Talk:Saint Maurice

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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: 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

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 and Eurocentrics 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 in the form of vandals coming by trying to alter images that were there from the beginning. You're adding to the destruction of the article. And you're on some crusade against Africa and "Blacks" apparently so it seems, which is evident from your raving edits against anything that has to do with Africa, and your wikistalking me, which you will be reported for if you keep following me. And hopefully blocked..Taharqa 18:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using phrases like "wikistalking" unless you have hard evidence of the same. John Carter 19:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do, all you need to do is check.. He's reverted me on almost every article, articles he's never been to that I have worked on, and constantly bases it off of personal attacks like above, and accusations of racial bias, which actually says less about me since I have openly stated no position... Only that blatant bias is apparent.. Can you please address the issue though? Why was that copywritten image placed over the original public domain one that has been here all along? How about no image at all? Do you think that would be a good solution? And just leave the images in the gallery?Taharqa 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only assume because the original, noncopyright, one, might be seen as being, in some way, less than accurate. It does clearly show a person who possesses definite racial characteristics which the later image does not. Personally, I have no way of knowing if that statue were itself thought to be in some way based on a nonconsensus opinion regarding the ancestry of the subject or not. Presumably, given the amount of activity involved, it might be. I don't have any hard data one way or another. I also note that User:MoritzB is a comparatively new user, whose first edit seems to have been only about a month ago. S/he seems to be particularly interested in articles relating to views of races, given his/her talk page. As an outsider, I can see that possibly, if there is a question about the accuracy of the depiction, it might be removed or replaced. And, personally, I'm not sure I'd trust a statue of an Egyptian saint in a German cathedral as being entirely accurate. Maybe the first or third images from the gallery, which seem to have less clearly defined racial characteristics, might be mutually acceptable? If there is any clear contemporary description of the subject, an image that matches that description would probably be best. If anyone knows of such a description, I'd love to see it. John Carter 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this academic source, "it was not until the middle 13th Century that St. Maurice appears as a black man" so we can safely assume that this artistic portrayal does not derive from any historical tradition.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2992(198121)66%3A1%3C52%3ATIOTBI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z

I propose the image St. Maurice Church in Ottawa uses of him: http://www.stmauricechurch.com/Images/stmaurice.jpg

MoritzB 08:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanternix (talk · contribs)

User talk:Egyegy

MoritzB (talk · contribs)

^They're conspiring on talk pages to revert every edit I make..

Quote from MoritzB:

"These Afrocentric people are delusional".. Blatant racism and people merely overlook it.. Funny..Taharqa 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic similarity

St. Maurice only became "black" after the 12th century because his name happened to be similar to the Latin word Maurus, meaning Moor.

He was only black in the imagination of some Medieval artists. Similarly, Caspar who was one of the three Biblical Magi is often black in paintings although he was of Persian descent and nothing in the Bible indicates that he was black.

http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/maurice.html

http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Elgreco50.jpg MoritzB 07:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The oldest depictions of him portrayed him as such, you have produced no older images, so your opinion is irrelevant. Please avoid POV-driven edits and produce citations. The one you've provided says nothing about him being thought of as "white", quite the opposite. The first picture they show resembles the one originally put here..Taharqa 21:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I provided a precise citation which stated that St. Maurice was only portrayed as Black in the 13th century. You vandalized the gallery section deleting many paintings. Why?

MoritzB 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to restore those paintings. There is no copyright problem with them, look at the license.

MoritzB 02:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He was refered as the "Black Knight". Just as most religous icons, and paintings are portrayed as whites, even though their skin color is not known. Like Jesus with blue eyes! How can Jesus have blue eyes? It's in the minds of white superiorty of the day, and still exists. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus's ancestor King David had a pinkish skin and red hair according to the Bible. Blonde Jews have never been unusual.

MoritzB 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

From which Bible does it say that? - Jeeny ^Talk 01:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

1 Samuel Chapter 16:14.

MoritzB 02:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask where in the Bible, but which Bible? There are many translations of the Bible. Here is an mosiac from the 6th Century of Jesus. No blue eyes, no blonde hair at this link. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

KJV and the original Hebrew text.

MoritzB 02:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where it says anything about hair color. KJV Samuel 1, Chapter 16. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to

MoritzB 02:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That does not say blonde hair and eyes to me. Beautiful contenance? Does that imply that only light eyes and hair is beautiful? Ruddy, is reddish color. That is if the word for "ruddy" has the same meaning as it does today, which is red, not pink. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hebrew word "ad-mow-nee" means literally "red" or "reddish" and can refer to red hair .

For instance, Song of Solomon 5:10, "My beloved is white and ruddy" means that he has red hair and porcelain skin.

King David is also a redhead in the Christian and Jewish cultural traditions. The color of his hair is not surprising since Jews are very often red-headed, (more often than Irishmen).

MoritzB 04:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I provided a precise citation which stated that St. Maurice was only portrayed as Black in the 13th century.

^You take the citation out of context since he never says that he was portrayed any differently before the 12th century, you have no earlier depictions and this is pov pushing and bias, you have no reason for your actions... And you tag the images with the same thing, which is convenient and there is a 2005 copyright on one I believe.Taharqa 12:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Coptic Orthodox icon

For an unknown reason Taharqa deleted Egyegy's image of the Coptic Orthodox icon. It was replaced with a statue which is a bad image of the Egyptian St. Maurice for reasons stated above. The artistic views of El Greco, Cincinati, Jean Hey and others reflect the Catholic tradition much better.

I propose that both Catholic and Orthodox imagery should be included to this article because St. Maurice is venerated in both churches.

MoritzB 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That was not Egyegy's picture, it was someone else's who asked that person to follow me here just to revert for no reason, when that one image has been here all along, besides the fact that you're breaking wiki policy by uploading copyright images. The earliest depiction of him is the one displayed, and I've even provided sources above, no reason to upload copyright images just because his phenotype doesn't sit well with you in the said depiction.Taharqa 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

He was refered as the "Black Knight". Just as most religous icons, and paintings are portrayed as whites, even though their skin color most likely was NOT. Like Jesus with light hair and blue eyes! How can Jesus have blue eyes? It's in the minds of white superiority of the day because white was concidered "pure", and still exists. - Jeeny ^Talk 23:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the only existing historical account (true or not) about the appearance of Jesus says that he had a blonde hair and blue eyes. This is reflected in the Christian tradition.

"St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite (1749-1809), in "A Handbook of Spiritual Counsel of Western Spirituality Proper Delights of the Mind", addresses the great delight of envisioning the physical appearance of Christ. Think of those most pure eyes of Jesus, so calm, so sweet; the straightness of His nose; the somewhat chestnut-colored and at the same time golden hair and beard of His;" http://www.serfes.org/spiritual/january2004.htm MoritzB 02:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jeeny, this is merely POV pushing and suspected wiki harassment. I still have offered that instead of vandalizing the article, to show evidence of an earlier depiction, and it can't be done, so why replace it with a picture of some white man because the picture of the "moor" doesn't sit well with some people?Makes no sense.Taharqa 12:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

About including an approriate image

If we follow the principle of WP:NPOV then the image(s) should be considerate to both Catholic and Orthodox tradition. I have now added an Orthodox icon about him as he was originally an Egyptian Coptic Christian. According to the academic source quoted in the article St. Maurice was not black in original Catholic tradition. St. Maurice was occasionally depicted as a black person later but certainly not uniformly as the famous paintings of 15th and 16th century show.

To resolve this dispute I propose a compromise that an image of St. Maurice with Egyptian features should the the one in the article because it is unlikely that a person of Egyptian ancestry looked black or European. MoritzB 14:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion.. I compromised that no picture be put up at all, yet no one listened, everyone wants to impose some kind of image and edit war over it, why? After the page is unprotected, I can roll with the compromise. Give everybody some time too chill out.. And please chill out also on the stuff about "features" and "race".. Seems to be the whole basis for these edits.Taharqa 01:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Tahaqa, features and color do have a basis. I agree with removing that "it is implausible that he was black", as no one knows that for sure. If anything, just like Jesus, he should represent those people during that time. KJV Bible is not correct in terms of the uses of words of the meanings of today. Jesus was a Jew, and he, at the very least, was Middle Eastern in appearance, as they had to point him out to the Romans, (if he looked different, it would be easy to spot him). As for St Maurice he is not white, he was a Moor or similar. Especially when talking about the European view of the 16th century, when artists are known for icons and paintings to appear as though saints/icons were of European decent (white, as in purity) - Jeeny ^Talk 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

So we should agree that the Coptic icon will be put to the article as the main picture. The statue with black features will be removed.

MoritzB 08:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I cannot make such an agreement. Many of the other images, including Image:Elgreco50.jpg, are public domain. We cannot and should not use any image which is under any copyright when another satisfactory image which does not have such copyright problems is available. Also, frankly, the El Greco, as well as possibly the Hay and Cincinato, are probably more appealing images than the statue, on the basis of its greater use of color and higher overall visual appeal. They are public domain as well. John Carter 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

John, I agree with you personally. I just thought that the Egyptian editors perhaps want that the Coptic icon is used because in the Eastern Church it is forbidden to make three-dimensional images of saints. If the Egyptians would agree maybe El Greco's painting could be used?

MoritzB 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So we should agree that the Coptic icon will be put to the article as the main picture. The statue with black features will be removed.

That's not what I was talking about, no, I don't agree with your racially motivated opinion. Edit warring was on that basis (the image) which is why it was protected. And John Carter, there is no consensus on why the picture that has been up here the longest should be removed, especially when it's the oldest depiction available. We don't know what he looked like, and yes, the original research, racially charged POV should be removed, where it says "it is implausible this". Agreed..Taharqa 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, we have two people arguing against the image, and only one explicitly defending the inclusion of the image in the position of primacy in the article, with at least one person not specifically indicating a preference. While it does not yet technically reach the standard of Wikipedia:Consensus, I think that it would be very ill-advised to ignore the fact that the majority of the clear opinions are against the placement of the image in question. John Carter 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

From the site where the other image was, here is another showing St. Maurice with dark skin, but the white one was used. And here where it says he was often black and a foot soldier. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

And the image above, which is already in the gallery, is public domain as well. I guess the reason I forgot to mention it initially is because the name of the artist isn't included, for which I apologize. I personally have a less than completely justifiable preference for the El Greco, because I think he's the best known of all the artists involved, although I clearly acknowledge that might not be the best reason for having a preference available. John Carter 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no justified reason why all of a sudden the same image that has been present for 2 years should just up and be replaced with a later depiction, for no reason. Especially when it is the earliest depiction available. And no, the "majority" of opinions is an overstatement, there has been no justifiable reasoning.Taharqa 19:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for changing the image have been given. The fact that you individually disagree with them does not mean that they don't exist. I would be very encouraged if all parties involved, would try to respond rationally to the actual statements made by others, rather than spinning them to your own benefit, as such behavior is most conducive to real discussion. John Carter 01:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

^^The discussion so far has consisted of racially charged reasons/excuses, "the features being too "black", and in their opinion, Maurice wasn't black".. Those aren't reasons based on sound sources, they are POV-driven. So yes, I, Jeeny, Caracas1830, and others above have addressed this and don't accept it as a valid reason. No need to single me out "individually" here, and I'm asking for your reason or opinion now also, and haven't gotten one, you're simply alluding to two users who have posted here on the page previously, and an edit war. A revert war isn't a reason why an image that has been here for the past 2 years and the oldest depiction of a figure should just all of a sudden be replaced. And at least one person came here to revert merely because another person asked them too, hardly a reason. Not at all being contentious either, yes, I am trying to discuss, which is the only way to resolve and see what the different points of view or and where people are coming from..Taharqa 05:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

racially charged OR

{{editprotected}}

re-enabled edit protected in face of agreement to remove contested sentence:("Thus, it is implausible that St. Maurice was black"). Statements leading up to it accepted as sourced.

