User talk:PiCo/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The material you cut is in the public domain and attributed as coming from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Was your cut made for any other reason that it was taken from another source? Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted a section on Internal consistency of the Bible on the basis that criticisms were fine, but including counter-criticisms was going too far - a point I agree with. I did the same on The Case for Faith, where the external links have a criticism section to which a counter-criticism has been added, for the same reason. Now it has been reverted with a comment to the effect that it's just my view as a single editor. The external link, incidentally, is to the Tektonics site. I don't want to get involved in an edit war here - could you have a look at the page and provide an additional viewpoint? Thanks. Rbreen 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have any references. The terms Canaanite and Israelite were used from the beginning of the article, which still needs much work to make it scholarly. The article does explain that there are some very divergent schools of thought among the archaeologists working in this part of the world. I'm quite happy to stick with Bronze and Iron ages, as common usage among archaeologists everywhere. Itsmejudith 06:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Canaanites and Israelites are different peoples. Deuteronomy:1:1 discusses the Amalek, the Emim, the Horites and the rest of the original inhabitants and where they lived, comments on their distinctive height and then Joshuah and Judges get into more detail of their eradication by Israel.Rktect (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I like how it looks. By the time I left the whole area was beyond political here, and it was hard to keep any content that talked about hypotheses post-Wellhausen. If *modern* scholarship can be preserved on these pages, so much the better. Keep up the good work. Dwmyers 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, My love! I'm glad you like my rewritten Gothic article! I did Romanesque architecture as well.

Where have you been! i've been wondering about your signing off message!

I have been wretched! 3 cracked verti-bras would you believe.... boy, do I need some support!

I've been so down in the dumps I've sold my soul to IMDb! Amandajm 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You deleted the bit about Italy completely. Was that intentional? Can you decide what part of it ought to be put back? Amandajm 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you just go back in the edit history, you can find out exactly what was deleted and then fiddle with it. There is a mention somewhere there about Sicily and the Normans. It mentioned the city states and the fact that most of the Norht managed to avoid papal domination and that they warred among themselves.... go and take a look and knock it into shape. I'd always rather someone else did the Political stuff! Amandajm 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yawn! it's 2:15 in the land of OZ! I look forward to reading your Angkor article. You certainly take very good photos as well! Amandajm 16:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Just took a loook. There are soo many fascinating places one doesn't know about! The Castle, Hohenstausen....? Amandajm 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've bitten the bullet! I have put up a whole string of articles, Renaissance, Goth, Romanesque, Lenny the nose-picker, Micky-baby's ceiling, Fra the Angel-babe and the Fat Btcher of Padua up as potential Featured Article candidates. If you want to write reviews/add support, go and look at the list of featured articles. Now here is a really worthwhile cause! Amandajm 07:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

you have a great user page. As somebody who would love to be living in Southeast Asia, I'd like to know if you have any advice or tips you can offer. Are you originally from the region? If not, how did you manage staying there and supporting yourself. I have a nursing license, which makes me very mobile in the Western world, but in SE Asia, they can do my work cheaper themselves :-(.

Anyway, sorry to be a bother, but reading your user page triggered something in me. Take care, and I look forward to reading more about your adventures. Jeffpw 07:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to delete that note (I have no view, except I would discuss first) you need to remove the note too, and renumber all the alphabetic ones from that point, above and below. I will revert while you think about it. Johnbod 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh! Don't you go making Johnno cross, now! For a little light entertainment, go and look at the Sistine Chapel ceiling talk page.....

Yeah, the Leonardo Museum in Vinci is quite an exceptional small museum. If the director has done his homework and is prepared to believe in the likelihood that Leonardo's mother was the same Caterina who was Ser Piero's slave, then I'm prepared to leave it there. Actually, I deleted it when it first went up, then changed my mind.

The problem lies in this ridiculous statement that the pattern on Leonardo's finger occurs in 60% of Arabic people, with no futher comparison. The same pattern, for all the evidence they give, might occur on 67% of people in the Arno Valley, and 83% of people in the Outer Hebrides and 99.9% of Cook Islanders.

Amandajm 09:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Aung San Oo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. If you can present evidence of him having made a substantive contribution to Burmese social or political life, there is no objection to the article staying, but I cannot see from the article what claim to fame he has apart from his DNA. Kevin McE 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am enjoying thy serious nonsense PiCo! The story of the car trying to shake off the kid with the broken leg is just horrible. My son picked up a little Vietnamese boy after the driver who had hit him sped off. Fortunately the car had passed over him without breaking anything, ... this was in Marrickville... Do you know what you are missing out on? It's bogong moth season, and they are battering against the windows. Can thou doest me a tiny favour and archive some more stuff for me, please? And thou never commented on my choice of dinner-party-at-home-with-Leo guests! Amandajm 14:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Like your blog too. Interesting you were in Burma recently and in 1988. I was there in 89. Had a family of Chin refugees come over for lunch the other day. Just lovely people. Their case worker brought them over. Am looking forward to meeting other new arrivals to see what I can possibly do to help. Saw your comments on Bnei Menashe - just had an amusing clash with Tomer over page edits. I wish someone would write a properly researched book/article on BM and you write like someone with a sound mind. What do you think?Jinglebells01 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was somewhat surprised at your large-scale deletions on this page. You removed all discussion of The Exodus in light of historical research. True there is already a seperate article on that subject but it is long and unwieldy, the brief summary was useful. Your work is unquestionably good but please do think twice bfore removing good content.Wolf2191 05:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The question we've got to address is what people looking up in article on The Bible and History want? I imagine most of them want a brief summary of the historicity of the Exodus or Jesus and the like. Point one that you mentioned is mostly for the DH article, not this one. As far as point two - Have you seen James Kugel's new book The Bible as it was. It should address this question. Here is the appendix [1].

My studies (Talmud in a mainstream Haredi yeshiva) are going quite well but I don't have much time to concentrate on Old Testament and 2nd temple history which are my main interests. BestWolf2191 05:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Pico I agree you should read more of about the evidence for an historical Exodus before deleting. In particular Bimson addresses some of the issues with early archaeologists such as Kathleen Kenyon and the dating of sites. Rktect (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Song of Songs. The article could do with a fair bit of work. I can probably help with citations if ever you are stuck, because I'm always copying articles for personal use. Cheers. Alastair Haines 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The song of songs evidences a much later construction than the Miriam of the Exodus. Analysis should include linguistics, word order and other technical issues Rktect (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just rewritten Edmund Blacket and now, thank's to Jonhbad's prompting, I have a triple crown, for an FA a GA and a DYK, would you believe!? About your friend Jezz, I hope that this is not my friend Jezz you're talking about.... you really are not very discreet... Amandajm 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aaaand, about your user page, Poopsie, we need photos! Words is not enough! Amandajm 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Len the nosepicker, can we please just leave it because it seems to have struck a balance that people are fairly satisfied with in terms of relationships. If we start fiddling with it we'll get back to where we were before. Amandajm 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done PiCo! It's about time that obnoxious hate speech is put down and not given publicity! Artemis 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Good grief!, dear PiCo. Terrible lapse, inexcusable. West almost never gets things like this wrong, I, one of his constant readers do. I was misled by his remark 'The event is located at a river Iardanos (135, contradicting 133) which later commentators could not find .'(p.370). I then checked the Greek and Leaf and Bayfield's old commentary (1895) 1908 vol.1 p.413, and read 'The geography of the passage seems confused...nothing is knwn of a Keladon or Iardanos near the town (of Elis), nor apparently are there any rivers than could correspond', without double checking Geoffrey Kirk's recent edition (1990, vol 2 p.252) since it was on the other side of the house and not at hand. In that volume one reads:-

'The setting of this encounter between Pylians and Arcadians is described with notable vagueness. Pheia is said to be on or by two different rivers, Keladon and Iardanos (of which Keladon might be a tributary, Ameis-Hentze); yet classical Pheia was not on any river worth the name, neither was a Keladon or Iardanos known in the Peloponnese. According to Strabo 8.248 some thought the town was Khaa and the river Akidas. Aristarchus, on the other hand, took κeladontito be an epithet like okurooi, with a change of case by the time their noun, Iardanou, finally appears in 135. This is unacceptable, even if one suspects that rooi keladonti (cf. roos keladon at 21.16) lies at the root of the problem. As for Iardanos, the same Iardanou amphi reethra denotes a river in West Crete at Od. 3.292 (see S.West ad loc.), and the poet may have repeated the name almost automatically - though a river as such is not required by the context.'

Stephanie West (M.L.West's wife) in her edition of the Odyssey (Oxford 1988 vol.1 p.178)says of the Iardanos. 'the name is sometimes said to be Semitic, representing Jordan; but the same formula is used at Iliad vii.135 of an unidentifiable river in Elis.'

Rechecking now, I note that ML West has a note to p.370 where he remarks on three rivers by that name, the two in the Odyssey and Iliad, and another located in Lydia. I'll have to adjust my note to Goliath (or you can if you like) to correct the oversight. My apologies, and congratulations on your commendable lynx-eyed checking of the text. Regards Nishidani 11:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to take in to account the groundbreaking studies below:

[2]

[3]

BestWolf2191 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Unhappy with this:

A more accurate translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-3 therefore reads:

"In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth, when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said, 'Let there be light!"[3]

I read Hebrew. Acoording to your translation the word Yotzer (formed) not Bara should have been used (though [[Abraham Ibn Ezra might agree with your version).

I'm going to search for an alternative source. (Maimonides makes a big issue of this in Guide to Perplexed)Wolf2191 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've got to run off again for the week :-( here is one site that discusses the Bara Yatsar thing [4]. Pity you don't have Hebrew Samuel David Luzzato discusses this at length in his commentary. Hope to use him when I get back.

Here is a bit from EJ that might be useful (Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible):

The two versions of the creation story have often been compared to Mesopotamian prototypes. The translation given above in Genesis 1:1ff. and 2:4bff., "when … then," is analogous to the introductory style of Mesopotamian epics. Tracing a theme to the creation of the universe is a feature also found in as trivial a work as the "Incantation to a Toothache" (Pritchard, Texts, 100–1), and in as major a composition as the Sumerian King List (ibid., 265–6), "history" commences with the dynasties before the Flood.

