User talk:Clinkophonist

• /Archive1
• /Archive2
• /Archive3

From time to time, I will not be in England, and won't be able to respond, so sorry if I don't get back to you as speedily as other editors.

Dear C: Your 18:07, 22 April 2006 Clinkophonist edit of the above article added a new next-to-last paragraph to the Meaning section. It does not document the first sentence. My check of external sources at the Book of the Dead article disconfirms your assertion. Would you be willing and to document your assertion from a reference within the Book of the Dead? If you can't find a primary source, what is your 2ndary source? Thx for your assistance. Thomasmeeks 19:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About what? Clinkophonist (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussed the withdrawal of GA with LuciferMorgan, I give notice that I am sitting down with the three classic original source texts (Puylaurens, Vaux-de-Cernay and de Tudèle - the last in the Livre de Poche edition as the Martin-Chabot is long out of print) to add the missing inline citations to this page. I do not intend at this point to make any textual alterations, but if comments are made which are NOT justified, be prepared to state your sources now. Jel 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is my part in this? Clinkophonist (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't that much activity at that project, which is why it hasn't been noticed. The more active projects seem to be the Christianity and Judaism projects, and it might make more sense to leave comments there. John Carter (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But its not about Christianity or Judaism. Its about the Bible. A document. I've left a note at

]

I agree. However, if there is no real activity at the Bible project, and there isn't, then the logical choice for such discussion would be with the other groups which do relate to the subject. I acknowledge Wikipedia:WikiProject Books and, to an extent, the currently inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts, also deal with the subject, and you might want to contact them as well. But, honestly, leaving a message on a project page which no one seems to be watching isn't likely to get many results. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post it at both. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Organisation of Bible articles. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Clinkophonist!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, but I'm not really able to access the internet frequently enough to be in so many WikiProjects. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated this template for deletion under Wikipedia's

]

Unfortunately I wasn't around to be able to comment, but I've had a look at the archives and I have to say I find your introductions a little fatuously prejudiced, but I do like your 'bible primary' template. However, I can't really see why, if you're willing to create something like that, you had such a problem with the 'bible as fact', which said essentially exactly the same thing. Similarly I can't see what the problem with 'in religion universe' was, when its the same as the 'bible primary' template but extended to using other texts and opinions stemming from within the religion, rather than just the bible, and rather than only covering bible-based religions. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) On the

edit, I think you missed my subsequent edits in which I eliminate the bias and the weasel words on my own cognizance. I find it highly suspect that you pick and choose certain edits (outdated ones at that) to attempt to indicate that you somehow think I am a biased editor.

This is the combined end result of your several edits - [1]. You added the phrase "corroborated (via implication) by the notable lack of mention on the prism regarding any entry into Jerusalem"; not only is that the most weaselly thing I've read in years, but its also Original Research. In the Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC), the Egyptians laid seige to Megiddo, but eventually the kings of Megiddo and Kadesh (who was also in the city) sent out jewels, money, and their own children; the Egyptians did not set foot in Megiddo but they had still won, and Megiddo had capitulated - the Egyptian empire expanded considerably as a result. You don't give up your own children (like Hezekiah), vast chunks of money, gold from your temple doors, and your concubines, if you were the one that didn't capitulate.

Never in that entire section did I ever say Hezekiah didn't capitulate, just that Jerusalem itself wasn't taken (be it by surrender/tribute or some other means). "Corroborated (via implication) by the notable lack of mention on the prism regarding any entry into Jerusalem" only refers to this fact; it isn't meant to imply that somehow Hezekiah emerged victorious, when both the Bible and the Prism are fairly clear that he didn't. You're taking my lines out of context, and I think that's certainly more weaselly than anything I ever said.

2) With regards to bibleverse v. NIV: please notice that I wasn't able to get the bibleverse links/references to appear properly, which is the reason why I looked around for other formats that I could use. That, and the fact that most of the Bibleverse links lead to the same website as the NIV format I used (though perhaps to different versions of the Bible available on the site), are the reasons why I decided to go with NIV as opposed to Bibleverse, which IMO is not any more or less neutral than the site I linked to (since you can also choose a different version on that site as well). The "HE" was a copy/paste hanger-on, the significance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clinkophonist&action=edit&section=7of which I was unaware (sorry). I would personally prefer to use the New American Bible version (simply because it's the one with which I'm most familiar), but the site I used doesn't have it :( Thanks for the tip on how to use Bibleverse - I'll try that.