Jeeny is right.. I believe we have agreed to remove the racially skewed, non-attributed POV assertion towards the bottom, at the end of the second-to-last paragraph where it states, "Thus, it is implausible that St. Maurice was black".. This is dangerous, and based on suspected, and blatant POV pushing rooted in WP:POINT.

Also, the entry leading up to that was copied word for word, verbatim through google search [1], and added on to (Or conclusions drawn) with out attribution. Which I believe isn't allowed as of its self, so if that were dealt with (removed or reworded) aswell as not to repeat another writer's material verbatim, it would be great..Taharqa 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That phrase needs to be removed altogether. It's implausible, says who? - Jeeny ^Talk 19:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I only note that the statement objected to is in fact a reference to the statement in the source cited that it was only some time after the death of Maurice, in the 13th century, that he was first portrayed as black. While I can see the statement being reworded. However, it would really be stretching the limits of the original research position to say that the statement made is either POV pushing or POV. I can however see how a simple statement like "Until the 13th century, there were no known sources which gave any indication that Maurice was what we would today call black", as such a statement is clearly supported by the cited source. John Carter 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Because before the 13th Century they didn't refer to a person's color. The terms to refer to people as white, black and yellow originated in Europe around that time. Before, that people were defined by their nation, tribe, or area. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of how to respond to the above. I did specificy "what we would today call black", or perhaps some similar language to refer to him by our modern standards. Also, are you implying that the cited source may be itself perhaps misconstruing the evidence. If so, I would welcome clarification. John Carter 20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. When there's consensus for a change, please feel free to re-enable it. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

John Carter, the point is that the source mentions how the person was depicted, not what was plausible or not, that is a POV conclusion made from something else stated. Also, there is no demonstrable depiction of him before the 12th century, where was he depicted as "what we'd call white"? Do you agree that it should at least be taken out, the phrase about what is implausible and what isn't? Seems a bit problematic until we can straighten other things out, but I think we should all agree that it needs to be removed as the tone/language is totally unencyclopedic and unattributed.. Let us know, so we may try and move forward. I think it's fair that it merely reflects what the source claims, that:

according to "Devisse, beginning in the 12 century St. Maurice was portrayed as a black moor, however, Devisse states these to be the earliest known examples of such depictions and before hand, there are no such noted examples.

^Does that sound okay, John? Get back..Taharqa 04:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Objection. That is not what the source says. An exact quote: "Devisse describes the cult of St. Maurice in about 380 A.D. and the developtment of over 700 cults in his honor. Devisse also points out that it was not until the middle 13th century that St. Maurice appears as a black man. Until then his image had been that of a white man."

MoritzB 13:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the source does seem to qualify under the Wikipedia:Reliable sources threshold, I really can't see any objections to including the information exactly as presented there. This isn't the only place that we are sometimes forced to rely on secondary sources for information that they don't necessarily cite sources for. I personally know that in an article I myself haven't yet gotten to working on, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, that an academic journal refers to her having epilepsy, and indicates that people in the "aureole" stage of epilepsy often perceive that state as being similar to religious ecstasy. As a reliable source, that information will be reasonably included. The journal cited above is also apparently a reliable source, and we are more or less bound by the rules of wikipedia to assume that any statements made in such sources are themselves more or less verified, at least to the satisfaction of the journal's editors. John Carter 14:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. But let the Coptics have their icon, Taharqa, even if it may not be accurate. I'm done fighting this, except for that statement saying. "Thus, it is implausible that St. Maurice was black". As that is POV. And having the gallery with the differnt icons. People are very sensitive about their religion, and we do have to be respectful of it. Right or wrong, but there has to be some balance just like in any other wiki article. - Jeeny ^Talk 05:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The question of the "Iconographic depiction" of Saint M really needs to be in a separate section, making it clearer that what European artists nearly a thousand years after his death thought he looked like is essentially irrelevant to any historical of what he might have looked like, if he had actually existed. Is there a copyright-free Coptic image? It should also be noted that the El Greco painting included several portraits of contemporary Spanish military commanders (probably one of the reasons Philip disliked it), but I can't establish if the saint himself was a portrait (see: Brown, Jonathan (ed.) (1982). "El Greco and Toledo", El Greco of Toledo (catalogue), pp. 98-100. Little Brown. ASIN B-000H4-58C-Y). That plus the fact the saint is just one figure in a large composition, probably makes it unsuitable to be the main pic. Personally I like the Grunewald. We should recognise that the relatively few European medieval depictions of black people do have a special interest, regardless of any questions of historical accuracy etc. Johnbod 14:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the article would benefit from "sectioning", and having a specific section about the artistic depictions would be a good idea. I do favor the elimination of the existing objected to sentence in any event. Alternately, if we wanted the image in the infobox to be as "neutral" as possible, and include the various differing interpretations in the "depictions" section, maybe the statue in France, which doesn't have any particular racial features that I can see, could be the headliner. The other images, with their differing perspectives on the subject, could be used as illustrations in the "depictions" section. John Carter 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I do favor the elimination of the existing objected to sentence in any event.

I also agree with removing that statement (Thus, it is implausible that St. Maurice was black), so we all have some common ground and can agree to that change. I also agree that maybe instead you guys separate it into its own section instead of the main, I won't debate over suitability and "racial" references should be avoided if unnecessary. I like all of the ideas above though pretty much. Thanx for discussing..Taharqa 19:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind the source being re-added, but I don't think it really matters. It isn't important enough for a page edit imo.Taharqa 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please revert. The JSTOR source for the information was lost.

MoritzB 09:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

^Thanx!..

And again guys, I like your compromises and feel that these ideas are great.. Maybe they need to be elaborated on, but this is pointing in the right direction, imo.. My only thing is I don't think I understood Johnhood fully after re-reading him though, in reference to what Europeans thought 1,000 years later since the image in question is the oldest one in the gallery and all of the images were made some time after death. It is hard to evaluate which image would and would not be accurate with out older depictions to present. I don't believe a section should be focused on such an inane issue (the article is straight), John Carter summed up a good alternative though otherwise. Maybe the gallery should just speak for its self, as the information is about the person, not the depictions. No need to invite more controversy, since opinions vary and we're seeking neutrality here. Devisse's insight is good enough.Taharqa 04:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Icon

• The original Coptic icon must come back. Saint Maurice was Egyptian and must be represented by an Egyptian icon, not a medival European statue! And he was clearly NOT black, since Egyptians were never black, whether Mr/Miss taharqa likes it or not. I suggesst we have a voting on the matter. Thank you. --Lanternix 14:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, where to start? Taharqa and others are not the Afrocentrics. Emperor Otto I The Great, Archbishop Adalbert von Trier, Archbishop Albrecht II von Kefernburg, Archbishop Burchard III. von Schraplau, Archbishop Ernst von Sachsen and the people of Magdeburg Germany are the true Afrocentrics since they built the temple and the image of Saint Maurice that is displayed there. A 300 year feat I might add. There are many european images in the Cathedral of Saints Catherine and Maurice as well. Unless they were chronically stupid through 300 years of building and unless they are ignorant from 937A.D. until now, I would think their european images as well their blackened image of St Maurice accurate. You can debate forever the removal of his image from Wikipedia, but you will never be able to remove his image from the cathedral that bears his name. So have your silly debate. His image will never be replaced with a painting or sculpcher created centuries later (as all of them were). So your frustration with this blackened image will never end. Also anyone who thinks that there were no black Egyptians is safe only if they don't study Petrie or the drawings in the tombs, or the monuments, or the 12th, 17th, 19th, and 25th Dynasties. Tom 08/14/07

• • The image WILL be removed whether you like it or not, since most of Wikipedia's users don't want to see that ugly afrocentrsit statue of an Egyptian featuring on top of the article. If the saint is an Egyptian then it makes only sense for an Egyptian painting to depict him, not a dumb statue made by some Europeans during the Middle Ages! Go to Egypt and look at Ancient Egyptians painting themselves as white before you share your ignorance publicly on an encyclopedia. --Lanternix 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Although I very definitely do not agree with the tone of the statement above, I do believe that it would probably be a good idea to remove a 3-D image from an article about a saint of the Coptic Church, which officially objects to 3-D representation of such figures. This is not saying that the non-free Coptic saint image should be used, as it technically can't be used in a template, which the infobox is. Also, the fact that the statue was made after history indicates that the popular image of the subject was, possibly incorrectly, changed to reflect then-current opinion does not really help assert its validity. The 3-D objection would limit the use of the French statue as well, unfortunatly. That would more or less leave the Grunewald, El Greco, Cincinato, and Hey images. I'm not myself sure where Maurice is in the Cincinato image, so in my eyes that leaves the other three. Again, I tend to favor the El Greco, largely because he's the best known of the artists involved. Maybe not a good reason, but the presence of that image in the infobox would indicate, as it were, that the subject was important enough for such a major painter to paint him, which is at least a slight additional indication of notability. John Carter 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why people keep saying that the Coptic icon image is non-free? It says on the website of its creator that he released it to the public domain. It's an Egyptian saint, so most of us agree that a Coptic icon takes priority in the infobox, right? The other pictures are still the gallery. Egyegy 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• If that's true, then the tag on the image itself should reflect that. If it isn't free, then by all means it's eligible. Right now, we don't have a link to the image on the current page, so I wasn't sure what the exact status was. John Carter 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you remove the black image from Wikipedia. It will only discredit Wikipedia. If ever Wikipedia is questioned for the oldest known image of St Maurice, Wikipedia will either lie or not. If ever Wikipedia is questioned for the location of the oldest known image of St Maurice and/or the location of the original cathedral that was built in his name, Wikipedia will either lie or not. I expect people like Lanternix to attack me personally. I expect to be called ignorant. What else can a person like that do when they have no earlier archeology. Behavior reveals ones true character. You can call these earlier saints stupid, you can call the earlier image stupid and you can call me stupid. But you will never be able to call your information first or original. So go ahead, take it out of Wikipedia, you still can't take it off the earth. And you can't stop the over 60,000 tourists from all over the world who visit it each year, from going there. Tom 08/15/07

