Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:48, 24 December 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Content

This is "Sunday School" stuff. The book is Genesis, it needs chapter and verse reference; the midrash traditions are separate and should be identified; what is the use made of Lot? what of Lot's Wife? Are these etymologies of Moab and Amon any more than conventions? What use is made of Lot in the New Testament and the Qu'ran Qur'an?
Wetman 13:39, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC) & spell-corrected without signing by Jacobolus (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2005

Pictures

Im removing offensive picture of lot having sex with his daughters. It deeply offends me to have a nude picture pertaining to the bible, let alone, one of people having sex. It makes it seem to an unknowing reader, that he wanted to have sex with his daughters! Maybe, the pictures can be moved under the text. An unknowing reader is then able to understand the paintings. A very good website on bible and culture is http://www.statenvertaling.net, de Dutch translation of the Bible and comparable to the King James Version (KJV). It has a lot of pictures.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Blubberbrein2 21:43 & :51, 14 March 2006

E.g, Lot and his daughters:
http://www.statenvertaling.net/beeld/lotdochters_grt.jpg (the same category as the removed pictures.
But other examples include:

• The paintings of the Dutch painter Rembrand; e.g. http://www.statenvertaling.net/kunst/rembrandt-bijbel.html

--Blubberbrein2 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

To say that you've removed something because it offends your sensibilites smacks of POV to me. The bible story says that Lot had sex with his daughters. Artists have depicted this event. Therefore, the history of this artistic theme belongs in this article and the picture should be included. If you take issue with the subject or its inclusion, you should call up the author of J and have a conversation with him/her.
--64.230.78.95 16:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree so I have put the image back. I think it illustrates very well how even in the C17 rational people were able to make fun of these stupid myths
Albatross2147 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrad placed their contrib, below, at the left margin, dismissing Albatross's good example of indenting one notch further than the contrib they were commenting on. One assumes that they were responding to Alb, in saying "It may seem to you that this is just a myth" (a term Alb last mentioned), and i've indented Wrad accordingly.

Watch the tone here. If a picture is worth a thousand words, than what this picture seems to be saying may be POV. He is right, it looks like he wants sex with his daughters, which is not what the text we have says. I think we should have another picture. It may seem to you that this is just a myth, but to others it isn't, so be a little more neutral in your tone, please. Whether or not you think it is a myth, this picture portrays a POV which is somewhat unbalanced. Perhaps what is needed is a more neutral picture at the top and a discussion at the bottom (with the current picture) of the controversy of Lot.
Wrad 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

   One of the tones that editors are well advised to avoid on a talk page is looking for their personal beliefs to be insulated from implicit criticism. PAs are prohibited, but if an editor can't distinguish an arguably relevant criticism of a belief they happen to hold (or assume someone else holds), from a personal attack on them or the other, they'll find little support for that from their colleagues here. PoVs on many things need expression on the talk pages.
   In this case, i see no evidence that Alb was trying to insult any WP colleague, and agree that uniquely 2nd-millenium critiques (explicit or implicit) of backward-millenia notions are relevant to what our third-millenium readers what to know about Lot has meant and now means. I'd like to see evidence that that particular piece of implicit critique is attested to by experts (and not just Alb's OR), before a more neutral version of Alb's assertion goes into the article, but their "proof by blatant assertion" is a step toward possibly desirable article content, which is what we have this talk page for.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Picture in http://en.wikipedia.org/Lot_%28Bible%29#Homosexuality is pornography picture? Azmi 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.131.203 (talk)

   Your question may be about whether a particular image is pornographic or not, or about expressing surprise that someone else considered it to be. No one seems to have said "pornography" or "pornographic" before you, so the question is a little odd. Further, a famous American judge said of "hard-core pornography" "I know it when I see it", which presumably means that unless everyone agrees about what it is, either some people lie about what they find it to be, or it's just a matter of opinion.
   In this specific case, there was at the time you wrote Image:Lot and his Daughters.jpg

in the section you targeted (and IMO oddly so located). YMMV, but my parents would have described it as clearly serious art (and thereby implicitly not pornographic). There were humorous things, comparable to it in anatomical explicitness, in their home when i was a child, which were described instead as "for grownups" (perhaps bcz the humor meant they were not serious art), but i don't think they considered any of those pornographic either.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Gallery

