User talk:FimusTauri/Archive 1

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

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

Again, welcome. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Re-structuring the Ark?

Thanks for the invite. I look forward to getting into that discussion, but I want to sort the mythology problem out first. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of flood accounts

Did you ever get a chance to read Osanai's thesis? It's very interesting and she mentions several other authors' literary analysis to concur that the Mesopotamian cycle seems to be the more garbled form, of the hypothesized original to both accounts. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, broadly agreeing with what I thought to be the case. Its such a shame that certain editors on WP would never accept that source.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User Rktect

Hi FT, and first I'd like to thank and compliment you for the cool way you always approach editing. I wish could be like that. Unfortunately, Rktect brings out the worst in me. I don't try to argue with him, normally, as he's set in his opinions and won't listen. I simply revert his more egregious edits. But your approach, of engaging in dialogue, is certainly the long-term ideal. I wish you well, but personally I'm trying to cut down my Wikipedia time :) PiCo (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Kedorlaomer

I have left some comments on the article's talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for assistance

Hey Fimus, sorry, I've been flat out the last week or so, and it doesn't look like I'll have much time to space for at least the next week. I'm happy to have a good look sometime after that though. Cheers, Ben (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Passage of the Red Sea

Please take a look at this (reverted now) edit. [1] - I've posted to the talk page also. What do you think? 18:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

Maybe take a look at the talk page while you are there. Wnt and I were asking and answering questions about the passage of the Red Sea. As you and I have discussed historical context often provides a frame of reference thats useful in introducing the articles reliable sources have written about the Biblical archaeology, history, and linguistics that may interest a reader looking for information of an encyclopedic nature such as Wnt. I'm finding Doug Weller is going around to other users talk pages making what I consider personal attacks accusing me of having some connection to Ron Wyatt. I'm seeing this on the talk pages of Cush, PiCo, You, and I don;t know how many more Rktect (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that you don't understand OR. It's Cush that mentioned Ron Wyatt, I never connected you to him.[2] Cush may have been thinking of this [3] or something else, I have no idea. If you tell me you think Wyatt is rubbish, I'll believe you. And I note that you have accused me of never adding anything useful, which is just silly considering my edits this evening to Avaris and Narmer Palette.dougweller (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I did notice your edits this evening. I bookmarked the site you removed, she had some really good stuff, as to Narmer lets work together on it maybe we will both learn to cooperate betterRktect (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I can understand the frustrations that many editors feel towards Rktect. There are a number of things that he has done (and in cases continues to do) wrong, but a little help and advice usually works wonders with him. Often, he posts material that looks like OR, but in fact he is simply stating a particular point of view - his failure is that his writing style does not show this fact. He also appears not to have read and understand the manual of style, especially as he has a tendency to fill out the introduction with his material, rather than a more appropriate place in the article. If other editors would help him (after reverting his edits) and explain why the edits were reverted then Rktect would more rapidly understand the way WP is supposed to work. As he gains understanding, his contributions have become increasingly valuable and he has a lot to offer.
Rktect - I really wish you would take a deep breath before adding material. Discuss it first. You have created confrontation unnecessarily simply by dumping huge amounts of material (no matter how valid or valuable it may be) into articles. Your written style is often hard to comprehend and editors usually do not have the time or patience to try and pick through your edits in order to understand what you are trying to say.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at the talk pages of the articles Doug has reverted. There are references broken into sections, wikified, referenced as you suggest. Much of the material I'm putting in the talk pages is there to answer the specific questions of another user. My issue is that pages are being reverted either without engaging in the existing discussion on the talk pages or in blatent disregard of the consensus there.
I could easily start a new article, title it Passages of the Red Sea and state that the purpose of the article is to discuss Passages of the Red Sea; someone would immediately ask that the articles be merged and the discussion of the Biblical content would become a footnote.
The real problem from my perspective is the personal attacks. I don't think its appropriate behavior to discuss me rather than the contribution. Many of the charges of OR are as you say deriving from a POV. For an editor who isn't aware of a broad area of historical, archaeological, linguistic and scientific research into the history of a place such as the Red Sea, its ports, its trade, its people and places, the only thing of importance may be a Bible story that references it, but thats not an encyclopedic approach. The reason we wikify is to bring into an article all the reliable sources of information about a topic. Rktect (talk) 10:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Christian mythology