Please do not indulge in irrelevant and off-topic insults of others. There is no intention on the part of anyone else to "lie" or "hide the truth". As has already been stated repeatedly, there is evidence, already linked to, that the view of the subject changed from Coptic to Nubian/African before the statue at Magdeburg was made. On that basis, however old that depiction is, it is still in a sense not the oldest view of the subject. Actually, in that regard, the newer Coptic image, which seems to more clearly reflect the earlier view of the subject's appearance, can be said to more accurately depict the oldest "version" of the subject. John Carter 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• • Of course you can't destroy that totally inaccurate statue of Saint Maurice, and I certainly would never want to see it happening. But to include such an inaccurate and foreign depiction of a person in an infobox is totally misleading and must be corrected. As Egyegy mentioned, an Egyptian/Coptic saint must be depicted by an Egyptian/Coptic icon. And the icon is released to the public domain, I don't see why John Carter is calling it a non-free image! --Lanternix 00:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Please see comment above. John Carter 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There were many Egyptians of Nubian birth. Again as in the section above read the words of Petrie. 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." Look at the Medjay warriors of the 12th Dynasty file:///C:/My%20Documents/nubianarchers.html look at the picture found in Seti I tomb describing the four people of the world www.catchpenny.org/race.html Look at Taharqa featured here in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taharqa Look at his photo gallery www.homestead.com/wysinger/kingtaharqa.html I can go on. There is plenty of room for Saint Maurice to be an Egyptian and look like he's depicted. Tom 08/15/07

• • An Egyptian of Nubian origin is a Nubian, NOT an Egyptian. The Synexarion, which is the Egyptian Christian book of saints, tells the stories of saints and mentions where they or their parents were from. There is no reference whatsoever in the Synexarion or in any Coptic manuscript to Saint Maurice or to any of his companions of the Theban legion (or to Saint Verena who accompanied them) being Nubians or of Nubian descent. yes, some "foreign" kings ruled Egypt at some points of its ancient history (Nubians, Lybians, Semitic Hyksos etc), but they were NOT Egyptians. The view Egyptians held about their color can be learned from the following exerpt (DISCLAIMER: These are NOT my words, this is merely a quote from Ramses II, the greatest Pharaoh of all times):

"Pharaoh Rameses the Great nodded his head and touched his grandson the wonderful child Se-Osiris with his sceptre, saying, 'Kherheb of today, finish that which the Kherheb of five centuries ago began.' Then to the giant Ethiopian he cried, ' Black dog of the south, if you have magic to match against the magic of Egypt, show it now!' "

So clearly Egyptians referred to the Ethiopians as black, which by definition means that Egyptians were different. The last point to end this futile debate is that FEATURES DO NOT EQUAL COLORS. You can have any features you want irrespective of color. Ancient Egyptian statues having thick lips and high cheak bones, features that modern Egyptians still preserve, does not mean they were black! Here is the photo of an old black man ( http://static.flickr.com/68/225860478_1f0ad5b8d2.jpg ). If you bring him 30 years back and change his color to white, he will look like Brad Pitt! --Lanternix 02:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you not read the article written by Petrie outlining Nubians hereditary connections to Egypt where the Libyans did not have one. The Libyans are the light skinned Egyptians that you're talking about. But they didn't rule Egypt until it's 22nd Dynasty and then only through conquest not blood line. Did you not view the picture from Seti's tomb? When white americans refer to another white american as tall dark and handsome they are referring to another white person with differences in appearance commensurate with dark Italian vs. a light Scandinavian. Or a blond vs. a brunette etc. The same exists in the black race. Using Seti's tomb picture as an example you will notice the difference between the Egyptian and the Nubian is no broader than the difference between Denzel Washington and Wesley Snipes. They are both black people just as the Italians and the Scandinavians are both white people. Both the Nubian and the Egyptian would have to get on the back of the bus in 1956 Mississippi. Did you not see the images of the Medjay warriors? Did you? Did you not observe the many artifacts that were riddled with black people? Do you not understand that it was a milllenium between them and when the Libyans came to power. There was no Egypt without Nubians. There was an Egypt however without Libyans. When Piye started the 25th Dynasty in Egypt it was (according to Petrie) a reclaming of the old order. St Maurice is decended from the Egyptians not the Libyans. I want you to comment directly on the picture from Seti's tomb. I want you to directly comment on the Medjay warriors whose influence was written of well into the reign of Rameses. My access to Nubian/ Egyptian brotherhood, cohabitation, war and misegenation is broader than what's presented here. In other words, I have more proof. In fact the wars between Egypt and Nubia weren't very different from our own civil war. It was more akin to brother against brother with Nubians and Egyptians on both sides. Their differences were found primarily in their allegiance. So if you are a true studier of Egypt, you cannot be disinterested or avoid commenting on these things. Unless you're just trying to win an argument rather than seek the truth in Egyptian history. The bust of Taharqa is displayed in the Boston Museum. He ruled Egypt in 700 A.D. How could you possibly avoid commenting on that? I would think that you'd welcome this information. The Ethiopian Dynasty did not end internally through the Egyptians because they were brothers. It ended externally by the hand of the Assyrians. Saint Maurice could have easily looked like he's portrayed and I believe his history and appearance was kept sacred and honest until his likeness and temple were built. History and our own lives have shown that the recording of an event that's closer in time to the event is usually more accurate and less given to conjecture than later accounts of the same event. Things tend to get a little garbled as time goes on. Such is the varied images of Saint Maurice. The original is always better than the copy. Every true historian goes further back in time to find the building block on which nearer things are stacked. That rule is broken here only because modern scholars don't like what history revealed. But on the other hand you can never remove from history what really happened. You can only cover it up for a while. It will always resurface. One of the major problems is that whites don't want to believe that blacks were intellegent or organized enough to have done these great things in history. For their internal comfort many of them have to make the mighty Egyptians white regardless of their black artifacts. Even though I've asked for direct comment on the tomb findings I've provided, I don't expect it. I actually expect this entire paragraph to be ignored. Tom 08/16/07

Probably because your comments aren't really directly relevant to the matter of which picture should be placed in the infobox. That is what this discussion is about. Please actually try to focus on the subject at hand. And, before you start imperiously asking others to directly comment on your own allegations, please note that no one in wikipedia is obliged to respond to anything that isn't sources by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, which in this case would be directly cited sources regarding not the "ethnicity" of any Egyptians at the time, but the specific ethnic identity/characteristics of the subject at hand. Also, if you are going to continue to engage in this discussion, it would help your own cause if you established a username for yourself. John Carter 15:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

In reply to John, this person already has a username called Taharqa. He/She is just trying to make people feel like there is more than one person agreeing with his/her allegations. Like you said, most of his/her arguments are totally irrelevent to the subject matter, and as we realized from his/her attitude on so many articles before, all he/she cares about is the skin color of people and nothing beyond. Clearly all his/her sources are discredited by most if not all Egyptologists, and are for the vast majority written by Black Africans who are attempting to claim Egypt's glory to themselves. Sort of a futile discussion, but like you said, it would help if they focus more on the subject matter. Thanks. --Lanternix 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is actually what I'm talking about. Tarharqa ISsourced here in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taharqa Petrie IS sourced in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flinders_Petrie The Medjay ARE sourced here in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medjay John you've just proved to everyone that you not only didn't know about these things, but you didn't even know that they are all found here in Wikipedia. Please don't be angry at me because I didn't do this, you did. Lanternix specifically said that the Egyptians weren't black and you let that slide without requiring him/her to prove it. And he/she directly related it to the ethnicity of St Maurice and you let it slide. Lanternix did this without any visual or literary evidence, and you still let it slide. I comment in return with visual and literary archeological research (which can be sourced in Wikipedia) and you reject it and comment on everything but the evidence presented. You would have to be Ray Charles not to see that the Medjay as well as the Egyptian and Nubian in Seti's tomb were black. I would like to assume that you can recognize a car or duck when you see one. Go back and click on the links in this and the above paragraphs. There's a wealth of information in them. The truth is only hard to swallow on the first swallow. It gets easier after that. The opinion here is that Saint Maurice couldn't be black because the Egyptians weren't black. If that's the rule, then St Maurice was black because the Egyptians were in fact black. Anyone care to comment on the research? Even if you aren't honest enough to call the Egyptians black, you could at least be visually honest enough to have St Maurice appear as the Egyptian appears in Seti's tomb instead of the European effigies that were created centuries later. Oh by the way, my actual name IS Tom. Just keeping it real. Tom 08/16/07

And, on this page above, with this link, [2], it was already stated that the image of St. Maurice changed from that of a Copt to a more ethnically African image. Your links for the images of other people, are, unfortunately, apparently an attempt at obfuscation of that previously available link on this page itself. None of the links you posted above, however, seem to apply to this particular individual person. The link above, which I reproduced in this post, does. You did notice the link, right? And, by the way, "keeping it real", I had suggested you actually register for an account, not just add your name as a signature. After all, anybody can say anything, Mr. IP. Once again, we are talking about this particular individual, not other people. And, just to remind you, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, which does regularly depict individuals as "black" Africans in their church, was only recently separated from the main Coptic Orthodox Church. On that basis, I have to say that, as far as the accuracy of presentation goes, the Coptic icon is probably the most accurate, as that church does not have any obvious racial prejudices. And, if you would follow the procedure I suggested above, you might receive links to the various important rules regarding sourcing of specific content, etc. Please do not again try to cloud the issue with these irrelevant links. Also, you failed to address the matter of Coptic objections to use of 3-D images to depict saints, which is apparently another reason to choose an image other than the statue. I grant you this saint is recognized by other churches as well, but those churches don't have such objections. The Copts do, and there's no good reason to actively alienate any religious community regarding an individual they consider significant. John Carter 21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You cannot separate Wikipedia from the world at large. Wikipedias significance is reporting accurately on the world at large. Wikipedia doesn't get to rewrite the rules of research. Wikipedia at it's best only get's to report research. Archeology included. So changing from a Copt image to a more African image was not the world issue. Changing from an African image to a Copt image was the world issue. Wikipedians were erroneously debating whether to portray the European copy as the original. Some Wikipedians were even trying to pretend that the copies were the original. The world is not responsible for how the truth affects anyone Copt or not. If they are alienated by original research then they are out of order and should change and embrace fact over fiction. When Lanternix put Saint Maurice's blood lineage on the table and it was not objected to, that left it free to be commented on. I only commented on and drew relation to what you, Lanternix and others had already put on the table. That's fair and relevant. The Copt Church, you and others may have a problem with 3D images of saints in general, but in the case of Saint Maurice it is purly his blackness that giving you and them problems. And virtually every reason for changing the image that you present here for discussion is just a means of covering up the real problem that bothers you the most. How am I to interpret your wanting to change the image of a saint to a fictional one to keep from alienating a religious order? If religious orders are offended by the truth, then there's no hope left. Another note. Pick up "The Oxford Dictionary Of The Popes" Oxford University Press 1986 and you will see that the Catholic Church in the first two centuries was supported primarily by its churches in Africa. Rome itself was converted to Catholicism under the African Pope Mechiades who reigned from 311 to 314 A.D. Look it up. Perhaps the Copt Church should follow the Africans again. Tom 08/16/07