Please Please Pleaseeeee Remove These Nude-Sex Picture !!! I'M Infiteing someone to islam .. & He See the Nude photos !!!!! Why Gosh !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.248.139.132 (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   "Please remove"? (That portion is comprehensible.) No way; previous discussion, much of it further down the page, clarifies why not.
   "These Nude-Sex Picture" must refer to the 15-image gallery of fine art, that, it turns out, the IP removed repeatedly that day (sometimes replacing with Qur'an text in Arabic), eventually getting a last-warning against vandalism but not a block. See the final bot-reversion of the removal for the images. (There are no photos, except in the sense that the paintings, 280-480 years old, are likely to have been photographically reproduced on their way to digital form.)
    "Infiteing to "? That's not even recklessly misspelled English. (Neither "infighting", "inviting", "infesting", nor "infiniting" -- which some fool might use to mean "making infinite" -- makes any sense of it.) I'll be surprised if anyone can come up with the contributor's intention -- unless the contrib'r learned nearly all their English watching movies and reading ads, and someone comes along, whose native language happens to match that of the contrib'r, and who's familiar with the errors that such people make in English.
   The contrib'r may want to ask a friend for help, and repost something that makes a more detailed response feasible.
--Jerzy•t 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Salt

Salt is not hard; see Halite. Someone should fix this statement of fact to a (mis)statement of interpretation.

This 'pillar of salt' allows for a lot of interpretation as the opinions vary. That is why it is in another section

I fixed the statement about salt being "as hard as the hardest of rocks," it is indeed one of the softest in relation to most rocks. Furthermore, I also agree in incorporating the Qu'ran's version of Lot (Luth) I'd suggest simply filling in the information that differs where needed, by simply writing "according to the Bible" and "according to the Qu'ran" 142.35.4.130 02:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename

see discussion in Talk:Lut. --Striver 19:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

This needs to be WP:CITEd or otherwise it looks like a combination of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL. Megapixie 00:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Critics have attacked the story of Lot in the Bible as supporting rape, homophobia, racism, and disrespect for the victims of incest. They point to the following:

• Lot offers his daughters to the men of Sodom to be raped. The text nowhere condemns this act. The text implies that one's (male) guests are to be valued more highly than one's daughters. Some also see in the text a suggestion that raping women is a cure for homosexuality, and that homosexuality is a worse sin than the rape of women
• Some argue that the depiction of the citizens of Sodom and Gommorah is a ethnic slur against the enemies of the ancient Hebrews. Likewise, in making the ancestors of the Moabites and Ammonites the descendants of incest, critics see another ethnic slur against the enemies of the ancient Hebrews. This slur, they argue, forms part of the foundation for the genocide of the Ammonite ethnic group repeatedly advocated in the Old Testament
• Some also point to the portrayal of the men of Sodom is a slur on homosexuals
• Many find the story that Lot was seduced by his daughters highly implausible. To many, it seems far more likely that Lot would rape his own daughters, and then attempt to shift the blame on to them for what he did. From a feminist perspective, this is in line with patriarchial society which seeks to make victims of rape and incest responsible for their abuse, rather than the perpetrators

Note that some of the above criticisms (e.g. the story of incest) do not apply to the Islamic account, since Islam denies the incest occurred. However, other criticisms, e.g. Lot's willingness to offer his daughters to the men of Sodom, apply to the Islamic account also.

