Talk:Iconoclasm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)

Assessment comments

Religion Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.

This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
Neutrality: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

|B-Class-6=yes/no

[edit] Jewish iconclasm

I think Douglas Rushkoff's definition of Jewish iconoclasm ought to be integrated into this explaination, whereas iconoclasm is an integral part of Jewish theology, the act of which (on forefather Abraham's part) was the defining moment that gave rise to Jewish monotheism. -- Mobius1

By all means, work it in. Sounds appropriate for the topic. Wesley 16:10, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic influence

I was going to write in Christo-Islamic tradition that Iconoclasm was an influence of Islam in Eastern Orthodoxy, but I read here that Iconoclasm happened outside of Islamic rule. Did Islamic theology have some influence in Byzantine Iconoclasm? And the reverse?

[edit] Afghanistan

Just wondering if the following article is relevant to this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

[edit] Actual Artwork Destroyed

Many of the original artwork destroyed in Europe during the Iconoclasm Period were images of the original depictions of Mary and Christ. The Orthodox had Images of 'semi-Africans' The artists were not fully sure of what african features were, besides dark skin and curly black hair, thus the paintings and coins had european shaped faces with dark skin and curly black hair. Western Europe destroyed these original depictions. In Russia, the images survived destruction. This link shows a range of artwork from the times. [1] http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/misc_in.html Or just search for Orthodox artwork. There are tons of sites, and the artwork is for sale in some places.

[edit] Changes

Attempted revisions:

Germanos, the iconodule Patriarch of Constantinople, either resigned or was deposed following the ban, expressing concern that it would undermine the doctrine of the Incarnation. In the Western part of the Byzantine empire, Pope Gregory III held two synods at Rome and condemned Leo's actions, with the result that Leo seized some papal lands. During this initial period concern on the side of the emperor seems to have had little to do with theology and more with practical evidence and effects. Icon veneration was forbidden simply because it was seen as a violation of the biblical commandment forbidding making and venerating images. It also gave some the opportunity to enrich themselves through the confiscation of icons, as evidenced by the Council of Hieria's condemnation of the practice in 754.

Problem: The lack of theological defense was not merely on the side of the emperor at this point.

Problem: Who are the "some"? If you want to say it was Leo, simply do so and back it up with a quoted citation, but avoid given the impression that Leo's opposition to icons was primarily for enriching his coffers, for which there is no evidence. Otherwise that "some" enriched themselves is immaterial.

In a response recalling the later Protestant Reformation, Constantine moved against the monasteries, had relics thrown into the sea, and stopped the invocation of saints. (The "Iconoclastic Council" of 754 anathemetized anyone who "denies the profit of the invocation of Saints" among others.)

Problem: You present it without any point. The real point would be that Constantine apparently held some personal beliefs that went beyond the declaration of the Council of Hieria. Your problem, then, is how to present that in the context of the present article as somehow relevant. It would be very relevant in an article on Constantine, but it seems inserted here merely to "make Constantine look bad." If you can somehow increase its relevancy to the article and back it up with the appropriate quote and citation, it might well be added to the article. At present it is more appropriate to Constantine's personal psychology and a separate article on him.

You also removed a bit of information on how Patriarch Germanos thought that a change of stance would show "the church had erred." You completely changed it to give it a different meaning, rather than adding what you felt was an additional bit of information. It has been returned, and any addition will be considered for future inclusion, but merely replacing it with a quite different statement is something else.

Do not expect me to be so wordy in the future. I do not have the time.

Germanos did give a brief theological defense of icons prior to their ban. I added the quote to either this or the Icon article some time ago, and you deleted it, I can only assume because it contradicts your view of history.

The Council of Hieria did not name the specific princes and officials who enriched their coffers, so neither did I. I did cite that council, which if you read it the quote is easy enough to find.

The disconnect between imperial behaviour and what the Church had declared is highly relevant to this subject as well as to an article on Constantine.

If you believe that Patriarch Germanos thought that a change of stance would show the church had erred, please provide a citation in support of that. I have already provided a quote showing that Germanos's concern was theological, and that the error was in forbidding images.

For these reasons, I'm restoring the changes. Wesley 16:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lifeless representation forbidden

Wesley, I think that the first point of summary exaggerates, when it says

Iconoclasm forbade the making of any image or painting that was intended to represent Jesus or one of the saints.

Reading it more closely, the extreme view of the iconoclasts, which holds pictoral representation in such high contempt, is explained by contrast:

If anyone shall endeavour to represent the forms of the Saints in lifeless pictures with material colours which are of no value (for this notion is vain and introduced by the devil), and does not rather represent their virtues as living images in himself, let him be anathema!"