Biblegateway is run by a protestant bible society. They seem to refuse to host Roman Catholic version, recent academic versions, Jewish versions, etc. as well as (for obvious reasons) certain copyrighted versions. Linking to it preferentially isn't neutral. The bibleverse links link to a tool run on wikipedia's behalf that allows the user to choose from all bible versions online which can be linked to; biblegateway only occurs so frequently on that list because it hosts significantly more versions than other sites do etc - 'more' is not the same as 'wider range'. For guidance on using template XYZAFGH see Template:XYZAFGH; for guidance on the bibleverse template see Template:Bibleverse.

3) I wasn't "shoring up my own side," as I have no particular "side." In addition, I wasn't trying to fuel some sort of debate as you seem to imply; I was adding another point (perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "argument," for which I suppose "another possibility" might be more appropriate) or possible conclusion about the genealogy that has been raised elsewhere (see the wiki articles on Zerubbabel and Shealtiel in particular, neither of which I had any part in and there whose neutrality I cannot vouch for; if they are not indeed neutral, I am so far unaware of this). I've also linked directly to the passages contributing to the possibility, which you seem to have missed.

4) You request references from me, some of which I had included (i.e. those coming from versions of the Bible), yet you provide none of your own. Please direct me to reliable sources that clearly indicate that "diminished his land" is clearly the same as "annexed his territory" as opposed to "took most of his land, but left him with what I didn't take." In addition, you provide no scholarly interpretations, most of which you claim I contradict. I realized upon reading the actual Biblical accounts and the text on the Prism (available at that site I referenced) that my initial skepticism (related to other historic precedents of rulers boasting of conquests on monuments and steles that never happened or are grossly exaggerated relative to truth) was misplaced and that I could not imply that "a conquest never happened." You will note that I subsequently edited my addition to reflect this understanding. I find it difficult to understand how, even after my edits reflecting this, you could take issue with my editing, when it is obvious that I am changing it as my understanding changes, not matching my editing to some preconceived doctrine. If you are able to reference other translations and/or interpretations of the Prism, I would appreciate it if you could include them in the wiki article itself, as I notice that you do not.

took most of his land = annexed. left him with what I didn't take is inaccurate; the prism says that Hezekiah became a tributary, so its actually 'what I took but allowed him to rent back' - see tributary state. So what you actually have in total is 'took his land, but allowed him to rent back a small portion'.

That, if anything, is original research, uncorroborated by any sources (if you have them, please provide them; I'd asked for that originally, and I see you have yet to cite anything). I have no real reason to take it as absolute or accepted truth that took most of his land is a historic euphemism for annexed. Nor does anyone else. At this point, as far as I know, you are putting words into the mouths (or, more accurately, the writing utensils) of ancient scribes who may have used such wording. Until it's unequivocably clear, from a number of sources, that this is the case - and some of them must be objectively documented (i.e. some of the sources must not only use that phrase but must also be clearly describing a literal annexation that is known without a doubt to have happened), the words must be taken literally, rather than assuming that they are a euphemism for another phenomenon. To dictate to others what some phrase or another means is not academic, nor is it at all a rigorously consistent standard.

You seem to somehow think that I am taking one side or another in some major confrontation. If I am, I am unaware of this, and I will be sure to be more careful. That Jerusalem was maintained was not meant to be a point (on my part, that is) about some Judaic victory, but to show that that parts of the Old Testament claim that a promise was made and kept (and only that Jerusalem would not fall, not that some major victory would be won throughout Judea - the website with the Prism translation I referenced, unfortunately, turns out to be biased, and for that I must apologize, though I expect its translation to be relatively neutral), and this bears itself out by confirmation from the translation of the Prism that while much else was indeed taken, Jerusalem itself did not fall. The NIV version of the Bible does indicate that Sennacherib assaulted every fortified town (see 2 Kings 18:13; you cannot authoritatively claim that the one and only "Bible [merely] recounts a successful Assyrian attack...." and so on and then contrast this with the claim on the Prism as if they are somehow significantly different, because different versions of the Bible do recount Assyrian attacks (and successes) remarkably similar to the claims made on the Prism.

In addition, you claim that Hezekiah bribed Sennacherib to leave Jerusalem. The Prism isn't clear on this.

