Talk:Tree of Jesse

old

This article should explain the story of the tree of jesse. This article should include the symbols.

Of interest

From the eleventh century the 'Tree of Jesse' has been portrayed in religious illuminations, manuscripts, wall paintings, wood carvings and stone including a tomb stone; stained glass windows, floor tiles and embroidery. The idea of treating Christ's Genealogy under the semblance of a vine, arose most probably from the passage in the book of Isaiah 11:1-3, the R.S.V Bible reads: 'And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots........' In the representation of the Tree, it is usual for Jesse to be portrayed recumbent with a tree rising from his body, and the ancestors of Christ depicted in its branches with Prophets, and Christ at the summit. The earliest illustrated manuscripts did not always depict Jesse or Christ. The genealogy in the Tree of Jesse usually follows the genealogy of Christ in the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel. Not all illustrations include the same figures, the number of characters depicted are determined by the size of the area provided for the illustration, such as seven light windows or three light windows. Malcolm Low. Malcolm Low can be contacted for further information through http://www.holytrinitystcolumba.org.uk/jesse_tree.html

Malcolm Low has recorded over 300 illustrations found in Cathedrals, Churches, Museums, State owned buildings and Libraries throughout the British Isles, Ireland and in Countries from Austria to Turkey; the United States of America and South America. http://www.holytrinitystcolumba.org.uk/jesse_tree.html --Amandajm 04:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous material

"In medieval Christian legend, it is also the physical tree from which the True Cross was made. However the references to the tree of Jesse in the Bible are most often taken to be only figurative"

When this page was first begun, a contributor put up a statement to the effect that the Jesse tree was in medieval times considered to be the tree of the Crucifixion. This statement has been slightly modified by a more knowledgable contributor, but it should have been deleted. The only part of it that is correct is the medieval association. The "Tree of Jesse" and the Tree of Jesus' Crucifixion are not one and the same. Why not?

• The "Tree of Jesse" refers to a prophecy by Isaiah, 11:1 quoted above. It is a metaphoric tree of which Jesus is part, not a wooden tree of which the cross is part.

• The medieval Legend concerning the Tree of the Crucifixion also has its origins with an Anccestor of Jesus, bbut a much earlier ancestor- Adam, the first man.

(the statement - it is also the physical tree from which the True Cross was made - has now been removed)

(Don't quote me on this- some of the details are shaky)

When Adam died a seed from the tree of the Garden of Eden was still within his body. After his burial the seed grew out from his mouth into a fine large tree. Many years later it was cut down and turned into a bridge. The Queen of Sheba in ppassing on her way to visit King Solomon, recognised the bridge as Holy and knelt to worship it. Many generations later the same wood was used for the crosses of Jesus and the two theives. The crosses were stolen as relics and buried. In the late third century, St Helenna, mother of the Emperor Constantine was led the the place where they were hidden. By some miracle (I forget which) the True Cross was revealed from the other two. Constantine, prevailed on by his mother, carried a small piece of the Cross into battle and when he drew it out, the leader of the opposite side fell on his knees before it and the battle was won. This inspired Constantine to put no further faith in idols and to give religious tolerance to the persecuted Christians. Since the wood of the cross seems to have miraculously multiplied because there is currently enough splinters in churche all around the world for about 200 True Crosses.

Jesse has no part whatsoever in this story, but his more famous grandson Solomon gets a passing reference.

--Amandajm 03:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed from the section on the gospel genealogies the claim that Luke gives the genealogy of Joseph's father-in-law, Heli. There is much dispute about the difference in the genealogies, which is explained in detail at the page to which I have now cross-referred, leaving the only point that is important for this article - that both genealogies trace the lineage through Jesse and David. Matruman (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting of intro

In all good faith, I have to presume that the person who restored this paragraph, must have thought that:-

• it contained information otherwise left out
• it had been removed in error

From the eleventh century the 'Tree of Jesse' has been portrayed in religious illuminations, manuscripts, wall paintings, wood carvings and stone including a tomb stone; stained glass windows, floor tiles and embroidery. The idea of treating Christ's Genealogy under the semblance of a vine, arose most probably from the passage in the book of Isaiah 11:1-3, the R.S.V Bible reads: 'And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots........' In the representation of the Tree, it is usual for Jesse to be portrayed recumbent with a tree rising from his body, and the ancestors of Christ depicted in its branches with Prophets, and Christ at the summit. The earliest illustrated manuscripts did not always depict Jesse or Christ. The genealogy in the Tree of Jesse usually follows the genealogy of Christ in the first chapter of Matthew's Gospel. Not all illustrations include the same figures, the number of characters depicted are determined by the size of the area provided for the illustration, such as seven light windows or three light windows.