Fimus, if you get enough chance, please also take a look over the two archive pages linked at the top of Category talk:Christian mythology. Most of the discussion dates to '05 and '06, but a clear majority consensus involving numerous editors eventually emerged, regarding what does and does not belong in that category for purposes of the categorisation scheme -- which is why it is supposed to consist of articles like Sword of Saint Peter, and NOT supposed to include canonical or theological topics like Virgin Birth (over the objections of the minority, ie mainly User:FestivalOfSouls, who wanted that article and several related ones to have the category appearing at the bottom of it...) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Passage of the Red Sea

Wnt is using things that came up on the discussion page. Refer to Deuteronomy 1.1 and 1 Kings where the Deuteronomist has clarified that Mount Horeb is on the border of Edom and Midian in the Araba at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba at Elat. Maybe read the extensive discussion as you advised me earlier. Its really kind of interesting how the Deuteronomist goes through picking up on where things are vauge and clarifies them. Rktect (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have actually read the Bible and I fully understand that the Israelites viewed the Edomites as relatives. However, it also becomes clear that the Edomites (and others) did not want their 'distant cousins' parking on their doorstep or trampling through their lands. The Israelites were extremely unwelcome. For this reason alone it is inappropriate to claim in the lead that the purpose of the Exodus was to "rejoin their relatives". More specifically, the book of Exodus makes it clear that the purpose was to claim the land God had granted them. Any other 'purpose' is speculation and OR.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt you have read the Bible. Certainly after crossing the Red Sea Moses is rejoining his relatives in Midian and Edom that he has spent most of his life with. He has brought his people with him but I agree they don't find the welcome wagon anywhere in the neighborhood as you point out. Historically most migrations do go to places where relatives have established themselves in the new place.
The very first thing they do after leaving Horeb is to compass Edom visiting all the cities and peoples of of the Edomites. They go to Kadesh Barnea, head up toward Gaza turn East toward Moab passing through all the places associated with Abraham, Hagar, Ishmael, and then go down through Petra back to Horeb. That process takes them forty years so its not like they are in a rush to get to Canaan.
I'll allow Wnt probably shouldn't have placed that in the lead as if it were their main purpose. Their main purpose appears to be finding a place where they can live among the many other people that already occupy the land and still make their own rules about how to live.
The stuff about the covenants with all the various people and gods that ground the claim to the land seem to have been added rather late by the Deuteronomist. All the rules and regulations they are enforcing with their bans seem to have been written even later by the Priestly source and the redactor. When we discuss reasons for crossing the Red Sea, the clearest thing that justifies all the trouble they go to to find a new home, is the copper boom going on in the Arabah at that time
That may be why there seems to be such unwillingness among their neighbors, even those among whom they may be thought to have had some common tribal ancesry to move over and make room for them. They are perceived as claim jumpers. At least thats one of the lines Emanual Anati and others have pursued. Its probably not helpful that as they go they place everyone else under the ban. Eventually, after their conquest fails to win them the lands by force of arms they settle down and live among other peoples and adopt their ways. Rktect (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Your very selective canvassing doesn't say much for your integrity, and what it does say isn't good. Furthermore, refusal to get the point seems to be another problem we're having about this myth issue. Both of these things, and your forum shopping that I noted on WT:NPOV/FAQ, are considered disruptive, which is a blockable offence. I'd ask you to please keep these things in mind in future. Cheers, Ben (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern Fimus, is that you will keep bringing up the same issues on as many forums as you can, in order to try and get the outcome you want. I don't feel like being dragged through every forum on the encyclopaedia to satisfy you though - I've got better things to do. In light of that, I made sure you knew of the relevant behavioural guidelines and related consequences. Canvassing is also a prickly issue. If you're going to do it, and in principle I have no problem with that, be as thorough as you can. Being choosy, one way or the other, I do have a problem with. Leaving out editors who are clearly involved I have an even bigger problem with. Ben (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I see this and I have to laugh. FT has got to be one of the two easiest editors to work with I have met in the 3 1/2 years I have been editing here. Rktect (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I know you're just dying to get an admin on your side throughout this mess, but I must remind you again, please refrain from canvassing. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The bible and myth