I hate to address ignorant claims, and most of your paragraphs are nothing but that. But just a small thing that came to my mind as you were ranting right and left. There's a 3rd/4th century Egyptian saint called Saint Moses the Black. He's also a very prominent saint in the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches, in addition to the Coptic and rest of Orthodox Church. Why do you think people back then called him Moses the Black? Is it because everyone was black or because everyone except for him was not black? --Lanternix 03:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this is person is the same one who was using the Egypt talk page as a soapbox before. I left him a note about that on his IP page many months ago. Regardless, the consensus is obviously to bring in the Egyptian icon back. The Ramses quote and the article showing that the imagery of the subject was deliberately changed to a black person are informative. Don't understand why the afrocentrics keep insisting the Egyptians were ever black with all this evidence. Egyegy 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not only are they "ignorant claims" (in terms of ignoring data contrary to his own existing opinion), they explicitly fail to abide by wikipedia guidelines, including Wikipedia:Assume good faith, displays a profound degree ignorance of the subject (Copts are an entirely separate Christian church, not an "order"), and introduces the entirely irrelevant matter of Roman Popes as, evidently, somehow being relevant to this discussion. If the comments from this party are going to continue along these lines, and fail to address the substance of the article itself and provide any degree of Wikipedia:Verifiability regarding claims made about this article itself, I agree that there is no particular reason to respond to them, particularly given similar off-topic comments from this IP address regarding other related issues in the past. Should this anon's comments more closely resemble those acceptable by wikipedia guidelines, of course, that would be another matter entirely. John Carter 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To Lanternix, I haven't studied Moses the black yet, so I can't speak about him yet. Which claim is ignorant? Please be specific. What alternative research do you have and where can it be sourced. Please include your source for Moses the Black. Do you have any visual evidence that can be viewed? I've only reported what's been researched catalogued and displayed. The only respectable attack has to be made on the research itself, not on me personally. Assuming you don't have a personal problem with me. To Egyegy's claim that the Egyptians were never black in the face of "all this evidence". Well since you have all this evidence, let's see some. I don't expect anyone to believe me without documented material. I welcome any documented material that you have that will enhance my understanding of Egypt. My sources are The Boston Museum, The British Museum, The Cairo Museum etc. What sources will you be reporting from? I'm not sure that you can lable me an Afrocentrist. We just happen to be discussing ancient events that took place in Africa. So when you think about it, the Egyptians, the Ethiopians and even Saint Maurice were Afrocentrics whose lives were centered in Africa. Present your research, true and objective Wikipedians are waiting. Don't waste another paragraph with personal attacks on me. Tom 08/17/07

He's asking me for my sources about Moses the Black!!!!! Please someone answer Tom before I get a stroke! You've been talkinga bout research DONE BY BLACK AFRICANS motivated by AFROCENTRISM. Why don't you quote people like Zahi Hawas who totally discredited your sources on many occasions? You are providing NO evidence. You are providing CLAIMS made by a HANDFUL of people with very obvious and clear motivations. Your sources are NOT the museums, because the museums never claimed Ancient Egyptians were black. At best (or worst), they would have said that Ancient Egypt was a mixed society, much like America today. But when our books and history and Ramses the Great and the Coptic Church and the Fayum Mummy Portraits, Nefertiti's bust and the paintings on the walls of Beni Hassan and what is left of Thebes' statues say that Egyptians are NOT black then they are NOT, regardless of what those two Senegalese people are saying! --Lanternix 13:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to read where Zahi Hawas has discredited Petrie. He studied Petrie. Don't ask anyone to answer a question that was put to you. Answer it yourself, hopefully without a stroke. The Medjay Nubian Archers are from the tomb of Prince Mesehti 11th Dynasty and are presently on display at the Cairo Museum. The Busts and figures of Taharqa are presently displayed at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Harvard University-Museum of Fine Arts Expedition; The British Museum; The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Khartum, Sudan National Museum. The portrait of the four peoples of the world are from the tomb of Seti I. These are some of the very things that Zahi Hawas wants returned to Egypt. You mentioned quoting Zahi Hawas. Can you quote where he discredited Petrie (who is not black) or the authenticity of these findings. Please include book and page number. You said that he's done it on many occasions, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. Of course there were light skinned Egyptians. St Maurice it appears wasn't one of them. And before the Greeks and Romans came, none of them had a drop of European blood. You need to take another look at Nefertiti's bust, she had a really great tan. Beni Hassan is from the 17th century. Our discussion is about ancient Egyptians that lived 2000 to 3000 years before him and the invasions of the Europeans and Arabs. I'm particularly interested in where (as you say) Zahi Hawas discredited the findings of Petrie. Please submit it. Tom 08/17/07

As, frankly, none of the questions above are even remotely relevant to the content of this article, I don't see why anyone would have any reason to respond to them on this page. If you wish to raise questions on content related to those subjects, I suggest that you do so on the appropriate pages, not this one. John Carter 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Of course there were light skinned Egyptians. St Maurice it appears wasn't one of them. And before the Greeks and Romans came, none of them had a drop of European blood. You need to take another look at Nefertiti's bust, she had a really great tan. Beni Hassan is from the 17th century. Our discussion is about ancient Egyptians that lived 2000 to 3000 years before him and the invasions of the Europeans and Arabs." MORE AND MORE IGNORANCE!!! The saint Maurice has been debated over and over and people told you he was not black, so you need to prove from credible sources that he was, not from a medival european statue! The beni hassan TOMBS are Ancient Egyptian tombs Mr historian! Having a TAN does NOT mean you are BLACK. I have a tan and most Egyptians by far have a tan. They are NOT BLACK! I feel like I'm talking with an alien who never saw Egypt or Egyptians! --Lanternix 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Laternix, the sarcasm of Nefertiti was lost on you I guess. The first representation of Saint Maurice was that of a black man. You have not presented any credible evidence that he was not. The burden of proof is with those who want to change the original. You've called several Archbishops medieval and stupid. I've given you several opportunities to present credible documented evidence to support your claims and/or to disprove what I've submitted. Either you will not or cannot. Actually you cannot, because if you could you would have by now. If you're going to throw out a statue because it's medieval then you will also have to throw out every single bit of history that took place before that time. This includes the Chronicle of the Greeks and the Egyptians. You just don't have any thing to dispute these antiquities and you're embarrassed by it. I didn't open a tomb, I just pointed out what was found there. If you chose ignorance in the face of these findings you still can't stop the many people who've read this article from enjoying and being enlightened by this wonderful archeology. You and a handful of others will just be alone in the dark. Imagine calling Petrie and solid museum displayed Egyptian antiquities ignorant and worthless in an online encyclopedia. You really exposed yourself on that one. Tom 08/17/07

Any image that has copyright concerns is automatically disqualified as being an authentic representation of ancient history. In other words, if it needs a copyright it couldn't possible be an accurate representation of ancient world history. It is automatically false and misleading. What's being suggested here is that Wikipedians pretend that this new image is an original representation of the real Saint Maurice. It's an attempt to throw out real history and embrace a lie. What's next, a new copyrighted image of the Taj Mahal resembling modern architecture? Where will it end? Tom 08/18/07

Please note that you have yourself to date failed to provide any referencing for your statement above. If you can demonstrate with reliable sources, that, as you have said, the first representation of the subject was black (not first currently extant, but first ever) then your argument might have some weight. However, to date you have provided no references of any kind to support your comments. Without such verification, we are bound by the rules of wikipedia to lay little if any weight on such comments, as verifiability is one of the formal policies of wikipedia. John Carter 18:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested change

{{editprotected}} I have made several additions to the article, including adding additional information, at the page User:Warlordjohncarter/Sandbox2. It does include the icon, which, as indicated above, is not objectionable to Coptic Christians, who do seriously object to the presentation of saints of their church in statue form. I believe that this form of the page may well be the least controversial way of presenting the subject. John Carter 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally support this change. Thanks. --Lanternix 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do too and it looks great. Thanks for your efforts. Egyegy 23:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not support the change to anything that isn't original that doesn't meet the time line of the existing statue. I suggest however, for the sake of the Coptic Christians a painting using the current statue as a model. That should remove the Coptic's offense to the statue based on what is written herein. Tom 08/17/07
You are free to search for one yourself. I know of no such image. Also, as has been demonstrated, by sources on this page, the view of the subject as per the statue is one which is contrary to earlier views of the subject. Also, I have no idea what the opposition to anything that "isn't original" is supposed to mean. If by that one is indicating that they support only the original image included on this page, that is far from sufficient reason for anything, as it provides no idea why such opposition takes place. John Carter 18:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off on making this edit and let someone else take a look. I'm not sure if there is consensus for the image change. Also, the copyright status on the new image seems a bit iffy. It doesn't give any indication of when it was made or who made it. Also, the first paragraph of the "Ethnicity" section needs some sources, especially for the bit about Jean Devisse (unless I'm overlooking it). That one line seems to be supporting the entire Ethnicity section. --- RockMFR 05:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is now a reference to the book review which contains the information requested. Also, I have contacted the Saint Maurice Coptic Church, which displays the image on their webpage, regarding its copyright status, and am awaiting their response. Would a statement from that church that it is a public domain image be acceptable? John Carter 15:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There is consensus except for one person who has personal hidden motives against the change. In fact, the same person, who is NOT a registered Wikipedia user, is using an IP address that was associated with breaking wiki rules many times before, such as editing on Wikipedia during a 3-days edit ban. I don't see how this can be considered an opinion. We have provided ample evidence against the accuracy of the current statue. Thank you. --Lanternix 14:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Another statement for our case is: "The long and interesting history of representations of St. Maurice cannot be summarized here. Devisse and Moffat devote half of a volume to tracing the black knight's various appearances (2.2: 149-205). It should be noted that, like the Queen of Sheba, Maurice was not represented as black at all times and at all locations, but he became black in some areas around 1250." from [3]. --Lanternix 14:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I made very minor changes to the suggested page. I also wonder why the new image is being used if the other image of the same icon looks better and is accurately referenced with its copyrights clearly stated? Thanks --Lanternix 20:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Because I couldn't find the other image? :) If you have the link, and it has a clear copyright record, by all means replace it. John Carter 20:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All set. Please let me know what you think. Thanks :) --Lanternix 20:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. John Carter 21:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lanternix failed to present the entire paragraph from Devisse and Moffat. You will see that they had some doubts about there own assessment. "The long and interesting history of representations of St. Maurice cannot be summarized here. Devisse and Moffat devote half of a volume to tracing the black knight's various appearances (2.2: 149-205). It should be noted that, like the Queen of Sheba, Maurice was not represented as black at all times and at all locations, but he became black in some areas around 1250. In discussing the grouping above, I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King". I'm not the one with hidden motives about not changing the current image. Unlike Lanternix, I'm actually putting everything out for objective review. Not fair Lanternix. Wikipedians should be given an opportunity to weigh all of the research, not a chopped up paragraph. Tom 08/19/07