So why did I rewrite it?

• From the eleventh century the 'Tree of Jesse' has been portrayed in religious illuminations, manuscripts, wall paintings, wood carvings and stone including a tomb stone; stained glass windows, floor tiles and embroidery.

This is not wikipedia style. The intro needs to state what or who the thing is, as in:- The Tree of Jesse is....

• So what is the Tree of Jesse?

The Tree of Jesse (Stump of Jesse, Root of Jesse) is a metaphor used in Isaiah.

• The writer above goes on to say that The idea of treating Christ's Genealogy under the semblance of a vine, arose most probably from the passage in the book of Isaiah 11:1-3,.

There is not probably about it. The earliest-known depiction, which I have sourced and cited shows Isaiah, Jesse, the Tree and a loose quotation of the passage.

• Depictions date from the 11th century, but the metaphor dates from Isaiah. So we start this article, not by saying that the subject has been shown in Art since the 11th century, but state the quotation first.

• The problem in part lies because people get themselves tied in knots over whether it is Tree, Stump, Root, Shoot, Twig, Bloom etc. And whether it is a Tree or a Vine.

If you are locked into thinking "This article is about Tree of Jesse, but the quotation says stump so the article must start from first picture of tree not first mention of concept, then what you need to do is make an entirely new article called Depictions of the Tree of Jesse, which seems to me like a pointless exercise,, bbecause this article is quite sufficient to deal with

a) The Concept (dating from Isaiah)

b) The Representation (earliest known, 11th century).

• So then, is there any importance whether an old document says Tree, Stump, Root, Shoot, Twig, Bloom or whether the depiction shows a real tree or a vine.

The answer is :- No! It's largely in the translation. And Jesus used the metaphor "Vine and Branches".

Jesus didn't lock himself into a particular metaphor, for example he talked about himself as a shepherd in about four different ways, each making an entirely different point.

None of the precise terminology is significant. It is all dependent upon whether you are looking at a translation process that goes Hebrew-Latin-English, Hebrew-Latin-French-English, Hebrew-Latin-German-English. All that it means is that, like a new shoot coming from wood that seems dead, the old stock of Jesse will produce growth.

The key thing here is not whether it is a root or stump, it is something that seems dead, but is only "dormant". What will come forth, (call it variously root, shoot, rod, sprig, tree or blossom) is "Life"!

• The list of ways in which the Jesse tree has been represented needs to go a little further down the article. It isn't of Definition importance.

Here's the List:- "religious illuminations, manuscripts, wall paintings, wood carvings and stone including a tomb stone; stained glass windows, floor tiles and embroidery."

So rather than dumping back in the first paragraph, we expand the article in a scholarly manner because we are writing an enclyclopedia.

• Information needs its sources citing.

--Amandajm 10:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish to thank all of those taking part in this discussion. I have been interested in the iconography of the Tree of Jesse and wished to add to the original short text which were only a few lines. I am pleased to think that the topic has been expanded upon in a "scholarly manner"for the encyclopedia. What has been accomplished is a greater interest in the subject which had not been there before my addition to the encyclopedia.

As far as the headings listed below are concerned I have described them in my 'Tree of Jesse'Directory of over 300 references and listed the origination of the references.

"religious illuminations, manuscripts, wall paintings, wood carvings and stone including a tomb stone; stained glass windows, floor tiles and embroidery." Malcolmlow 21:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed material==

The material that is below has come from the article. The reason that it has been removed is that it is not "encyclopedic". It is an "essay", or a "disertation" or perhaps a "homily" rather than the facts about the topic. Wkipedia has quite strict rules about putting up ones own "research' or "opinion".

However, I'm sure that some of the material could be incorporated, perhaps under the heading- quotations pertaining to the Jesse Tree.