The point is not quite that image and painting are forbidden. Rather, "if anyone shall represent ... and does not rather represent". The contrast is between two ways of representing the likeness of the saints: by paint (which leaves their virtue unrepresented), or by imitation of their virtuous life. The latter is the tradition received from the apostles, the former is a vain notion introduced by the devil, according to the iconoclasts.

I think that the summary could better be written, "Iconoclasm condemned the making of any lifeless image ..." — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think if you read the council's definition in full, you'll find that a painting is exactly what they meant by "lifeless image", and that in particular, any painting of Jesus presented a false Christology just by being a painting of Jesus. Veneration was only one of the things you could not do with a painting of Jesus. You were also forbidden to make a painting/image (of Jesus or the saints), bring one into a church, bring one into one's home, etc. Wesley 05:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark's "Summary"

Mark's summary is incorrect. Iconoclasm did not condemn the making of any lifeless image. It condemned the making of images of God, Of Jesus, of the angels and saints for veneration. Secular images were not forbidden, nor was the cross, which was used to replace forbidden images in churches.

What I said was that it condemned the making of any lifeless image of Jesus or of saints (in the attempt to represent their virtues by colors of paint, rather than in a godly life). Paint as opposed to life, is the central objection. The image of Jesus can be seen, incarnate - in a life conformed to his image, in the church as it grows toward the full measure of the stature of Christ, the Head of the Church. It cannot be seen in a painting: a mere docetist shadow. The full quote of the Iconoclast anathemas makes this clear; and it's too bad that it was removed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Non-religious Iconoclasm

I don't know nearly enough to do this, but there really should be a section on (Russian) peasant iconoclasm, as it was such a major part of the history. Nearly every peasant revolt involved destroying "foreign" symbols, which were usually non-reigious things such as glass windows, or mantleplaces. Yes there was sometimes religoius aspects as well, but that was still 'out with the new, in with the old' iconoclasm. Iconoclasm manifested itself even more in the Russian revolution, where lenin had to take drastic measures to protect priceless (bourgeois/european) art, artifacts, symbols from destruction!

Yes - also the Cultural revolution should be covered Johnbod 04:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New edits

In The first iconoclastic period section: 730-787 section:

- In the third paragraph, made clarifications on who participated in the Iconoclast Council and its uncanonical nature. Referring to the Constantine Council as the "Seventh Ecumenical Council" is inaccurate. The Councils were numbered later on, and this one isn't the Seventh EC.

In the Issues in Byzantine Iconoclasm section:

- Removed sentence: "While the arguments of the iconodules were largely based on biblical commands and written Church tradition, John based his arguments on the Neo-Platonist view of the relation between an image and that which it depicts."

This is factually incorrect. Not only does it contradict the next few comments, but St. John Damascene used Biblical and Patristic material in his support of the veneration of images. There's too much material to copy over, but excerpts of his On Holy Images and The Fount of Wisdom can be found here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/johndam-icons.html). The Patristic support is vastly more supportive of the Iconodule position than the Iconoclast one.

Avraamrii 03:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning that up. I recall repeatedly asking an earlier editor for patristic material supporting iconoclasm, and if I recall correctly, all he provided were some writings urging Christians not to worship pagan idols. Wesley 05:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors on the Beeldenstorm

You may want to investigate that among Spanish Catholics there was a rumor that the Durch Reformers smashed the images of the saints but did not break the images of the devils subjugated by those saints. --Error 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] proposed merge with Aniconism

See Talk:Aniconism for my reasons against a complete merge. Wesley 05:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iconoclasm and architecture

In the current version of Islamic iconoclasm there are two out of a total of three paragraphs dealing with the reconversion of non-islamic religious builings into mosques. I don't think they should be in this article since the destructive action is directed against the builing as a whole and not against the images in it. A good example however is the plastering of the floor of the Aya Sophia. -- And yes, no merging with aniconism, these are two distinct topics. / Abjad 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] modern iconoclasm

Not sure where to put this at the moment, but worthy of inclusion IMO: Christian zealots destroy ancient Arctic petroglyphs, Randy Boswell, CanWest News Service, August 26, 2006 http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=8abe338f-f3f6-4a2e-a701-082e61411817 Шизомби 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what state courthouse ?

from the article:

Such one is the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. (an allegorical statue of Muhammad on the State Appellate Division courthouse ...

where would this be then??? Johnbod 04:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorted now Johnbod 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Muslim effect"

My apologies; I had written an explanation here before editing the previous version of this sentence, but seem not to have saved it:

The continuing cultural confrontation with, and military threat from, the inherently "iconoclastic" Islam probably had a bearing on the attitudes of both sides.