ENUMA ELISH For specific cosmogonic details the most important piece of Mesopotamian literature is the Babylonian epic story of creation, Enuma Elish (ibid., 60–72). Here, as in Genesis, the priority of water is taken for granted, i.e., the primeval chaos consisted of a watery abyss. The name for this watery abyss, part of which is personified by the goddess Tiamat, is the etymological equivalent of the Hebrew tehom (Gen. 1:2), a proper name that always appears in the Bible without the definite article. (It should be noted, however, that whereas "Tiamat" is the name of a primal generative force, tehom is merely a poetic term for a lifeless mass of water.) In both Genesis (1:6–7) and Enuma Elish (4:137–40) the creation of heaven and earth resulted from the separation of the waters by a firmament. The existence of day and night precedes the creation of the luminous bodies (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, and 14ff.; Enuma Elish 1:38). The function of the luminaries is to yield light and regulate time (Gen. 1:14; Enuma Elish 5:12–13). Man is the final act of creation – in Enuma Elish, too, before his creation the gods are said to take counsel (Enuma Elish 6:4) – and following the creation of man there ensues divine rest. There is, furthermore, an identical sequence of events: creation of firmament, dry land, luminaries, man, and divine rest. Thus, it appears that at least the so-called P account echoes this earlier Mesopotamian story of creation.

Another reflection of very ancient traditions is found in Genesis 1:21. Since the entire story of creation refers onlyPage 275 | Top of Article to general categories of plant and animal life, not to any individual species, the specific mention of "the great sea monsters" alongside, and even before, "all the living creatures of every kind that move about, which the waters brought forth in swarms" is striking. It is most likely part of the biblical polemic against the polytheistic version of a primeval struggle between the creator god and a marine monster which was the personification of chaos (see below). In Genesis this story has been submerged and only appears in the demythologized reference to the sea monsters as being themselves created by God, not as rival gods.

The second creation story, too, has Near Eastern prototypes: The creation of man from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7) is analogous to the creation of man from clay, a motif often found in Mesopotamian literature, e.g., the Gilgamesh Epic; the Hebrew name of the underground flow, ’ed, that watered the Garden of Eden, is related to either a cognate Akkadian word edu or to the Sumerian word ÍD, "river"; and the creation of woman from a rib may reflect a Sumerian motif (see Kramer).

Nevertheless, the differences between the biblical and the Mesopotamian accounts are much more striking than their similarities; each of them embodies the world outlook of their respective civilizations. In Genesis there is a total rejection of all mythology. The overriding conception of a single, omnipotent, creator predominates. Cosmogony is not linked to theogony. The preexistence of God is assumed – it is not linked to the genesis of the universe. There is no suggestion of any primordial battle or internecine war which eventually led to the creation of the universe. The one God is above the whole of nature, which He Himself created by His own absolute will. The primeval water, earth, sky, and luminaries are not pictured as deities or as parts of disembodied deities, but are all parts of the manifold works of the Creator. Man, in turn, is not conceived of as an afterthought, as in Enuma Elish, but rather as the pinnacle of creation. Man is appointed ruler of the animal and vegetable kingdoms; he is not merely the menial of the gods (Enuma Elish). The story in Genesis, moreover, is nonpolitical: Unlike Enuma Elish, which is a monument to Marduk and to Babylon and its temple, Genesis makes no allusion to Israel, Jerusalem, or the Temple. Furthermore, the biblical story is non-cultic: unlike Enuma Elish, which was read on the fourth day of the Babylonian New Year festival, it plays no ritual role whatsoever in the religion of Israel.

BestWolf2191 04:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that REF's (and Youngs) translation is plausible. Its been suggested that the special attributes of the word Bara leave open room for a more complicated explanation though. The Targumim need also be referred to. Here a Rashi translation [5]Wolf2191 04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. That's a great summary from Wolf. It is very fair and rather significant to note that there are both similarities but also differences between Genesis and literary predecessors, and that the latter weigh more heavily. In my own study of the Song of Songs, it is obvious how similar it is to Egyptian love poetry, and there are some possible Sumerian motifs also. But it is also very different and distinctive. I presume the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but it was not written by hopeless plagiarists either. The Bible does not claim to have come via a gift from an angel like the book of Mormon or the Qur'an, quite the opposite. It explicitly claims human authors were "moved" by God, which is much more like the Indian religions, that consider some of their scriptures to be the product of "spiritually inspired" mortals.

On the "in the beginning of God's creating" interpretation of the text: a substantial early 20th century school of thought ran with this proposal, but there are several difficulties with it. One simple difficulty is that biblical uses of bara only ever have God as subject, and always involves something remarkable and new. There are literally hundreds of references to this debate, but, by and large it ended in consensus against the proposal, the Jewish scholars being the decisive contributors, with their depth of insight into Hebrew.

Sorry to butt in like this, I guess I'm just volunteering to provide more sources, and in English, if there's any outstanding issues. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The best source for this is the Egyptian concept of Geb and Nut (The heavens and their waters above, the earth and its waters below. Pantheons of paired opposites, and in particular Air, Earth, Fire, Water go back to both Mesopotamia and Egypt. The four gods mentioned in Genesis occur in a sequence. El Shaddai or Shamsi Adad of Mari, the lord of the land is the first with whom Abram forms a covenant. Yahwah is the power of the air and etymologically is linked with Baal and Hadad. El Roi the power of the well that supports Hagar introduces the concept that he who controls the water controls the land. When Abraham builds an alter to Moloch after Sarah goes with Abi Melech (the father of Moloch) for the purpose of passing his son through the fire in the ritual of Chemosh the comparison to the natural philosophy of the pantheon in Genesis I is completed. Rktect (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we are having a POV conflict! Some people think that I haven't pesented the other case strongly enough and it seems that they do not understand why. I am feeling increasingly impassioned about it! Would you like to add your thoughts? [6]

...Amandajm (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pity!

What's happening in your life? We need an update! Make it exciting! An escaped goldfish? a drunken Pot plant? a cafe that serves live baby mice in honey and basil sauce? ...Amandajm (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

PiCo, I am baffled at why you have deleted so much of Creation according to Genesis. I think a lot of that material was of fairly high quality, and relevant. I feel it is a little unfair that you have acted alone in making such sweeping changes without first having a discussion about it on the talk page. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, thanks for your response on my talk page. Please see the article talk page for my response. Regards, Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

see

http://books.google.com/books?id=TnddGYTT-JoC&dq=particular+verses+the+four+principal+sources&pg=PA2426&ci=571,174,390,630&source=bookclip

it discusses how there is much dispute on which verses belong to which source --Java7837 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

see the right of page 2426--Java7837 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You were upset about the fact the Mosaic authorship had points instead of paragraphs. I did some on work on this and made the Egyptian grammar (points) into a paragraph.--Java7837 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The book of Exodus points out that Moses is illiterate and that Aaaron composes his presentations Rktect (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, how does one do it? I've been waiting for you to come and fix it for me! How have you been? Amandajm (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a fact tag and material referenced to reliable sources. That's bad form. If you think the material is chaotic, rework it without deleting it. Don't remove fact tags with providing citations. Leadwind (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

When I read the Documentary Hypothesis article and the associated discussion, it struck me that each contributor had a different idea of what the Documentary Hypothesis is.

Casting back through my research (since 1998), I don’t remember anyone with an explicit definition, so I decided to try my hand at it.

Take a look at my talk page, and let me know what you think.

Thanks for your attention,

Ken Shafer kwshafer (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Darling! I hope you have a wonderful Christmas! from Amandajm (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So, will I follow up on this? Answers please on my talk page.

Yes, please. But not personally. I imagine there's one or more relevant international organisations with offices in Cambodia. Best wishes, 212.84.105.227 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As suggested above, what you've described sounds like an operation that might be of interest to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, especially if local governments or police look the other way. Just a thought. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Amandajm (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

me again. I just read the people trafficking story. How dreadful! I'd like to encourage you to do something, but what?

Amandajm (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pico! I don't know if you have emailed me lately, as I have forgotten my password!

How are you coping? What with the cold weather, the dengue fever, the people trafficking, the departure of Kim and the dead fish, You hhave been having your share of excitement!

I hope 2008 is a wonderful year for you! Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, on the talk page you said "John, I think you know where I stand on issues of this kind," I was just curious as to what your stance is. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You removed a Wiseman hypothesis link I had added in the See also section of Book of Genesis, saying, "wiseman hypothesis is pseudo-scholarship". I don't have a POV one way or the other on this, but it sounds to me as if you are removing links based on your POV regarding the merits of the points which the linked articles make. If there is disagreement regarding the scholarship of the Wiseman hypothesis, both sides of the disagreements should be detailed in the Wiseman hypothesis article. It is not the job of WP to make a judgement regarding the merits of the arguments; it is the job of WP to document the fact that arguments exist, to summarize the arguments being made to some extent, and to point to supporting sources for the information presented. Unless the Wiseman hypothesis has been totally discredited (and perhaps even if it has -- some would argue that Darwinism has been totally discredited, and others would argue the same for the various flavors of Creationist views), the Wiseman hypothesis deserves a mention in the Book of Genesis article and a {{main}} link to the main article, perhaps accompanied by the information that there is active disagreement about the validity of the hypothesis — or so it seems to me, from the distance afforded to me by my own lack of either POV or expert scholarship in the area. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, but several open ports were found on the IP at the cafe and it was being abused. I will try to find a way to allow you to edit, despite the autoblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:A South Coast Road.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored the Talmudic view of David you had deleted from the article with the caption "piety is no substitute for accuracy." WP:NOR and WP:NPOV prohibit deletion of a reliably sourced significant religious opinion on a religious subject, particularly when based on an editor's own opinion. Wikipedia expresses no opinion on the accuracy of religious belief. Attribution, such as indicating that the viewpoint comes from a passage in the Talmud (or a professor at a University) is generally considered sufficient to communicate that the viewpoint is religious (or academic) in nature. The Talmudic view of David is clearly significant and clearly belongs in the article; we can discuss details like whether it's sufficiently clear which views are religious interpretations and which come from academic historians, and perhaps it would be better to find a more contemporary source indicating that the Talmudic view of David is still widely taught in contemporary traditional Jewish religious circles (it is, and a source would be very easy to find, but as a general rule essentially anything the Talmud says on major Biblical subjects is still considered relevant in contemporary traditional Judaism). But simply taking religious interpretations out of an article on a religious subject on a claim that religious views are not "accurate" would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought you were taking out the whole POV, I may have misunderstood. I'll go on to something else and look at this again later. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You have proposed very substantial and controversial changes to this page which should be discussed first on the talk page. You've been reverted twice by two different authors. Even after providing sources it should be noted that the material you removed also was sourced. I will revert once more and ask that you please bring your changes to the discussion table and seek consensus. For starters, it seems unlikely that you can simply remove Mosaic authorship from the section, as it is still a significant view, particularly for Evangelicals and conservative Jews. Thanks. HokieRNB (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:UP#NOT and make the necessary edits to you user page. Thanks! HokieRNB (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome -- I will keep at adjusting the list. It's a big undertaking and is more complicated than I thought it would be. I'll take a look at all the Caravaggio articles on his paintings and him to see if I can improve or make any other adjustments.--KeithatET (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there -- Thanks for the message. Yes, I'm working mainly on the chronology now. I needed a chronology for a project I did (if you are curious, you can view it here: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116412127296356564958.000445cdac5488c5c88f4&z=14&om=0). I will fix some of the inaccuracies and improve it as time permits. I only perused the main article on Caravaggio, but I think that after going through some of my sources, I can probably add some details. I saw your note regarding the birth certificate. I will have to check that out. I'll be in touch. Sincerely, --KeithatET (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're interested in re-adding it, I found an archive link for the article you removed with this edit:

