Talk:Teresa of Ávila

Redirection

Cette galerie qui est régulièrement vandalisée (voir l'historique) et qui fait partie Pages sans catégorie ne pourrait-elle pas faire l'objet d'une redirection vers la Category:Saint Teresa of Ávila, cest juste une suggestion car je ne sais pas faire.--Doalex 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Elle est vandalisée par ceux qui s'amusent à enlever les caricatures (par censure ou par pudeur?). Chacune de ces modifications a toujours été revertée. Les pages-articles de ce type n'ont pas forcément la même fonction que les catégories donc a priori aucune raison de rediriger vers la catégorie. La page en question est d'ailleurs catégorisé dans cette même catégorie. Aucun problème à l'horizon! --86.66.173.221 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Loin de moi l'idée de censure ou de pudeur, mais une fois enlevées les caricatures qui ont leur place dans des catégories appropriées et des sous-catégories, je pensais que c'était plus simple de remettre cette page là où elle devrait être, coincée entre 2 autres saints, sans rire, ou tout autre endroit spécialisé dans les religions.--Doalex 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Mais une image a le droit d'être catégorisée dans toutes les catégories en lien avec son sujet (que l'image ou/et son sujet plaisent ou non). Donc qu'elles plaisent ou non, ces caricatures représentent Saint Teresa of Ávila donc il est logique qu'elles puissent y être incluses. J'espère que la manière dont je les ai mises à part sur cette page (dans un paragraphe "caricatures") permettra à tous de comprendre la légitimité de ces images. Mais évidemment, si tu n'as pas eu de volonté de censure il y en aura d'autres qui auront cette volonté! --86.66.173.221 19:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

La entrada principal de Wikipedia de Santa Teresa de Jesus es consultada por un alto número de menores de edad que estudian este personaje como parte de su curso de historia, religión o literatura. Muchos de ellos se dirigen a las imágenes para completar sus trabajos. Las caricaturas propuestas tienen un claro componente pornográfico, que no parece adecuado para menores.
Al margen de esta consideración las caricaturas propuestas no aportan nada a quien quiera saber sobre Teresa de Jesús, y son clara, gratuita e innecesariamente ofensivas por su contenido explícito sexual. Ofensivas no sólo para los creyentes sino para la costumbres y usos sociales de la actualidad. Ruego atiendan esta reflexión quienes pretenden mantenerlas en este espacio.--Carmelo Seglar (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The page is for representations of this person about whom there are various points of view. (She claimed she levitated ;-) ) It is not a hagiography, reserved solely for pious lumps of plaster. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No veo ninguna imagen sobre levitaciones. En cambio las caricaturas no se ajustan a la realidad. Y sobretodo no son adecuadas para todos los públicos ni ajustadas a la temática.
Como bien menciona debemos evitar la censura de lo grosero, soez, desagradable y ofensivo. Esta página tampoco es de los seguidores de la pornografía barata y provocativa ;-)--Carmelo Seglar (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Caricatures by Félicien Rops

Félicien Rops (7 July 1833 - 23 August 1898) was a well known Belgian artist. His wide-ranging works include also works that are critical of religion. This includes also some caricatures of Teresa of Ávila. A German summary of this particular work can be found here. While some of Rops' works were censored during his lifetime, Wikimedia Commons does not censor works of art, see COM:CENSOR. In consequence, Wikimedia Commons hosts a significant amount of media that might offend some people. And I understand that people who venerate Teresa of Ávila are possibly easily offended by these caricatures. An edit war is however no solution to this problem. Instead, we need to find a consensus that perhaps is able to accomodate all. My suggestion would be

• to create another gallery, titled Caricatures of Saint Teresa of Ávila that presents some of the images out of Category:Caricatures of Saint Teresa of Ávila, and
• to replace the equally-named section of this gallery by a link to the newly created gallery.