I looked up some citations and added the rape and homophobia stuff, but I couldn't find anything on racism and incest. Wrad 21:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole section, as it stands currently, seems to need a bit of revision so that it becomes coherent and understandable. Maybe it should be re-tooled to a "Critical View" heading with the varying interpretations of these events all laid out clearly. It is something of a mess. Rshaulcolm 17:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have no objections to making it better. Wrad 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe change “The Story of Lot in the Bible” to “Lot in The Judeo-Christian Bible” and have beneath it “Lot in The Qur'an” and “The Joseph Smith Translation”. Then just cut and paste the Islamic and LDS view with whatever cosmetic alterations are necessary . By the by, there is additional material for discussion on the subject of how the Qur'an treats Lot (as well as his wife), but that is probably best left for the main article on the subject. So then a change of “Homosexual View” to “Critical Viewpoints” or something similar. I would suggest that any discussion of the people of Sodom in 19:5 be placed within Sodom and Gomorrah, rather than on a page dealing with Lot specifically. A discussion of the implications of the text should probably be focused on Lot ‘s actions and those of his family, rather than external players who have their own Misplaced Pages entry. All that is left to do is to write about 19:8 and 30-38 in a readable and unbiased fashion that mentions the varying interpretations. Rshaulcolm 22:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it to match with some of your suggestions. Wrad 08:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been told that the story of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather it was meant as a parable about the importance of honoring guests. For example, this point of view says that Lot didn't offer his daughters to the crowd because it was better that women were raped than men... He offered them because it was better that his own daughters were raped than to have guests in his house be dishonored. The article doesn't really mention this perspective, so it may be something to look into... 02 Jan 2008

Pass the salt

I added this:

"Finally, it has been suggested this is a metaphor meaning she was made barren, in allusion to salting fields making them infertile."

I recall reading this someplace, but I'm damned if I can recall where, or I'd cite the source... Can somebody confirm?
Trekphiler 13:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest waiting until we have a source before adding it.
199.71.183.2 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

LOT and LUT shouldent be merged

dont merge my history with the quran
lot and his story and its interpretations are part of the bible and of the jewish history and not the quran
"lut" can have its own page and the islamic view of him
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flash.killer (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 November 2006

Can u tell me what is your problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.17.131 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

'midrash' duh!

i misread/thought 'mishnah' (spot the gentile). i assume it is from comentary on Tanakh? can someone provide more specific reference? → bsnowball 11:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Surrounding Lot's Ability to Fornicate

I am completely unsure where this material is derived from. The source material he cites doesn't even mention anything in regards to this. I have never heard this discussed before in any context, and can only presume it's some sort of joke or personal response to the subject matter at hand. I think it should really be removed. Rshaulcolm 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"Pillar of Salt": Figure of speech Idiom

Lot's wife did not actually turn into a pillar of salt. Its a figure of speech that is virtually equivilent to an idiom (figure of speech) used in the USA, when we refer to a person "kicking the bucket". Because we say they kicked the bucket, does not make them into a bucket kicker. It means they died. At least one authority has written about this figure of speech. Bishop Pillai. The name of his book, which book, I'm not sure of. I copied his comments to my bible and sold the books. He wrote that the figure means Lot's wife had a stroke or heart attack: died. There is a list of Biblical Figures at the bottom of this page Figures of speech in the bible from Dr. E. W. Bulligner. "Idiom" is the figure from Bullinger's appendix that fits this situation explained in detail by Pillai.Mdvaden 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Found this page mentioning Dr. Pillai - the idiom is in one of the books listed About Pillai.Mdvaden 00:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on here, but "pillar of salt" isn't mentioned on either of the pages referenced above. "Pillar of Salt" is a figure of speech now, but only because it was ased in the Bible. I haven't seen anything to indicate that it was a figure of speech in biblical times. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Translation