Two quibbles here:

1) Islam, especially is this early period, was neither inherently iconoclastic nor inherently 'iconoclastic'; the scare quotes don't help. There has always been a debate about the proper role of images in Islamic, as in Christian, society; and in the period in question there was in fact a robust tradition of figural representation in the caliphate, both in secular (e.g. Qasr Amra, Khirbat al-Mafjar, etc.) & in religious contexts (on the latter see the references in G. Fowden, "Late antique art in Syria and its Umayyad evolutions," Journal of Roman Archaeology 17 (2004), 301-22).

2) In terms of cultural confrontation: I know of no good evidence that Muslim "iconoclasm" or "aniconism" was a motivating factor in Byzantine iconoclasm. The Byz. stories to the contrary are post-iconoclastic and highly polemic/ legendary (see P. Speck, Ich bin's nicht, Kaiser Konstantin ist es gewesen: die Legenden vom Einfluss des Teufels, des Juden und des Moslem auf den Ikonoklasmus (Bonn, 1990)). In the earliest sources, i.e. Germanos's letters, the argument is made that to ban icon worship is to give comfort to the enemy, who had always accused orthodox Christians of idolatry, but the "enemies" mentioned here are heretics, heathens, and Jews.

The military conflict, on the other hand, may have been decisive; but this is a matter of Arabs qua military opponents, and anyone else, "iconoclastic" or otherwise, would have served just as well. See for example the discussion of the 727 siege of Nicaea in Mango's outline, "Historical introduction," in Bryer & Herrin, eds., Iconoclasm, pp. 2-3. --Javits2000 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My sentence is deliberately very tentative, and there is now never likely to be any new evidence to settle the matter. Despite a revisionist trend over the last few decades, I think that to seek to extirpate all reference to the "coincidence in time" between the emergence of a new rival civilization with attitudes, shall we say, leaning towards the Iconclast worldview, is to miss the elephant in the room.

I don't have access to Fowden, but according to Grabar in Bryer & Herrin figures in Islamic art were restricted to private contexts even then - a more-than-Iconclast position. Germanos does mention "Arabs", according to Mango's Introduction (and the quote in the article). Almost all the sources we have for specific happenings are "post-iconoclastic and highly polemic". Of course I have no problem with the reaction to specific military moments, especially in the lead up to the second period. "Inherently iconoclastic" is a not ideal shorthand formulation that could be improved.

Johnbod 14:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite right to note a somewhat modish and "revisionist" tendency in my remarks above; nevertheless I think it's a strong position, and its newness stems largely from the fact that the sources on the period have only recently been critically assessed (beginning w/ Gero's books).

When I refer to "polemic/legendary" accounts of Arab influence, I mean the stories according to which Leo made a deal with a group of Muslims/Jews/devils (largely interchangeable) according to which he would ban icons after having acceded to the throne through black magic. And these are, I think it will be agreed, rather more fantastic still than most other sources for iconoclasm.

I have neither Mansi nor Bryer & Herrin at hand & am relying on notes for Mango; I don't recall the context in which Germanos mentioned the Arabs, but can check soon enough.

I very much doubt that Grabar would reiterate his position of the late '70s today without modification, although far be it from me to put words into his mouth. In any case, public, figural art in Umayyad Damascus, and at the entry to the Great Mosque no less, is now fairly well attested: F.B. Flood, The great mosque of Damascus: studies on the making of an Umayyad visual culture (Leiden, 2001), on the monumental clock at one of the temenos gates. The desert palaces straddle the public/private divide; they were royal residences, and often served as reception halls. (Fowden, Qusayr 'Amra (Berkeley, 2004) & R.W. Hamilton, Walid and his friends (Oxford, 1988)).

It'll have become obvious that I think the thesis of Islamic "influence" on Byz. iconoclasm is superfluous, if not rubbish; everything necessary already existed in Byz. society. In general the thesis is tied to an old, tired notion of the Semitic peoples as aniconic (as if there weren't as many pictures in Syriac churches as in Greek!) in contrast to image-loving Hellas (this is clearly stated, for better or worse, at the end of Mango's introduction, a bit that is in my notes: "there is a great deal of justification for calling it a Semitic movement"). However that may be, it does remain a legitimate scholarly position; but if we're going to float it, perhaps the counter-argument should be stated as well.