This would mean that this gallery would be free of possibly offending caricatures but it would still be easily possible to find them. Would this be acceptable? Please add your suggestions and comments below. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good solution. On the other hand, considering the purpose of galleries on Commons (presenting a collection of the best images out of the related category), I have to ask, do we really need to present these drawings at all in a gallery? Besides being pornographic (or pornodrawic), these drawings have no foundation in the person they claim to show, but just proof how violently mr. rops hated christianity, which is little surprise him being a Grand Orient freemason. --Túrelio (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Shock horror, a branch of freemasonry actually committed (then) to full religious freedom and the ideals of the enlightenment, as late as WW2 active in anti-Nazi resistance. That's what you condemn an artist for? Would you rather he had joined something like P2 and loved "Christianity"? --Simonxag (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good question. I have personally no problem with removing these drawings from this gallery without creating a sub-gallery dedicated to these drawings. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Estas "obras de arte" de Félicien Rops son sencillamente repugnantes, humanamente ofensivas y religiosamente blasfemas. Ponerlas como apartado dentro de Santa Teresa de Jesús es una provocación planteada y defendida por los que viven de ofender y molestar. No he visto nunca que se denigre un personaje histórico de esta manera en esta página. Ni a Hitler ni a Gengis Kan ni a Cristobal Colon. Ni siquiera los apartados de pornografía, o sado maso tienen escenas de una mujer masturbándose o copulando con un hombre muerto o moribundo y torturado.

Es un grave error, que no se puede justificar ni por la fama del autor (muy relativa, por otro lado), ni por la falsa acusación de censura, cuando lo que hay que hacer es llevarlas a su sitio.

¡¡ QUE ASCO, QUE REPUGNANCIA, QUE LÁSTIMA !! 81.34.2.65 12:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I would definetely prefer to totally eliminate these pictures. If they have to remain somewhere the suggestion of a new category is not so bad. But I would like to add two ideas:
1.- The category is better mockery or burlesque than just caricatures.

2.- The label should include: nudity, sex, masturbation or some other hints on what we are about to see, as the label of just the name of the historical character does not match the actual content.--Carmelo Seglar (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
In fact those images fit better in a category called pornography comic than in the name of a historical caracter. You expect an image like that when looking for explicit sexual content, not when looking for Teresa of Avila´s picture.--83.60.180.216 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither mockery or burlesque are appropriate — these are political caricatures directed against religion. Please note that it belongs to the characteristics of caricatures to exaggerate and possibly to offend. We have also the equally named category (see above), i.e. in the case of categories the caricatures have already been factorized out of the main category dedicated to Teresa of Ávila. Independent from this, we can also possibly follow the suggestion by Túrelio, i.e. to simply remove this drawings if noone opposes to this in the next few days. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Teresa of Ávila was claimed to go into state of "religious" ecstasy and levitate. The true nature of such feelings and sensations is pretty obvious and was as clear to Bernini (the photo File:Estasi di Santa Teresa.jpg isn't too great but you can see enough!) as to Rops. Rops' satire (here) is on the Catholic sexual repression and hypocrisy and the the elevation of this to holiness by Teresa's saintly status. Catholicism makes blatant use of sadomasochistic imagery of the crucifixion and the "sacred heart" and Rops' drawing is just as artistically valid and no more "pornographic" than these. This is not a religious site and not censored: we have cartoons from en:Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. In particular this gallery and it's category are not devotional in nature: they hold artworks on the subject, both devotional and satirical and of any other type. I find the lies enshrined in Catholic devotional art every bit as offensive as you find the attempts of artists to expose them: the reason that I'm not calling for tripe to be removed is that the Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Simonxag, thank you for your comment. Could you live with my suggestion above, i.e. a split into two galleries along the corresponding categories, i.e. a gallery for the traditional art and a gallery for the caricatures, possibly with a link? This is not about censorship, it is about not surprising people with possibly offending pictures. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy about this as (at best) it implies that the satire is problematic and the plaster-saintery is not. I would accept a separate gallery if the material was still as available from the main gallery (which is the one linked to by the Wikipedia etc.) as it is now. That is, that the only difference would be that the pious could avoid having their views challenged by not clicking on a further link. The "compromises" so far suggested seem to be proposals to split the page and orphan the material, that is not acceptable. --Simonxag (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have not suggested to orphan the caricatures but to keep a link to the out-factorized gallery on the main gallery. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion had clearly been on the lines of how to remove the "offending" material. As an example, on Wikipedia all material on Women's rights in Poland and the history of this has been consigned to en:Feminism in Poland which has then been effectively orphaned from all Polish topics by the Catholic consensus editing these pages. I would only accept a solution where the anti-clerical material is no less available than at present. --Simonxag (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you accept the solution as proposed by me at the top of this paragraph: yes or no? This would follow the structure of the corresponding categories, and everything would be equally available but not on the same page. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes - on condition that the link is as clearly available on the main page as the heading for the caricatures is now. --Simonxag (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that the pictures do not match the category. These pictures are offending not because they are claiming to represent Teresa of Avila, but because of their sexual content. If you have a look at the Mohammed day you find friendly caricatures in which the content is neutral by itself. I do not have a problem with satire or commic but I do have it with sexual or violent content. If we have a look at any of the historical characters you only find images or drawings of the character. Hitler do not have a violent or sexual caricature of any kind.
The only question is whether those pictures are better clasified here. Anyone not hating catholicsm would agree that they fit better in another cathegory: Felician Robs, or sexual comic. I would also move to another place a picture of Teresa bleeding from self-flagellation. Simonxag: violence is part of our life (we kill animals in millions every day) so is definetly sex and so is religion. But it is not a good idea to mix it. It is not a good idea to kill a pig in a kindergarten, have sex during a mess in a church or pray in while watching a porn movie. There is a place and a moment for every activity and your keeping these pictures means offending people not looking for that. There is a place for those pictures but it is not here.--83.60.180.216 08:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