I don't wish to be rude, but does Joseph Smith offer any actual textual evidence for translating the passage in the opposite sense to the way everyone else does? 199.71.183.2 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not really relevant to the article. It's just what they believe. You could ask the same question of the Koran. This article attempts to express a variety of beliefs, not critique those beliefs. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages isn't a pornography Website, but who's upload the Image:Lot and his Daughters.jpg. That image is pornoghraphy (I can't speak English. Sorry) Azmi1995 07:35, 9 Februari 2008 (UTC) 13:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a source of information, pornography is information. Also it's art not pornography, pornography is created with the intent of sexual gratification. This is a biblical story scene, what makes this scene pornographic and jesus dying on the cross not? The daughters are not engaging in sex, merely lounging. Not looking out at the viewer or implying being owned witch is a major distinction between art and porn, and the context isn't meant to gratify but disgust and intrigue the viewer.Sanitycult (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not porn. Cloths are covering everything you wouldn't see in any other classical painting. It's a work of art. It's based on a biblical event. The artist goes out of his way to cover things up. Wrad (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Rename

I've been correcting links on various pages from Lot (a disambig page) to the proper articles. I'm seeing a lot of links from religious but non-Christian articles to this page. I propose that this page be renamed to Lot (religious figure) and Lot (Bible) be redirected here. Anyone agree/disagree? Aylad 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the incest

It is NOT because they want to re-populate the earth (see "it was their responsibility to bear children"). It is because they wanted to offer a filiation (so the incest is far more intriguing and the gender "bias" of the times has to be understood: daughters were meaningless to "carry the name"). My level of English is not enough to change an entire paragraph but it has to be checked and changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemkem (talk • contribs) 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arabic Expressions

"Lot offers the men his daughters instead, whom he says are virgins (19:8), but the men were not interested. Consequently, an Arabic expression for homosexuals is derived from the name for the people of Lot or Lut(in Arabic).i.e., Luti."

Can we have this Arabic expression explained? how does one get homosexual from then not wanting to sleep with his daughters? are we assuming that they didn't want to sleep with any women but men instead? they turned down his daughters because they had originally wanted to rape the angels. are we to understand the angels were male? sayraht

The Bible says they are men specifically. Wrad (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Koran is Bible???

I think this article should be renamed to, for example, Lot (religion), because Koran is NOT part of bible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.160.74.28 (talk) 12:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

rename article

Please consider renaming this article Lot, son of Haran as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New changes

An editor has added multiple pictures of the Lot and his daughters, when it is only mentioned once in the middle of the article. This is an undue weight violation. Such a change is simply spamming images. MCSKY (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC) I've removed the two additional images, still leaving one. MCSKY (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi MCSKY. I had a look at WP:UNDUE and I don't see that it is relevant to the issue that bothers you. It is about minority views on a topic - eg if there was a minority view that Lot and his daughters were from outer space that would not get much room in the article. In any case, I don't see there to be a problem with the images being in the article. Maybe an editor will add some sourced and encyclopedic details about the theology represented by different paintings? But mostly I don't understand why you object to these pictures being there: it seems to me they add to the article. WP:VANDTYPES refers to Image vandalism, but that does not apply here either. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Undue:

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Having multiple images throughout the article of something only mentioned in the middle of the article is undue weight. MCSKY (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks I see where you are coming from, however I don't agree that having these images gives undue weight to the topic. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Explain to me how putting multiple images of the incident throughout the article is not undue weight, when it is only a small part of the Lot narrative, and it is only mentioned in the middle of the article.