Ah me. My own position is that the OT (ok, the Torah) is a literary work. Not a piece of mythology. But not a piece of history either. It seems to be a point that can't get a hearing around here - we're faced with a choice between 'bible is myth' and 'bible is history.' Given this, I'd rather not get involved. Anyway, I have a real-life life - and so should we all :) PiCo (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

Almost all English words are ambiguous; simply avoiding them will leave us with a handful of technical terms (a small portion of all that exist), primarily the words we need to define, not the words we use to define them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Splinter from your ambiguous words proposal

I'm happy to continue the 'myth' discussion here so as not to clog your proposal too much (but I will reference any discussion here if it's important to that proposal). You said:

Ultimately, it turned out that the main objection was that the proposed wording said, in effect, that "Noah's Ark is a myth" (or, more generally, that the Bible/Quran are myths).

I'm not sure what proposed wording you're talking about, but since the current wording seems to be in a fragile balance, I'll assume I can reference it. Now, I think I'm seeing a new angle to yours and Til's complaints. This post will just be an attempt to make sure I do see and understand it. With that in mind, I really want to break this down so please bear with me.

  1. With respect to the vast majority of reliable sources on the topic, the Noah's Ark story is classified as a myth.
  2. The Bible and Qur'an are not myths, they're literary works, sacred texts, whatever you want to call them.
  3. The Bible and Qur'an contain myths in the same sense that encyclopaedias contain expository articles.
  4. Not everything in the Bible and Qur'an is a myth in the same sense that not everything in an encyclopaedia is an expository article.
  5. With respect to your above quote, the concern was that by saying that Noah's Ark featured in a myth, the implication was that the Bible and Qur'an were myths.