But we are supposed to pray watching a porno, at least in the Catholic Church: the Ecstasy of St Theresa (search on Google for some lovely images) is in a church!!! In Teresa's time convents were dumps for a daughter you couldn't find a dowry for. The resultant sexual repression (called "Chastity") was accompanied by "mortification of the flesh" resulting in convenient early death. The whole "saintly" process was glamorized by the Church with hagiographies and imagery (both asexual and sexual). --Simonxag (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Per some of the above - a separate page that is linked would looked like an idea to me too. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Simonxag: your words are just common prejudice on catolicism, based on some true facts. But your mixing of religious prayer and sex cannot be extended to everyone else´s mind. Those images belong to sex cathegory, and whoever mix sex and religion would be able to find them. Your opinions are of little value as you made little effort to try to understand and a big effort to make rapid wrong conclusions to live with. You just know nothing about religious issues.--Carmelo Seglar (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Herby and AFBorchert: you are both administrators and you both agree on moving the sexual images to a new cathegory. I am new in Commons and would like to know what steps to follow. At the same time, in my opinion, Simonxag is scalating his language and trying to teach us on his theory of how sex influenced the life of religion all the time (Calling transverberation penetration, ...). Should an action be taken?. Can I do something without being banned? is this turning into a Santa Teresa Cabaret Image House?--Carmelo Seglar (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the caricatures are indeed of the St Teresa myth. They are not unrelated "anti-christian" drawings. The Commons should not censor the viewpoint of a notable artist, even if he was a radical freemason :-) . --Simonxag (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a weak point. They do deal with Teresa of Avila, also with Christ and therefore christianism, but we are discussing where should they fit better, and because of the content they do not fit here. Sex, food and fighting are primitive pleasures, intelectual conquest, listening to music are more educated pleasures, and there is pleasure in religion, your limitations in understanding that cannot be extended.--83.60.180.216 07:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The only problem is Simonsax and his hate to catholics. Everyone else agrees apparently. (unsigned comment by 80.25.130.253)