Why do you think it is necessary to add more images when there is already one available? MCSKY (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to help here. I suggest the following: (1) Yes, putting more than one image to illustrate this one point from the article is unnecessary, but (2) does it matter? My suggestion to both the editors involved is that they should leave it and move on to other editing. The amount of time and effort they have both put into this is giving undue weight to a truly trivial issue. Edit-warring over this tiny detail is really not worth the effort. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wise words JamesBWatson. Agree completely. Springnuts (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The new user main purpose is to make an edit war, harassing and vandalism. Why there is no administrator ban him? I will not being use by that user.--Player23 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because I disagree with your edits doesn't mean it's harassing and vandalism. I stated previously that the new additions gives undue weight to a small part of the text, and is also unnecessary. MCSKY (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is Undue weight. If you continue to revert my edits, I will distinguish it is harassing. There is a WP:harass policy.--Player23 (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, just because I disagree with your edits doesn't mean it's harassing. MCSKY (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the page with the three (full-color, Renaissance I presume?) images, I think, yes, it is too much to have all three--the reader's attention is drawn away from the article to the pictures, and I half expected to see a section about the use of the Lot/incest story in later European culture. If there were such a section, then maybe one of the relevant paintings would make sense as an example. But without that, you've simply got too many images that don't relate to the article as a whole and that, in fact, distract from the article. My advice: find a much simpler and smaller image of the story--just ONE--and use it. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the original one or the Vouet one, seeing as Simon Vouet is known for his religious paintings. MCSKY (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Any scope for a sourced article on Images of Lot and his Daughters in Western Art? Not Original Research however of course. Springnuts (talk) 06:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there's several paintings of Lot and his daughters is, in itself, extraordinarily notable. In the Middle Ages, paintings were the focus of teaching. They were teaching aids. All three paintings also include (visual) reference to the daughters getting Lot intoxicated with wine. Thus the message becomes much more complicated than a simple porn-warning to the viewer. Rather than snuffing out any discussion by removing these outstanding teaching aids, can we not leave leave them in place? They are a historical fact of immense value, still useful after all these centuries. Santamoly (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, but there would need to be a discussion of Lot in the Middle Ages (and probably in the Renaissance) to justify keeping all three very large images. (And they really do take up a lot of space on the page.) Right now, the article doesn't really warrant that many depictions of that one scene. Could we not add a section on "Lot in Western Art" and discuss the reasons why there were so many versions of his story. And not just the incest story, but other episodes from his story as well. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple depictions of dozens of Bible stories. There is no reason to include the images at the top of the article, where Lot and his daughters aren't even mentioned. Not only is it an undue weight issue, it also crowds the article. MCSKY (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not place the images in a section at the bottom of the page? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

How about a "gallery" section such as this one. New_york_city#Gallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by MCSKY (talk • contribs) 02:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting thought - I was just wondering if that would meet the issue here, and if it would help for a third party to try something. I will give it a go. Springnuts (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a gallery would be safe, and then we could add other images as we find them, and perhaps create a section on the legacy of the Lot stories (plural) in art and literature. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look here: at a possible new section which I hope would allow the paintings to be in the article, in an encyclopedic form, but not overly prominent. Comments here please. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the title "In art" and thumb size images instead of full size? Baroque art is too specific, as it excludes renaissance. And having a section with nothing but full size images will take up a huge chunk of the article, especially when more pictures are added. MCSKY (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and for your thoughtful comments. Yes good idea to head the section 'In Art' - and leave the line below saying it is early Baroque. I was specific about Baroque, since it turns out to be early Baroque - and from the little I know it is interestingly transitional - in that Renaissance Art tends to show the moment immediately before something happens, Baroque shows it happening. In the Muller - 1600 - who is on the cusp of Baroque - Lot is simply in the process of getting drunk; in the Goltzius - 1616 - things have moved on a bit - but in the Vouet the action is in full swing. Now THAT is all Original Research, so I can't put it in the article; but it is better to be more specific and call it Baroque art. I didn't use simple thumbs since they looked dreadful - the Vouet is out of scale with the other two, and the paintings do not fill the width of a 1280 screen. Please would you have a look back here: for another attempt with new title and three versions of the layout. Thanks, Springnuts (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the images are full size, and there are possibly several other images which could be included, then a minor part of the article would take up a huge amount of space. I recommend using the format here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/New_york_city#Gallery