Very funny! And what do the rest of the sentences say about Saint Maurice? Don't they all pour into the same jar of Saint Maurice NOT being black? I suggest you refrain from Ad Hominem attacks and focus on answering the objections I presented earlier. You are still the one to come up with replies to:

1. The vast majority of history and archeology and anthropology and genetics books in the entire world (ok, this one is rhetorical) 2. Ramses' quote about the Ethiopians being "black" 3. The history books of ALL ORTHODOX CHURCHS ALWAYS mentioning if some saint was black, and the ultimate example is Saint Moses THE BLACK (aka. the other saints were NOT black!), or at least their ethnicity, such as Saint Tekla Himanot the Ethiopian or Father Abdelmessih the Ethiopian. 4. The Faiyum mummy portraits (AND PLEASE! Before saying they were Greek you have to explain where did YOUR black Egyptians of the time go! Or were the Greeks mummified and the Egyptians at the time cremated or what?) 5. Why the hell does Nefertiti look exactly like modern Egyptians and NOT like a balck person? 6. Why do the paintings on the walls of the Ancient Egyptian tombs in Beni Hassan represent Egyptian women as white, and Egyptian men as red/brown (tanned under the Egyptian sun from working in the fields all day long, same tan as that of modern Egyptians!) 7. The vast majority of Ancient Egyptian paintings representing Egyptians as having a color darker than that of Asians and lighter than that of Africans, again like modern Egyptians! 8. If Egyptians numbered millions when the Greeks or the Arabs came, and those only numbered in the 4 digits figures, HOW THE HELL DID ALL EGYPTIANS TURN INTO LIGHT COLORED PEOPLE???! Oh, and remember that Copts did not even intermarry with the Arabs, so how come our color is the same that that of Egyptian Muslims??? When you start adressing these questions WITH REFERENCES, we may start scrutinizing your claims! For now there is a concensus to remove that nonsense medieval European photo of a black warrior! --Lanternix 13:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Consider this. The only clear reference that you've given is by Devisse and Moffat and you chopped it up to trick everyone into your point of view. You forget that all the readers have to do is visit your comments from above paragraphs for this proof. I've given clear references to everything I've included and proclaimed. You've proven that you will avoid the complete truth to sway others to your point of view on a religious topic. So I'm going to give you a chance to redeem yourself and perhaps earn back your lost credibility. You started off your last comment with the question "And what do the rest of the sentences say about Saint Maurice"? I'd like to think that you know, since it was your reference to begin with. Make a statement and display your knowledge of your own albeit chopped up reference. We already know what the sentences say directly after the sentence that you originally posted, so enlighten us some more. So far your reference source clearly proves that Devisse and Moffats' assessment of St Maurices' appearance was nebulous at best. We also need to establish what is ancient Egypt. The Greeks were not apart of ancient Egyptian history. There was more than a millennium of Egyptian history before the Greeks ever studied there. I'm a brown skinned black person like Denzel Washington and have oftened described someone of Wesley Snipes complexion as black. It did not mean that I was white, it just meant that he was really black descriptively (i.e. Rameses' statement). We both are still ethnically black. Just like black Irish is a term for a dark but yet still white Irishman. You can check here in Wikipedia to see that the Faiyum Mummy portraits are also from modern Roman Egypt (i.e A.D. not B.C. egypt) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fayum_mummy_portraits For understanding of the lightened pharoahnic images of Egyptians go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Egypt Mind you, this is modern Egypt by Egyptian standards. The Romans, The Assyrians, The Greeks, The Libyans came like locust into Egypt for centuries (like they did here) and changed forever the complexion of the people there. But not all of them. You forget that readers have looked at the Medjays above from the 11th Dynasty (ancient Egypt) and seen how they look then and now file:///C:/My%20Documents/nubianarchers.html The bust of Nerfetiti is darker than Tyra Banks so there's no need to explain that. I've addressed your concerns. You mentioned that if I displayed references that you would start scrutinizing my claims. So far you failed to do so and outright dodged the idea. So nows your chance. With your direct visual, literary and page numbered references, scrutinize. Address the tomb findings of the Medjays, the tomb findings from Seti, the vast display of Tarharqa, the archeology of Petrie including the links that I've provided in this paragraph addressing your latest concerns, etc. I did it for you. And I welcome it in return. If you will not directly address these findings please let Wikipedians know why will not. They're gonna know anyway. Tom 08/19/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.108.59 (talk) 21:31:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

---

Ok. I've merged the page histories of the user subpage and this article. Everyone needs to get along and stop the bullshit. It's a pain in the ass to merge histories, and I believe everyone editing this article is capable of acceptable behavior. If there are contentious issues, discuss them here first, and when consensus is reached, you can add the information to the article. No more reverts and other nonsense, please. Cheers. --MZMcBride 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please include Devisse' entire statement of meaning on Saint Maurices image on the front page. "In discussing the grouping above, I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King". You made it appear that Devisse was firm in his chronological assessment. Please also make note for clarity that no one has ever presented or displayed or witnessed either in Wikipedia or the world at large an image that can be proven older than the black statue. The black statue however can be proven centuries older than any painted image currently displayed in this article here in Wikipedia. Please note that on the main page. Tom 08/19/07

• • Until you address all my objections, I will refrain from continuing this useless discussion, since you continue to repeat your refuted claims over and over. I have objections to be addressed from a REFERENCED historical point of view, not from the air! --Lanternix 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That was predictable. Tom 08/19/07

It was also entirely in keeping with wikipedia's official policies of verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view. John Carter 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to re-read your own and Lanternix's comments. Nothing that you've presented has been original or neutral and can only be verified with the omission of earlier research. Neutrality wasn't anyone's goal here, me included. The only difference being that some will cheat and actually omit elements of their own research to foster their point of view. Tom 08/21/07

No, actually, you need to read the pages referenced. WP:OR specifically excludes original research. And your own statement above that all other parties are non-neutral is itself a violation of yet another policy of wikipedia, assume good faith. I have linked several of the more important policies of wikipedia on the talk page of your IP address. I strongly suggest you read them. If you are found to be involved in disruptive editing there are potential penalties, up to and including blocking of an address. If you honestly think you have a case, then you would be within your rights to file a RfC. Otherwise, there is really no point in anyone continuing a conversation with someone who has yet to produce any verifiable evidence to support his own contention, such as yourself. John Carter 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There's been no disruptive editing and it's unfair that you should suggest that. When I say original research, what I'm speaking of is the oldest known findings. Not my research. When Lanternix used a partial paragraph on Devisse and Moffat you considered it verifiable. When I submitted the same but entire paragraph (exposing their own doubt) all of a sudden it became unverifiable by you. I guess Devisse and Moffat lost your respect. There isn't one thing that I've submitted that cannot be legitimately sourced. Everything that I've made reference to can be found in Wikipedia, a verifiable museum of antquities and/or solid archeological studies and findings. If these are not verifiable sources, what is? And please answer the "what is" question. You have discounted and disrespected people who's findings and writings are respected the world over. You are only interested in findings that conform to your pre-conception? You've somehow decided that museum antiquities, archeological findings and other Wikipedia articles are beneath you if they don't report what you already believe. So much so, that you in your wisdom have decided that they are not verifiable, except by you. Tom 08/21/07

Once again you are misstating things. And please, in the future, use terms in their accepted meaning. The full quote in the source itself indicates that the image of Maurice as a Nubian-type originates in a later century, and that prior to that time the prevailing consensus seems, as indicated in the text, to have been that he possessed Coptic features. I note that you have still failed to produce any substantive evidence which clearly and explicitly supports your own position. At the risk of repeating myself, we would need such evidence to be able to verify your claim. Please address that primary matter. Comments such as the one above are, at best, really a waste of time, as allegations of prejudice against others are likely to alienate them, particularly when you have yet to produce any substantive evidence to verify your own claim. John Carter 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

When Devisse and Moffat said "I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King". What did they mean? Or is this the unverifiable part? Tom 08/21/07

Why don't you find out? I think even you can understand that the quote above is far from being a statement of certainty about anything. John Carter 19:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not Lanternix's problem if you lack the capacity to understand. When Lanternix quoted a sentence, he came up with the source for people to verify it and read the rest. If lanternix wanted to hide something, he wouldn't have provided the link to the wuote! And as everyone except you has noticed, the rest of the paragraph agreed completely with the one sentence that Lanternix quoted. The impairment of understanding in this case is your burden not ours. Again, ad hominem attacks will not cause you justice here, and your disruptive, illogical and non-referenced claims will only further undermine your integrity. --Lanternix 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

To John. You wrote that the quote above is far from being a statement of certainty. Finally we agree. Therefore the Devisse and Moffat statement cannot be considered a catalyst for changing the black statue. By your own assessment it is uncertain. To Lanternix. You've said several times that what I've presented above is unreferenced. Which of my entries is unreferenced. Attack my entries directly. Which one or ones have I not referenced. Let's get off this unmerry-go-round. Which one of my entries is untrue? Tom 08/21/07

Basically, almost your entire post above is "untrue", or at best an attempt to dodge the issue of your own to-date unsubstanatiated contention. Please cease in your ongoing attempts to rephrase the statements of others to your own advantage. The entirety of the quote, as has been stated repeatedly above, supports the contention that the "African" image was a later development. Your attempt to indicate that because it doesn't support your position explicitly is prove that it doesn't support the position it does support is both illogical and at least somewhat embarrassing. I was I believe clearly and explicitly indicating that the above statement which you quoted did not support your own contention. I agree though that it's time for some of us to stop trying to alter the words of others and provide some explicit evidence supporting the contention that the Magdeburg statue is in some way the "authentic" image. I have seen no evidence of that kind put forward to date. And all these endless attempts to rephrase the statements of others does is basically prove that you are yourself, at least to date, unable to find any verifiable evidence which clearly supports your own contention. How about you producing some verifiable evidence to support your contention, as you have been repeatedly told is a policy guideline, instead of indulging in such transparent ruses? :) Without such evidence of your position, as you have been told, there is no verifiable source which can reasonably justify the change you wish to make. John Carter 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide proof that you later images are proof that he was not black. I'm not the one seeking a change here. The earliest known/produced/displayed and/or herein presented figure on the cathedral that was built in his honor is fine with me. Have you found any earlier figures yet? Since it's been said that they exist. I can't win an argument that the early Egyptians were black even when displaying several of them. How is it that you get to win a debate that Saint Maurice was white before 1250 A.D. without presenting one single image of him that predates 1250 A.D. The playing field should at least be level. Please present one referenced world respected figure of a non black Saint Maurice that predates 1250 A.D. If he was in fact portrayed that way for centuries, there should be something out there. Tom 08/21/07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.133.108.59 (talk)

The level playing field you seek is the issue of verifiability. A verifiable source has been found which seems to substantiate the idea that the Coptic image was the earlier one. It is now time for you to do the one thing that you have completely and explicitly refused to do to date, which is to provide some verifiable evidence to support your own contention. Will you actually try to do so, I wonder, or just continue to argue a position you can't seem to be bothered to provide any documentation to support? John Carter 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Image in Infobox

Addition links to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora, Wikipedia:WikiProject Egypt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints.