On the Wikipedia we deal with individuals who are considered great or holy by certain movements. These movements' views should not dictate coverage, it should be neutral and historical, unfortunately the weight of the world's largest organized religion does seem to override this on some Catholic pages. The Commons relaxes the requirement for Neutral Point of View, but only because we need to be inclusive and not restrict debates and decisions elsewhere. Commons galleries cannot be inclusive so need some neutrality and balance. All other images are from a Christian POV hold Teresa to be a literal saint with supernatural powers. Balanced? Complete? Suppose she was a scientologist? The drawings are not gratuitous erotica from the sex industry or a frat boy, they are satire of the misogynistic and anti-sex Teresa-myth promoted by the Christian iconography. --Simonxag (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

... but your personal POV should not dictate either. Did you ever read a book by St. Teresa?. You are talking on what others told to you. None of the pictures show Theresa with "superpowers", neither she ever claimed to have them.--83.60.180.173 16:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever read the Wikipedia article on the girl? Check out en:Teresa of Ávila#Mysticism, or perhaps levitation is normal power in the catholic church. Several of the pictures show or allude to it. Doh!!!!! --Simonxag (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

May be you should read it too. If you jump from a plain you cannot claim to fly. Teresa never claimed to levitate at will, she claimed God did it. But in any case Teresa writtings do not focus on these facts she talks about service to others and humility. The true miracle of Teresa is not levitation, but how she never was angry and behaved in a humble manner.--83.60.180.173 07:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is why others, such as Mr. Rops need to get angry on her (and other similarly abused women's) behalf. Every pro-censorship argument that is produced only confirms that this is indeed censorship. This is not an attempt to hide gratuitous shocking material from an unsuspecting viewer, but an attempt to enforce a Catholic POV. Túrelio gives the game away when he attacks the artist's political and religious beliefs. The Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You are too naive thinking Commons is not censored. I think you do not like catholics at all, and that is disturbing your opinions. Commons is censored in the way it classified images. Go to women or girl, or man or boy and none of the pictures shown have any sexual content, or violent content. Why?. Go to Megan Fox or other liberal actors. Nothing. The honor of sexual caricatures is (as far as a know) just for St. Teresa. This is not a Catholic invention, sexual images are not welcomed everywhere. You might argue that a naked sexy women making love is just like a dressed women giving a speech, but it is not, and it has nothing to do with religion. I do not see any commercial on TV or pages in newspapers with explicit sexual images. Can you tell me of any other historical character with explict sex caricatures arround?.--Carmelo Seglar (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Hollywood has been willing to savagely satirize it's world and values eg. The Player, the Sweet Smell of Success and The Big Knife. The sex was always there in the Teresa myth and imagery, Rops didn't introduce it. You just now changed the verb penetrate on the gallery page to transverberate, same meaning, just a difficult word to hide it, holy smoke. --Simonxag (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now moved the gallery of caricatures into a a separate gallery and left a link to it on the main gallery as proposed. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

AFBorchert: Thank you. Simonsax: Thank you too for being flexible. I wish you realize sometime that there is no sex at all in Teresa´s teachings. If you only read it!. I still challenge you to show me any other historical character where you find sexual caricatures. Best Regards.--83.60.180.173 07:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This caricatures should be taken from this place. They belong to a section devoted to Félicien Rops. Only 1 in a million readers are really looking for this nasty images when looking fot Santa Teresa images. Many of the readers are children and should not see this. Some adults are really disappointed at this placement. I ask the administrator authority to move this images to another place. PLEASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.16.52 (talk • contribs) 10 July 2022 (UTC)

As elaborated above, the caricatures are not visible within this gallery, just linked to. As upsetting they might appear, they were created by a notable Belgian artist and are witness of the criticism of religion in his time. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Can I please ask for an authorized admin to reconsider this?

This caricatures are using the name and fame o Teresa to introduce a disgusting anti christian image that have nothing to do with Santa Teresa. This images could also be added to any Christ image in commons or to any christian saint image. The only right place for them is the artist place in commons. 81.34.16.52 16:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Teresa of Avila has 11.300.000 results in Google. Teresa of Jesus 43.000.000.