• Block, Daniel (2001). "Recovering the voice of Moses: The genesis of deuteronomy". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 44 (3): 385–408.

Best, Silly rabbit (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How's life? You've deleted your ramblings! I hope that Drunken Noah and his backward sons now meet your approval. Can you really imagine them walking backwards? Weee are home with colds today... but on Sunday I will go and see the Archibald Prize. My suspicion, though I probably oughtn't admit it, was that Goldscheider was stretched somewhat in the interpretation.

Poor Mick, the gloomy old bugger, was heavily into "sin". The whole bloody ceiling is about sin and suffering, and everybody says "How lovely!" .... apart from the ignudi.... they are all OK with themselves. (I guess I'd be OK with myself if I looked like that but I increasingly resemble the Cumaean Sibyl).

love, Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the reason is that he wasn't at all focussed on the reading of the story as Good guy/bad guy stuff. It was the degredation of humanity that was his theme. And drunken old Noah was part of it. Amandajm (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, this is Opensourcejunkie from wikiversity. Recently a random IP address came by and expressed an interest in helping me edit my wikiversity:Study in Genesis. I've been trying to track down the wikipedia user associated with that IP address, and I was wondering if you were him. Are you him? If not, feel free to ignore/delete this section. If so, stop by the talk page again as I have recently responded. Thanks for your (alleged) interest, PiCo, and awesome User Page. --Opensourcejunkie (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, let me know when you're back! ttys (I hope),

--Opensourcejunkie (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. not cool about the lap-top; I'm sorry to hear that. Hope everything works out all right.

I have basically reverted your last edit of this article. The trouble with the "old" introduction was that both Arab and Persian editors saw it as "unfair". While I basically share your view that this is all slightly daft (to put it mildly) I would like to see this article become fairly stable (and of course accurate) and not be provocative of further revert wars. I think those of us for whom the Persian vs. Arab origin controversy is a monumental irrelevancy need to accept that some other people (some of them quite nice folk) take it VERY seriously indeed. (as they are entitled to - viz. the very similar Scottish vs. Northumbrian nonsense over "Auld Land Syne"!!) Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know just how you feel - I've had to trim my watchlist more than once for broadly similar reasons! Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not doing it!

Hey, when are you coming back to the land of Oz? I miss ya! Amandajm (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The external link you added has been deleted by someone Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You put in a claim that the United States is the second largest national economy, because the EU is larger. However, the EU is not a nation-state, so this argument is invalid. Please see Talk:Economy_of_the_United_States#Misleading_Intro for discussion. Superm401 - Talk 13:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Economy_of_the_United_States#Misleading_Intro. Superm401 - Talk 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. I actually didn't see the discussion before reverting you either. Superm401 - Talk 09:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pico, Regarding what has turned into an edit war on The Bible Unearthed, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. There are some good examples here (located under exemplary articles) on how to structure an article on a book. There is no problem with you trying to expand the article, but the chapter by chapter breakdown is what has brought some negative attention to the article. I am going to revert back to the shorter version, and make a note on the talk page for everyone to stop reverting, and simply work towards expanding the article along the lines of those articles found in the Wikiproject Books (i.e. instead of chapter by chapter, there can be a plot section). Hiberniantears (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I actually see your point more in favor of deleting the material. However, I haven't actually deleted it, so much as placed a version up that does not show the content. You did a lot of work putting the summary up, so we should just pull it from the page history, and work on it in the Talk page. This benefits you by taking the heat off the article (i.e. having your version constantly reverted), and affords you some breathing room to get a new version up. It was my fault for being a little too agressive in simply reverting this morning (one of those days!) without offering any assistance. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He's my favorite photographer. If you have met him you should be uploading your pictures of him to the Commons! --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Documentary hypothesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. . --Faith (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear Faith, it's you who are doing the edit warring. The usual practice, when making an edit that's potentially controversial, is to try it out on the talk page first. You didn't do this. Even when I (very politely) told you that your proposal was controversial and you should discuss with other users, you persisted. I think dispute resolution is now the only option open. This is unfortunate of course, but you seem to be unable to refrain from imposing your views. Feel free to pick your own choice of admins to take it to. In the meantime, I'm reverting the article to the original wording, which is the normal way these things are done. (posted on my talk by PiCo on 20:02, 7 May 2008 UTC). You never said the edit was "potentially controversial", as evidenced by the multiple times you stated it says "exactly the same thing" (only complaining about the verbosity): "says exactly what yours says, but less verbosely", "you're taking a lot more words to say exactly what was there already", "The two sentences actually say exactly the same thing"..." why, if the two sentences are saying the same thing". I disagree they say the same thing, and I did place the reasoning on talk; you simply chose to ignore it was there. Your fourth revert is a violation of 3RR, which has led to the unfortunate need to report the violation. Faith (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that as an impartial third party, I believe both users in this incident were striving hard to conform to Wiki policy and deserve credit for that. Resolution was rapid. In my opinion the 3rr warning is regretable. At times, Wiki is a more difficult medium to work in than one might expect. I guess there's nothing new in saying that. Best regards to everyone. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You missed a piece in your cut and paste. In general it is better, but can be challenging to do the move in a single edit, edit the entire article and move the block from one section to the other. If you need help, let me know here. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You're doing great research PiCo!

Take time out of your life and do a year at a Bible college!

(Or you already have done this?)

Anyway, enough cheek from me. I do hope you're not regretting inviting my involvement.

If I cause you any distress, let me know. It'll be because I've been silly and it's better I know.

Cheers friend Alastair Haines (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I rang Alvin, the editor of the Canterbury-Bankstown Express today. Introduced myself as AL, short for Alastair, a free-lance writer from Punchbowl. Would you be interested in a series "My mate next-door: Understanding Islam"? I have a religious studies background, and I'm fascinated by living in this area.

He was great! No brilliant! "There's the Greeks here too," he said, "I would be interested in that." He added more, exploring the idea. "Unfortunately, News Limited won't let me pay freelancers." He added some good natured stuff about Rupert, profits and oily rags. Then, "would you like a full time job?"

Wow! Well, I took the details, we closed the call. I used the number Alvin gave me, then the name, but the name had an answering machine, so I'll call back Thursday.

I'm working up a journal article at the moment. It's going to be hard, if not impossible to break into Bible academia. But I can certainly do it freelance. But what about keeping the landlord off my back? I've been toying with a late-life start into journalism. I suspect age helps. But so does experience.

I was going to ask you for advice.

I think I've got some here,

"I just sort of assumed they’d let a man with a camera in, and they did."

That's the spirit of journalism!

You've got to understand people, don't you? You've got to really understand people, right?

And then, you write really, really well. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

“

“Get up! Get up!” yell the crowd in Khmer. “Stay down, you poor idiot!” I yell in English.

”

You had my heart here.

The pictures spoil your writing!

I could smell the sweat and hear the thuds. I was there until the pictures took me to some 2D other place, with only colour to recommend it — a very poor exchange.

Alastair Haines (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't hurt my feelings. I was concerned about not being informed you planned a substantial changing, as it seemed I was being ganged up on a bit by you telling three other users, but I can fend for myself regardless, so even that wasn't really a big deal. I took it more as a misstatement than any bad intent, so no worries. Faith (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, the link you left me goes nowhere. I do have some comments, for what they are worth, if you want to post themelsewhere feel free.

Here is the short answer to your question: since the Bible is not a theological work, I am not sure it makes sense to ask whether it is theologically consistent, or what its theology is as such at all. All we can do is either guess what theology its authors had, or be inspired by it to reach our own theology. for this reason I think the best way to handle this topic is not to have an omnibus article but rather to have specific separate articles for different books on the topic e.g. an article on Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed which is a Rabbinic attempt to propose a "Biblical theology" and Yehezkal Kaufmann's The Religion of Israel which is a critical scholar's attempt to propose a Biblical theology.

As to your larger point, on how to deal with inconsistencies in the Bible ... I do not think that any article or part of an article should be argumentative in the sense that we do not write articles to prove points. I do believe articles and parts of articles should prepresent all points of view. It seems to me that there are two major points of view here (I limit myself to the Hebrew Bible). These views are so distinct that I think they are worthy of their own articles which would represent a content and not a POV fork. One is the view of Midrash, the traditional exegesis of the Bible. Midrash itself is composed of a variety of independently written texts. Most are premised on divine authorship of the Bible hence that the Bible expresses one point of view hence it is internally consistent. When people working within this tradition encountered apparent inconsistencies, they often created new stories to explain the consistency. It is not for us to judge th truthfulness or falsity of these stories but I do observe tht non-fundamentalist scholars of Jewish history consider the Midrash to be a treasure of Jewish literature in the same way that Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Divine Comedy are considered classics of literature. I think it would make sense in an article on Midrash to explore this body of literature. Of course isnce Judaism is not a dogmatic religion there are different strands within midrash that are not consistent.