It's Islam as "inherently iconoclast" that really gets me, especially if we're defining iconoclasm as the header does : "the destruction of religious icons and other symbols or monuments." This is by no means an inherently Muslim act; even "inherently aniconic" would, I think, be too strong. The phrasing at present denotes a concept of Islam as a religion that, as a fundamental tenet, requires the destruction of religious icons; and this does not match with reality. --Javits2000 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: a smart, general approach to the question may be found in G.R.D. King, "Islam, iconoclasm and the declaration of doctrine," Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 48 (1985), 267-77; accessible on JSTOR. z.B.

It is possible that the Iconoclast party within Byzantine territory was encouraged to imitate Yazid's activities, but in terms of doctrine and iconography, iconoclasm had deeper roots within Christianity itself. It did not need Islam to invent Christian opposition to images; the extensive use of icons in the Christian world was sufficient to stimulate a profound objection to them among those Christians who felt that alien, pagan-like practices had intruded into their religion. As to charges made within the Christian world that iconoclasm was the creation of the Muslims or that Leo III and his supporters were 'Saracen-minded', these were more in the nature of insults than precise references to a theological position. Epithets cast at one another by disputing Christians do not necessarily signify a deep understanding of Islamic attitudes in a period when Byzantine knowledge of Islam was limited. (268).

--Javits2000 15:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I have taken "inherently iconoclastic" out for the moment. I think you're reading much more into the sentence than it says. Looking at the whole article, I'm dubious about the wider revisionist emphasis - to say:

"... destruction of the monumental statues of the Buddha at Bamyan by the Taliban in 2001 was widely perceived in the Western media as an inevitable result of the Islamic prohibition against figural decoration"

- seems clearly untrue to me(I have since removed the "inevitable" here). There should also be something about the recent destruction of buildings in Mecca (and added this - apparently no article on it though). India in general is not good territory for the revisionists.

If you like detailed disputes about wording, have a look at this [[2]] about this [[3]].

Johnbod 16:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being a bit touchy -- but if you tried teaching Islamic art to undergrads, you'ld be amazed how many are, well, amazed to discover that there are in fact pictures there -- indeed long traditions of figural art (e.g. Persian manuscript painting). And considering how many undergrads get their info from Wiki....

No problem at all with including any number of individual examples of iconoclasm within the Islamic world; just so long as it's understood that Islam is not intrinsically iconoclastic, and that the figural arts have been tolerated at certain times (if you've ever seen mosaics in a Byz. church, thank the Ottomans), and indeed actively promoted at others. The subject should be treated in historical and specific fashion, not in broad generalizations about world religions. --Javits2000 17:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever tried removing a mosaic 60 feet up? No, me neither, bathrooms are bad enough. But I'm sure whitewash or plaster are easier, as the Iconoclasts often found. Johnbod 18:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Germanus/os letters

Whilst we're on the subject, in this bit (1st outbreak section):

"Surviving letters Germanus wrote at the time say little of theology. According to Patricia Karlin-Hayter, what worried Germanus was that the ban of icons would only prove that the Church had been in error for a long time and so play into the hands of Jews and Muslims"[15]"

- do you know if there are other letters actually dating from "the time", as opposed to the letter(s) to the two Cappadocian bishops from before the outbreak, which I suspect this is referring to? If not, it should be rephrased a bit. Johnbod 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There are writings (including a "testament," if I'm remembering correctly) attributed to Germanos, and supposed to have been written after his resignation. Best places to check: Haldon & Brubaker's Sources, or Stein's Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Munich, 1978). Neither at hand -- will check next week if I have a chance. --Javits2000 18:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - they're beyond my grasp. it sounds to me like the reference is to the early letters. Johnbod 19:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

At present the last two paragraphs of the "sources" section under Byz. iconoclasm don't really deal with sources -- more with questions of public opinion & the origins of iconoclasm. A suggestion: should we perhaps add another header to set this off, for example "Origins of Iconoclasm"? This could in turn be expanded -- i.e. the question of icon worship before iconoclasm (the Kitzinger model & Brubaker); the Quinisext Council on images; the role of icons in the military defense of Byz. cities. --Javits2000 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to be integrated

Serapeum - Christian destruction (388) of temple in Alexandria

Anglesey - Roman destruction of Druid shrine

Adalbert of Prague - Christian vs. Sacred Oaks

Martin of Tours - Christian vs. Sacred Tree

Leo IV and Irene (and the unfortunate Constantine VI) - for byzantine article

Tarasius

[edit] Reformation Iconoclasm Changes

On May 23rd, I edited, factually, the section to end in this manner:

Protestant Christianity, however, was not uniformly hostile to the use of religious images. Martin Luther argued that Christians should be free to use religious images as long as they did not worship them in the place of God. Zwingli and others for the sake of saving the Word rejected all plastic art; Luther, with an equal concern for the Word, but far more conservative, would have all the arts to be the servants of the Gospel.