There is currently a discussion here regarding which image should be placed in the infobox of this figure. The issues include the religious sensibilities of some editors who will come to this biography of a religious figure, and the historical accuracy, or lack thereof, of one or more of the images involved. 21:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


The issue under discussion is which of these two images should be used in the infobox.

File:St maurice statue.jpg

Template:Puic

The subject is recognized as a saint by several churches, including the Coptic Church, which has a tradition of displaying representations of their saints only in flat images, not in statues. The argument for the other image is basically that the statue is the first recorded representation of the subject. You will also note by the way the ethnic divergence of the two images. A verifiable source has been provided to indicate that the image on the left is probably closer to the original view of the subject in the section "Ethnicity". With the exception of one IP user, who occasionally signs himself as Tom, at an IP address that has been involved almost exclusively in matters relating to the ethnic appearance of Egyptians, as can be seen at the edit history form that address here, there seems to be basic agreement to the use of the Coptic icon. It should also be noted that no evidence to support the accuracy of the depiction in the statue, other than its seemingly being the oldest extant representation of the subject, has been put forward, and that that image was created after the time indicated when the subject's appearance first changed from Coptic to Nubian, Moorish, or whatever. John Carter 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There has not now or ever been a verifiable Coptic image of Saint Maurice displayed in all of history that predates the Nubian one. Until such image is found and displayed it does not exist. It is only rumored of. Devisse and Moffat have never witnessed a Coptic image of Saint Maurice predating the black one. It's location has never been documented. Until someone on the planet earth has seen and documented it, it then is unverified. Obviously the black image carried authenticity with the church. There has never been anyone documented from that time whose images have shown him white. No artifacts found, no drawings, nothing consistent with the time in which Saint Maurice lived and even a millennium there after that showed him white has ever been witnessed by anyone on the planet earth. Devisse and Moffat made clear their chronical doubts of Saint Maurices images. The black image stands as a wedge against those who would commit historical fraud. If someone on this earth produces a white image of Saint Maurice predating the black one, I will give up this argument. Of course they are already down by two millennium. Have a happy search. Tom 08/21/07

I don't know: how about placing in the infobox two 2-D images of the saint side by side, one as a Black, one as a White with a caption as to the fact that the racial identity of the saint is under debate? Please remember that Wikipedia isn't about truth (i.e. which one of you is right) but about verifiable POVs (i.e. that some people think he's black while others think he's white)... Something to think about?--Ramdrake 00:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Saint maurice.jpg

. Is there any precedent for such action? I honestly don't know. Other concerns include the size of two images and the caption. I'm presuming the other 2-D image would be this one. Also, please note that these images are all already in the article. The question is specifically about which image(s) to be included in the infobox. Also, at least theoretically, I suppose Wikipedia:Undue weight might enter into this, considering that the existing state of scholarship, as per the reference in the "Ethnicity" section of the article, seem to indicate that one of the options is not currently considered reputable. Lastly, considering that this is a minor religious figure, and similar images of divergent ethnicity exist for many/most of the figures of religion of a period such that no photos of them exist, I am somewhat concerned about whether displaying an image which is according to verifiable sources "unreliable" simply because some people (in this case, one person) insist on it might set a potentially unfortunate precedent. John Carter 00:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will stand with the verification of 300 years of archbishops who were certain enough of Saint Maurice's image to commission a cathedral after him and bestow upon it his likeness. Others can stand with someone whose admittedly unsure of their findings. Tom 08/21/07

What bishops? The bishops of some European country thousands of miles away from Egypt, and some thousand years after St Maurice's death? Are you kidding us? --Lanternix 21:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It has already been noted that you can produce no other documentation to support your position. And your comments have already been recorded here. Please refrain from any further tendentious editing. The request was for outside comment. Your, personal, opinions are already noted. John Carter 01:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

At least with regard to the photo of the statue, the question is probably moot. I have just tagged it as a possible copyright violation. There's no indication of a free license from the source. (Once you actually track it down, that is. The source given in the description is the homepage of a school website, and the photo doesn't actually appear there.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John it has already been noted that you can produce no period documentation or period imagery to support your position. Neither could Devisse or Moffat. I wish that you required them to verify their findings to qualify for your belief. The most profound evidence is the statue itself. Only it qualifies as an archeological find. Ramdrake wrote earlier that Wikipedia isn't about truth but verifiable pov. But Devisse and Moffat never verified their opinion except to express their ultimate doubt in their opinion. I can't win this debate because we're not looking for the same level of proof. So you're going to have your make believe, later produced, copyrighted, imaginary images of Saint Maurice and the wonderful pretense that goes with it. Proof by chronological sequence, eye witness or standing archeology is not respected or sought here. I'm disappointed to learn that Wikipedia is not seeking the truth, but rather fictional povs to please it's subscribers. Your belief has been acquired cheaply. Tom 08/21/07

I believe it has also been pointed out that you have yet to produce any evidence to support the contrary position at all. Your belief has been, if anything, acquired even more cheaply. The fact that there is a printed, verifiable source is what is required by wikipedia policy. If you could be bothered to produce such a source yourself, then there might be more reason to give credence to your position. John Carter 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, John. The JSTOR source also says that "it was not until the middle 13th century that St. Maurice appears as a black man. Until then his image had been that of a white man."

In European artistic portrayals St. Maurice had generic "white" features, not specifically Egyptian features. Other sources do say that he was of Egyptian ancestry but make no mention of his physical appearance.

MoritzB 22:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So noted, and I see that the content of the article has been changed to more accurately reflect the statement from the source. Thank you. John Carter 23:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we to assume when Otto I received Saint Maurice's body in 961 (well before the 13th century) that they couldn't tell what type of body they had? Even though it was displayed in front of all the city. It's verified on the main article page. Is that not proof of an eye witness account? Your verifiable non eye witness source said that they are not sure of their chronology. And even though you know this Wikipedia isn't going to put that on the article page. Wikipedia is going to omit that. You and Wikipedia are going to pretend that it was never said. How in good character can you do that? You and Wikipedia could at least be honest enough to put the full meaning of your own verified source on the main page. You are only going to put half of what Devisse and Moffat said on the main article page. Randrake really opened my eyes when it was declared that Wikipedia wasn't about finding the truth , but more interested in what they consider a verified source. But even that's not true because it was from your verified source in the same paragraph that you and Wikipedia are quoting from, that they were unsure chronologically. But you're not going to use it because it doesn't say what you want to say. In fact it says exactly what you don't want to say. You have decided that those who built Saint Maurice's Cathedral are not a verifiable source. And you've decided that only the portion of your own verifiable source that says what you want said is worthy to be displayed. I must seem insane to you people for wanting you to display the full information of your own verifiable source. I'm stupid to think that character would lead you to do that. This may have started out as Wikipedia an online encyclopedia, but it has been reduced to popular-belief-pedia. You win. God Bless You. Tom 08/22/07

You do know that most bodies do tend to decompose rather a lot over 700 years, right? It is very likely that the skeletal remains weren't identifiable as a particular ethnic group. However, as you have been told repeatedly, if you could actually produce a piece of evidence which meets wikipedia statndards of verifiability, instead of your constant assumptions and presumptions, that would qualify for inclusion. To date, I have seen nothing from you which does not demand some degree of original research. We are limited by the policies of wikipedia of only repeating what has explicitly been stated elsewhere. We are not even really permitted to draw any conclusions of our own; all such conclusions included in articles must be made by others in a verifiable source. I personally think that your own regularly heated and insulting comments might become less common if you actually learned something about the policies which govern here. Again, as you have been told repeatedly, I think you might best study some of the pages I linked to on your IP talk page to learn what is and is not permitted here, instead of continuing to assume that your own unsourced, unverified conclusions, however reasonable they might seem to you or others, have a place here; they do not, unless they are specifically included in a verifiable source. Such verifiable sources are the only thing which can determine the content of an article. Again, if you can be bothered to find a qualifying source for your own conclusions, then I believe that such content would be included. However, your own insults and assumptions have no more place here than my own or anyone else's. John Carter 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, John! You have so much patience! I admire that in you! --Lanternix 08:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, you win. The article on the main page does not say the bones of Saint Maurice were received by Otto I, it said the body. The Egyptians embalmed their dead. We study their mummies all the time to determine what they looked like. After seeing the body of Saint Maurice, Otto I, the city of Magdeburg and 300 years of Archbishops built a Cathedral in his honor and likeness. "In the year 961 of the Incarnation and in the twenty-fifth year of his reign, in the presence of all of the nobility, on the vigil of Christmas, the body of St. Maurice was conveyed to him at Regensburg along with the bodies of some of the saint's companions and portions of other saints." It goes on to say "Having been sent to Magdeburg, these relics were received with great honour by a gathering of the entire populace of the city and of their fellow countrymen. They are still venerated there, to the salvation of the homeland". [3] The body is where the statue is. Wikipedia has different rules of reality, so you can win here. You can successfully display a fabrication here. But you can't take your paintings into his temple. So I concede to you. Again, and I really mean it, You win. Tom 08/23/07

So you want to tell me that you can look at Ancient Egyptian mummy, say that of Ramses II, and tell whether the mummy is that of a black or a white person? Have you ever seen a mummy before??? --Lanternix 12:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to revisit Rameses II and scroll down to the mummy section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rameses_II Tom 08/23/07

Here it is, what exactly is your point? Can you tell whether he's black or white looking at his mummy? --Lanternix 13:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramesses II was buried in the Valley of the Kings on the western bank of Thebes in egypt, in KV7, but his mummy was later moved to the mummy cache at Deir el-Bahri, where it was found in 1881. In 1885, it was placed in Cairo's Egyptian Museum where it remains as of 2007.

The pharaoh's mummy features a hooked nose and strong jaw, and is of above average height for an ancient Egyptian, standing some five feet, seven inches. His successor was ultimately to be his thirteenth son: Merneptah.

Mummy of Ramesses II.

A remarkable incident took place in the early 20th century regarding Ramesses' mummy, when a temperature change caused the tendons in the arm of the mummy to contract, resulting in a sudden movement of the arm, and causing obvious panic among those present. This story is often cited by those who believe in the "mummy's curse". According to some versions, some people even threw themselves from the museum's windows trying to "escape" from the "resurrected" mummy.

In 1974, Cairo Museum Egyptologists noticed that the mummy's condition was rapidly deteriorating. They decided to fly Rameses II's mummy to Paris for examination. Ramesses II was issued an Egyptian passport that listed his occupation as "King (deceased)." According to a Discovery Channel documentary, the mummy was received at a Paris airport with the full military honours befitting a king.