Is this accurate? With point 5 being the source of the complaint? If so, then I have some questions. Cheers, Ben (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost, but not quite. The original proposal (and many of the variants proposed in between) gave the impression that a) The Noah's Ark story is a myth and b) The Bible/Quran are myths. The problem is not that saying "Noah's Ark is a myth" means you are saying "The Bible/Quran are myths" - it is that the original proposal said both of these. My mistake was using "or" rather than "and" in the quote above.
If it helps clarify my position. I agree with 1, 3 and 4, assuming the academic defintion. I agree with 2 without qualification. 5 is explained above.
I must stress that this does not address the NPOV issue that is the centre of Til's disagreement. Nor does it address the reliability/verifiability issues that are part of your counter to Til's disagreement. I used this example to attempt to illustrate my reasons for having a policy on ambiguous words as it is the clearest example of the issue.
If we can find a proposal for ambiguous words then I believe the impact on the myth debate will be this:
Instead of one side saying "you must include myth" and the other side saying "you must not include myth", we arrive at "myth can be included so long as everyone knows what you mean".
If everyone knows what an editor means, then good faith can be assumed for genuine editors and at the same time the unwanted POV-pushers would be exposed. I am asking only a small effort on the part of editors to achieve this, but the potential for dispute-prevention and resolution is high. I am not naive enough to think it will prevent arguments - I can foresee arguments over whether a particular wording is "sufficiently explanatory". This is where I need consensus and editors like yourself working with me to make this a robust policy.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, from now on we can both assume we're using the term academically. The very original proposal I gave was quite different from what we have now (and was given a little while before you entered the debate, though you may have read it), so lets move on from it and focus on the current wording. With what you just said and what I just wrote in mind, I have two questions:
  1. Does the first sentence give sufficient context to allow a reader to draw upon the intended meaning of the word myth?
  2. Does the first sentence imply the Bible and/or Qur'an are myths?
Assume you're only presented with the first sentence, so the second sentence has no bearing on my questions. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I am happy to assume that we are using the academic definition. However, the issue is whether the current wording implies the academic definition.
To answer your first question: I have just gone back to the article and re-read that sentence in isolation. Unfortunately, the current wording actually "by-passes" the issue. By stating that it "features in" myths of Abrahamic religions, it does not state that the Ark itself actually is a myth. This is equivalent (semantically) to saying that Mycenae "features in" the myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece (and therefore in "Greek Mythology"). In terms of "where the ark is found", there is ample context. However, if the sentence read "Noah's Ark is a myth found in Abrahamic religions" then I would certainly expect more context.
As to your second question. The first sentence makes no mention of the Bible or Quran and, therefore, in isolation does not imply anything about them. The caveat I must add is that, if the full stop were removed, such that the second sentence flowed durectly from the first, the issue would change considerably.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, well suppose nothing in the first sentence was changed (like removing the full stop). Then I'm glad we both agree there are no implications with respect to the Bible, other than to say it contains myths if people already know the source of the story. So I'm happy with point two. With respect to the first question, I don't believe I ever made the suggestion you just gave did I? Noah's Ark is a vessel. It features in a myth, but it is not a myth. To say a vessel is a myth doesn't make sense to me. I don't want to get too hung up on whether I made the suggestion or not though, but, the sentence uses the term myth. When we say myths of Abrahamic religions, is this, together with the article's broader topic of religion, sufficient context to draw upon the intended meaning of the word myth? Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
If I have mis-represented your statements in any way then I offer an unreserved apology. I was trying to be as concise as possible and therefore this may have led to a wrong impression. I wasn't concerned in the context of the current discussion about the specifics of the original proposal(s), only the impact of the current revision.
It is true that the ark cannot be a myth - again lazy shorthand where "the story of the ark" is intended on the proposal talk page.
In response to your specific question: Because of the phrase "features in" the context is unimportant and therefore the current wording is more than adequate. However, if the wording were altered (and I understand that that is not what you are suggesting, but the caveat is important) then the context may become important. In such a case, it is likely the current wording would not be adequate.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, well ok, I guess we should be careful about what we mean when we say 'Noah's Ark'. I would refer to the story as Noah's Ark too, but since the intro to the article is about the Ark itself I assumed you were talking about the vessel, not the story.

If we were talking about the story then I agree that a simple shortening of the lead wouldn't do. At the very least there are different versions of the story so to say Noah's Ark is a myth would be .. wrong? That seems more a correctness issue than a context issue though, but either way is well outside of the scope of the current intro, yeah? Ben (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, on a purely personal level, I have no problem with calling the story of the Ark a myth (perhaps I should have said that three months ago) I just think care should be applied in an encyclopedia article. However, this discussion has led me to realise that, with regard to context, the current version is actually a bad example (because it "by-passes" the issue). On the other hand, this does not invalidate the proposed policy, or in any way lessen its importance. I still believe that a little more context in the first place would have eliminated many of the arguments over, for example, Noah's Ark.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that it would have eliminated many of the arguments since Til really does hate the word. Anyway, as you say nothing here invalidates the proposed policy, I was just looking to clear up any existing problems with the Noah's Ark page and get a feel for your context requirements. If I can offer a piece of advice though, I'd withdraw your proposal, finish up on NPOV/FAQ, discuss (with ambiguity in mind) on Talk:Christian mythology which will naturally give you plenty of examples to explain to others, develop your proposal in userspace after that discussion and with the result from NPOV/FAQ in mind, solicit feedback from people close to the topic, and then finally submit it for wider community feedback as a proposal at the end of all that. You're fighting on too many fronts at the moment. As a result your arguments are not coming across clear and thought out, you're rewriting your proposals quicker than people can comment on them, and so on. This is a recipe for developing opposition to your ideas. I'll be back on NPOV/FAQ tomorrow. Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the advice, but will not (yet) follow it. I have a natural distate for developing a narrow policy and then attempting to expand it to cover a wider topic. If an 'over-arching' policy can be worked out, then the narrower policies will be forced to follow naturally. You do have a point about "fighting too many fronts" and, yes, I have at times been unclear. However, the NPOV/FAQ argument is (and should be) about neutrality and the ambiguous words policy should be about style. I believe the two can be kept seperate (despite some overlap) and these are the only "fronts" on which I am concentrating.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: NPOV/FAQ again