It specifically says that Hezekiah was overcome by Sennacherib, and that he was abandoned by his re-enforcements, then that he gave huge tribute, and that he sent messengers to confirm that he submitted to Sennacherib.

Fair enough. This, however, corroborates my earlier point that Jerusalem itself was saved, albeit by Hezekiah's capitulation and tribute.

Both the Bible and the Prism indicate that Hezekiah did pay tribute (but differ in what was paid), but versions of the Bible note that this tribute was paid before Sennacherib threatens Jerusalem, and thus was not paid to Sennacherib to lift the siege of Jerusalem.

You're judging the prism by the bible. The prism is over 500 years older than the oldest surviving copy of the bible. An academic would view the younger document in light of the older one, if anything. The prism clearly has capture of other cities -> people deported -> jerusalem besieged -> Hezekiah's mercenaries abandon him -> Hezekiah overcome by Sennacherib -> Hezekiah sends tribute. Just because the bible mentions a tribute occurring before the siege doesn't mean you can ignore the prism's order of events, in an article about the prism, and adjust it to the bible's claim; it doesn't even mean that it's referring to the same tribute.

I am not judging the Prism by the Bible, actually; I am not judging the Prism at all in this particular argument. I am trying to judge what versions of the Bible are saying about historical events based on the order in which they appear, which may in this case be misleading. Not only was I not ignoring the Prism's order of events, I was making note of the difference between it and the order appearing in the Bible. If that tribute mentioned in versions of the Bible doesn't actually refer to the same tribute, then to what else could it possibly refer?

The Prism isn't clear why the siege was lifted, though it does take note of the tribute it took from Hezekiah. I suppose though you could probably make the claim that as the tribute appears chronologically after the siege of Jerusalem began, this position indicates that the tribute was paid to convince Sennacherib to lift the siege.

Well, lets see, Gaius Julius Caesar is stabbed 36 times in the Senate, then Marcus Junius Brutus stabs him. He dies. Why did he die? You could blame it entirely on Brutus, but to do that you'd have to overlook the fact that by that point he had 36 stab wounds. In the same way, a historian writes a history; they say, in this order, adjacent to one another without intervening events:

1. 'jerusalem is beseiged by the assyrians'
2. 'the king of jerusalem was abandoned by his army re-enforcements'
3. 'the king of jerusalem sent to the assyrians vast amounts of money, jewels, artworks, even his own children'
4. 'the king of jerusalem sent messengers to confirm that he accepted servitude'

All this stuff has been handed over, his own daughters included, and Hezekiah has submitted to Sennacherib; why would he do that? Maybe Hezekiah was utterly bored and fancied some excitement, maybe he found Sennacherib attractive and wanted to impress him, maybe he became a Buddhist monk and was giving up all his worldly things; but the blatantly obvious answer, as obvious as 'blue' is to 'what colour does the sky look', is that it was how he got the siege lifted.

I had already conceded that, and your response only seems to indicate hostility towards criticism or legitimate inquiry into your basic assumptions, for which you provide no sources or backup whatsoever. While I am an enthusiast of history, I did not have the opportunity to extensively study history at any level of academia outside of my own independent study. Thus, while my assessments or interpretations may seem biased or unbalanced, it is only an indication of my lack of extensive experience, which I try to obtain through other means. It is certainly unbalanced, and quite hostile, to hold everyone else to your standard of scholarly rigor in your field (and I may be mistaken when I assume here that you are a student/scholar of history) when only a few have actually had the training.

(which then begs the question of why the Biblical versions are so drastically different in their depiction of the siege when compared with the Prism).Ecthelion83 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the bible is lying, or it was written so long after the events that no-one could remember properly so they made it up. Its a very obvious answer. The bible has a theological prejudice that makes it heavily pro-hezekiah (and very anti-manasseh). You might as well ask why Neo-Nazi's keep claiming that the holocaust never happened.

Clinkophonist (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a rhetorical question. Perhaps you're taking this all a bit too seriously? On top of that, there is no doubt that the parts of the Bible, like any other historical document/piece of evidence, has its biases. But simply because it has biases, like everything else, doesn't mean flat-out that it (if there is even a single authoritative version of the Bible, at that) is lying. If you're going to make blanket statements like that, you had better be prepared to back it up with hard, irrefutable evidence, which you fail to do at every turn. Yet you accuse others of original research. On top of that, comparing this to the neo-Nazi denials of the Holocaust is quite juvenile, as there is no real confusion as to the occurrence and objective documentation of the Holocaust and therefore Holocaust deniers are really just deceiving themselves. Comparing the Bible, a biased historical document, with the Prism, another biased historical document (if only for propaganda purposes), is far less clear-cut.Ecthelion83 (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You recently filed a request at

. Requests that remain incomplete will be removed after five days.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section
   here
   .