The second major view is that of Higher Criticism which also has (and deserves) its own article. As i understand it this tradition accomodates both views, that the Bible is and is not internally consistent. It accomodates the negative view because it sees Biblical texts as being written by different authors at different times and thus express diferent points of view; inconsistncies in th Bible help scholars date then those fragments were written. But according to the Higher Criticism there is a Redacter (R) who edited these independent narrative together and as far as i understnad it Highe Critics assume that "R" did have his (preumably it was a guy) point of view which does unify the Bible even as it preserves texts that contradict one another. A good article on HC ought to provide an account of the multiple authors and also of R.

So it sems to me that the above are the two appropriate articles for exploring the issue you raise, not a new article. Frankly, I see no purpose to a new article on this topic. I really would rather just see these two articles improved.

Finally, we do have articles for each book o the Bible. I do not have the time to work on them but if I did I would have a basic structure for each article. First, I would provide a simple outline of the book - the narrative arc, major characters, plot, themes. Then I would have a section on critical scholarship of the book (i think the single best source is The Anchor Bible) which would discuss authorship including multiple authorship, when it was written, the relationship between this book and other books, etc. And then a section on "traditional" interpretations. On this the best sources are the Mikraot Gedolot, and some books have their own Midrash. We should strive to represent these accounts accurately, as well as mainstream scholarship.

Whether providing an account of Higher or source criticism or other critical scholarship on the bible, or traditional exegesis such as Mikraot Gedolot and the Midrash, I think all we ought to do is provide all notable views from reliable sources in a neutral way.

I don't see this as tricky at all - did I misunderstand your question/invitation? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am happy to use the term "source" criticism. My main concernis to avoid violating NOR (esp. via WP:SYNTH) and I think the key thing is to write articles that correspond to notable works of scholarship or scholarly debates without making arguments. Whether the Bible is or is not internally consistent just is not a scholarly debate that I am familiar with. For both source critics and orthodox Rabbis apparent inconsistencies are entirely explicable although in fundamentally different ways and to different ends. And I do not know of any important (or in my own view interesting) argument between source critics and Orthodox rabbis or theologians. I see debates among source critics which I would love for us to cover. And I see debates among theologians or rabbis which I would also love to see us cover. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you could explain this edit on the article's talk page. Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please see Talk:Biblical_inspiration#Catholic_view_redux. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Already on it. Thanks for the heads up.--ragesoss (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks.It is raining a lot here... no floods yet though, as far as I know.Andycjp (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My reference is indeed Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Links, add links, they really help. @@ •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you wanted to stay anonymous ...! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To the Ark article? I'm not saying it's bad (I see you've been keeping on top of it), but it sure is different. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone ever raised the question of what would have happened to fish in a "great flood"? As saline levels would drop significantly in the oceans and rise significantly in fresh water, the odds of most (if not all) fish surviving the flood would be pretty slim. Unless Noah had a bloody aquarium. Even if he did, I doubt he would've been able to put whales in there. Kinda screws up the story of Jonah. Oh, wait, he was swallowed by a great fish. One of the ones that couldn't possibly have survived. Weird, huh?  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the parent topic is source criticism, one of many branches of literary criticism, which also includes text criticism. Properly speaking, source criticism doesn't imply the Bible as the object of study. Pentateuch is a non-confessional term, and Latin more familiar to English speakers than Hebrew Torah.

So, I think what you say is right. Source criticism of the Pentatech was sporadic until Wellhausen. It waxed, and has now waned, having its wings clipped of excessive speculation; but conservative versions of it are now pretty standard in all but the most dogmatic writing.

For example, I'm happy to consider the possibility that the Song of Songs may have been modeled on Egyptian love poetry now lost. What survives shows some striking similarities. At face-value, the Bible claims Moses was a prince in Egypt at the time the Egyptian love poetry we have was written. Again, Solomon, the Bible claims, married a daughter of the Pharaoh of the time, and some have even claimed the Song was written by Solomon for her. Then there's Sumerian poetic reference to fairly explicit encounters between Inana and Dumuzid, who is probably refered to in Ezekiel, well after Solomon's time. Some of the Sumerian material also looks like the Song. So literature in the ANE could last 2,000 years and influence people theoretically ideologically opposed it. But then again, differences are often more striking than similarities, and some similarities could be accidents, or reflect cultural, rather than literary affinity.

What matters to me, and to most other conservative scholars, is the existence, at some point, of a "final form", in due course copied and canonized. Perhaps the copyists were the true de facto canonizors. Perhaps their work with sources, in several cases (like Kings explicitly), is lost to us except in the final form that has come down through the transmission history.

Very many of the best conservative academics (Jewish, Catholic and Protestant) politely ignore dogmatic assertions that may caricature the Pentateuch as simplistically Mosaic, while being willing to admit personal belief that the received text is authentically divinely inspired. Divine inspiration is impossible to prove, it is simply a hypothesis, and actually quite hard to disprove also. Many of the best atheist biblical academics find themselves quite at home discussing purely literary features of the Bible with believers. Whether or not one believes God to be behind the text of the Bible, everyone wants to work out what natural processes are involved in it being what it is.

I'd welcome your article. I think you're right, editors follow a simple dualism reinforced by Wiki having only two approaches. So long as the main articles are DH and Mosaic authorship, and anything smelling of source criticism is relocated to one or other of those articles, we're actually silencing some of the best recent scholarship.

Source criticism of the Pentateuch I think is the kind of name needed, and very modest expectations when it comes to definitive answers. An article listing a dozen notable scholars with a spectrum of views is probably the sort of thing needed. You really need open access journal articles, not websites, which are normally pretty polemical. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pentateuchal criticism sounds perfect to me. That makes it a parent article for Documentary Hypothesis and Mosaic authorship ... and quite a lot more. More importantly, I like your sources ... and your willingness to do this work! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that article link. It should be possible to get some of the photographs into commons. The article is from Irrawaddy and it should be easy to get releases. I'll send them email and ask. A Tay Za picture would be especially nice just in case we run into him one day! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the neat copy-edit at Comma Johanneum. I worked out the semantics was not sufficiently explicit, but just threw a relative clause in to fix it. Much smoother prose your way. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you get a moment, List of New Testament Latin manuscripts is turning into an article rather than a list. That's a good thing, really, but since there's prose, there's room for copy-edit. How's your infant article coming on? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have problems with the contribution on Noah. Keep in your mind that removing scholar and referenced text is an violation on Wiki. If you want to explore you can leave comments on the talk page. Perhaps you are from different origin and do not have knowledge of other prespectives. You should go consult with somebody or go research for some sources. If theres any problems you can contact me on my talk page and we can discuss an resolution. --Padan (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you can wait and i will post the scholar information. --Padan (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church article 'Pope' presents sources that place recognition of a special place for the Bishop of Rome in the early fifth century. At the time the Bishop of Rome (Damasus) requested Jerome's work, any special authority for the Bishop of Rome appears to have still been pretty controversial. I deliberately avoided using either Bishop of Rome or Pope. Historically, Bishop of Rome is always accurate, and from a point X until the Great Schism, the claim to a Petrine prerogative was also universally accepted. But that point X seems to be approximately co-incident with the circulation of the Vulgate, but not with its composition. It would appear the papacy controversy was pretty much the "talk of the world" at the time of Damasus, who had things to say about it.

The primacy of the Apostolic See, variously favoured in the time of Damasus by imperial acts and edicts, was strenuously maintained by this pope; among his notable utterances on this subject is the assertion (Mansi, Coll. Conc., VIII, 158) that the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Roman Church was based, not on the decrees of councils, but on the very words of Jesus Christ (Matt., xvi, 18).

— Catholic Encyclopedia

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't assume this matter was important to you, I'm relieved it isn't. I still want to treat it in an NPOV way.

I've also received excellent feedback (lots of suggestions for improvement) from Dr Hugh Houghton, an expert in the field.

He was wonderfully supportive, saw us as contributing to a global project of public information, rather than as amateur competitors.

I think I'll probably need to expand the article greatly, treat it more as an article than a list and restrict it to the Vetus Latina. These measures should allow a slightly more full, but still summary treatment of Jerome and the Vulgate, which distinguish the boundary of what Vetus Latina actually means.

Best wishes for Pentateuchal criticism, looking forward to dropping by again later. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you PiCo, I think you do appreciate exactly what I'm doing.

My thinking is this.

Many good web-sites with similar information already exist, I don't feel the need to try to do better, and don't want the work of keeping them up to date.

Wiki provides three excellent advantages over the excellent web-sites of various scholars:

1. internal links can be made to articles on manuscripts, editors, libraries and museums;
2. other editors can maintain the work into the future, keeping the bibliographies current; and
3. Wikipedia articles discussing manuscripts can utilize the lists to find articles at Wiki, or use the Bibliography and links.

I created the List of New Testament papyri and List of New Testament uncials a little over a year ago. Use the What links here button at those pages to see how widely cited at Wiki these lists now are. I'm really pleased with that result. Additionally, a very generous contributor has written many articles on specific Uncials, because the list makes these easy to find. That'd be my ultimate delight, for Wiki to have articles on many, many of the specific manuscripts -- pictures, text and translations of a lot of them included.

The Bible is not something you can buy in a shop. It was a set of documents, the text of which can only be deduced from the evidence of tens of thousands of idiosyncratic and irreplaceable copies. Wikipedia has the potential to provide unrivaled access to all that, due to its medium of information aquisition and presentation (unless theopedia beats us to it). Alastair Haines (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm running a training course for a week, so I'm still fiddling about with Wiki rather than doing serious work. Thanks for your note. I hope your real world work doesn't have its usual consequences for public order. ;) I also sense a word of wisdom, I will indeed be majoring on my thesis when the course finishes. I need to get a journal article produced quick smart.