In Paris, Ramesses' mummy was diagnosed and treated for a fungal infection. During the examination, scientific analysis revealed battle wounds and old fractures, as well as the pharaoh's arthritis and poor circulation.

File:Sadat-Ramesses.jpg

President Sadat visiting Ramesses II's mummy.

For the last decades of his life, Ramesses II was essentially crippled with arthritis and walked with a hunched back, and a recent study excluded ankylosing spondylitis as a possible cause of the pharaoh's arthritis. A significant hole in the pharaoh's mandible was detected while "an abscess by his teeth was serious enough to have caused death by infection, although this cannot be determined with certainty." Microscopic inspection of the roots of Ramesses II's hair revealed that the king may have been a redhead. After Ramesses' mummy returned to Egypt, it was visited by the late President Anwar Sadat and his wife.

The results of the study were edited by L. Balout, C. Roubet and C. Desroches-Noblecourt, and was titled 'La Momie de Ramsès II: Contribution Scientifique à l'Égyptologie (1985).' Balout and Roubet concluded that "the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis" of the pharaoh's hair showed that Ramses II was "a fair-skinned man related to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterranean peoples, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa."

Look at this article on Egyptian Pharoah Hatshepsut and scroll down to the mummy and notice the difference. It features one of your sources Dr. Zahi Hawass. You will easily see that this is not a berber mummy. www.crystalinks.com/hatshepsut.html

A few questions remain. One, you still have not found a source which directly and specifically states your conclusion. I would be willing to admit content such as you have added if you found a source which specifically includes a statement to the effect that "having looked at the body, they determined it to be a black man". You have not to date produced such evidence, which is what we require. Also, it would help to know that the sculptor of the statue was himself someone who had specifically seen the body. As it is, I have no clear evidence available to me exactly when the statue was added. This is particularly problematic considering that the Cathedral of Magdeburg was destroyed in 1207. If the statue were in fact created after that event, then it would not be necessarily be ay anyone who had firsthand knowledge of the corpse, and your argument above would be fallacious. Remember, we are only permitted to "parrot" what has been specifically said by others here. We aren't even permitted to draw conclusions based on those sources. If you can find evidence regarding the specific history of the statue, specifically including a direct statement to the effect that the sculptor had based the statue on the body or anything else to that effect, that could be included. But inferences and conclusions of our own are specifically prohibied everywhere, however well-or ill-constructed they might be. John Carter 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

John I would be content if Devisse and Moffat's doubt of their own opinion was displayed on the main page. This is reference that you have clear access to. They were not sure and you have evidence of it. If I have to display proof that someone said that he was black shouldn't you or Wikipedia have to display the doubt of your sources alternative proof. Don't your sources have to at least be as certain of there opinion as you are requiring my sources to be? How can it be ignored that non of your sources have ever viewed the remains of Saint Maurice. Why can't Wikipedia declare eye witnesses a verifiable source? You would have to understand how confusing that is to me wouldn't you. Tom 08/23/07

Can you prove they were eyewitnesses? As stated above, we have no direct evidence to date as to whether the people who saw the "remains" were instrumental in creating the statue. We also have no information at present on when the statue was created, or by who. On that basis, we cannot say that there is any connection between eyewitnesses and the creator of the statue. Also, having read the quote, I don't see any real expression of "doubt of their own opinion". What I see is a necessary qualification of a statement. Once again, you are trying to point toward evidence which you seem to think exists which I don't see at all. I think you can understand how frustrating and annoying that can be, as well. The quote to which I am referring is "In discussing the grouping above, I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King". I see absolutely nothing in that statement which seems to indicate anything other than that the two images may not have been causally linked. I see no evidence of any lack of certainty regarding the separate statement that Saint Maurce started being decpicted as "black in some areas around 1250". If you see something else, please indicate how what you see is a necessary and unavoidable conclusion from the text. If it is anything else, then it qualifies as original research, which by definition has no place here. John Carter 16:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"I do not mean to intend any chronological genealogy" means that no chronological genealogical conclusion is drawn which includes 1250 A.D. "Specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King" means that the black image of Saint Maurice may actually be first and therefore original. Are any images submitted by the Coptics or yourself threatening to predate the black King? All that aside, I would be content if you put the paragraph in discussion on the main article page, since you see no lack of certainty in it. Tom 08/23/07

Please refrain from these attempts to put words in the mouths of others. It is either insulting to the intelligence of those others or of yourself. I did not in any way, shape or form say that. Please reread the comment I did make. I did read the original quote which I quoted, and the article itself, and I did not see how your conclusion was necessarily called for. I still don't. Also, I have never yet "dumped" quotes into an article, and have no intention of doing so here. Lastly, you did not address the issue of when the statue was created, and on what basis the statue was made as it was. There may be grounds for an agreement there. However, it will seem to involve some work on your part, other than simply arguing with others. To date, in your entire edit history, I haven't seen much interest in doing actual research into a subject. Maybe now it's time to start? If you can produce verifiable evidence on the time of the creation of the statue, its creator, and/or the events around its creation, that information would probably be included. Others could perhaps add the quote. However, I would certainly encourage you, who for all your history still haven't apparently created an account, not to do so unless you create an account, as Lanternix and maybe others who have created accounts could potentially remove such additions. John Carter 17:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Section for Outside comments

For some reason there is no refrence to when the Coptic Icon was produced.Harrypotter 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably because I don't have a clue when it was produced. I have a feeling you find the timing of its production significant, however. Please elaborate. John Carter 15:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well in this matter, I feel any depiction of St Maurice may represent a particular POV. Therefore it would be useful to know when where and by whom the said icon was produced.Harrypotter 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it likely that just about every image of the subject does represent a particular POV. I don't think the Coptic church necessarily keeps records of the creation of such icons, though. I looked and couldn't find any "sourcing" for the image. I do note that the only printed source found to date indicates that Maurice was originally seen as being a "white" man, and that the icon doesn't necessarily reflect that, depending on what "white" means in this case, which isn't clear. Having said that, I've pretty much seen that that church doesn't display any obvious racial prejudices regarding the subjects it depicts in icons. Clearly, it would be an assumption to think that it extends to this one as well, but their close association with the almost exclusively black Ethiopian church leads me to think that the church itself has few if any ethnic prejudices. Clearly, however, that is still an assumption. Not sure if that helps, but it's the best I've got on the subject. John Carter 19:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My concernis precisely that any image might be POV in the context of being placed in the infobox. The solution of having two adjacent images might help here, or simply a message informing the querent of the controversy.Harrypotter 06:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there ever been any precedent for placing such contradictory images in an infobox? I haven't seen any, and am not sure that doing so might not create some sort of unfortunate precedent. I suggested earlier placing the sculpture from France in the infobox, because it has no discernible racial characteristics, but it is a sculpture, and thus objectionable to the Copts. Another alternative might be placing perhaps "The Martyrdom of Saint Maurice" by El Greco painting Image:Elgreco50.jpg there. A picture like that might help substantiate the popularity of the subject, if a reader sees immediately that El Greco did a painting of him. Generally also, at least I think, we aren't used to looking for historical accuracy in such paintings. That would still leave the discussion of the subjects ethnicity for that section of the article. The description below the painting could also state "artistic interpretation" or something similar to make it clear that it isn't intended as being seen as accurate. John Carter 14:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone discovered or know the where abouts of any of the images that originally depict St Maurice as a white man prior to 1250 A.D.? Does anyone know where they were witnessed? Did Devisse and Moffat indicate a location? Did Devisse and Moffat provide any proof of there opinion as archeologists and explorers have always had to do? Did Devisse and Moffat ever lay eyes on that which they claimed? Did they ever store and catalog the artifact/image or images? Did Devisse and Moffat ever meet the minimum criteria (in this matter) by which archeologists and historians are respected (i.e. proof)? Has there been a conspiracy throughout the world to find and destroy these currently unfound white images? If Devisse and Moffat are considered a respectable source for this information, on what strength did they achieve there respect in this matter? What respectable source did they use to make this claim? Where are the multitude of white portrayals of Saint Maurice throughout the first millennium that Devisse and Moffat spoke of? Tom 09/18/07

They aren't required. All that is required for inclusion of information is that it be included in a reliable source, as per WP:V and WP:RS. If you could point to a source which meets both of those requirements which indicates that they were wrong, of course, that information would be included as well. Perhaps you would be better advised trying to substantiate your own position than continuing to attempt to impugn the sources that have been found to exist, or, alternately, question the reliability of the source at WP:RSN. For what it's worth, when making additions to the article, none of the sources that I saw addressed the matter one way or another. John Carter 20:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If proof is not required to make a reliable source reliable, then what is required to establish reliability? How did Devisse and Moffat meet the "Burden of Evidence" that's required in Wikipedia? Taken from WP:V "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is". Where is Devisse and Moffat's evidence of a white portrayed St Maurice prior to 1250 A.D. On this strength alone their entire paragraph outlining the doubt of their own assessment should be displayed on the main article page. POV would indicate that their doubt came from their lack of evidence. If they had evidence (i.e. portrayals) there would be no doubt. Tom 09/19/07