Although it would not take up the entire width of the screen, images are intended to supplement text and articles would be hard to navigate if the screen is mostly filled with images. MCSKY (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks I am such a biff at images! I have copied the format and it looks OK - I like the way it is centred, so the page is not lopsided. I will upload it to the article and let's see how it looks there. Springnuts (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the section looks great. I moved a painting from the section to the first section, as I think it's ideal that the section have one painting illustrating it. I also moved the art section below the popular references section, as I think cultural references are more significant than the art section. MCSKY (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MCSKY. OK, well it is just my POV that Fine Art is more significant than Popular Culture hahaha! Thanks for your help and happy editing. Springnuts (talk) 08:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Like: It looks good, it doesn't distract from the page, it invites expansion (medieval, renaissance, modern, Jewish renditions, etc.) and sets a precedent for the size of any future images. Huzzah!!! Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the images solution, even the thumbnails. At one time, the paintings were more important than our modern words because the viewers were often illiterate. The paintings were needed to keep everyone on message. Just imagine how far off topic we could get without these paintings to keep us focused. Santamoly (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page Name Change Proposal.......AGAIN

Has anyone noticed the page Lot (Sodom) ?

I'm sorry folks, but I really have to suggest another page name change. Since the Islamic view finally got their page Lut and Lot is back to a Judo/Christian view... couldn't we keep the pages consistant with other biblical figures... like...Job (Biblical figure)? The current name of this page: Lot (The Judo-Christian View)... well, sucks. I mean, I know why it was done... but we don't need it anymore.

I propose naming consistancy... Lets go back to Lot (Biblical)...as that is the most appropriate page, I believe.

And someone has to do something with Lot (Sodom) another inappropriate name that needs to be merged into this article... come on guys!

Jasonasosa (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem here with consistency. Be bold! Springnuts (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I strongly support changing the current name. It's too long and it's really about Lot as he appears in the bible. Either Lot (Biblical), Lot (Biblical Figure) or Lot (Bible) are fine imo. Lindert (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to create a new page for Lot... since there are like 5 pages dedicated to him already... even though I would love to have Lot (Biblical Figure) as Lindert suggested... Well, its up to you. For now... I pointed all Lot pages to this one. Anything other than Lot(sodom) or the last title it was at, is better. Jasonasosa (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New Content

Lot needs a makeover... I hope you like what I have so far... I posted a new introduction and a new Section called Lot's Travels in an effort to reveal more things about Lot that gets overlooked. I also want to address the "seduction" topic... my analysis of that is in the works.

Jasonasosa (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling you got into an edit conflict with me while I was doing a history merge. I don't see your changes and there's nothing left unmerged in limbo. Was it a recent edit? Sorry if I caused a conflict that wasn't noticed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the old cut and paste method :/ To be specific... I just added "Lot's Travels" with sub sections like "Haran Settlement", "Land of Canaan", "Land of Egypt", "Plains of Jordon" and "Kingdom of Sodom" ... with all enhanced and new material that was not here before.Jasonasosa (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Was it this edit that you did? If that's it, then it's saved and we have no problem. I thought you were referring to something more recent. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything is good. All content is there. I also added new updated referenced material for the Fleeing Sodom section. Thanks for making sure that the page works right, I appreciate your help, Shirik. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lot and his Daughters

I've now added more content for the section newly titled 'Lot and his Daughters'. I thought that was more appropriate than 'Seduction'... besides, I dont believe Lot was seduced. I didnt state this opinion in the article... but, personally, I think Lot knew what had to be done, and the only way he could do what he did with his daughters, was to get wasted... bad. And think about it... they had children. So, duh, obviously Lot knew what happened since hes the only guy there... and yet the boys were raised to become well... fathers of powerful nations. If Lot held anything against his daughters for "raping" him... I imagine that he would have killed them or ousted them... But he didn't. Anyway, that's my thought on it.

And since we are on the subject... that Hendrik Goltzius' 1616 painting of Lot and his daughters suggests an orgy! And thats NOT what happened. LMAO.

In fact, I think all those paintings serve Lot injustice, because he wasn't being a perv. and I'm sure the daughters weren't too thrilled about it either. We as humans just like to let our imaginations run wild and think of the worst stuff possible.

