painted in an encaustic technique, they represent mostly Greek inhabitants of Egypt. Fayum portrait (Egyptian art) -- Encyclopaedia Britannica ^But nice try, and calm down with the hostility please..Taharqa 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice try on your part. How did the great makers of the Encyclopedia Britanica know they were Greeks? Did they ask them? I love that. Anyone in Ancient Egypt who looks remotely dark is a pure Egyptian. Anyone who looks white is Greek or Roman or Alien! No proofs, no DNA testing, nothing. Just what the Afrocentrists want, and no one is allowed to question them! Go read the article Fayum mummy portraits and you'll see they were Egyptians, not Greeks. I thought we settled that with you before, but apparently you never give up. --Lanternix 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


^The article doesn't suggest that they weren't Greeks first of all, it says that Egyptians inhabited the area and "mixed with greeks", but[REDACTED] is full of Original research and I tend to put more trust in the britannica for obvious reasons. They know because it is recorded and the Fayum reflected Greek tradition. Cut the racial epithets too, I'm not here to debate race it is merey clear that you are vandalizing and are racially motivated in your edits. This image has been here since the article was created and you suggest on removing it for whatever reason which you have no right to do, especially if you have no sources and just feel like debating and assuming that you're right about everything.Taharqa 08:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am you are racially motivated as in all your edits and articles. And I believe so many Misplaced Pages users have told you so before and asked you to refrain from having such motives while editing. It is NOT recorded anywhere that these inhabitants were Greeks, and if it were you would have mentioned it long ago. And of course they reflect Greek tradition because it was the major culture in the Middle East at that time. If you were a shirt and a tie today, that does not mean you must be European! That statue image may have been there since the beginning (I don't even know if that's correct), but it is not a picture that reflects who St maurice is, by any means. It's a Middle Age statue of an Egyptian made somewhere in Europe! An Egyptian icon is far clearer and more accurate when it comes to the representation of an Egyptian. I suggest you cut that crap (I'm only using your words here) so that you don't end up apologizing and retreating like you did in the article Egyptians. And again, read the article Fayum mummy portraits carefully to understand these people were not Greeks. You can't erase an entire nation by a handful thousand immigrants! You may influence and affect the culture, but you can't just make Egyptians suddenly disappear just because Egypt happened to fall under Greek domination. Some common sense please. And again, no racially-motivated agenda and certainly no Afrocentrism. --Lanternix 08:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To the three concerns above. Again does anyone have an earlier picture of St Maurice in caucasion appearance before 1250 a.d. If yes then say so and present it, if no then say so. It is only fair to believe the answer no until such picture is presented. For Rameses II mummy's appearance and questions of Egyptians black Africaness or not, refer to comments taken from discussion on Rameses II here in Misplaced Pages: Some things are confusing. This mummy is above average height for an ancient Egyptian and has a hooked nose when there are no images of Ram II bearing a hooked nose. Pharoahs often shaved their head bald to accommodate their royal headress. Did these locks of red hair grow after death? It's written here in Wiki that the mummy is Berber which means that Seti I would also have had to be Berber when a drawing from his tomb www.catchpenny.org/race.html shows the Libyan (Berber)distinctly different from the Egyptian of which he considered himself. The mummy was discovered in 1881, not from the royal tomb, but from another burial sight as well as a (as reported) decapitated mummy of Seti I. The Berbers learned to write from the Phoenicians around 1000 BC, 300 years after the Rule of Ram II. Hardly in time to intellectually rule Egypt in the 19th Dynasty. Libyans in fact ruled in the 22nd Dynasty. Speaking of the 25th Ethiopian Dynasty Petrie wrote: W.M. Flinders Petrie, A History of Egypt - Part Three, (1896), p. 308 states:"The kings of Napata Nubia represented the old civilization of Upper Egypt is clear; and it is probably that they were actually descended from the high priest of Amen, who were the rightful successors of the XVIIIth and XIXth dynasties. So far, then, as hereditary rights go, they were the true kings of Egypt, rather than the mob of Libyan chiefs who had filtered in the Delta, and who tried to domineer over the Nile valley from that no-man's land." If in fact this is a Berber mummy as stated here in Wiki, then it cannot be the remains of Rameses II. The blood line and time line don't match up. Go to the picture section below and notice how vastly different this mummy is from any of Rameses II images. This refers to the picture section in discussion of Rameses II here in Wiki. Please do not attack me personally as these are only observations of facts. I'm just pointing them out. Tom 07/31/07


^Of course no one will produce an earlier rendition, all you're going to get is racialized garbage and when you get sick of the immature antics you'll be accused of "retreating" and get no humility.. Neither are you allowed to make a mistake about any observation, and man-up about it without being ridiculed like school children. This is a primary example of dogmatic thinking and ethnic bias, based on pre-conceived notions since no one alive has ever met this individual in person yet the earliest reconstructions, depicted him as, well, African.

This PBS (a child friendly education source that has been around for years) article overviews the representation of the moor and the history of St. Maurice. He is acknowledged here, as an Ethiopian.