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at

]

You were an early contributor to the subject. There is now a revived discussion of the article, and your participation would be welcome. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work :) PiCo (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clinkophonist (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to presume you came across the subject BLP because of my request you look at the Cana article. I don´t know how much of the history or two archives in the article Talk you read or the old version here:

I read your edits to

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't matter how many references from sources of whatever significance you have; if the article doesn't establish notability, then it shouldn't be there. Clinkophonist (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243

but please keep in mind the BLP is not finished unless you get the consensus you wish. It is a lamentation that as a scribe, you would choose words like this, ¨Activities appear to be no more significant than incidents of petty theft or occasional graffiti¨ in pressing your case for deletion. It is a very poor and unfair comparison.

These References were in the Article before the last attempt at deletion less than two weeks ago.

References

  1. ^ "Preacher Arrested on Mall" Ottawa Citizen 3 September 1977
  2. ^ Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2.
  3. ^ "Emissary from God undaunted", Ottawa Citizen, 22 October 1977, pg 2.
  4. ^ "The self-styled prophet hauled off Mall again", Ottawa Citizen, 3 November 1977, pg5.
  5. ^ "Mall 'prophet' jailed again", Ottawa Citizen, 5 November 1977, pg 5.
  6. ^ "Prophet hauled out of Commons gallery", Ottawa Citizen, 18 October 1977, pg 3.
  7. ^ "Gagged protester gets heave-ho", Ottawa Today, 18 October 1977.
  8. ^ "Masked protester returns", The Ottawa Citizen, July 15, 1978
  9. ^ Jane Taber "'Prophet' fined for shouting at Nov. 11 service", Ottawa Citizen, 3 January 1986
 10. ^ "Anti-war speech costs man $250", Globe and Mail, 3 January 1986
 11. ^ "Cormier condamné", Le Droit, 3 January 1986
 12. ^ Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11.
 13. ^ Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981,G13.
 14. ^ Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3
 15. ^ Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981
 16. ^ Maclean's Magazine, pg 40 31 August 1981, People Section.
 17. ^ Richard Caron "Raymond Cormier sillonne le pays pour precher Dieu", Le Soliel, 28 July 1986
 18. ^ Elizabeth Hanton "Prophet sees Canada as the new Israel", The Halifax Daily News, 11 August 1986
 19. ^ Sylvia Reddom "Shares Faith With Canadians - Religion More Than Going To Church Says Travelling Born Again Christian", The Charlottetown Guardian, 20 August 1986
 20. ^ Emily Dyckson "Wandering prophet shares his faith", The Weekend (St. John's), 30 August 1986
 21. ^ History of Federal Ridings since 1867
 22. ^ Kernaghan R. Webb Focus Magazine September1984 'RJC: Cormier makes people nervous. Especially authorities.'
 23. ^ Elections Canada On-Line | General Information
 24. ^ Kathleen Patterson "Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil" The Kansas City Times pg. 3A 13 September 1976
 25. ^ Robert W. Butler "Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction" The Kansas City Times 2 November 1976

Obviously the Article as it is currently does not reflect these References. Another Editor, now having all these original References in hand, is re-working the BLP.

To me, that looks very much like extremely minor news. Much like "Mrs Winslow wins Welsh jam contest with her strawberry preserve", "Mrs Winslow is announced winner of Newcastle WI jam competition", "Mrs Winslow does it again with her latest preserves".