You didn't read Newsweek this week did you? Alastair Haines (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I knew them both. It is amazing the way the Bowles circle and estate have created a number of complete fabrications that they defend by first screaming, then threatening and bullying. It is even more amazing, given the sources that exist, that they get away with esp on this site. Jajouka, Joujouka, Bowles, Janes Bowles, Brion Gysin and a host of other pages have been the front line of their revision of history despite the existence of very good independent sources. eg see User:Emerman edits he could write 5000 words on a talk page in moments. No one could be bothered to keep up. He was either a sock of User:BKLisenbee or an editing partner; Stopped editing when he lost the argument and then User:BKLisenbee appeared in the argument pretending to be reasonable. It is all on the record here. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Wiki page in its self. The great Tangier cover up. Thanks Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That story is true alright. And I agree about the writer thing UNLESS there is some coverup aspect that is hiding some darker truths to achieve a veneer "respectability" and I dont mean being gay. There are several dark truths including how he actually treated his wife, some people believe he drove her mad , deliberately. She was a rare talent also. If you get Michelle Green's Book Dream at the End of the World you will find it interesting and informative. check out the festival on www.joujouka.net Brian Jones 40th Anniversary of recording in Joujouka/Jajouka. its on 28th July. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How are things with you? I have been painting lots of pictures and drawing a divine youth who Donald Friend would have loved. So I haven't been doing much writing. love Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, Darling, he's a professional model. We also have a female model for whom the word Goddess is no exageration. I'm having a lovely time, having painted more pictures in six months than in the last 20 years. This evening I drew from a photo a portrait of a dear friend, recently deceased. I'm moderately pleased with it, but I know his nose isn't right, and unfortunately, he's no longer around to look at. I'll see if my email is working and send you a pic. Amandajm (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend to seek mediation between you and I in light of the fact that you have deleted of two entire sections in the Noah's Ark article, despite the fact that both sections were agreed to by a consensus of editors after considerable discussion. I have documented your repeated accusations of bad faith and your destructive edits (including repeated major edits without consensus). If you refuse mediation then I will take the next step in the conflict resolution process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't get involved in this I'm afraid. I like both of you too much. I wish this would go away though. Soon. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm a push-over, I will get involved. Here's a weird move from me. I can't find your email PiCo. But I did have a very heart-warming roam around your e-zine. I really like it. I think your team are really onto something. I like the "radical middle" (a.k.a. real common sense) concept. I really like the openness to spiritual exploration, indeed the suggestion that a certain spiritual something is "at the heart of it all". I have a personal take on this, more amateur philosopher and ex-politician than professional theologian, which probably already sounds like I'm fitting in.

I'm going to write something for you. I'll try not to be too serious. Heck, I might not even quote any sources but my own heart. Do as you will with it, "submission is permission". I hope you'll consider giving poor Taiwan boi a break, it's just not fair to wind up people of his dedication. He's got soul, he's not "them what are just begging for a revolution".

Try this for size, please tell me if I'm wrong. My guess is that it is a good thing Wiki processes are pretty messy. Push 'em and push 'em and we'll only have ourselves to blame if Wiki turns out to be as beaurocratic as our "information age" horror era your friends are exposing.

Please have mercy PiCo. I think Wiki needs you. Just not in this way, in this place, at this time.

Please consider emailing me (Email this user in left side panel at my user page). I think some of your motives are too sacred to be demeaned by discussion in a mediation forum. I want to understand what you are trying to say my friend. I'm very open to learning.

That's all for now. Please expect to receive a short speculative piece of writing from me about where the missing heart of the 21st century is exposed. No sources, not even the Bible. Just my heart and mind.

Savage my writing, not Taiwan boi's. Is it a deal? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To date I have received no response to this. If I receive no response by the end of today I will progress to the next step in the conflict resolution process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for PiCo, but to my understanding he is confident of his case and willing to discuss that in a mediation context. Process normally allows parties in a dispute to yay or nay specific mediators. That may take some time depending on how selective the parties are. If two mediators are acceptable to both parties, that may take substantial pressure off everyone, but that's just my opinion. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, I have already taken the initiative. I told you I would be seeking mediation, and shortly after you were contacted by Alastair (the mediator), who made it clear what was required and invited you to respond accordingly. I have seen no evidence that you wish to enter into mediation. If this is the case, then I will proceed to the next step in the conflict resolution process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh woops! OK, yes, I did accept the role of informal mediator.

My apologies to everyone, because I didn't announce myself that way.

I failed to make that clear to PiCo, because I was genuinely approaching him as a friend.

I failed to report back clearly and promptly to Taiwan boi regarding PiCo's response.

I do hope I have done all that I promised, and that I've betrayed no friendships or confidences.

Again my apologies for being very slap-dash in my involvement.

As I understand things at the moment, PiCo is happy to enter formal mediation.

He is content with his stance at Noah's Ark and happy to answer to anyone for it.

I was mediating, I will express no opinion, nor articulate the views of either party for them.

Each has a genuine case to make.

I was pleased Taiwan boi asked me to help him attempt an informal resolution.

I was pleased PiCo was happy to discuss his position.

I trust the Mediation Cabal to provide people who will genuinely stay with the issues and attempt to resolve them.

I think the conflict was inevitable but formal mediation is a positive step that should start as soon as possible.

One final thing, though, I did not understand my informal mediation as a substitute for the involvement of the Mediation Cabal.Alastair Haines (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia conflict resolution process requires conflicting editors to communicate with each other first, and then if that fails they are to seek informal mediation before seeking formal mediation. This is a couple of steps away from Arb Com yet. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I will possibly regret my involvement should it be considered by others as such a substitute.

I do not consider I made sufficient effort to resolve the conflict for it to be counted this way.

That was not what I understood myself to be promising.

By all means approach Arb Com with this Taiwan boi, but there's a good chance they'll return it to the Cabal.

Sorry again to all if I've been muddle-headed here. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, since I did this for the first time only a week ago. The proposer (that was me) puts some magic WikiCode into the talk page of the article under dispute. By and by a friendly member of the Mediation Cabal arrives (they promise to arrive within a few weeks ;). I was lucky, our mediators arrived quickly, and I got a bonus co-mediator, so now there's five of us in the talk-fest, lol. Anyway, I wasn't sure how it would work out or where to show up when, but someone dropped a note on my user talk page, to say everyone else had arrived, and would I formally approve the mediator, which is kind of a nice way to start.

As I understand it, mediation seeks to genuinely resolve differences. I'd expect a number of mediators might even start by "serving coffee". ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing this isn't for the Noah's Ark article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there's a discussion involving you at WP:EAR#User:PiCo/Noah's Ark which I'd like you to discuss your position at. A user has stated concerns about your editing and your side of the story would be much appreciated. Thanks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that your disruptive editing behaviour at the Noah's Ark article has ceased over the last few days. I would like to be clear on whether or not you intend to renew this behaviour. Your edits and arguments have been rejected by a number of other editors, and I do not expect to see them repeated. You also ignored attempts to discuss the article with you through editorial assistance. If your previous pattern of behaviour is repeated, I will go to WP:RFC. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering how the book is progressing? Amandajm (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief note to anyone thinking of posting here: I've been blocked indefinitely (does that mean forever?), the reason being that my ISP has been identified as an open proxy, whatever that is. So you can post, but I can't reply. PiCo (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea! How about you suggest it to Johnbod? Have you received the email I sent you? Amandajm (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing? If you want a really long disertation on what makes Leo the greatest, I will do it, but then I'll have every well-meaning person in the place on my back because of POV and flowery language. What do you thing... split, or not split?

Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh!) I agree with everything that you say about Leonardo. However, I have just been strongly criticised for writing other people into the article... the details of the two great horses were cut out (and put back again by me.) I am asked why we need the section that mentions all those other people who were around at that time... well, they were part of his background, and part of what made him what he was.

If I split the article, then I can go to greater lengths. If I try to add to the present one, then I'll be under fire.

Meanwhile war is raging on the other page, over the issue of his personal relationships, and simultameously over wheteher all the crap should be reinserted here.

About psychopaths. I have known two. They can be quite charming. The advantage of being able to look at a person and label them is that you are better able to protect yourself from the harm that they can inflict on you if you are unable to recognise the pattern in their behaviour. Amandajm (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just read what you put on Leo's personal page! I love you, PiCo! Amandajm (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Donald Friend, I think it is a great idea, and you would be a great person to do it. But I have no idea how you would get funding. Has there been a book, since the small one by Robert Hughes, 1965? Definitely time for a nice big lavishly illustrated book. Have you got my regular email address? I think the one that I set up in my wiki name has closed from lack of use. Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just wanted to ask what you mean by higher criticism, seems a bit of an ambiguous to me. Do you mean higher = senior ranks of the church, higher = more sophisticated..? Thanks, NathanLee (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the run-down, I guess the terminology was just a bit unfamiliar and the one you replaced had seemed to make a bit more sense than a "generic" sounding "higher criticism". I'm not sure if you could mesh the two terms together to cover both bases if they are both somewhat in use? Or give the jargon some context? NathanLee (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea! Did you get my email? Amandajm (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On 21 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biblical archaeology school, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue where to find the email address on your personal page! Also, why is everything on this page slashed through? Amandajm (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome: a comment had been removed earlier on (see this), leaving a stray piece of formatting remaining. I fixed it here. Acalamari 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, you chopped out some references to science views on the ark: I don't see how you can have one without the other. Without the flood, there's no ark and no mythology to speak of. If the article is about the ark then we should just repeat the few paragraphs in the bible and be done with it because that's all the information available on it. NathanLee (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

just worchit, OK! There are some naaaassty people out there. Amandajm (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you collected an email from me via Wiki yet? Amandajm (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey PiCo. The issue is that while the name of that article may be in common use, it is incorrect to state that it is God's name. It's POV and OR to make that claim. I'm not entirely sure why you want so much for the article to make that claim. There's not a single archaeological source that gives that name. It doesn't exist until a very short time ago, historically speaking. The very definition of it is a theoretical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton.