But an encyclopedic article can't use expressions like "You would normally think..." and "So it would seem..."

• (Quoted passage transferred to new section - see note below)

--Amandajm 14:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've put the passage in a separate section below, as i'll reference it here in a note to the article. I've looked to see how I could incorporate some of it directly, but it is covering wider issues than the Tree, & does not refer to the same passges (Luke 1:42 for example) that you see in the writings of the Church Fathers mentioning Jesse (abundant refs in Catholic Encyclopedia). Johnbod 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Root, Branch and Stem

"You normally think of a root of a tree or of a plant as coming before the trunk or the branches. So it would seem that Jesse (or his son David) would be spoken of as the root from which Jesus eventually sprang. Still, Isaiah 11:10 foretold that the coming Messiah would be “the root of Jesse,” and Romans 15:12 applied this prophecy to Jesus Christ. Later Revelation 5:5 called him “the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the root of David.” There are reasons for these designations.

The Bible often uses a plant, such as a tree, illustratively. Sometimes this draws on the fact that as a seed sprouts and grows, the roots develop before the boughs, other branches, or fruit being supported by the roots. For example, Isaiah 37:31 reads: “Those who escape of the house of Judah, those who are left remaining, will certainly take root downward and produce fruitage upward.”—Job 14:8, 9; Isaiah 14:29.

If harm comes to the root, the rest of the tree feels the effect. (Compare Matthew 3:10; 13:6.) Accordingly, Malachi wrote: “‘The day that is coming will certainly devour them,’ Jehovah of armies has said, ‘so that it will not leave to them either root or bough.’” (Malachi 4:1) The meaning is clear—complete cutting off. The parents (roots) would be cut off, as well as their offspring (boughs). This underscores the responsibility parents have toward their minor children; the lasting future of minor children could be determined by their parents’ standing before God.—1 Corinthians 7:14.

The language at Isaiah 37:31 and Malachi 4:1 draws on the fact that boughs (and the fruit on secondary branches) derive their life from the root. This is a key to understanding how Jesus is the “root of Jesse” and the “root of David.”

In a fleshly way, Jesse and David were Jesus’ ancestors; they were the roots, he the offshoot or bough. Isaiah 11:1 said of the coming Messiah: “There must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jesse; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful.” Similarly, at Revelation 22:16, Jesus calls himself “the offspring of David.” But he also terms himself “the root of David.” Why?

One way Jesus is the “root” of Jesse and David is that by means of him their genealogical line stays alive. No human today can prove that he is of the tribe of Levi, Dan, or even Judah, but we can be certain that the line of Jesse and David lives on because Jesus now is alive in heaven according to the bible.—Matthew 1:1-16; Romans 6:9.

Jesus also received the position of heavenly King. (Luke 1:32, 33; 19:12, 15; 1 Corinthians 15:25) This bears on his relationship even with his ancestors. Prophetically, David called Jesus his Lord.—Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34-36.

Finally, Jesus Christ is empowered as Judge. During the coming Millennium, the benefits of Jesus’ ransom will extend also to Jesse and David. Their life on earth then will depend on Jesus, who will serve as their “Eternal Father.”—Isaiah 9:6.

Consequently, though Jesus sprang from the line of Jesse and David, what he has become and will yet do qualifies him to be called “the root of Jesse” and “the root of David.”

[Footnotes]

An ancient Phoenician funerary inscription used similar language. It said of any who opened the burial place: “May they not have root below or fruit above!”

— from Vetus Testamentum, April 1961. Author ? "

transferred from section above Johnbod 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention Malcolm, Johnbod, Jesse

• The TOC (table of Contents) had grown too long because every item had a heading and there were lots of them. To avoid this, I have simply turned the sub-sub-headings into bold type. Which means that before you save you need to double-check the fomatting and add an extra line if necessary.

• The beautiful pic of the manuscript got squashed in the rearrangement, so it is in the text. In order to make the pic fit better, I incorporated the info into the text (yes Johnbod, it's all there!)

• But there was a little problem getting the pic to fit, so I added a (br clear=all) to keep the next heading from being in the wrong place. Sooo, if you add more text about manuscripts, add it above the clear=all, not below it. Once there is sufficient text on manuscript, the clear=all can be deleted.