Lets take Asa Winstanley - you'll notice that that's a red link, the article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Here's an article by him [2], here's his blog [3], here's a photo of his [4] that was used on CNN - not petty little local news, but CNN -, here's a reference to him on the Manchester University website [5], here's their wikipedia page - User:Asa Winstanley, an article in a different paper [6], an article somewhere else [7], and another reference [8], and another [9], another article elsewhere [10]. Asa Winstanley is clearly more notable than Ray Joseph Cormier, but still not notable for wikipedia. And if you are wondering where I got his name - I actually just made it up and googled to find if there were any matches. Clinkophonist (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidently other Editors do not share your bleak POV and assessment. Did you actually read anything about the subject? With the current political stalemate in Israel, it´s too bad you didn´t notice Reference #18. It´s much more significant than biscuits and jams. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Characterising a challenge to the notability of Ray Joseph Cormier as 'bleak' is really stretching things quite a bit. It wouldn't be 'bleak' even if half the current articles in Wikipedia were deleted. Please, get some sense of perspective.
• What exactly has Israel got to do with anything on the question of notability of Ray Joseph Cormier? Please don't bring off-topic matters into this. If you start using Wikipedia for polemicism, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take up your behaviour with higher authorities. Clinkophonist (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have placed several tags on the subject article, but did not discuss your reasons in the Article Talk. Wikipedia policies require you to do so, or remove the tags. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make those changes, about Gobekli Tepe or the Jerusalem sacking. The only changes I made to the article were clarifications on the Black Obelisk, and I added the Balaam inscription and Letter of Aristeas. -- LightSpectra (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this - [11] - edit. You removed the correct link, and replaced it with a link to the disambiguation page; why?

That was a mistake, I meant to correct it. -The link had a lowercase "b" I think, and I meant to replace it with an upper-case.

Also, please explain this - [12] - in which you remove the summary phrasing - ie. you remove the explanation of what is significant about the subsequent three points; without these words they are just random extracts from the story. Why did you do this?

I thought the summary might be imprecise, but as always I could be wrong.

I'd also like to know why you've inserted a minor quote from the bible ([13]), when the text already summarises it. Quoting is discouraged, except where the quoted text is itself notable in its own right (eg. the quote is well known, or widely considered interesting in its own right as a piece of text). You'll notice that the subsequent text does quote the bible - Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands - but this is a comparatively well known phrase in its own right; its a definite saying. Your quote is not. Please therefore explain why you thought it worth adding?

This was done for transition. From the summary it read to me like David was an armor-bearer, killed Goliath, then was made commander of the army. I think this text clarifies that: The Bible states: "Whatever Saul sent him to do, David did it so successfully that Saul gave him a high rank in the army. This pleased all the people, and Saul's officers as well." [14]

Again it may not read like that and I could be wrong.

Similarly you've done the same sort of thing with this edit - [15]. Please do not quote when a summary will do. Its just not encyclopaedic.

I disagree because I think the conversation is important for a number of reasons, including the fact that it provides a few details about David's life prior to this event, including killing a lion and bear. Further the summary from the article, as it was, stated Saul reluctantly allows David to make the attempt, and I am not sure that inference is correct either.

Here it is: "David said to Saul, "Let no one lose heart on account of this Philistine; your servant will go and fight him." Saul replied, "You are not able to go out against this Philistine and fight him; you are only a boy, and he has been a fighting man from his youth." But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it. Your servant has killed both the lion and the bear; this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, because he has defied the armies of the living God. The LORD who delivered me from the paw of the lion and the paw of the bear will deliver me from the hand of this Philistine." Saul said to David, "Go, and the LORD be with you." (1 Samuel 17:33=37 [16]

If you have any other questions please let me know. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its better to reply on your own page, and then add a {{tb}} to mine; the way you've replied above doesn't make it clear which bits are those that I wrote and which bits you have written. To avoid further confusion, I will reply below, rather than inline.

1.

]

2. Summary vs. no summary. If the summary is imprecise, make it more precise. Removing it altogether is inappropriate, as doing so removes the explanation of the raison d'être for the subsequent descriptions of three specific episodes. Without it its just 'and now, here are 3 randomly selected episodes from David's life' - there needs to be an explanation of why those particular 3 are mentioned. That is what the summary is for.

