Talk:Aureola

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Original article from 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica

Is the reference to Roman "Mithras" ("the Bull-Slayer") correct, or should that be the Persian/Zoroastrian "Mithra"? (Or perhaps the Hindu Mitra?)
Jorge Stolfi 03:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mandorla[edit]

Mandorla should really have its own page, as it isn't the same thing as Aureola.

I agree. Thoughts, anyone? Majoreditor (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below - I'd combine both with Halo, note that Halo starts "A halo (From Hebrew; הילה, hila) (Greek: ἅλως; also known as a nimbus, aureole, glory, or gloriole) [...]". Pbhj (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strange blunder[edit]

I see this page follows what the OED calls the "strange blunder" of Didron (1851) in respect of both the meaning and derivation of the term, which really needs sorting. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinctions drawn between aureole/a and halo here are not actually correct - see here, and halo now covers most of this material more fully. I am proposing redirecting aureole/a to halo, merging the first part of the text, and then renaming the article "mandorla". Any thoughts? Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to combine Halo, Mandorla, Nimbus, Aureola under the title Halo. As a native English speaker I think this is what the common man would use to name these terms collectively. The header should have a clear disambiguation of the terms to allow the reader to follow the track for the correct technical term for what they're after. Pbhj (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:KanishkaBuddha2.jpg[edit]

Image:KanishkaBuddha2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be added [1] , parts of it.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.213.180 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Christian halo / aureola[edit]

The bit about this being Pre-Christian is badly written. It mentions the use prior to Christian use - "the same motif was known from several centuries earlier, in pre-Christian Hellenistic art", which hints at pre current epoch, but then mentions a list of kings starting with Kanishka (and presumably chronologically). Kanishka dates from 120± AD (eg this blog, coinsencyclopedia). Which means that the motif is known in post-Christian Hellenistic art, ie there's evidence that there is earlier surviving art from other religious traditions. But it's possible that this originated with Christian depictions or was inspired somehow by events or traditions pertaining to Jesus. I'd be happy to rule this option out with some firm evidence of a pre CE depiction showing a clear halo.

There appears to be some good stuff in Images and ideas in the middle ages by Gerhart B. Ladner, pp 149+, concerning haloes, aereola, mandorla and nimbus, particularly square nimbus ("nimbi" if you like). Ladner discusses E H Ramsden's "The Halo:[...]" and about 50 other citable works in Latin, German, French and English starting from [foot]note 124 and encompassing at least note 131. He doesn't appear to directly mention works pre CE, nor does he mention the works he relies on to assert that the Christian halo as a symbol for Christ dates from the 4th Century. Pbhj (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aureola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aureola&oldid=1199191371"