User talk:FimusTauri: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 10:44, 15 February 2009 editPiCo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers44,429 edits →The bible and myth: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:30, 17 February 2009 edit undoVanished User 0001 (talk \| contribs)5,337 edits →Disruptive editing: .. again?Next edit →
Line 79:		Line 79:
	: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. ] (]) 15:15, 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:46, 11 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. ] (]) 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 . Cheers, ] (]) 11:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

	== Category talk:Christian mythology ==		== Category talk:Christian mythology ==

Revision as of 11:30, 17 February 2009

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. - 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. Cush may have been thinking of this 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)

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)

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)

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)