The Imagery of St. Maurice

Modern specialists in the science of heraldry suspect, however, that this blazon (coat of arms) of the blackamoor is instead the very opposite of a negative symbol. In the last decade or two it has been pointed out that the moor's head quite possibly could have referred to St. Maurice, the black patron saint of the Holy Roman Empire from the beginning of the 10th century.

Because of his name and native land, St. Maurice had been portrayed as black ever since the 12th century. The insignia of the black head, in a great many instances, was probably meant to represent this soldier saint since a majority of the arms awarded were knightly or military. With 6,666 of his African compatriots, St. Maurice had chosen martyrdom rather than deny his allegiance to his Lord and Saviour, thereby creating for the Christian world an image of the Church Militant that was as impressive numerically as it was colourwise. Here, no doubt, is a major reason why St. Maurice would become the champion of the old Roman church and an opposition symbol to the growing influence of Luther and Calvin. The fact that he was of the same race as the Ethiopian baptized by St. Philip in Acts of the Apostles was undoubtedly an important element to his significance as well. Since this figure from the New Testament was read as a personification of the Gentile world in its entirety, the complexion of St. Maurice and his Theban Legion (the number of which signified an infinite contingent) was also understood as a representation of the Church's universality - a dogmatic ideal no longer tolerated by the Reformation's nationalism. Furthermore, it cannot be coincidental that the most powerful of the German princes to remain within the Catholic fold, the archbishop Albrecht von Brandenburg, not only dedicated practically all the major institutions under his jurisdiction to St. Maurice but in what is today one of the most important paintings of the Renaissance, had himself portrayed in Sacred Conversation with him. Even more blatant was the action taken by Emanual Philibert, Duke of Savoy. In 1572 he organized the order of St. Maurice. The papal promulgation published at its institution declared quite unequivocally that the sole purpose for this knighthood was to combat the heresy of the Reformation. It still exists although it is now combined with the Order of St. Lazarus. The white trefoiled cross is the black Saint's.

The particular symbol of St. Maurice's blackness that must have most antagonized the Protestant faction, however, was the one regarding the mystery of Papal authority. Scholars have been able to show, for example, that in the theological debates of this period, even the abstract adjectives, black and white, were defiantly acknowledged by apologists of both stripes to represent the Church and the Reformers respectively. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/ssecretum.htmlTaharqa 18:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Maurice is also mentioned here in this educational video as a "black" saint.. There is absolutely no reason to have a picture of some European looking figure to replace the mainstream image of this said figure. The bias needs to stop.

Video by Basil Davidson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i2dB2mIXhk (5:00 in)Taharqa 00:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Blatant POV vandalism

Issues by topic area (View all)
Article topics (View all)
Biographies (watch) {{rfc|bio}}
Economy, trade, and companies (watch) {{rfc|econ}}
History and geography (watch) {{rfc|hist}}
Language and linguistics (watch) {{rfc|lang}}
Maths, science, and technology (watch) {{rfc|sci}}
Media, the arts, and architecture (watch) {{rfc|media}}
Politics, government, and law (watch) {{rfc|pol}}
Religion and philosophy (watch) {{rfc|reli}}
Society, sports, and culture (watch) {{rfc|soc}}
Project-wide topics (View all)
Misplaced Pages style and naming (watch) {{rfc|style}}
Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (watch) {{rfc|policy}}
WikiProjects and collaborations (watch) {{rfc|proj}}
Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates (watch) {{rfc|tech}}
Misplaced Pages proposals (watch) {{rfc|prop}}
Unsorted
Unsorted RfCs (watch) {{rfc}}


I propose that more people be aware of this article as it is driven by blatant POV and nonsensicle edits. People have torn down the original image of saint maurice in exchange for some obscure picture made centuries later. The Picture depicting a man in armor is the one most described by scholars and the first depiction of the St., referred to as a "moor" on many occasions. There is no reason whatsoever to revert the image, no reason why it should be placed over the other, especially with out consensus. Someone please check out the page and help restore order.Taharqa 03:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the website where the Coptic image comes from has the following copyright notice "© 2003 Andrew Fanous, all rights reserved", not public domain as it is stated in the image's licensing. Therefore, this image needs to be removed from wikipedia. Caracas1830 09:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Egyegy

Taharqa's should stop pushing that Afrocentric POV and edit warring. The consensus is that St. Maurice was an Egyptian person, not a black African. MoritzB 04:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately, several people from Egypt, particularly Alexandria and the area, are people whose ethnic identity is less than certain. If there is no specific, reliable, verifiable source which unambiguously asserts the ethnic origins of this individual, then the article should remain silent on his ethnicity, and address only his nation of origin, which does seem to meet reliability and verifiability requirements. John Carter 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Afrocentric? Why is it that you Arab egyptians refer to anyone who doesn't agree with your crack pot racialist theories an "afrocentric".. Convenient, but means nothing whatsoever.. I'm merely trying to keep order and you're on some crusade against black people, which is evident from your raving edits against anything that has to do with Africa, and your wikistalking, which you will be reported for if you keep following me. And hopefully blocked..Taharqa 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Saint Maurice: Difference between revisions Add topic