--Amandajm 13:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok - it's much better. I think I have a little more to add on the manuscripts, but not much. I'll probably do it in the next day or so. Johnbod 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Done now, clear all removed. Btw, I looked in Commons for a nice Beatus B for the Gallery, but there are none - I'll probably track one down at some point. Johnbod 14:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

actually I will also add bits more, on architectural stone carvings in particular. Also re the shoot/stump etc discussion above, there is a rather separate iconographic tradition (older than the Tree) of a hand-held shoot for Christ & the Virgin etc - looks straight like a palm normally. A bit on that should go somewhere. Also is "icons" at the tops correct? I think it is just a western thing. Apparently a normal looking tree in the background of many Byzantine Nativities represents the T of J (says Schiller), but that is not really the same. Johnbod 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Johnbod 16:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant Pic of Hildersheim!

For my next question:

That ceiling at Ely Cathedral.... what is its subject mattter? It's not another Jesse Tree/Ancestors of Christ iis it? --Amandajm 04:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

seems so - [1] - but (lets be clear) he'd never seen Hildesheim till after he did it! I thought you were on holiday? Johnbod 04:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I moved the first section header up as the contents box had got pushed below the Chartres pic. But now we have more than a screen of all text, which is not good. Really we need more good pics - maybe some of the manuscript ones I have linked to. I think I have exhausted Commons. Johnbod 01:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

- now done, also the Vulgate point below Johnbod 02:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've pretty much finished now, but then I always say that. Nothing too drastically changed for anyone I hope. Anyway, I think it's looking pretty good now - we need more iconographic stuff on WP. cheers Johnbod 05:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)\

Holiday?

on Wednesday. Johnbod, can you utilise what Malcolmlow has written, which I removed because it was too POV, and read to much like a sermon. I simply left it on this page, because I thought it was useful, and has a number of quotations to be drawn on.

Also, I didn't know ther was a Genealogy of Jesus page. It's often called Ancestors of Christ. Consequently, I've been going to start a page, but have been preoccupied. What I will do is, in articles where I have mentioned the {{Ancestors of Christ]] eg Sistine Chapel ceiling, I will link to Genealogy instead.

Have fun! --Amandajm 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I did a redirect from A of C to G of J (G of C also works), so that now works too. But obviously ideally we should use the direct link or disam it. As you will see the article is very much biblical scholars - more could certainly be added on the art. I'll look at Malcolm's stuff, although the article is getting quite long. Johnbod 15:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Amandajm and Johnbod

I would like to correct a mis-haprehention on the 'POV' I did not write that article, my work has been accepted by Amanda and changed by Amanda which I fully appreciated. I did not write the Sermon it was someone else. Please would you acknwledge that fact for me. I am delighted as I am sure you both are with the aricle, but for an encyclopedia is it going to be too long? I have difficulty in uploading other photographs of church windows but maybe there is enough there aready.

Please enjoy your holiday Amanda and look forward to yours and johnbod's further commments. M. R. Low 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC) why my signiture has become M R Low i don't know!! M. R. Low 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm, Is "Vetem testamentum" a journal or similar? Do you know the author - they should get a credit really? I can add some of it, but i think most of it should stay here on the talk page, or be in a separate article, but that would have to referenced to theologians etc, which is not my area of expertise at all. I agree this article does not want to be much longer, and we have reached a good level of comprehensiveness.

Btw, I only just realized there is a commons category Jesse Tree, hiding as a subcategory of Genealogy of Jesus - in fact all images in both are Jesse Ts really. I haven't added the tag, as at the moment I think we have everything used in the article. Johnbod 16:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod, I would like to point out again that the article "Vetem testamentum" is not my entry it is by an unknown contributor and I do not wish to be associated with the article. Please re- check the signature at the bottom. I do appreciate all the work that has been done with the Tree of Jesse and really do feel that we have reached saturation point. I have also answered the henry Rolls query for you. 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC) M. R. Low 14:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sermon

Righto! If you didn't write the sermon and you can name the person who did, then we have no trouble using it, simply because it isn't the "original research" or the "Point of View" of of a contributor to the page! Can you tell us who wrote it? Yes I'm still here. It's just turned Tuesday where I am. --Amandajm 13:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC) --Amandajm 13:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy the break! Johnbod 16:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regret I don't know who wrote the article, I also note that my signiture has changed from Malcolmlow to M.R.Low and I don't know why!! can you help lease. have a nice break. M. R. Low 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Malcolmlow 10:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Isaiah

I notice the RSV we use has: And there shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots... - but the Vulgate has: "et egredietur virga de radice Iesse et flos de radice eius ascendet " Isaiah 11,1 , or as Male's translator has it ".. a rod out of the root of jesse, and a flower shall rise up..." - "flos" being "flower" - i'm not sure what else it could mean, but I think (see monk quoted) flower is how they mostly took it.

- since Jesus and others are shown based in discreet flower-cups, i wonder if we can find a translation closer to the Latin, or explain it somehow.

btw, I've linked to the pretty full Genealogy of Christ Johnbod 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolls

Malcolm, you had, re Rogate: "The three light window is dedicated to the Honourable J J Carnagie born 8 July 1807 died 18 Jan 1892, placed in the church by Henry Allen Rolls 1892. Henry Allen Rolls was the Henry Rolls of the Rolls Royce car company".

The WP RR article has the founders as: Charles Rolls middle name Stewart, son of John Rolls, 1st Baron Llangattock, and Frederick Henry Royce. according to the fathers article, Henry Alan Rolls (1871-1916) was the brother of the car co-founder. He is not mentioned as being involved himself. Also he seems to have been 21 when he commissioned the window, but I suppose that's possible. I'll alter it to make him the brother, unless you have other info. Johnbod 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Johnbod, thank you for checking this information, I had been given the information by a member of the church, and I didn't check it at the time. I will be pleased if you change the article according to your suggestion. M. R. Low 14:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm and Johnbod!

Still on holidays. Just doing some generl maintenance. This page is looking really good!

--Amandajm 10:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Amandajm

good to hear from you again hope you are enjoying the holiday, Malcolm. 86.15.50.229 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Malcolmlow 15:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hervé de Bourg-Dieu

I've piped the link for Hervaeus to Hervé de Bourg-Dieu, which I believe is correct. There is nothing further in the Mâle reference to go on, though. Charles Matthews 12:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks correct, thanks. Johnbod 13:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

dead link

Jean Anne Hayes Williams, The Earliest Dated Tree of Jesse Image: Thematically reconsidered. : link no longer works. --Anne97432 11:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Liturgy

I've added a brief, rather weak section to the end on the Jesse Tree in Christian Liturgy. This is the kind of info I was looking for when I searched for 'Jesse Tree'. I think the little section could be a lot better, so I'll have a think. Any comments?Pre1mjr (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just a different topic altogether. A tree, but not a Jesse tree, unless you can reference otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I can see it exists, so I have restored & edited your passage. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Johnbo, I have heard of these trees being referred to as "Jesse Trees". It seems to be muddling a few ideas together, as a way of incorporating a Christmas tree with the notion of the Advent Calendar. I've looked at a few versions of this Jesse Tree idea, and this seems to be the clearest and best, tracing "God's Faithfulness to his People" rather than the specific lineage of Jesus. Check out [2]

If you Google Images with the following string: Jesse tree advent children, then you come up with a large number of these things.

Amandajm (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes see above - I've added a version back. Johnbod (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I just wrote a note here to ask you to do that, but there was an edit conflict. I think the tone you have changed my paragraph to is a little sneering perhaps.

I'm not going to change the paragraph again, you are obviously expressing some sort of ownership of this page. I would suggest you search for 'Jesse Tree' in for example Google though. All the results on the first page seem to be in line with the claim I have made, apart from the wiki article at number four, and an article about a charity called Jesse Tree. In images, searching for 'Jesse Tree' (not 'Jesse Tree advent children') brings images of the kind of tree I'm talking about first, with some images of 'Jesse Tree in Art' coming later.

This indicates to me that it may be appropriate to be more open to and less sneering of the information I added.

It is a very interesting article on art though, which has obviously taken a lot of good work.