Felicien Robs 174.000. This is 0,4% - 1.5% only.

This is why only fans of this painter are interested in promoting his pictures in a most famous place. But this is not the right place. The painter has his own place in Commons.

This situation is really using a famous character to promote a not known artist, in which only a few fans have any interest.

Please be reasonable. 81.34.16.52 16:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The number of Google hits is in no way an indication of notability. Félicien Rops is notable, just read the Wikipedia article about him. This is not about promoting some unknown artist, but preserving works of a well-known artist. You might not like him or his works, but this is no criteria for deletion at Commons. And, BTW, I am an admin at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. The question is where should this pieces of art be better placed. If Google is not an indication of notability, please show me any other indicator that we can both trust. You must admit Teresa is very well known while F. R. is only known in a different scale. Is this not a fact?. Placing this pictures here are only benefiting the name of F. R.. Teresa is the only famous character "honoured" with this caricatures, that I found. Is there any other example?.

Can I please ask you to reconsider or escalate the issue? 213.97.106.7 08:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi again.

Long ago (2010) you suggested:

"to create another gallery, titled Caricatures of Saint Teresa of Ávila that presents some of the images out of Category:Caricatures of Saint Teresa of Ávila"

This is a much better option, in my opinion. 213.97.106.7 09:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a look at the Wikipedia article about FR. It does have a link to Commons for FR. Which makes a lot of sense. It does not have any link to Teresa`s place. 81.35.173.250 13:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This exactly has been done in 2010. Since then we have Caricatures of Saint Teresa of Ávila and these artworks are no longer presented on Teresa of Ávila but just linked to. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You proposed 2 alternatives:

"- to create another gallery, titled Caricatures of Saint Teresa of Ávila that presents some of the images out of Category:Caricatures of Saint Teresa of Ávila, and

- to replace the equally-named section of this gallery by a link to the newly created gallery."

I am not sure I understand right any of the alternatives, as I am not familiar with concepts such as gallery and section.

In any case I would propose this option: taking caricatures to a new section/gallery/place called Caricatures of Teresa, without any link from here. Is it a reasonable option?. Thank yo for your time and patience. 2.136.237.133 09:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am thinking about examples or general principles to support my idea that this is not the place for this masterpieces. I am also ready to be convinced that I am wrong and this is the right place for them to be.

I only find examples to support my view: I can see no other famous character with sexual offensive caricatures attached to it.

If I look to cows in commons, there is no link to images of how cows are being killed or cows and bulls copulating. I guess there are special sections for this. I do not regard that as censorship, but proper clasification.

Of course, it is not your duty to explain or teach to me. But, as admin, you have a responsiblity of stablishing nice policies and principles. Knowing that you can never have everyone happy.

I still think that Teresa of Avila is well known to many people. Much much more than Felicien Robs. We can only meassure that by google (that I know).

We could, may be, upload a sexually offensive cartoon of any character to commons and see what happens. A character not related to religion.

I am just looking for some authority to settle this. If only you and me are discussing this, then we need a good reason, a nice principle to be sure we are not deciding on just your personal (or mine) preference.

The strongest argument I found is Teresa having thousands more results in google than FR. Which (in my opinion) shows this pictures are only for FR fans.

Again thank you for your time and patience. 2.136.237.133 10:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Another comment. If I look in Google for images of Teresa of Avila, there is no presence of FR art on it. This, in my opinion is saying us that people looking for Teresa of Avila are never interested in FR works.

Even if I search for Teresa of Avila Caricatures, there is no presence either of FR masterpieces. Again people interested in FR must have direct access to his works, but people looking for Teresa of Avila are not intereste at all in FR. Just a bit more food for you to think. If you want to read the whole thing. Thank you. 81.35.173.250 17:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Caricatures by Rops are main reason, why I have heard about Teresa of Ávila at all. The caricatures are main reason, why I would be interested about her. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting!

But I guess you are minority on that. As google clearly shows.

And you could always find FR caricatures at FR place.

Thank you for your comment. 80.28.251.133 11:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)