In particular you are looking at the article 'the wrong way round'. You are reading it as ....here are some details...., which can be summarised as situation X, rather than as Situation X occurred (if you want the details, here they are.....). The summary is more encyclopaedically pertinent than the detail; its the summary that's more important. Encyclopedia articles should be written from a top down approach (ie. 'here is a summary. here is a summary of how that summary breaks down. here is some more detail. here is more detail about that detail.' rather than 'here is lots and lots of detail. here is a summary of it'). Clinkophonist (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Quote for David's rank behaviour. You read the summary as 'David was an armor-bearer, killed Goliath, then was made commander of the army', you read your quote as saying 'David was so succesful that Saul gave him a high rank in the army'. Firstly, this quote only addresses the last third of the summary as you read it - therefore it should not occur before the first two thirds. Secondly, all that your reading of it adds to your reading of the summary is 'by Saul on account of the success'; the quote is bulky, and is therefore hugely unnecessary as adding 'by Saul, on account of the success' to the summary would do instead. Clinkophonist (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Your other addition of a quote. Wikipedia isn't a mindless collection of trivia. Minor details are not important; no-one cares about the numerous fauna that preyed on his sheep. He doubtless killed one or two foxes for the same reason. Perhaps a poacher attacked his sheep one day, and he fended them off. Perhaps he helped them lamb. Perhaps he lead them away from a treacherous mountainside during a storm. Maybe it rained one day so he made little paper hats for the sheep. Whatever; its not encyclopedic - shepherds did that sort of thing all the time, it comes with the job. 'He had previously killed predatory animals to protect his flock' will do.Clinkophonist (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To finish this discussion, 1 and 2 I don't really understand all the fuss, but okay, sorry about that, it is not the first and won't be last mistake I ever make. 3- I always felt the summary was a bit rushed, and could be a bit more clear, that is all, just my opinion. As to 4 the reason I feel the detail is important is this, that I think many think of David as very young when he killed Goliath, obviously not everyone. That may have been true, but that is one reason why I think his statement about killing a lion and a bear is important and interesting, since killing those kinds of animals is not, perhaps, the same as killing a fox or cat or dog, and tends to show something about David at the time of the confrontation. I didn't intend to offend anyone by using 70 AD. The Gobekli tepe article that was cited is here:[17] I have no way of knowing if it is true or not but that is where the information came from. If it contradicts the wiki article I also have no way of knowing if the wiki article is correct either. As to the Nag Hammadi library, I think it is more appropriate to say they are gnostic writings about figures described in the Bible. Is that an accurate statement and fair compromise? Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the 70 AD addition and the Göbekli Tepe. AD was not added to cause controversy, but the date was added for clarity. The addition of Gobleki tepe was based on an article outside of wikipedia, which was cited. Please help improve that list in any way you can.

Clarity is provided by the correct article link. Further clarity is not needed. The use of AD vs. CE is very controversial. The article seems to have used CE/BCE previously; the Manual of Style guidelines therefore insist that, if used at all (which is discouraged), it should be CE/BCE not AD/BC.

Consistency is very important. Don't contradict the Gobekli Tepe article, when mentioning it. Please read the talk page there, and you'll see why the article outside of wikipedia was discounted from having an ability to substantiate the claim made. Clinkophonist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added the

]

They predate almost all surviving ancient copies of the new testament books. Additionally, the claim that

Neutrality.Clinkophonist (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

See above section Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for filing

]

Deletion review

I have posted a question at

]

Gobleki Tepe

I've added this to the appropriate talk pages. Just in case you miss it: "From the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut: [18]: On February 28th the Daily Mail published an article by Tom Cox, in which Prof. Dr. Klaus Schmidt, leader of the Göbekli Tepe excavations, is cited as follows: "Göbekli Tepe is a temple in Eden". On the basis of this, the author formulates several conclusions about the biblical paradise, Adam and Eve and other events connected to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Several German- and Turkish-language newspapers and radio stations of german and turkish language have picked up on the contents of the article since its publication.
"Tom Cox" or "Tom Knox" is a pseudonym of the British journalist Sean Thomas, who used the article to get publicity for his thriller "Genesis Secret", which is due to appear in March in English and simultaneously in German. Since Sean Thomas is using a falsified version of an interview with Klaus Schmidt made in fall 2006, he presents a distortion of the scientific work of the German Archaeological Institute.
The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) distances itself from these statements and reserves the right to take legal action against further dissemination of the story in connection with the work of the DAI at Göbekli Tepe. Klaus Schmidt neither in an interview nor on any other occasion made the above mentioned statements." That's pretty clear.

]

Interesting.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Articles for deletion nomination of Christianised rituals

I have nominated Christianised rituals, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christianised rituals. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Brad 14:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Religion articles needing distinction between internal and external views

renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Svick (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is published by

WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism

You are invited to join the discussion at

Template:Churchdoctor. I am messaging you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of Alatrism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alatrism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alatrism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

— surjection ⟨??⟩ 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Religious authority" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Religious authority and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#Religious authority until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]