You write about "the first appearances of the name in the archaeological record", but there are none. That's my problem. An encyclopedia article shouldn't confuse two things. The Tetragrammaton is one thing. A theoretical vocalization is another thing. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your deceiving Lisa I really do. The Tetragrammaton has been pronounceable; otherwise it wouldn't appear in the Bible. Therefore, when the Patriarchs used what the Bible says YHWH, they didn't say Yod, Hay, Waw, Hay, - they said the Name. The Jews took the vowels out of the Name YHWH in an attempt to prevent it from being pronounced, but this was a later innovation. Alleichem (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added this section in good faith. I don't think it's very constructive for us to repeatedly delete and then restore. Let's resolve this through discussion on the talk page. But in the meantime the text stays as the principle of wikipedia is to add to and improve articles rather than take away. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"מ‎כשם פופסבד‏םשם" (let's say, "kasham pupsabadamashamam") definitely makes no sense - please check your source, as this is clearly gobbledygook. -- Y not? 03:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the recent edits to these? Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw took the boys to the Caravaggio exhibition in London. Wow! It was overwhelming. One of the things we really enjoyed was being able to see two Supper at Emmaus pics side by side. Hope eveything is OK with you! Gotta go ter bed. Yaaawwwn! Amandajm (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I being too nice? He was a rather interesting personality, and we do know more about his vegetarianism than his purported liking for chicken. Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Leo's the one of interest. I think that it's probably reasonable to state a little more of what little we know of his personality. I'll send you some pics. Right now I am listening to a wonderful CD of Cantillation singing something madly joyful. Our local music store has a birthday sale... I could go mad in there. What's your current project? Amandajm (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I was told the other day that there are not enough sadists to go around for all the masochists. What do you have in mind exactly? Amandajm (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, I've just done another Australian artist... an immensely popular one at that- S. John Ross (artist), so then I had to go and fix up the article on Silhouette. Did you ever have your portrait cut at the Show? I can't find mine! Amandajm (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could, if you think it would add something ... maybe he has a craving for Edam Cheese.... can you buy Edam Cheese in Cambodia? Where did you suggest he originated? .... Yawn! ... it's 2.30 here and I'm nearly falling off my perch! I've been really sick with a cold. My blood pressure is playing up, so I'm trying to avoid coughing. Good night, PiCo! I would love to chat but I'm toooo tired! Amandajm (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You had just recently deleted an entry and citation to the above mentioned section. THe deletion was marked with the comment: "Is Koutoupolis notable?" I do not understand what this means and why it was deleted. It was a valid entry with a valid published citation by a biblical scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkoutoupis (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Harry Orlinsky, you jackass!PiCo (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)"

this is unacceptable behavior. Hardyplants (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going through and cleaning the article up. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting reliable information that is pure fact. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's not mainstream. I will report you if you keep up your vandalism. Some courtesy would be appreciated, thank-you. Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

your biased use of the word "many" has shown up here again. Two does not make many (and one of those two is you! lol) Two have also deemed them good edits! What do you make of that? 2 vs. 2... now why would you call your side a majority? Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, this last revision I have did represents both side accurately. Can you not see this? I am not deleting, defaming, or name-calling, your beliefs, but accurately representing two major schools of thought. Or do you have a problem with accuracy? Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page. PiCo (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Creation according to Genesis, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Creation according to Genesis. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have instated temporary protection and it is a good sign that you are willing to cooperate with the other editor. However, it is important for both of you to remember that no one is exempt from the 3RR rule. It is arguable that both of you have broken it or have edit warred enough that would endanger you both of a block. For now take some time to allow the incident to cool down and once things aren't so heated, see what you can work out on the talk page. Good luck.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I will look this source up. I have been having difficulty clarifying his exact ecclesiastical titles and when they were given. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out what has happened here. We now have Biblical archaeology school but go to [7] and then click on the article. Then click on the talk page. Then there are these moves [8] so I am completely confused now. dougweller (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I think the real question is where does this go: [9] dougweller (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your repeated efforts to sabotage articles with misleading or false information, together with your repeated personal attacks, have been noted before, and not only by me. This is not the first time I have had to seek third party moderation in order to have you restrained. You have an hour to suggest a third party moderator, or I will. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already made my case explaining to you that Biblical literalism is not a term to be used in the manner you are using it. I have shown you this repeatedly. Your refusal to agree to arbitration is noted. This is not a matter of me being thin-skinned. I put up with your repeated personal attacks and your article sabotage for months. I suggest you read this and this if you don't remember the previous history. I have it all documented. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As a further note, you are also wrong to say 'I know, you think some of this material is not about a belief in a literal (i.e., real, touchable, made-out-of-wood) ark'. I have never denied that most of it is about 'a belief in a literal (i.e., real, touchable, made-out-of-wood) ark'. That is not under dispute (though as I have already pointed out, the Universalist view referenced rejects 'a belief in a literal (i.e., real, touchable, made-out-of-wood) ark'). The real issue is that you are taking interpretations which hold to the Ark as historical, and claiming they are Bibllical literalist when they are not. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Came here to let pico know about something else: but taiwan boi, I'd say you need to chill out a bit. You are being thin skinned by the sounds of it and stop with the Gestapo sounding crap ("i have it all documented", "have you restrained" etc) and discuss things. Taking something literally implies historical I would think, but that's just personal opinion. I don't see how you can claim the bible to be historically accurate while not being literally true. NathanLee (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey PiCo, just a courtesy note: I reverted the change you made (although I too agree there's a need to put Qu'ran in there (as I'd started to do also), albeit with a bit less "christian is primary" feel to it. But as Ben pointed out to me (and reverted my changes) the lead is under consideration by another editor as mediation goes on. So probably worth leaving it alone for a bit.. There's enough mess for them to sort through without the lead changing every 5 minutes. :) regards, NathanLee (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You have removed the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, why? --Alpha166 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind comment on the Mosaic authorshp talk page.Same sentiment on my side. Happy holidays!Wolf2191 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, your explanation of your edits of this article was very much to the point. Amandajm (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What a sarcastic bugger you are, PiCo! ;) Amandajm (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not sarcastic! Quirky maybe.PiCo (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reported your breach of 3RR. --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick note to say, excellent work on this article! Very thorough and balanced. --Rbreen (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments. Well as for a featured article, it would certainly seem more appropriate for this time of year than what we have on the main page today...andycjp (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, I've read quite a few pages of it now and I'll definitely add it to my 'to read' list. I'm a little concerned with the Noah's Ark article getting too deeply into such analysis though, would the discussion of Genesis being presented as history be better left for the Book of Genesis article? Trying to incorporate a little of it into the lead sentence suggestions I posted on Talk:Noah's Ark though, I came up with:

Noah's Ark (Hebrew: תיבת נח, Tevat Noach; Arabic: سفينة نوح, Safina Nuh) is a large vessel that features in the mythological history shared by Abrahamic religions.

The next sentence would need a little tweaking so it clearly follows from this sentence, but that is no problem. One thing it deals with is the problem of plurality I was having earlier - I settled on 'flood myths', but this seemed wrong to me. Anyway, what do you think of the above? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. Thanks for the headsup on the cowboy article. I have now added my contribution which is long over due, and that builds on yours. I think this is going to face some contentious discussion so would appreciate your engagement. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reported your breaches of WP:CIVIL. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Israelites, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. See also your edit summary on Exodus. Referring to other editors as idiots, or defaming their religion is not acceptable. Please stop. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you might recall this comment?. You should have been blocked immediately. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. I had only a 'passing interest' in the Exodus article until today. What has changed is the 'intervention' of Rktect. I first encountered him on the Chedorlaomer page, where, as ever, his contributions were verbose and seemed to consist entirely of original research. Since that time he has cropped up in a few places with similar contributions - almost all of which seem to spark a flurry of reverts. However, I gave him some space with the Chedorlaomer article and have since worked with him to produce an updated article (you can find the new version at User:FimusTauri/Chedor - I would appreciate any comments, incidentally.) I have found that he is genuine in his interest, well-read and intelligent - it is just that he cannot help rambling on about seemingly irrelevant details when he makes contributions.

Coming to my point. In reading through the discussions on Exodus I noted that you are (or were) working on a re-write. Rktect has asked for my help again with Exodus, because he feels that he has a lot to contribute. I was wondering if it might be better if, assuming you are still working on a re-write, rather than duplicate this effort, I could help Rktect contribute to your efforts instead. This might help 'rein' him in and also would help him learn the finer points of OR.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For starters we might restore the references, agree on an outline for the sections and follow the wikipedia rules of style with a to do list.Rktect (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you would have something to say on this: Proposed change to policy on ambiguous words in religious articles --FimusTauri (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Documentary hypothesis. I've been grumpy for some years that the article as it stands still attributes the P source (for all any novice could see) to postexilic times, when it seems to me to be clearly established that the P source was written before the exile as a partisan document against JE (or perhaps against E in particular). R. E. Friedman is of course the notable current partisan of this view, and I think his work is well-accepted enough that it ought to be reflected in this article, at least on this particular major revision of the historical DH. I know that I'm unconscionable in suggesting that you carry out such edits yourself rather than doing it myself, but I'm curious about what you (as a recent active editor of the article) think about the fact that the article as it stands barely hints that any significant revision of the dating of the P source has taken place during the history and development of the documentary hypothesis. --arkuat (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pico, I blocked someone last night for calling edits vandalism when there was simply a difference of opinion. He's accusing me, wrongly (because he has a long history of this), of being inconsistent. Do you understand the difference between Cush's edits and vandalism? If not, I suggest you read WP:Vandalism. dougweller (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Noah's Ark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Vassyana (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Caravaggio sleeping cupid.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Caravaggio sleeping cupid (1).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Caravaggio sleeping cupid (1).jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought it best to message you here to get your attention quickly. I have been working on the revamp of the narrative section of Abraham and thought you might like to see what I have come up with. Please see User:FimusTauri/Abraham. Some explanation is on the talk page.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

From Chronic2 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Greetings Pico. Please explain on the Bryant Wood page why it is proper for you to say that 1995 radiocarbon dates refute Wood's date for the destruction of Jericho City IV, but when it is brought out that more recent radiocarbon results, as properly cited, are in agreement with Wood's results, you are justified in erasing these documented results as tendentious. How would you present these later results in a way that you would consider acceptable? Or should any attempt to present more modern results be erased, and if so for what reason? Is not looking at older results only, not accepting new results, more than tendentious?
Chronic2 (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Where have you been? Jee whizz! I didn't realised how much I missed your sarcastic sideswipes! That little piece is there specifically because every Arab on the planet demands that it should be. You are outnumbered. Watch and see what will happen next! Where are you, Darling? What part of the planet are you residing on? Not still Canberra, surely? If you are a good boy I'll send you a nasty poem! Amandajm (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

G'Day!. Yeah..... Oh Caterina! If we don't have passing reference to the possible "facts" that Len-the-nose-picker was a left-handed vegetarian Middle Eastern poof with a passion for chicken then people get cross with us. It's better to go with a passing reference than have a whole thesis shoved into the article by someone for whom one (or more) of those particular subjects is an obsession and therefore the single most important fact about him. It's political, Poopsie, Just go with it. Have you got internet access? Amandajm (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs a good rewrite. Some is written by a Creationist I'm pretty sure, the same person who used Bible and Spade for the chronology at Solomon which I've rewritten but needs work also. It needs to be rewritten in a non-universe style and the chronology bit reworked. Interested? Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This looks awfully like a WP:PA. . . Incidentally I shall restore some WP:RS relevant material to the Pell article that you may have accidentally deleted. Happy editing. Writegeist (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx for the response. Only mentioned it because there are some officious characters around WP who love to stir things up over summaries like that, so it was just a friendly reminder to be on the q.v.. AAMOF yr. reading was right on the money, I think. Writegeist (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making edits to articles which deal with the Bible by injecting your personal theories and judgements into these articles. I cannot speak for any other contributor besides myself (and many of them might disagree with what I am about to say), but I might be willing to actually support some or most of your edits.

I would have been willing to leave almost all of your previous edits to Internal consistency of the Bible unmolested, but you have a nasty habit of injecting assumptions and inferences into the articles that you edit without either asking to form a consensus with anyone else or supplying these articles with evidence, citations, or sources for your assertions.

If you are only willing to talk about your ideas for the article that I am dealing with on that article's talk page (instead of continually erasing my improvements to one section of it), I might stop accusing you of sabotage, POV – pushing, and editing on a biased basis.

While I have made more than one edit in ways that actually incorporated your improvements into the final text of whatever version of Internal consistency of the Bible I had been working on at the time, you have been behaving in such a way that would have people believing that you do not believe that policy rules dealing with verifiability, reliable sources, original research, "owning an article," and even using Wikipedia to spread your personal opinions about the Bible and the Church simply do not apply to you.

In the process, you have actually made more than one factual error while making your edits (for example, whether the Book of Enoch was written in Aramaic or not would only have been a Rabbinical issue, not a Christian canonical issue, as you extrapolated). I will share my thoughts about editing the article, for the most part on that article's talk page, but I haven't eaten all day, so please forgive me if you do not receive my response in as timely a manner as you would like. More to come later — User:198.252.12.202 User_talk:198.252.8.202 22:38, Sunday April 12, 2009 (UTC)

Aaaacck! I was editing the article just when you were reverting me and I accidentally reverted you for the 3rd time within 24 hours. My apologies, and I also apologize for not being able to return to the article talk page today – but I will try to return there as soon as I can. 198.252.12.202 Talk 03:33, Monday April 13, 2009 (UTC)

you can't pull "featured article" on me. this article has been vastly changed since. the featured article was much better, especially in the opening. this is what the opening said when it was orignially featured, "Nevertheless, Biblical literalists continue to explore the region of the mountains of Ararat, in northeastern Turkey, where the Bible says Noah's Ark came to rest." Much better than "test-case" -- that just sounds silly. Swift as an Eagle (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"The first verse of Genesis is difficult to translate because it begins with the indefinite rather than definite article." It's good you removed this sentence, since Hebrew has no indefinite article (CL Seow, A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, p. 54)[[10]], and Genesis begins with a particle, essentially a preposition, "Be". Agathman (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And yeah, assuming I can find some time, I'd like to work on the "theology and interpretation" section. Agathman (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re this edit:

Nice catch, noticing that "it" had no clear antecedent, but... your replacement can't possibly be right. The article says, later in that same sentence, that Wellhausen attributes the Dinah story (ch. 34) to J, while he attributes the preceding story (end of ch. 33) to E. So whatever the "it" is, if Wellhausen attributes "it" partly to J and partly to E, then "it" must be something bigger than just the Dinah story, which he attributes only to J.

The only way the original sentence would make sense is if "it" is the documentary hypothesis itself. I.e.: "Wellhausen's formulation of the documentary hypothesis divided the documentary hypothesis into two original texts..."

Not very clear. I can't immediately think of a good way to say what the original author was trying to say, and I didn't want to just revert your edit, so... I'm sending you this message and leaving the ball in your court. Maybe you'll be able to think of a good way to word it. You don't need to send a message back to me. 150.176.244.146 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, where is the point? I've just found a couple of typos and other lacks. Let me know for everything and good work (if you've time, you could check my new additions, Last supper (Tintoretto) and Miracle of the Slave (Tintoretto)). --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I caught the point. There's a precise standard to follow in creatio of Wikipedia articles: check WP:How to write a good article and WP:Manual of Style. For example, you wrote a whole section without any paragraph, and in the wrong place. Ciao and good work again. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted my new reference in the first place, or removed a part of the text before it but our main dispute was not about that, so I hope that won't happen again. Now to the real issue: See the edit, I have granted you modern scholars, but left some because my source is from 20th century. Of course Church doesn't raise this particular issue every hundred years just to confirm their decision again, but even so, this is also a modern source (20th century). Also, Catholic Biblical scholars hold this position, which is is unchanged to this day. And if we talk about numbers, few (perhaps loud and probably secular ones) - when counted - fall short before the Catholic doctors of the Bible (and majority of Protestant I assume). I hope this is now done with and is objective. I have made a compromise, you should be fair as to do the same. --Paxcoder (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to have an article on him, we really should have at least some of the debunking links. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I cited Best's book is I don't know of another source. There are some things in his book that are weird. But the missing decimal point idea is so simple, I'm sure others have published that long before Best did. But I don't have the time to search for it. The few Genesis commentaries I have looked at, that try to rationalize the Genesis 5 numbers, either ignore the Septuagint numbers or simply list them without comment. Greensburger (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Hill gives this interesting analysis of the "significant numbers" making up Methualeh's age:(60+60+60+6+6)x60mos – 5yrs(60mos) + 7yrs + 7yrs. The point she's making is that this number, like all the numbers for the genealogies in Gen.1-11, is based on a hexagesimal system."

Her interpretation is too ad hoc. There is nothing in her interpretation that is proved by the numbers themselves. No matter which number system was used, the Masoretic Genesis 5 numbers result in either the fathers being too young to have children or being too old when they died. Best argues that the Masoretic Text is corrupt and the Septuagint has the original numbers with implied decimal places. The units digits were tenths, not integers: 5 meant one half, 2 meant one quarter, and 7 meant three quarters of years. So Methuselah was 16.7 years old when his son was born and was 96.9 when he died. This not only works with Methuselah, it works with all the other people in Genesis 5 (Septuagint). If a key opens the lock, it is the right key. Number systems were so ambiguous in ancient times that it is a wonder that any sense can be made of them.

To use a modern example, suppose a military person wrote "The battle ended at 1200 hours" (meaning at noon) and centuries later a translator divided by 24 because there are 24 hours in a day. 1200 / 24 = 50 days. Hence, the translator would mis-translate the sentence as "The battle ended after 50 days." An easy mistake to make, if you don't know how the military uses the numbers. Later an editor might think "50 days is impossible; it must mean 5 days." So he alters the text to say "The battle lasted 5 days." Fortunately the Septuagint preserves the original Genesis 5 numbers. Greensburger (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "I think I lot of the things on the Methuselah page are very interesting, but perhaps should be transferred to the Biblical Generations article, if they touch on more than just Methuselah. Would you agree?"

Transferred? No. There is so little material on Methuselah, that everything that touches on him should be included in the Methuselah article, even if that duplicates a few sentences in other articles or applies to the other Genesis characters. Few people would know about Methuselah if he had an age at death of 900 instead of 969. His reported age being the highest is the only reason that anybody comments on him. Hence, theories about the meaning of the reported age numbers should remain in the Methuselah article, for the same reasons that none of the material in the Ides of March article should be transferred to the Julius Caesar article. Greensburger (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: regarding the below edit:

(cur) (prev) 00:25, 13 May 2009 PiCo (talk | contribs) (28,386 bytes) (→Biblical: Witness Lee is not a biblical scholar, and therefore not a reliable source.) (undo)

What is your definition of "Biblical scholar"? The man spent more than 70 years studying the Bible, and wrote a 25,000-page "Life-Study of the Bible." Do you require someone to graduate with a degree from Fuller Theological Seminary? If that's the case, you are projecting an imposition of denominational values...one must be part of the group to be able to be a "scholar." In just case, the use of the term "scholar" to mean "establishment scholar" simply colors the word in a negative sense. To say that he is not a scholar is simply not correct.Ryoung122 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining "biblical scholar" You asked me for my definition of the term "biblical scholar". I doubt that there's any easy-to-find definition to hand, so this must be understood as my own personal view.

Scholarship is a community - it can't be done alone. Therefore, a biblical scholar is one who participates in the wider community of such scholars. This means publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and publishing books in major publishing houses (which will send manuscripts for comment to other scholars before committing to print).

Scholars will be aware of the work of other scholars, and of the current state of inquiry in their field, and will take account of this in their work, even if they disagree - but they will not ignore it.

Biblical scholars of the Old Testament will be capable of handling the languages required - Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, also French and German, since so much scholarship is published in languages other than English. They will be at least acquainted with cognate languages such as Arabic.

Biblical scholars will also be aware of developments in related disciplines - archaeology, literary studies, and others.

All these things take, first, a long period of education, in an academic setting - it would be impossible to pick it up through self-study. And then to be a practicing scholar is a full-time occupation - it's not done in spare time while holding down a day-job. Witness Lee had no academic training in these disciplines, and he was a very busy man. A man with many achievements to his life, but not a scholar. He published nothing in any peer-reviewed journal, his books are never cited by biblical scholars, and I doubt that he had the time anyway. You do him a disservice if you claim him as a biblical scholar instead of as the very eminent preacher that he was.

PiCo (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings,

I would like to say a few things about the above commentary. First, your definitions exclude self-made individuals, which I highly disagree with. Let's not forget that from discovering comets (Shoemaker-Levy) to writing songs ("Joy to the World"), some people are self-directed individuals. They may LATER attain the "educational training" needed to prove to others what they have taught themselves, but that does not mean it was required to begin with.

Second, one of the core tenets of Witness Lee's teachings is that, too often, "the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives Life"---something Jesus emphasized. The New Testament repeatedly notes the fallacy of the Pharisees, learned in the letter but not the spirit of the law: "it is not lawful to heal on the Sabbath." So no, Witness Lee would not want to be labelled a mainstream scholar who gets their work published in journals but doesn't seem to really comprehend the content. However, turning to Merriam-Webster:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholar

"a learned person"...Witness Lee fits this definition.