However, since there have been no other individual viewpoints presented, I believe it is appropriate to reword the opinion of these researchers to present it as the opinion of a few researchers, and not necessarily that of the entire historical field, as per WP:UNDUE, unless one can provide third-party proof that these are indeed the experts in the field.--Ramdrake 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in this conversation, it was indicated that the "doubt" the IP editor who calls himself Tom finds in the source was not found by others. I do not myself have access to a copy of the volume in question until this weekend. At that point, I will try to find if the doubt he believes they have is in fact present within the book itself. At that point, I should also be able to determine what images if any they have to support their contention. If the doubt is in fact present in the book, then there will be no reason not to change it. If it is not, then I can see no valid reason to change the article. Fair enough? There is however a very real chance that I will myself not be able to add the images, both because of possible copyright problems, and, ultimately, because I never bought a scanner to scan them in anyway. Also, there is the real possibility, at this point, that the images are only attested to in other sources, and no longer exist. If that is the case, then there will be no way to add them. John Carter 15:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Then, maybe mentioning what images are used to support their contention (added in the footnote, so as not to distract) would be adequate. But my intervention was also inquiring whether or not any other authors have opined on the subject, and if so, what their opinions were?--Ramdrake 16:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the book was published in 1981. Given the comparative lack of interest in the subject of St. Maurice in general today, my assumed conclusion is that few if any other people, other than perhaps reviewers, have bothered to say much on the subject at all. As I remember, Analecta Bollandiana hasn't addressed the subject at all, and they're about the only ongoing discussion on saints out there. But I can check, and I'll see what I can come up with. And, if they do make references to any nonextant images, I'll make some comments to that effect. As I remember, though, much of the discussion in the book was about the historical primacy of Maurice or the Black Prince, and that tends to fall in the area of scholars like Mircea Eliade, whose conclusions are generally considered well founded even if the direct "smoking gun"-type evidence doesn't actually exist anywhere. But, like I said, I'll see what I can find. John Carter 16:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I very much regret to say that while the several libraries in the city I reside are generally excellent, there is in fact no copy of the books of the 2nd volume of the work in question in this city. In fact, there is, according to the computers at the university library, only one copy of the second volume in any of the academic libraries in the state. I had stupidly looked only for the title, not the volume number, thinking, witlessly, that any library which held the book would hold the entirety of it. There are in fact at least four different multi-book "volumes" within that title. Also, unfortunately, as I am several years too old to qualify as a student, I am unable to request that the lone copy of the book held in the linked university libraries be delivered to me. Considering that the library which does hold the volume is in fact on the other side of the state, I regret to say that I am probably not going to be making a special trip to get it anytime soon. I can attempt to search for the specific volume in other libraries in the area which are not linked to that system, but I do not hold out a lot of hope for their having it. All involved have my most miserable apologies. John Carter 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite understandable, however, it doesn't do anything help assuage possible concerns of reliability and weight of the source, if all we have is a third-hand account saying that these authors said that. While it certainly doesn't disqualify the source outright, it makes it impossible to check to see if the authors were fairly represented in the one account we cite. Not sure what is the best way to deal with this.--Ramdrake 13:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check indicates that this sort of thing is somewhat within their purview, maybe. I have posted a "Question" on their talk page, and am hoping for a reply soon. Alternately, I can try to check other "linked" libraries and see if any of them indicate having holdings, and trying to ask individuals who might have access to those libraries if they would be so good as to check on the contents of the volume. That's about all I can think of off the top of my head, though. I'm still hoping that there might be a volume in town available somewhere else, and am going to check the various used book stores and other major libraries in town to see if they might by chance have a copy. John Carter 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the black image of Saint Maurice has been taken off the main article page. That saddens me not for the black/white debate that's taking place, but more for the pretense that the black image doesn't credibly exist. John Carter used a term "fair enough" a few paragraphs above. On that premise I'd like to comment. Setting aside the quest undertaken to hopefully find a white image of Saint Maurice that predates 1250 A.D.(which in itself will prove hopeless), I would like at least one of three fair things to happen. 1. I would like Devisse and Moffat's statement removed until it meets the "rules of evidence" required by Wikipedia. 2. If their statement is to be used, then I would like their complete statement used which includes "In discussing the grouping above, I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King". They are clearly stating that the black image of St Maurice may clearly predate their 1250 A.D. claim, and they made clear that they are not certain of a chronological genealogy of any images since the black image may predate it all. 3. I would like the black image restored to the main page and given equal speculation of credibility with the other images and noted that it is the oldest known image of St Maurice that can currently be found on the planet earth. I would consider any one of these things "fair enough". Tom 09/24/07

The image was removed because it was determined that the claim that it was a free image was found to be at best dubious. That image it is to be deleted from the records of wikipedia, as per the conversation at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:St maurice statue.jpg, and it made sense to remove the reference to the deleted image from the pages upon which it was included. There is another free image available of that statue, and I will add the alternate image of that statue to the gallery. Regarding your quote, absolutely no evidence has been presented that the quote may not have been taken out of context, and the reference to the Black Prince is not explained. If, of course, you would feel at all interested in adding verifiable content on the subject, we would be more than grateful. It would be at best nonsensical to add a quote which includes an important reference to something which is not explained in the article itself. Regarding reference to the quote from the sources, it is at least still seemingly sourced, as per the review which was always the listed source. We do not remove sourced information without good cause. Your "liking" something, to my eyes, falls well short of being a good cause. John Carter 22:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But you won't be adding a quote. You'll just be using the complete paragraph from which you're currently quoting only one sentence, therby avoiding the complete meaning of the quote itself. Just because you don't understand the meaning of the entire quote is no reason to assume that others will not understand as well. You've assumed that the part of the paragraph that you cannot verify in meaning is irrelevant to the sentence that you used from that paragraph. If any part of the quote being used is considered nebulous, then the entire paragraphical quote is nebulous. If the sentence that you used is considered accurate, then the entire paragraphical quote is to be considered accurate (and worthy of display on the main page) whether you understand it or not. It's not fair to try and have it both ways. If Devisse and Moffat are accurate in their timeline of the Black Prince (whether we're clear or not) and if they are clear on the timeline of 1250 A.D. but yet unclear whether the image of the black saint predates the black prince, then they are also unclear whether the image of the black saint predates 1250 A.D. They stated as much in their complete quote when they said that they could draw no chronological geneology. I don't have to know the timeline of the black prince. Devisse and Moffat have to know the timeline of the black prince. The part of the quote that you omitted is very relative to the sentence that you used. But you present the sentence on the main article page as if it is a stand alone quote from Devisse and Moffat and not a part of a complete paragraph. If the entire paragraph isn't (in your view) verifiable and relevant, then neither is a sentence used from that same paragraph verifiable. In the interest of fairness and accuracy you're either all in or all out. You cannot simple chop off the part of the quote that you like and present it as Devisse and Moffat's complete opinion. Especially since it is clear by the complete quote that the statement you used was not their complete opinion. Either you accept that they knew what they were talking about when they mentioned the black prince and his relationship to the timeline of the black saint or you have to throw the entire quote out as unverifiable. Or include the entire quote as being verifiable along with the chronological geneological doubt that they expressed in their timeline of whether the image of the black saint predates the black prince. You said that you don't remove sourced information without good cause. But that's exactly what you did. You removed nearly an entire paragraph from Devisse and Moffat's sourced information pertaining to the chronology of Saint Maurice. Either consider it sourced and put it all in or unreliable and take it all out. You can't fairly have it both ways. Tom 09/25/07

Tom, I note once again that all you have contributed is your own opinions, and you have yet to contribute anything of any substance anywhere. On that basis, please realize that satisfying your individual wishes is no one's priority, particularly considering your total failure to contribute anything of substance anywhere yet yourself. Having said that, there is a copy of the second book of the second volume owned by a college library across the state border here due on the 15th of October. I am not in a position to request that the item be held for me, but I can make an effort to try to be in the vicinity when it is returned. Beyond that, there is the possibility of interlibrary loan, which would almost certainly take even longer, and would require monetary outlay on my part, so I choose to do that only as a last resort. I will refrain from commenting on the presumptuous and clearly and seemingly accusatory tone of the IP editor who has proven to be so problematic in this and so far as I remember all the other pages he has ever been involved in, other than to say that if he himself could be bothered to add sources or verifiable content himself, he would not be held in the minimal esteem those who had previously dealt with him clearly hold him in. I also again note the clear POV pushing of another editor in saying that this statement ""In discussing the grouping above, I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King", clearly and explicitly is referring to "particular images", and is pointedly refusing to make any comment about the central concepts themselves. This editor's clear history of being involved almost exclusively in POV pushing regarding the possible ethnicity of all Egyptians makes, at least to me, going out of my way to address his particular points far less than a priority. This is particularly true given that he has, at least to my eyes, clearly attempted to pervert the meaning of the sentence to serve his own blatant bias. Having said that, though, I will take the steps outlined above. John Carter 22:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I did contribute something of substance. I contributed: "In discussing the grouping above, I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King". I contributed the part of your quote that you omitted. Actually you haven't contributed what you've read from Devisse and Moffat at all. You're obviously still waiting on the book. The paragraph that you're quoting from is on a website that tells you where you can find articles on historical figures. Here's the entire paragraph: 10. The long and interesting history of representations of St. Maurice cannot be summarized here. Devisse and Moffat devote half of a volume to tracing the black knight's various appearances (2.2: 149-205). It should be noted that, like the Queen of Sheba, Maurice was not represented as black at all times and at all locations, but he became black in some areas around 1250. In discussing the grouping above, I do not mean to intend a chronological genealogy for any particular images leading from the black King to Maurice, since specific images of the black Maurice may predate images of the black King. You actually put information about Saint Maurice on the main article page that you have yet to read. And then you called it sourced. The book is still across state and the article from which you are partially quoting is unsure of the chronology of it's topic after researching the book. I imagine your goal (once you read the book) is to come up with something more definite. Here's the web page that you found it on findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2838/is_2_33/ai_55577116/pg_18 Also note that the seed of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba sat on the throne of Ethiopia for over 400 years. Which is only logical since she was Ethiopian. Her non black portrayals are not found in Ethiopia. You can call me blantly biased all you want, I'm still going to keep rolling the truth back on you. Let's talk again after you've read the book. Tom 09/29/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.108.59 (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note as per the discussion on this and the other pages to which you have been a party pretty much everybody who has had some familiarity with you has indicated agreement with me. And even the paragraph you quoted above explicitly states, "but he became black in some areas around 1250", which, within the context of the paragraph, seems to imply that prior to then he was not portrayed as black anywhere. Such a clearly dubious statement should not be presented without a clear indication as to the true meaning of the content, which cannot be gotten from the paragraph itself. Representations in Ethiopia of parties who are generally considered at least somewhat mythical are clearly irrelevant to the context of this article. In fact, the content of this page should probably be adjusted to include at least one statement from the Theban Legion page, which includes a statement that at least one scholar has determined the entire legend of the Theban Legion is a complete fiction, and that other statements to that effect are commonly stated elsewhere as well. On that basis, the probability that the body taken to Magdeburg may or may not have been black does not actually prove that Maurice either existed or was black. Regretably, misattribution of remains of saints and other notables was and remains a common practice. I believe sources which have not yet been included in the page John of God indicate that he had a thriving business selling pieces of the true cross for several years, in the course of that time probably selling more wood than was likely used in the cross itself on that basis, almost certainly knowingly misstating their origin in the process. Professors of archaeology have been said to be involved in the fabrication of the plethora of fake Greece antiquities being generated in Greece today. The purported body of someone whose very existence is far from certain cannot be taken as being clear and convincing evidence. Personally, my only real reason for seeking the book out, which I will, is that I am interested as to what they said about the black king, on the basis of making making an article about that subject. However, I will seek the source available and include what information it provides that is directly relevant to this article. Until then, any further conversation regarding this subject would be truly pointless. John Carter 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Devisse and Moffat said that Maurice was portrayed as a white man prior to 1250. But it goes on to say "In discussing the grouping above I do not mean to intend, etc". This is where the importance of finding images becomes paramount. Devisse and Moffat should have written where they saw what they saw. Devisse and Moffat lead that writer to be unsure of their findings chronolically. Also like the Queen of Sheba, was his appearance nebulously commensurent with the ethnic of the people in the area where he was either claimed to be or spoken of. Whenever you have an outgrowth of varying accounts of anything, history always reverts to the earliest known account. In other words, the original account. Tom 09/29/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.108.59 (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The statue of Saint Maurice was stolen by Hurricane Katrina looters?

I suspect that this claim is just a racial joke added by some vandal (if Maurice was black in the New Orleans statue). Is there a source for this information? MoritzB 18:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)