Jasonasosa (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lut

Imadjafar, the article Lut was designed to have the entire Islamic view on that page because there is too much information. The articles have to be seperate. All religous views should be only 1 or 2 paragraphs longs and anything more than that should be a new article. Same for Jewish and Christian views.

Please see Misplaced Pages's insights at: article spinout on how this applies to these articles.

Jasonasosa (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Content obstructions

• Merging another main article (Lut) onto this main article obstructs WP:CFAS.
• The POV that is concerned here also excedes WP:NPOV-Due and undue weight.

You may not have the same exact article, especially for its length, at two different page locations. Jasonasosa (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus came from Abraham, through Isaac, not Lot

If you check out Matthew 1:1-16 (Bible New Testament) you'll find the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It begins at Abraham through Isaac, Jacob, Judah,Perez, down to Ruth, the mother of Obed who was David's grandfather. There is also a genealogy listed in Luke 3:23-38. Lot is not mentioned once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.69.63 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In a male line, Jesus is of course not descended from Lot, but from Abraham. However, you mention Ruth as one of Jesus' ancestors. Ruth was a Moabite woman, and the Moabites are descended from Lot. So Lot was an ancestor of Ruth, and Ruth was the mother of Obed, Obed was an ancestor of Jesus. -- Lindert (talk) 12:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

LORD template

I thought Template:LORD was to be used only when quoting the Bible? It seems to be used in ordinary text in this article - I'm guessing there are several NPOV problems with that. SPat 00:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not "ordinary" text. The two cases in this article outside of direct quotes are in summaries of the biblical text, in lieu of quoting lengthy text from chapters 12 and 17 of Genesis. The word LORD is what is used in the cited text, so it is certainly proper to use it in a short summary. There is no NPOV problem with using the name "Jesus" in ordinary text talking about him, so neither should there be a problem using "the name of the LORD" in the same manner. (P.S. I changed the section header to plain text.)
—Telpardec  TALK  21:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up! SPat 03:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

How many daughters did Lot have?

I am uncertain because he had virgin daughters and married daughters. That is at least four.80.141.190.107 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

How do you get the idea of 'virgin daughters and married daughters'? Lot had two daughters. Neither of them married, but both conceived by their father, so they weren't virgins either. - Lindert (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

dear Lindert, the articles clearly mentions in one paragraph "offered them his virgin daughters, that had not "known" man" . So this is direct mention on them being VIRGINS. then in the next paragraph it is mentioned like this "When he went out to his sons in law that married his daughters, to warn them to flee, they treated him as one that mocked. SO the ORIGINAL writer has made VIRGIN daughter married with husbands in few minutes of story duration. this kind of irresponsible or directly illogical story telling is prevalent in Most of the Mythologies and religious writings. these paragraphs are referenced from King James version of the story, I wonder if such is the case with other versions or in the original texts. dan 39.48.189.117 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, did a bit of research and according to some writers, "the son in laws mentioned in the story were actually betrothed men whom were in promise to marry his daughters...." SO these girls can be Virgins after all AND 'lawfully' married but never physically. I hope this helps anyone with a certain ITCH while reading the text as it is. Dan 39.48.161.31 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Templates

I have just reverted the addition of some templates. Templates for Judaism and Islam were added, but not one for Christianity, which seems inconsistent. In any case, we have an Islamic view of Lot article, which could have the Islam template, but to have all three in this article is a clear case of WP:TEMPLATECREEP. StAnselm (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Christian mythology

I'm not sure why there is a mention of and link to Christian mythology in the lead. It's talking about Jesus being a descendent of Lot, which is in the Bible, and therefore part of Christianity. Obviously, the phrase "according to Christianity" means were are not making a judgement of historicity. I propose changing Christian mythology to Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Fully agreed. - Lindert (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Not

sure what there is to discuss. Pass a Method talk 20:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• Start-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Start-Class Islam-related articles
• Unknown-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles