User talk:Codex Sinaiticus/'05archive

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Draft Merge of Mitanni article moved to user page

Codex Sinaiticus 04:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A first suggestion: you may find that it works better over the long run to move the proposed draft to a temporary file in your userspace, for example User:Codex Sinaiticus/temp. That way any comments, discussions, etc. are kept separate from communication directed to you about other matters. -- llywrch 17:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I may end up moving it again if it causes any conflict, but for now it is on the regular user page Codex Sinaiticus 18:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And good job on the Mitanni article, by the way.Yuber

Thanks for the positive feedback...

Why BCE is offensive is a long story, not so much the actual initials or what they stand for, it has more to do with antipathy between the parties who would replace BC and AD with BCE and CE... BC and AD were used for centuries, but the newer initials first cropped up in the later 20th C (70's or 80's) in the journals of revisionists and Marxists with a decidedly minimalist bent. Resistance to the change is widespread, quite recently I saw a news article on Google about this very issue raging in Australia, and the uproar was great enough to stop the new-fangled initials from appearing in government schoolbooks. So rest assured, it isn't only myself who would object to their use. Probably safest not to stir up this whole can of worms... --Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 13:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As regards the 4th century "AD", I want to remove it from the crucifixion article, because:

1. it is un-correct, since AD stays for Anno Domini, and thus refers to a year not a century. Even if everyone knows what it means, it is still incorrect;
2. the statement is not ambiguous, since it would read "from the 6th century BC to the 4th century", clearly showing that it deals with a lifespan of a millennium.

Please, answer me asap, since I want to correct, the article that now is wrong.--Panairjdde 15:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the Articles to Split. From reading the description (and making a time frame assumption), it seemed to me to be two different people (especially since the bits about Ezekiel implied it wasn't a single person represented by the name). Thanks for putting things on the right track -Acjelen 01:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I had known you would be so critical of my edit I would have shown my source. My edits are based on two books: 1)The Near East: 10,000 Years of History by Isaac Asimov & 2)The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia by Rene Grousset. I can support my edit, it isn't just speculation and even if it was, that doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted. Plenty of articles contain theories. Many scholors do believe the Cimmerians to be of an Indo-European stock, and some even put them under the Tharco-Phrygian sub-branch. The Cimmerians made contact with the Urartuians in the 8th century BC after the Scythians drove them out of southern Ukraine. But even before that the peoples of Asia Minor knew about a barbarous tribe to the north, which many scholors think were the Cimmerians. And finally the view that the Scythians took over the area around the 8th and 7th century BC isn't at all based on Herodotus. The Cimmerians fled southwards to the Caucasus and collided first with Urartu in the 7th century BC. The Assyrian King Sargon seeing his chance to destroy Assyria's great rival to the north attacked Urartu from the south. So Urartu had to choose which enemy to submit to, they choose Assyria. Together the two withstood the Cimmerians and kept them out of the Fertile Crescent. I think we can work together to make the Cimmerian article better, If I don't hear from you in 72 hours I will feel free to edit the article.--Moosh88 04:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Hi, Moosh, I agree we can work together to make it better (there is room for improvement). My reverting your edit was not to say "keep your info out of the article", but only to say it ought to be reformatted, properly sourced, and put in the proper place. The opening paragraph is generally not the best place for more controversial stuff, but we could have a section just for that, on the pattern of what we did with the Hurrians. In fact your sentence above, Many scholors do believe the Cimmerians to be of an Indo-European stock, and some even put them under the Tharco-Phrygian sub-branch. - I would have no problem with, because it contains the correct formula for such an assertion.

As to whether the Cimmerians (Gimirru) really were Thracians and/or Bryges, I am still skeptical myself. True, many of these peoples did live side by side, and probably bumped into each other more than once, as they all circled around the Pontus. (Meshech, Tubal, Gomer and Tiras/Thrace were all considered distinct with good reason). I am aware that some (eg, McEvedy) do refer to these all by the general term 'Thraco-Cimmerian'. But this classification has been challenged in more recent years, with sound arguments against it. I have tried to bring some of this up further on in the article. You also said the Cimmerians moved south and clashed first with Urartu in the "7th Century", but careful analysis of the Assyrian records apparently places them at first within the region of Mannai, already South of Urartu. So if they came from the North via the Caucasus, how did they get through Urartu? It seems definite that they joined with the Assyrians in attacking Urartu from the South, when we first hear of them (714). By contrast, we hear of the Phrygians (Mushku) as early as 1200 BC, with the "Sea peoples", and they seem to be a distinct people from the Gimirru. And yes, Herodotus (440 BC) followed by other Greek historians is the main source placing them in Ukraine, although the fact that remnants of them seem to have dwelt in Crimea as the 'Tauri' is pretty conclusive proof they were there at some point.

Until we find more about the nature of the Cimmerian language, I would prefer to hold off judgement on their linguistic classification. As I said before, the only thing so far I have seen to go on, the king name Sandakhshatra, points to Indo-Aryan (satem), and no way is a name like that Thracian (centum). Codex Sinaiticus 02:39, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to making the article better. We should get started as soon as possible. But first I have to make a few points. From what the Urartuian and Assyrian sources say, the Cimmerians raided the northern borders of Urartu and the Assyrians seeing their chance to break Urartu attacked the southern borders. I haven't come across anything which stated that the Cimmerians joined the Assyrians in the south and then attacked. Maybe a small band of Cimmerians, but the main host was in the North. Could you please tell me what your sources are? As for classifcation, I went by the discoveries of the Finnish archeologist Arne Mikael Tallgren, who believed the Cimmerians were of an Indo-European stock and they moved to the Russian steppe north of the Black Sea at around 1200 BC. This is further supported by a another Finnish archeologist who found numerous objects in the Dnieper and Kuban region. Of these, the most important are the Borodino treasure (1300 BC?-1100 BC), the Shtetkovo treasure with its bronze sickles (1400 BC?-1100 BC), the bronze foundry of Nikolayev (1100 BC?), and the bronze sickles of Abramovka (1200 B.C.); all these discovered between the lower Danube and the lower Dnieper. This is why Tallgren believed the Cimmerians to have originated from Hungary and Romania or less hypothetically, inhabited those countries as well. With this information I think it's more likely that the Cimmerians were of a Tharco-Phrygian sub-branch, rather than an Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian. Please get back to me, thanks.--Moosh88 18:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I do have sources, but not time right now..! I hope to go over them in more detail for you sometime today or tonight though... What the primary sources (inscriptions) indicate is not exactly what you wrote in Mannaeans (Urartu joined the Assyrians against the Cimmerians).... Rather, the picture they paint is that the Cimmerians were first mercenaries of the Assyrians against Urartu, but later turned traitor against Sargon II, killing him in battle in 705. His grandson Esarhaddon could not even trust their promises of neutrality some 40 years later. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 19:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whenever you can post your sources that would be great. Once again the sources we are using do not agree. Or one of us is confused about what the other is talking about. Small Cimmerian bands could have easily been mercenaries for Assyria, but when the Cimmerians were forced to move due to the pressure put on them by the Scythians, they attacked Urartu. Assyria attacked Urartu too, Urartu surrendered to the Assyrians, they joined forces and prevented the Cimmerians from entering the Fertile Crescent. The Cimmerians went to west Asia Minor and attacked the small kingdoms. Those kingdoms couldn't handle the Cimmerians, so they called for help from Sargon II, who led and invasion of the peninsula but died during a battle in 705 BC. His successor, Sennacherib finished the campaign; the Cimmerians remained quiet for the rest of his reign. But in 679 BC Esarhaddon (he was Sennacherib's son not grandson), Sennacherib's successor, led another campaign against the Cimmerians, who were being forced deeper into Asia Minor by the Scythians. The Scythians at this time were occupying Urartu. Esarhaddon was successful and to keep the Scythians peaceful he accepted a Scythian princess into his harem. The Cimmerians remained quiet for another 30 years, but in 653 BC they again attacked the small kingdoms of Asia Minor, this time the greatest Assyrian king Ashurbanipal along with Gyges, the founder of Lydia, finally put an end to the Cimmerian menace in 652 BC. This is a brief summary, but if I missed anything major or if you disagree with what I've wrote let me know; I'm very interested in the sources which you use. --Moosh88 20:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI, the user who added the comment to Talk:Tyre appears to be a vandal/troll on the subject of British/American spelling. Choess 00:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think we make first impressions that clashed with each other a bit, is all. I'm listening to you... I've encountered lots of editors lately who've been pushing PoV creep, thanks for understanding. I was properly appalled when I saw I'd reverted your grammar correction! Wyss 03:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

zzzzzzzzzzz Wyss 12:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I know that my efforts to keep this article about a mass-murderer as NPoV (in both directions) as possible may sometimes seem like a claim of ownership. That's not my goal.

• I think the Fuhrerprinzip content you added sometime ago is helpful and provides an insightful tie-in to a strong statement about AH's pro-active efforts against democratic process which he truly didn't believe in. You seem to want a slightly different wording than I do but I wanted to let you know I'm glad you put it in the article. Thanks :) Wyss 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The reference to Ernst Rohm as "flamboyant" is such a glaring codeword for "gay"... he was of course and it may even have contributed to his early downfall. My objection to the use of the word in the article is that Rohm's name is in a string of other names with no adjectives... for me the flow is interrupted in a distracting way, especially since it involves this particular adjective. However I agree that this is likely a big, docking nitpick on my part. I encourage you to feel free to discuss stuff with me, I'm more flexible than you might think, ok? Wyss 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Religion and mythology. JDR 18:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your reply in the "Religion and Mythology" discussion page. Waiting for your reply. If none appears I consider the discussion finished and will remove the POV tags (reread my arguements, if necessary).

(Basicly - I do agree that the article "Religion and Mythology" could use a nice "refreshing" and rebuilding and such, however POV clearly is not justified.) Androg 00:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit pushing your pro-Christian Point of View. POV pushing is bad. Stop being bad. Be good. Like Jesus. WWJD? Not push POV on Wikipedia.

Also, deleting factually incorrect content is not vandalism. Thanks, and have a nice day. 68.23.224.34 14:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This comment is in reference to a mild controversy on the article Code of Hammurabi, over whether or not it had any influence on Mosaic law - .34 taking the position that it had none.

As for asking "WWJD", this is indeed ironic, coming from an anonymous user who is so wont to making the most blatant direct personal attacks against other users.

Whenever people like this ask this sort of question, it always reminds me of the "logic" used to justify the fascist invasion of Ethiopia, when they rained mustard gas on the entire countryside, but killing mainly a lot of innocent cattle, as the populace were forced to hide in caves. Mussolini said that Haile Selassie had no right to resist the Italian invasion and genocide, and instead ought to "turn the other cheek", because fighting war is wrong, and not the Christian thing to do.

WWJD? So, you're telling me He had no opinions whatsoever, or always kept them to Himself? You must have Him confused with someone else; I think the line about "you must withdraw into your shell like a tortoise" comes from the scriptures of another major religion, but definitely not the Bible! Codex Sinaiticus 18:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea - my watchlist may be too long for that to be practical as to the whole thing, but I can make a page for the most frequently changed articles - thanks, I will do that! -- BD2412 ^talk July 1, 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Hi, after a quick glance at the article I think it has a very strong nationalistic POV (looking at the references justified this for me). It should probably be rewritten from scratch. (Although I'm not an expert or anything.)

-- nyenyec ☎ 02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with nyenyec, who is a well known anti-Hungarian agitator and hater along the wikipedia. The article is well written, thanks for it.

(- note: added by AAbdullah on 1 July '05)

I'm European and hence don't believe in censorship. If I did, I'd probably destroy the book of Leviticus before considering discussing whether it is appropriate to mention parts of the anatomy (which by the way, the vast majority of people, including Jesus and Mohammed and whoever, have and normally use in a non-sexual way) in the presence of religious texts. Please consider spending your time more productively. I suggest editing articles. Here for instance. Dmn / Դմն 01:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I were trying to be offensive, I would have used some sort of profanity. I will heed your suggestion and will use a blander comment in future. Tchuss. Dmn / Դմն 01:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codex Sinaiticus,

I was wondering, have you ever considered doing some work for the Amharic Wikipedia?

It's really in a state of disrepair right now and could use some help. The best thing anyone could probably do for it would be to get sysop status there, and translate the user interface. Maybe create a few articles, too... It already has a logo, but the person who translated it didn't have time to work on the Wikipedia much... I was hoping you might.

See the Amharic Wikipedia.

Cheers Node

Hi CS,

Have you heard of UniGe'ez? You can download it at http://www.punchdown.org/rvb/email/UniGeez/UniGeez2.001.zip

It might be a little bit confusing at first, but it's certainly much more easy to use than cutting and pasting.

Cheers

Node 04:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CS,

It should work if you extract the ZIP file and click on UserInterface.exe. Then, you can click the button which says "Ge'ez ON", and you'll be able to type Ge'ez in any program.

Node 05:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your changes to the article 'turkic people' seem to have factual errors and exagerrations along with POV pushing. Please read the discussion page. I didn't change anything as you seemed to have spent a lot of time typing and wanted you to at least state your sources for your articles. Please read the discussion page on the article. Kennethtennyson 05:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Kenneth is mistakenly referring to some bizarre paragraphs that were added to Turkic peoples by someone else other than myself. Codex Sinaiticus 21:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Garbage deleted from my talk page)

...Do not remove this warning before this matter is resolved, and do not obscure its visibility by commenting on it between the

) blah blah blah

From the page on sysops:

"Sysops do not have any special authority. They are equal to everybody else."

Favorite teaching on authority:

"You know how the pagans' rulers lord it over them, and how those in authority exercise it over them. It is not to be so among you". - Matthew 12:25

Codex Sinaiticus 20:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on the Formal Warning

_ _ You wrote at Talk:Noah's Ark#As'm't to Cat "Mythology" in relevant part, and referring to your multiple removals of the Category:Mythology tag:

As for vandalism, I don't happen to think it is vandalism to remove an inappropriate or offensive category; this happens all the time on wikipedia.

I urge you to let go of your focus on

• our uses of differing senses of "vandalism",
• what you "happen to think" in general,
• what, in your perceptions, "happens all the time on wikipedia", and
• your confidence that you (despite others' disagreement) have definitively identified an "offensive category".

None of these are facts, and continuion of your demanding, for your PoVs, status deserved only by facts (and apparently status even beyond what you accord the undisputed facts) can only end badly.
_ _ In particular, you need to keep clearly in mind that a Cat tag is, both primarily and to a much greater extent than any other MediaWiki mechanism, a reverse navigational device. By that i mean that a lk, e.g., is placed in an article as a forward navigational device, taking the reader from where the lk is to some other page; in contrast -- even tho it does have a secondary effect of informing readers of the article (Noah's Ark in this case) where the Cat tag appears -- the most important fact about a Cat tag is that it enables navigation to the article it appears in, from the Cat page (Category:Mythology in this case). A link is an on ramp; a Cat tag is an off ramp. Complaining about a Cat tag stigmatizing an article is like complaining about your muffler or anti-pollution device lowering the power of your engine: they're not there for power, but for their affect on other car's drivers, and taking them off for more power sacrifices the major function for a minor benefit; that's not called vandalizing your car, but it's as much vandalism (against the environment) as is tagging a stop sign with your graffitti. (And, in contrast to your car, don't ever confuse yourself by thinking about "your article".)
_ _ If you've really been paying attention to what happens here all the time, you should know that some grievances have no solution, and many that have one have no quick one. You've been shown the start of the clear responsible path for pursuing a remedy to your grievance. (FYI, if you are successful, that path will lead -- if the Cat is simply misnamed -- on to WP:CfD, where some new title(s) (that you and your colleagues will have to come up with) can be offered as the replacement Cat(s) to obviate the existing Category:Mythology by filling the roles it currently fills.) There may be other outcomes , unforeseeable now, that will meet you concerns.
_ _ Get on with it.
--Jerzy·t 19:42 & 19:45, 2005 August 3 (UTC)

... I just noticed the constant reversions so locked it to the last revision. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit summary in your rv of Festival: consensus is clearly against the use of an ambiguous term- consensus? The only discussion on the talk page is whether the page should exist or be redirected. Though I agree that Christian mythology is inappropriate I am at a loss for where the discussion concerning this dispute can be found... ?...freestylefrappe 21:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Didn't you happen to notice that every single person posting to that page, even Festival, acknowledged that "mythology" is an ambiguous term, because it has more than one meaning??? I know it's a really long category talk page and not in chronological order, but there is plenty of discussion there about the NPOV inappropriateness of terming the Bible "mythology" Codex Sinaiticus 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Category_Talk:Christian mythology — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Codex fails to point out is that no "better" less ambigous term exists. The concensus that he refurs to is a few people (not all) saying that we need a better term, and then refusing to come up with one, sidestepping the whole idea of a concensus by stonewalling, and basically forcing POV into wiki by a refusal to improve it. FestivalOfSouls 18:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to revert Reddi, not you. Jdavidb 18:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new proposal at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#JHCC's_new_proposal. Please read and comment. JHCC (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things have been quiet for a while. Do you want to take me to task for the solution I advocated? Or, do you think that it's fair and appropriate (distinguishable from correct)? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm curious why you think "which" (as opposed to "that") sounds negative and is thus inappropriate. I must say I have never heard of this. "Which" and "that" are not necessarily interchangeable, and I used "which" for grammatical reasons, though this is less of a concern than someone telling me that I sound negative. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's true they are not always interchangeable; but in many cases they are, and in the case in question, "that" is also perfectly grammatical as a relative pronoun. I always prefer to avoid "which" whenever possible, because the word does have a negative sound in English -- being a homonym of "witch"... (I was not calling you negative!) Codex Sinaiticus 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Which" & "witch?" Forgive me if I think that sounds entirely superstitious (it's like avoiding the phrase "it bears mentioning" because of its ursine connotation). Though perhaps I am just as superstitious in not following a comma with the word "that" (I can't express how wrong it appears to me but it seems the issue is largely dead [sadly enough, I checked]). I'm trying to come up with some alternate wording so we might both be at peace with it. And thanks for the clarification re: negativity. Here's hoping the rest of your weekend does not invovle grammatical discussions. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not superstition, it's just a principle of avoiding "negative word sounds" for a more pleasing effect. It's a fairly new principle and is associated with Rasta; that is why I feel it is particularly appropriate for that topic. I suppose it could be a slight pov preference for that over which, but not a significant enough one to be a npov violation. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I invite you to Talk:Ugarit in order to discuss your revisions of the article. I believe you are unintentionally pushing a POV point of view.--Rob117 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Especially in articles on sensitive topics such as Kingdom of Israel, it is inappropriate. BCE/CE is denominationally neutral and commonly accepted. I challenge you to demonstrate tolerance. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the talk page to discuss this issue. Tedernst 16:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just read the argument between you and Stargoat on the Code of Hammurabi page, and I felt obligated to bring you both up to date with what is really the mainstream view. You are correct that Stargoat's minimalist date of 300 BC for Mosaic law is fringe, but 1200 BC is not the mainstream date either. I urge you to become familiar with the documentary hypothesis, which posits that the Torah was composed over a long period of time from several different sources, primarily between 900 and 400 BC. This is the mainstream synthesis that has been around for close to two centuries now. It is pretty much the unified theory of modern biblical studies, and is taught in most biblical criticism classes, including those at most non-fundamentalist seminaries.

Additionally you seem to have a misunderstanding of what a minimalist is. Minimalists put the entire Torah in the Persian and Hellenistic periods, and deny any real history for Israel and Judah. Doubting the existence of the biblical Patriarchs or the occurence of the Hebrew exodus does not make one a minimalist. In fact, William Dever, a biblical archaeologist who is decidedly anti-minimalist, believes the Patriarchs are mythical and believes the biblical Exodus account is greatly exaggerated. The mainstream consensus at this time begins to look for recoverable history beginning in the period of the Judges, and tends to treat the biblical account of the Israelite monarchies as reasonably accurate. The Patriarchs are dismissed as unverifiable, and the Exodus is believed to be exaggerated, although there is debate as to whether there was a small exodus or none at all.

My point is that both you and Stargoat claimed to be soeaking for the mainstream, when neither of you were.--Rob117 22:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they aren't, but my assumption was based on the first sentence of Hungarian prehistory:

"Hungarian prehistory" refers to knowledge about the Hungarian people prior to historic records, that begin with the Magyars' occupation and settlement of the Pannonian plain around 890 AD.

That particular article needs much improvement, but ignore grammar for the moment. If the statement is accurate, then it is fairly clear that it should be merged with the other articles. If not, then "Hungarian prehistory" needs cleanup and a check for factual accuracy. Best, Paul 04:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Codex, I'd like to remove the section of text that you reinserted into the Rastafari Movement article -- I don't think, as is, that it is grammatical nor is it stylistically or content-wise within the range of what makes a good article. I'm curious what you feel the rationale for its inclusion is. I see a lot of problems with the article as a whole -- it does read a bit like a soapbox, going beyond being descriptive to incorporating perspective-laden terms, and I think that this is part of what should be rewritten to make it better. --Improv 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I lose count of the roll-backs I undid? Uncle Ed 19:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my reasoning and you rejected it in a rather rude and condescending way. Too bad for you. Discussion is always better than ridicule or sarcasm. I really wish you would reconsider so the article shows the breadth of religious/social thought (especially in the US) rather than further polarizing the "argument."

Robbie Giles (21 Nov 2005)

You insist that Arioch and Rim-Sin are "widely identified with each other by biblical scholars". I ask you for sources. You give me a 1964 issue of the creationist publication Bible and Spade, along with two internet forum discussions, one of which claims that there was a "race of giants" in Palestine in the Bronze Age. When I point out that those aren't recent, peer-reviewed sources, you go into a tirade about how I am a "minimalist," which I'm getting is what you call anyone who disagrees with you on the Bible, and how "peer-review=peer pressure." You also call my edits "revisionism" (which they aren't- if you want to see real revisionism, go take a look at the work of User:WikiRat). Now you revert my edits in the Larsa article and threaten to take me to RfA.

Why do you take this so personally? We're both editors of Wikipedia, and I feel I am justified in asking you for sources before you assert that something is a widely-held view. You've said before you subscribe to BAR; why not look there? If you find one article in it since 1990 that makes this connection- one article in BAR- I will reinsert the information myself. I can name off the top of my head quite a few scholars that reject this connection: William Dever, Amihai Mazar, William Albright, J.M. Durand- all of whom submit to BAR, and none of whom can be considered minimalists. All I'm asking is one post-1990 article in BAR or a similar publication and I'll re-insert the information myself.

Also, Ellasar is not necessary Larsa. Many identify it with Larsa, but some identify it with Ashur.

I haven't made any personal attacks. I've made no comments on your religion. All I asked for was recent peer-reviewed sources. Don't take this so personally please.--Rob117 02:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I probably overreacted... I've been under a bit of wikistress lately, especially with the Cote d'Ivoire affair; might be time for a break for me...! Maybe we can just mention it on the talk page, if you really feel it's not article worthy enough to mention... ፈቃደ 02:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Rob117 03:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: I can ask a colleague of mine at work who knows Georgian to look at the article, but I don't know if it will help; if Duffy can't be bothered to be courteous, this won't change it. If he has reverted more than 4 times, can't you get an admin involved or something? --FeanorStar7 16:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I should do; I feel like I am being attacked and dragged into this; I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the subject; this article was just one of the many I tried to improve in terms of syntax and grammar, not content. --FeanorStar7 00:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you don't have to get dragged into it! I don't think you're being attacked, at least I know I haven't! I only asked for your help, because I remembered that you work in the largest library in the world, and figured that if anyone could find a tome written in Georgian the fastest, it would be you! If you can't find that book, or the one by Bittel, (that should be a lot easier), or don't have the time, don't sweat it... I can always find out the content by other means... Thanks... ፈቃደ 01:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your contribution at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(subnational_entities) is used by User:William Allen Simpson on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tobias Conradi page as evidence for that forking is unwanted. But William goes on and on to delete contributions to the naming conventions page [1] and does not fix what I claimed are lies. To tell you why I claim these are lies: They are obviously wrong statements. I thougt after pointing out that the statements are wrong he would not believe them anymore. In this naming convention it is important to be precise. One of the conflicts is about upper and lower case, so to claim Kagoshima Prefecture to be official and Coyamage department to be official is misleading the reader, and if he knows the claims are wrong they are lies:

A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it.

Obviously I cannot check what he believes or suspects. But he sticks to the statements. So I would like to fork again, because his reverts and deletions are kind of nasty. Would like to here your comment at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(subnational_entities) if you can afford some time. And please, if you read the RfC, read it with open eyes. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I notice that you have reverted an edit I made to the cultural influence section of the Adam and Eve article. I would like to discuss this revert with you, if I may. You give as your reasons that the edit consisted of "totally POV language". It would help me to understand your reversion if you could explain this in a some more detail. I thought I understood the concept of POV and the way in which it is used at Wikipedia, but maybe there is an aspect of it which I haven't picked up on. Thanks SP-KP 17:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on that Dreamg*y dude. He ahs no npov and is a bad writer on mythology.

beckjordBeckjord 05:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've violated the 3RR policy on this article. It's going to be switched back to the correct way again. If you revert it again, we will report your 3RR violation and get you blocked. Please take the time to read the responses and the article itself to educate yourself on the meaning of the word mythology. Do not take offense at a word when you obviously do not understand what it means. DreamGuy 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly have NOT violated 3RR. Please pay attention. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, DG, but I think (s)he's right. Technically, only three revertish edits have been made, and they were two basically different reverts. Not to express any support for you, Sinaiticus - what you are doing is POV pushing, and it will have to be stopped. elvenscout742 23:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please take this to the article's Talk page: I don't like reverting - it doesn't do Wikipedia any good - and this dispute could be easily resolved with a little understanding by the aggressor. It's also EXTREMELY difficult monitoring three different User talk pages for the dispute in addition to the only appropriate one. elvenscout742 23:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Codex, your "attempt at compromise" doesn't solve anything. The wording you use is redundant in that it states something about not implying falsehood that is already obvious from the context. If it were included, however, it would be just to appease fundamentalist Christians by explicitly implying that there is no falsehood, which is POV. elvenscout742 01:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should have read the three pages of discussion at Category Talk:Christian mythology. There was a lengthy discussion that followed due process and policies, not "be bold" frontier justice like we're seeing tonight. It was WIDELY recognised by 99% of the editors that calling religious scriptures "myth" needs to be clarified in some way, since most people understand (rightly or wrongly) that what they are trying to imply is that a book of the Bible is false. Wikipedia must not be seen as saying it's either true or false, so it needs to be clarified somehow. Read the above link (all 3 pages) and you will see what was decided. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect why did you take off the article on the Dead in Christ? The article you directed me to is not correct. The final judgment the article speaks of happens 1007 years after the event Paul refers to. The event referred to in the article is the great white throne judgment. Whatever you personal understanding is I would hope to change your mind by studying the material at this web site. www.truthroom.com. Please do not stop the flow of information especially when it is well researched and footnoted. If we are unable to talk this out I will move up the chain of command if necessary.

I have no idea where you are coming from, but as I stated in the comment field, I removed it, because it claims Paul made reference to "the Rapture". You may be surprised to learn that a great many Churches around the world have no such thing as a "Rapture" anywhere in our teaching, quite simply because it is not mentioned in the Bible. The only Churches that teach this stuff about a "Rapture" are a few Protestant Churches, mostly in the United States, and it's something they invented in the 1800's. That's why other Churches elsewhere never picked it up, and if you try to write in the article "Christ" anything about Paul teaching there will be a "Rapture", it's going to get challenged by members of those other Churches who do not share your POV. Again, "Rapture" is a NEW TEACHING. Don't confuse it with "Resurrection of the Dead", which is a very real Biblical teaching. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry, I don't have time to read Truthroom.com or see any Hollywood's movies (funded by whom?) brainwashing people into believing in the Rapture (something not found in Scripture ANYWHERE), but please, read up on wikipedias policies regarding "Neutral point of view". If we say in the article "Christ" that St Paul endorsed the concept of "rapture" (a 19th century creation anyway), then that just wouldn't be Neutral; that would be taking sides against all the Churches that have solidly maintained tradition for 2000 years. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you spend some time before acting as an editor, please consider this.

1 Thes 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be [caught up] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The word [caught up] is the greek word harpazo it means 1) to seize, carry off by force 2) to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly 3) to snatch out or away

This is the literal greek meaning, the word rapture is a literal english word and can also be used. This is where the confussion comes in. I am not a follower of tradition, tradition by defination is a mindless pursuit. Would you be agreeable to me using the the term [catching away] in the article in place of rapture since this is actually the way the scripture reads ?

No because it's still a pov... Also, that is YOUR definition of tradition, but it is anathema to me... It's all these breaks with tradition that are causing all the problems with modern man, if you ask me... So why don't you keep your opinion, I'll keep mine, and in the article, we'll just stick to the facts that everyone recognizes? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The greek language is the most descriptive language known to man. I believe that was intentional. The definition of tradition is as follows according to dictionary.com A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage. I called this a mindless pursuit since the religion I grew up in taught me procedure without practical meaning. If one were to be practicing a bad tradition it should be changed, not changing it is what is wrong with man. I suspect that this article is mealy reporting on the broadest definition of the word christ, which is a generic term for anointed. Many religions are looking for their christ and they are different from each other. With that said I thank you for your time.

I have added an external link section. If this section or link are removed I will go up the chain of command to keep them here. Wikipedia should not be limited by the bias of a few.

I, too, have a big problem with the information posted on Truthroom.com. The Truthroom team takes factual data (past and current events in the form of news articles) and blends it together with speculation in order to bolster a personal belief or opinion. I don't believe the link has much relevance on Wikipedia, other than to support a personal theory. - Cybjorg 10:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I agree with your comment on the section and was thinking that it should be shortened in some capacity, or moved below the history section, but it might involve too much controversy with other wikipedians. I did however, revamp the beginning section and removed superfluous information and substantially fixed the history section, which was filled with inaccuracies and unverifiable information. At any rate, I'd appreciate your input (and others) on the matter. Thanks and adios. Tombseye 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you make some valid points, and I moved the section back before the history section. BUT the name Afghan as applied to the Pashtuns who have historically referred to themselves as Pashtuns moreso than Afghans does leave room for doubt as to why the term Afghan also came to be applied to them. The research thus far is speculative and not universal was my point and I think it's a valid one as during a recent course on the History of Central Asia I took, discussion of the name came up and the numerous theories put forth, but they do remain speculative as I said because the references are sporadic, sometimes derived from Indian religious texts which have no exact geography and often deal with supernatural phenomenon AND the information generally leads to similar sounding names as opposed to concrete evidence as from local usage and inscriptions from Afghanistan itself. Thus, I think it's valid to say it's speculative, but still possible. Tombseye 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Codex, I'm beginning to think you were right initially that the neurological findings section in God doesn't belong. It doesn't really fit the topic of the article very well, and I regret rewriting/restoring it some months ago. If you still feel the same way, maybe we should be bold and delete it, and work on convincing others if that's contested that it's really more about belief than it is about the concept of a monotheistic god. --Improv 04:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]