“I am not of the opinion” said Luther, “that through the Gospel all the arts should be banished and driven away, as some zealots want to make us believe; but I wish to see them all, especially music, in the service of Him Who gave and created them.” Again he says: “I have myself heard those who oppose pictures, read from my German Bible. … But this contains many pictures of God, of the angels, of men, and of animals, especially in the Revelation of St. John, in the books of Moses, and in the book of Joshua. We therefore kindly beg these fanatics to permit us also to paint these pictures on the wall that they may be remembered and better understood, inasmuch as they can harm as little on the walls as in books. Would to God that I could persuade those who can afford it to paint the whole Bible on their houses, inside and outside, so that all might see; this would indeed be a Christian work. For I am convinced that it is God’s will that we should hear and learn what He has done, especially what Christ suffered. But when I hear these things and meditate upon them, I find it impossible not to picture them in my heart. Whether I want to or not, when I hear, of Christ, a human form hanging upon a cross rises up in my heart: just as I see my natural face reflected when I look into water. Now if it is not sinful for me to have Christ’s picture in my heart, why should it be sinful to have it before my eyes?”

I would like to know why my revision was reverted? -Paul Kiler, Pastor to Artists and Creatives, Missionary with Artists in Christian Testimony International paul.kiler (at) gmail.com Pkiler 21:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not by me, but I might well have done. Much too long, given the very brief coverage of the subject we have. The first bit has been left. You might try The Reformation and Art.Johnbod 22:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward to defend their edit in the past six weeks, like 'Doc Tropics' who removed my edit, I have reinstated it. - Paul Kiler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkiler (talk • contribs) 17:00, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions

As explained here the following was deleted in the article by Hornplease (talk · contribs) but no reason was put on the talkpage. Why was it deleted, and how could it be improved..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iconoclasm&diff=prev&oldid=154852950 There is also evidence for destruction of icons by medieval Muslim rulers of South Asia. The most famous concerns a stone lingam, an aniconic representation of the Hindu god Shiva, which was housed in the temple complex at Somnath in Gujarat. According to a tradition preserved by the 16th century historian Mahommed Kasim Ferishta, the Ghaznavid emperor Mahmud of Ghazni raided Somnath in 1025, looting the temple. The temple Brahmins offered to buy the lingam back, but Mahmud refused, and his army carried it back to Ghazni. There the lingam was broken, and a portion of it was re-used as the threshold of the congregational mosque.^[1]

What is wrong with Dr Flood? Or is the problem that the victims are polytheists? Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no question that the Muslim conquest of India was accompanied by enormous destruction of Buddhist and Hindu buildings and images, though there are far better known examples than the one you say is the "most famous" - the site of the Qutub Minar is already mentioned in the article, and the site of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya is all too well known. There are many more examples - some in Decline of Buddhism in India for example, most famously Nalanda. The question is to what extent these meet the definition at the head of the article:"Iconoclasm is the deliberate destruction within a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives ..." since the commanders at least of the Muslim armies were mostly to some extent non-Indian in origin, and whether Muslim and Hindu or Buddhist culture were the same is a complicated question. The same issue arises with Muslim conquests elsewhere. Your edit is incorrect in at least one respect, and ignores the text on the question already in the article. Johnbod (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I am not so much attached to the particular version of the text above, but complained about the fact that some editors on wikipedia think they can remove everything they don't like from articles without any explanation on the talkpage (or bogus explanations). It happens a lot in India related articles, and this is just a minor example. Just look at the article histories of articles like Aurangzeb. Just as with the Armenina genocide, there are some people, even academics, who would like to deny some facts. Merry Christmas Librorum Prohibitorum (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does 'iconoclasm' extend to non-visual icons?

I have in mind the occasional public destruction of recorded music, as is seen in the US since the 1950's, as outlined here: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/14759.htm

Often books, videos and CDs are destroyed together: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bookburning/21stcentury/21stcentury.htm

There is already a Wiki article for book-burning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_burning but I can't seem to find one for recorded music. Is a broader merge indicated here?

131.81.37.22 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this would be called iconoclasm; obviously the objections to images are of a particular kind. I think this would be classed with book-burning. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Destruction of Buddhas March 21 2001.jpg

The image Image:Destruction of Buddhas March 21 2001.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] akward

this "Iconoclasm is the practice of destroying/ridiculing cultural icons or institutions or not being allowed to depict an icon within a culture of the culture's own religious icons and other symbols or monuments, usually for religious or political motives" is akward, at best74.192.12.135 (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is! Now changed back to the old version - I don't know when that happened. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.