Pre1mjr (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sneering" is I think uncalled for, although I do think they are "piggybacking" on the name. I think it is correct to emphasise the lack of connection between the two. I wonder what a Google search in July would produce? Believe me I did plenty such when doing the article, & I've never heard of this use before today. Johnbod (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Different sites, different understandings

1. Dennis Bratcher at [3] write under a heading called "The Story of the Jesse Tree". He knows the quotation, but plainly has no knowledge of the tradition of the Jesse Tree whatsoever. He can't really write the story of the Jesse Tree, because he is merely explaining a modern phenomena in Biblical terms, with no sense that there is actually a continuity in this symbolic thing that he is appearing so knowledgeable about.
2. At Catholic Culture, [4] however, there is, as one might expect, a complete understanding of the ancient symbolism behind this new symbol. The Catholic sequence jumps from Solomon to Jesus, and then offers a series of other Jesus Symbols. It's much truer to the concept of the Jesse Tree.
3. Making a Jesse Tree at [5] follows the symbols of the Catholic Culture site with no attempt at explanation
4. Catherine Fournier at [6] gives the very simple explanation that "The Jesse tree is a symbol of Jesus' family tree. It also takes us through that first long Advent which lasted from the Fall to the Incarnation."
5. This site by S.A.Keith [7] actually mentions that the tradition is old, and churches have Jesse Tree windows, but then proposes a sequence of decorations that have little to do with the progression shown elsewhere.

My conclusion here is that the online info about the Jesse Tree would indeed lead one to think(as one site clearly states) that a Jesse Tree is a tree used to focus people (kids in particular) on the meaning of Advent. Only one site of the many gives a truly accurate picture of the ancient symbolism. It is typical of our society that something with real meaning has been lost and in the Post Modern, New Age search for the poetry of the universe, old symbols have been forced to take on new meanings.

Amandajm (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok - I looked at several, but didn't see the second Catholic screen, which does indeed relate to the ancestors, so I have modified the text accordingly. But most of the others - evangelical I guess - don't, as you say, follow or show awareness of the traditional scheme - which is not of compelling interest to modern kids one must admit. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

File:St. Michael's Church, Hildesheim - painted wooden ceiling.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:St. Michael's Church, Hildesheim - painted wooden ceiling.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Gallery removal

(Telpardec message on User talk:Johnbod page was copied here by User:Johnbod.)

Tree of Jesse The justification for the removal per WP:IG was quoted in my edit summary. The gallery is not fine. There are plenty of illustrations in the prose. For crying out loud, (aka. WOW!) there's even a long image in the References section. There are also WP:ACCESS concerns that come into play, and possibly WP:SIZE. Your edit summary link to WP:GALLERY goes to a help page. None of your actions so far seem justified.
Thanks for your attention to this matter. —Telpardec (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Confusingly, the policy is at WP:Gallery, which you don't seem to have read. I suggest you do so. The gallery is certainly not "indiscrimate" and meets the policy criteria.

At the same time the page could do with some maintenance, after about 5 years since it was expanded. When did that pointless multiple image come in? They should be spread around the text as before.

Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The gallery is little better than a recycle can with a random assortment of images, at least some of which I seem to recognize as having been in the prose sections in former versions of the page. A gallery is not appropriate unless it illustrates "aspects of the subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." This subject is easily described. The gallery does not belong in this article. The Commons:Tree of Jesse gallery has a copy of each of the images and a lot more besides, in a fairly well organized arrangement. We need to put the gallery behind us.
Cheers. —Telpardec  TALK  18:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons. Links to the Commons categories can be added to the Wikipedia article using the {{Commons}}, {{Commons-inline}}, or {{Commons category}} templates. One rule of thumb to consider: if, due to its content, such a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons.

— WP:Galleries

Comments from other users? Oh, and let's have the main bit of the policy:

However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted.

— WP:Galleries

Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• I oppose the removal of the gallery. I find it improves the article. All we have of the T of J is illustrations because it is, itself, an illustration. Please stop rearranging the deckchairs and concentrate on the article. Life is too short. Fiddle Faddle 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm in favour of a gallery. In fact, I' in favour of several galleries. The text discusses a number of examples, but it is hard to fit them all in , and a gallery takes care of that. I'll do some rearranging and see if it works.

As for the very long example in the reference section, it is hard to find a place for an artwork like that, of enormous historical value, but a highly irregular shape. Reducing it to a small size achieves nothing.

Amandajm (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)