Talk:Palingenesis

You should also mention alchemy - palangesis is part of the great work [Matt http://mattstone.blogs.com/ekstasis]

Incorporated by mentioning Thomas Browne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.118.177 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Exclusion of Chilean dictatorship image exemplifying palinenesis

Some editors have engaged in unexplained removals of Chilean dictatorship image exemplifying palinenesis. After I reverted those unexplained edits calling my contribution vandalism and disruption they begun dialogue. I have explained the summary and in one of those editors talk page the reasons of the relevance of the image. Still some editors are doing unexplained removals. I ask them to be civilized and talk. Explain here your ideas and do not engage in a disruptive edit war as you have been doing so far. -130.238.141.152 (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, this requires (1) a description in the text of the significance of the word "Palingenesis" in relation to Chile, (2) reliable sources supporting that description, and (3) some explanation of why that particular image is about palingenesis, and not about other related events from that time in Chile. Until those are supplied, I'll be removing it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

1) "At the very least, this requires (1) a description in the text of the significance of the word "Palingenesis" in relation to Chile" - according to you? no where in wikipedias policies is there any requiment that images that illustrates concepts need to be discussed in the text. Take for example the article cognitive dissonance and its first image. 2) Wikipedia praxis, even for FA articles is that relevant images does not need sources to allow them illustrate points. Would Epstein remove The Fox and the Grapes from cognitive dissonance because of the lack of an academic making the conection? 130.238.141.152 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The "Fox and the Grapes" fable is discussed within the cognitive dissonance article; look at the "Examples" section. And yes, there is an academic source cited in the article linking the fable to the psychological phenomenon. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

For your more general point: no, I suppose there's nothing that explicitly states that an image must be discussed in the text. However, look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature, the relevant guideline: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". This image is not directly related to the subject; if it were, then there would be some mention of the image's subject somewhere in the article. There isn't. Moreover, there's nothing in the image that actually illustrates the concept; the only thing in the image that is even remotely connected to the subject are the two years in the background. The meaning of those two years, and their relevance to palinesis, are very far from clear; it requires reading the entirety of the lengthy caption and close examination of the image to understand what the point of it in this article is. Thus, as an illustration of the concept of palingenesis, the image is virtually useless, and there's no reason to waste screen space and loading time on a useless image. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)