Further, I question whether you know enough about Witness Lee to make an assessment of him. Both he and Watchman Nee were said to read the entire New Testament once every two weeks. They probably studied the Bible MORE than the average "theological seminary" graduate. Further, they collaborated with theological seminary graduates who were learned in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic and their work does not merely reiterate what the King James translation said, but went back to the original texts. Finally, Witness Lee's "Life-Study of the Bible" is over 25,000 pages, an encyclopedia of the Bible covering every book.

Third...Witness Lee did not see himself as "preacher" in the way the word is now used today...he saw himself as a prophet, one who speaks for God.

Fourth--my citation of Lee was as an apologist's explanation of why the human lifespan was longer in the Old Testament than in "modern" times. One does not have to agree with Lee's or any other apologist's explanation...the point is simply to give a POV balance by seeing how others (non-scientifically) reconcile the extreme age claims of the Bible with the scientific reality today that humans don't live that long, and that it is a scientific principle that lifespans aren't going to "devolve" that radically in just a few thousand years.Ryoung122 17:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Going back through unsigned stuff on my talk page I found this. Looks ok to me. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your very helpful edits to this article, even if some of the edit summaries were a bit crushing to the poor initial writer!! ;-) I would be very happy if you could continue on down the article, since it is sorely in need somebody with the editing touch see their way through to better prose. I have some dreams of taking it up to featured article status. There is a way to go, but I would be glad of your help along the way.--Slp1 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of this for a good way forward for the composition section.

Views about the composition of Deuteronomy can be divided into approximately four groups:.^[1]

• 1. 'A substantially Mosaic date and authorship: This was the traditional view until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Scholars holding this view have argued that the New Testament authors attested to Mosaic authorship and that although kingship is mentioned, Jerusalem is omitted and the book presents itself as being written prior to the first millennium. Meredith G. Kline more recently proposed Deuteronomy should be viewed as a suzerain/vassal treaty between God and the people of Israel mirroring other ancient near Eastern treaties from the second millennium.^[2] The scholars that hold this view such as Meredith G. Kline and Christopher Wright^[3] concede some additional post-Mosaic material and editing has occurred.^[4]
• 2. Deuteronomy contains Mosaic material but was complied and substantially edited around the period of King Josiah: Theodor Oestreicher suggested in 1923 that Josiah began reforms prior to the discovery of the law and the discovery of 'the book' only added impetus to the reform.^[5] Scholars holding this view such as E. Robertson hold that a core Deuteronomistic amount of material is Mosaic but that subsequent additions were made around the time of King Saul.^[6] Gerhard Von Rad took this view in 1938, suggesting that the original Mosaic material was edited by Levities from the Northern Kingdom, which subsequently became the book of law discovered by Kind Josiah.^[7]
• 3. Deuteronomy was entirely composed in or around the period of King Josiah's reign: M. L. de Wette initiated this view in 1805 by suggesting King Josiah had Deuteronomy created as a type of "pious fraud" to further his agenda of religious reform.^[8] Since then this has become the dominate view among most scholars.^[9] Proponents of this view point to the lack of penalties for attending feasts and theological theme of centralized worship.^[10]
• 4. Deuteronomy was the product of a more recent era: Martin Noth in 1943 published a thesis that suggested Deuteronomy through Kings was a single Deuteronomistic history, largly the product of one author.^[11] Noth held that Deuteronomy was competed during the exilic period.^[12]

Many contemporary scholars, most of whom do not dispute the Josaic context of the book, adopt a synchronic ("final form") reading, focusing more on meaning than on composition.^[13]

--Knobbly (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi - the article on David and Jonathan covers the "love" angle in some detail, but I'm conscious that it doesn't really deal with the theological issues of kingship. If you have some time then might you take a look to see if we can do a bit more to bring out that angle please? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind looking at List of artifacts significant to the Bible? While I don't always agree with you (and may not in the future), this is an article I've been working on and I would appreciate your input as you have a keen eye for language and are thorough, which is a rare find here.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be so slow to respond -crazy couple of days. Thanks so much for looking at the article and offering your input. Its great to have a fresh set of eyes take a look at it. I am still looking at the organization. Any ideas? I'm just not sure how to structure it. Maybe by time periods? Also any more citations you come up with would greatly improve it. I look, but don't have a lot of time. Again, thanks so much for your help here! Please keep looking at it in the future.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I gather by your logic, by reading some of your posts I can ascertain all of what you write? I gather then that you presume to know all there is about a subject when you know a little. Seeing as that in your opinion, knowing something about 100% of known civilisations is the same thing as knowing something about 100% of civilisations. Oh the arrogance of those that think they know when the wise realises they know so very little. Advice: Cover your bases and allow for what is as yet unknown. You'll look like less of a fool. Keep your precious Wiki article as you want it. I'll just hang around and make sure you get the credit for it.--Benson Verazzano (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion and the modifications to Julius Wellhausen. In the interest of getting "all the nuances across," you IMHO understated the case as much as I had overstated it. Wellhausen was explicit about his quick attraction to the concept that the Jewish law was not what it was cracked up to be. But he is only a pawn on the chessboard of players that the Nazis appropriated for their evil mission: the New Testament, several church councils and Popes, Chrysostom, Ferdinand & Isabella, Luther, Darwin, Wagner, Nietzsche, the apocryphal Protocols of the Elders of Zion, whatever sources could be wrenched (even out of context) to a purpose aimed at genocide. A corollary was also prevalent—that because Jews were to be perceived (in the Nazi Weltanschauung) as inferior, any source which said as much was deemed credible. It was a case of having a deduction and then looking for proof. Rammer (talk) 05:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If this interests you at all, you should take a look at the recent changes. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have conducted a GA Sweeps reassessment of this article and found a large number of concerns which can be see ay Talk:Caravaggio/GA1. The article has been de-listed, but can be brought back to WP:GAN when these have been addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You will be pleased with me.... I sent off my entries to the Bridport Prize. Just in time. Probbly wouldn't have made it, except that the Earthy was spinning the right direction. Shall I take a look at Caravaggio, then? Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PiCo! Are you still in Oz? I know you've read some of my stories. Did I send you any poetry? My Three Bros has got three beginnings, three middles and three ends. She ought to be magnificently impressed with that!

Caravaggio is a hopeless case from my side. The writers have only provided references for quotes, opinions and challengeable material. None of the ordinary biographical facts have been referenced at all. I don't think I have anything at all specifically on Caravaggio, so I'll have to leave it to someone else to trot along to the library and lug home all the right volumes. Oh Well!

Amandajm (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinky Canoe? Don't know that one.... Oh how I miss Newtown! Going to Sydney on Choosedy. I'll have not one but possibly four 15 yr olds in tow. We'll have to catch up another day. Amandajm (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Want to weigh in on the David article's adultery section on the talk page?Sweetmoose6 (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see talkpage of Donald Friend regarding your edit.--Design (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PiCo, I am sorry if my comments were injurous to you. I will lay my cards out on the table. I am just tired of what I see as a serious anti-Americanism that pops up at Wikipedia periodically. Now, you may well NOT be an example of this. But it exists, and I admit hat having tired of it I am now blunt in my reaction to it.

There may be some articles where there is a truly unencyclopedic American bias. But we have to differentiate between writing that presents an American POV as the only POV (which violates POV) versus that which presents it as one POV. Now even if it is the only POV in the article, as long as it is presented as one POV, it is not a violation of NPOV.

Why might it be the only POV in an article? Well, I think that since this is English Wikipedia, and most editors will be people who speak English as their first language will be the main contributors, and many Kenyans and others who speak English as a first language do not have the same access to the internet, I would expect lots of articles on topics of interest to Americans drawing on research with material available in the US. As long as this is presented in an NPOV way, I see no problem.

And the solution, when an article does have a lot of material from the US, is to add examples from other countries.

But nother reason an article may have lots of informaton on the US is tht the article is about a topic that is largely linked to th US. This is why I added a second note to the Creationism talk, to moe fully express my view that creationism is a movment (and one as far as I kno that was founded and is strongest in the US).

PiCo, there may be a time when we need to discuss a kind of systemic American bias at Wikipedia, if we do not hav enough editors who are doing research on phenomena around he world. The general solution in my view is to recruit new editors from around the world - there is a discussion about how to do this at WP:Areas for Reform.

But short of a meaningful discussion of systemic bias, I am honestly sick of knocking articles for haing an American slant. There is no "articles shall not have an American slant" policy. We should criticize articls on policy grounds. I would find it upsetting if someone said this article has a black slant or a Jewish slant or an Arab slant - I think singling out peoples is offensive.

I think we DO have an NPOV policy and also an UNDUE weight policy and THESE are good grounds for calling attention to problms, grounds that do not single out any group of people.

And we have the good old "wiki" process by which an editor can add moe info any time, so if you feel that other countries where creationism is a serious movement have been neglected, you are free to research those other countries and add in the information. I would be all for this.

If you did not mean to deprecate an entire people, then I am sorry if my words seemed to attack you personally. But honestly, PiCo, it seems to me that any good point you have to make (this sentence needs to be rewritten to comply with NPOV .... or, given that creationism atually was created in England, I will add a new paragraph) could have been presented in a different way.

But it is not clear to me in fact that these kinds of valid criticisms apply to this article. So when I read that kind of comment - you wrote one in particular, but you should know you are not the only one, lots of people write similar comments - I just have to respond that an English Wikipedia largely edited by Americans is going to be full of articles on American topics. Will someone criticize the article on Yellowstone National Park for being Americancentril? Why not just go out and write a new article on an important phenomenon in Ulan Bator or Samoa or someplace like that?

I am trying to more fully explain my view in a NON-personal way and I hope sincerely that you do not perceive this as a personal attack. If so - it is not my intention and I apologize. It is still not really clear to me what constructive comment you wished to make about Creationism but I do believe that you wished to make a constructive comment. Would you mind explaining moe what really is bothering you about the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You say you don't give a damn about what Americans think. Since when has that had any standing at Wikipedia? I do not give a damn about pokeman. Is that a reason to delete all articles on pokeman? If you are not interested in an article that is about a movement that was probably created and is most active in America.... why not read another article? I just do not understand what could have prompted your statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)