Thanks for the note. If you're looking to finalise anything you should probably let everyone else who has commented at some point know. Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Relevant Wikiproject

Hi. I have just joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts, because it seems that this project is actually the relevant scope of the whole question on, how they ought to be neutrally presented on Wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Just a quick note that a thread at AN/I has been started here that concerns you. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

As someone who has contributed to a thread about terminology on WT:NPOV/FAQ, I'd like to point you to a thread that attempts to bring the issue to some sort of closure, here. It's important we try and get to the end of this debate, so your comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian mythology, etc.

Hi Fimus. Your recent message was very encouraging to me. Personally, I think we should focus on Christian mythology more than Mythology (insofar as it's relevant to resolving the "myth" dispute). I'll be available to start serious work on Christian mythology starting next week. I look forward to collaborating with you on it. However, I think I'll try to stay out of the main "myth" debate from now on (even if I won't always succeed); I've already made all my points.

By the way, I realize that you aren't "anti-myth", and I apologize for using such an oversimplified label. I just needed some convenient terms to refer to the two "sides" of the debate. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not keeping the discussion in one place. I didn't see the notice at the top of your talk page until now. If you want to reply to my reply, then feel free to post either here or on my talk page. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving toward Mediation

I really would like to get the view of higher mediation on this. Incredibly the "pro-myth" pov editors are still insisting "There is no argument" even when it has been documented, as if nobody but their side "counts", & discussion vill now be closed. As for their claims of "forum shopping" -- Reading WP:DISPUTE, I think the entire reason projects like WP:Religious texts exist, is to bring together editors with expertise or interest in comparative religion / theology to collaborate on their presentation, so in fact we owe it to them to seek their input. This attempt to limit the caretaking of this thorny question to a controlling few editors with supposedly special authority and just happen to be self-declared atheists, is easily exposed in its ludicrosity. 3 or 4 years ago, their frontier was whether "mythology" ought to appear as a category on these scriptural articles, not in the lede sentence. You can see at Category talk:Christian mythology esp. in all the archives, what a vast number of editors opposed even this idea at the time, and many of them are still around. So it's not just a big debate in academia - it's been a big debate here as well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only agree with your assessment. I have joined that project and can agree that it seems like a good place to raise the issue. Of course, if I raise it, that would be "forum shopping"(!) There are several others ways that this issue can be resolved and I am looking seriously at them all, so would appreciate it if someone else could raise the issue there. I will, of course, offer full support.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the opinion, or assertion, of certain editors, that there is some "specific academic definition" for the word "myth(ology)" allowing us to understand what it means with any kind of supposed precision -- aside from being totally baseless and unsupported rhetoric -- is in plain contradiction with many actual scholarly sources of all stripes, found on my compiled list of quotes, and all indicating the very opposite - that it is a "slippery word", a "tramp word", a "nebulous word", a "pejorative word", etc., and a word about which there is nothing but pure disagreement and confusion over the theological implications of the word. And I thought these editors were experts familiar with all that has actually been written and argued in the field of mythology, not mere pushers on behalf of their own POV...! It's also funny how this dispute has been rearing its head so often and so determinedly for at least 3 years, and yet they still cannot acknowledge that published references just do not support this totally false premise, that the definition of "myth" is not confusing... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, but don't forget that all of those scholarly sources are not true scotsmen--FimusTauri (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fimus, I had seen your comments on the WikiProject Religion Page and have posted some ideas there. Next time I will do it here. Kindly take a look there anyway.117.198.53.2 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Fimus, did you find my comments of some use. I am rather new here and I would appreciate your response.117.198.52.254 (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for a slow response. Your comments would have been useful, but unfortunately that particular discussion has ground to a halt. This has become a serious problem, as all attempts to address this issue are being stifled. Please keep an occasional eye on events - if a means to resolve this can be found then I will certainly follow up. In the meantime, I am "backing off" from the debate - there have been too many megabytes devoted to several editors offering good reasons why there is a problem; and a small number of other editors simply saying "there is no problem". Unfortunately, there appears to be no satisfactory method of dispute resolution in cases such as these.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark FAR

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) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Abraham

would you like to help me with the article Abraham? I'm trying to streamline the summary of the biblical narrative first, and then we can look at revising other areas. PiCo (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy does that need some work! See you there!--FimusTauri (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Pleased to be working with you. So far I'm going through the "narrative" section, making sure each subsection is an acurate reflection of what's said in Genesis, and adding bibleverses as I go - you can tell which subsections I've tackled from whether they have bibleverses. Unfortunately I go away for abt 2 weeks from Wednesday, but I look forward to seeing what you've done when I get back. PiCo (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I am working on a revamp of that whole section. Should have it ready shortly.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've had a look at what you've prepared, seems essentially fine to me. I'll have a look when I get back in 2 weeks. You might also give some thought to the other matters that the article needs to cover. PiCo (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note: On the Genesis article, under Themes, there's quite a bit of material about Abraham's religion, with mentions of some serious scholars. We might be able to draw on this for the Abraham article. PiCo (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, real-world issues are going to limit my time on WP for a while, so I may not be able to do much, but I agree re Genesis. It might also be worth considering what Josephus has to say - he expands on the reasons for Abraham leaving Ur, stating that Abraham argued against his peers that there can only be one god and was, for this reason, kicked out; but also, this was the reason why god chose Abraham. This also links to a Jewish tradition that Abraham had survived being put in a furnace.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Joshua

I noticed that you reverted the link to just1word on the Joshua page to biblegateway ... a link that was added by just1word in the first place. Just1Word is NOT a social network... just1word has developed plug-ins to social networking sites so that users can discuss the Bible... but Just1Word is not a social network. In addition, I'm confused by your comment that the site is erratic... We have had no downtime, or broken links?

The difference between Just1Word and biblegateway is:

1) Just1word does not promote any particular version of the Bible (biblegateway defaults to the NIV), 2) Just1Word has no ads on it's site (it's a not-for-profit -- biblegateway is now owned by Zondervan -- a for-profit corporation owned by Harper Collins/News Corp/etc. and promotes the sale of Bibles extensively on their site) See: http://tatumweb.com/blog/2008/10/27/gospelcom-2/ 3) Just1Word is non-denominational without any teaching or theological positions being advanced.

Just1Word markets it site as a mashup of the Bible, social networking elements (provided by others) and a topical search engine for the Bible. The verses for topics are submitted by users not Just1Word staff. And the social networking elements are the way Just1Word ties the Bible into existing social networks.

I am new to Wikipedia and look forward to learning more about it. Any advice that you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpmiller (talk • contribs) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I made the first revert, the second was by User:Dougweller, who left the comment about it being "erratic" and a social networking site. Please bring those issues up with him.
I reverted simply because every time I clicked the link I arrived at a message saying that the page could not be found. BibleGateway is long-established on Wikipedia as a reliable site for bible references. Please do not replace BibleGateway refs with another unless the replacement is equally reliable.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew Old Testament

Whoops! I hang my head in shame! PiCo (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Easy mistake to make.--FimusTauri (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rehoboam

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) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance tells me it needs a lot of work. Not sure how much time I will have, but I will see what I can do.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My changes at Solomon to make the chronology section more encyclopedic were quickly reverted. And my talk page had a reaction from that also. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Done what I can (in a bit of a hurry). The simple fact is that there really isn't a lot of info on Rehoboam. The Bible only really lists three or four events (albeit in some detail) and there is little or no empirical evidence of his life. Regarding the chronology, I have no problem with mentioning Thiele's work (or any corroborating evidence), but to ramble on with it in such great detail is clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE. The place for that detail is on the Thiele article.--FimusTauri (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution? Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Myth and Creation

Came across an interesting article in the RBL last night saying that the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 believed they were writing science - the point being that the category "myth" is inapplicable. I believe this myself - Gen.1-11 shows signs of being very carefully crafted, a wholly literary work without any oral antecedents. Myth should surely be based on an oral transmission. Anyway, it's all really quite interesting, and perhaps we should add a section on "genre", or at least add something to the Composition section. PiCo (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You know how much I have opposed using "myth". However, I do feel that when the word is tied into a phrase, it becomes appropriate to use the phrase, with the important caveat that the article linked to by that phrase give a full and accurate definition of the phrase. In this way, the word myth can be used, without having to worry about the definition of the word on its own. In the case of early Genesis, I believe that the phrase Creation myth is applicable, but that it is completely inappropriate to simply call it a myth. We could also use the term Etiological myth, which would almost force the reader to go and look up the term, thus removing all ambiguity.--FimusTauri (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how relevent this is - or this.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The two are fascinating. They conflict, of course, and I'd take the one from the Gallup website - not only closer to the source, but more recent and more detailed. As for relevance, I don't know - there's a lot more to Genesis 1-2 than the creation of man. Yet I can see a place for it in the relevant section of the article, where it discusses the Creationist viewpoint, and that viewpoint is worthy of its own section or subsection IMO. Incidentally, I've seen figures for similar belief in the UK - much lower - and Europe - lower again. Creationism is very much an American phenomenon. I'm Australian, and have just been visiting Southeast Queensland - I was amazed at the huge barn-like places of worship there, belonging to evangelical churches (I assume). I think these are a fairly recent phenomenon, and are found in areas which have seen massive recent growth - Southeast Queensland, western Sydney. The people who now live in these places are essentially rootless - no family within thousands of miles, no froends. The evangelical churches provide community. I think (my guess) that that's why they're so popular. And I guess the same applies in the US, another country of massive distances and massive internal migration. The UK and Europe have nothing comparable, hence the lower figures for evangelical-linked beliefs (i.e., creationism). But that's purely amateur sociology on my part of course. PiCo (talk)

Just to let you know that there's currently an opportunity to comment on the issue of these terminologies on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Creation_myth#Neutral_point_of_view.3F .

I'd also appreciate any additional comments on some facebook groups that I have created on the issue (they're listed on my talk page). I'd like to find constructive ways forward.

cheers Gregkaye (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Phatius McBluff/Christian mythology

Greetings. A while back, both of us were involved in efforts to rework the Christian mythology article. You may be interested in a project that I've started. I have come to the conclusion that Christian mythology is in pretty bad shape quite appart from the controversy surrounding the term "myth". I'm currently working on drafting a re-write for the article. The project can be found here: User:Phatius McBluff/Christian mythology. (Note: Due to my schedule, my own involvement in this project is likely to be erratic.)

P.S.: The guiding principles that I have drawn up for the project are actually a bit more stringent than the restrictions that you have suggested for the Christian mythology article, but I think that's okay. The point of my project is not to legislate any kind of policy for the "real" Christian mythology article. Rather, the project is simply an experiment to see how good of an article I can draft while working under the most stringent requirements; the resulting draft can then be proposed as a replacement for the current version. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FimusTauri/Archive_1&oldid=926903476"