'''Welcome!''' see also my'05archive page Initial Welcome Letter Moved to archive - written by Zzyzx11 | Talk 01:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==I don't subscribe to the "Documentary hypothesis"...!== In my own research, I have compiled a vast list of evidence that Jubilees is a '''far more archaic''' version than Genesis and the Torah. I can't exactly make this into an OR article-essay, but I will briefly mention here on my talk page, one of the strongest cases: Take a look at Numbers 13:22. Abruptly inserted into a text about Moses' spies sent into Canaan, we find this parenthetical comment: "(Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt.)" This little fact isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. What could be the source? It doesn't fit in chronologically here at all. It's only mentioned one other place that I know: Jubilees 13:12, where it fits in much more smoothly with the narrative, where one would logically expect to find it, i.e. right after he relates about Abram going to Hebron when it was built. Now, make an honest evaluation: Obviously, by the time Numbers and the Torah were compiled, the Hebrews already knew Hebron with the distinctive epithet "''that was built seven years before Tanis in Egypt''", so much that this became practically part of the title. This would mean they could hardly even mention the name of "Hebron" without adding "''that was built 7 years before Tanis''", and that is the likeliest way to explain why the redactor of Numbers put it in 13:22, quite out of context. But there must have been a source for this little piece of lore, one that would have presumably had it within the Abraham narrative — right where Jubilees has it. It's remotely possible that some Maccabean-era forger could have known all this, and sewn it into precisely the right spot, but I seriously doubt this. Jubilees looks much more like the source we would expect, that scholars have been guessing at all this time, a real attested source, than any hypothetical "J / E / P" source that can be reconstructed. It must be remembered that these hypothetical sources have never been archaeologically or otherwise attested, and are only reconstructions according to this theory. Also, the Maccabean "evidence" for Jubilees' date is totally flimsy and unconvincing, and is really only a rehash of religiously-motivated allegations first made at Yavneh in 80 AD, when it was excised from the Masoretic canon. Jubilees was held in high regard with the other books at Qumran. It was held in high regard by the Jews until Yavneh. It continued to be held in high regard by the Christian Church Fathers, until Nicea. Modern scholars should now make an honest reassessment of whether Numbers 13:22 isn't really based on Jubilees 13:12 as an *older* source, and like I said, that's only the first thing on my list, the tip of the iceberg. ፈቃደ 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC) == Caucasian_Albania, Artsakh, Arran_(Azerbaijan) == Hi there, Welcome to Wikipedia! Just wanted to quickly thank you for your valuable edits in the above-mentioned three pages and for your willingness to involve yourself "in my dispute with Rovoam" ;-) I don't feel alone in those pages now, and I am grateful to you for being my partner/counterpart in those pages and hopefully in many more pages in future. Bests.--Tabib 18:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC) == Why do you consider BCE offensive?== And good job on the Mitanni article, by the way.Yuber : Thanks for the positive feedback... : Why BCE is offensive is a long story, not so much the actual initials or what they stand for, it has more to do with antipathy between the parties who would replace BC and AD with BCE and CE... BC and AD were used for centuries, but the newer initials first cropped up in the later 20th C (70's or 80's) in the journals of revisionists and Marxists with a decidedly minimalist bent. Resistance to the change is widespread, quite recently I saw a news article on Google about this very issue raging in Australia, and the uproar was great enough to stop the new-fangled initials from appearing in government schoolbooks. So rest assured, it isn't only myself who would object to their use. Probably safest not to stir up this whole can of worms... --Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 13:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC) ::As regards the 4th_century "AD", I want to remove it from the Crucifixion article, because: ::#it is un-correct, since AD stays for Anno Domini, and thus refers to a year not a century. Even if everyone knows what it means, it is still incorrect; ::#the statement is not ambiguous, since it would read "from the 6th century BC to the 4th century", clearly showing that it deals with a lifespan of a millennium. ::Please, answer me asap, since I want to correct, the article that now is wrong.--Panairjdde 15:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC) ==Gomer== I'm going through the Articles to Split. From reading the description (and making a time frame assumption), it seemed to me to be two different people (especially since the bits about Ezekiel implied it wasn't a single person represented by the name). Thanks for putting things on the right track -Acjelen 01:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC) == some extracts from a website I found on Cimmerian origins == A.K.G.KRISTENSEN A.K.G. Kristensen ("Who were the Cimmerians, and where did they come from?", Copenhagen, 1988) does however bring apparently irrefutable proof that the Cimmerians upon their first appearance were indeed serving in the Assyrian forces... The findings of Ms.Kristensen are based primarily on an analysis of Assyrian inscriptions and also on a careful study of academic analysis on the subject heretofore. 1. Assyrian reports: A series of Assyrian tablets have been found from the time of Sargon-ii (721-705) referring to the Cimmerians and their country Gamir. They are military intelligence reports to King Sargon concerning campaigns in Urartu. '''These show that the Cimmerians were settled to the south and not to the north of Urartu. ''' This means that the Cimmerians were first found in a buffer zone between Urartu and Assyria. Mannae and Musasir were the neighbourhoods in which Cimmerians were first reported. 2. Where did the Cimmerians really come from? Kristensen advocates the rejection of previously held academic theories concerning Cimmerian origins: Impartial examination of the content of the Assyrian tablets leads to a rejection of the commonly held thesis adopted by many researchers. The previously held ideas supposed that the Cimmerians came from north of the Caucasus and were driven to the south by the Scythians. Place names in Scythia (i.e. southern Russia) recalled the past Cimmerian presence. Archaeologists tended to identify "the vast southern Russian Catacomb Culture from the Bronze Age" with the Cimmerians "whereas the proto-Scythians were supposed to be responsible for the Timber grave Culture" which replaced them. Kristensen quotes from researchers such as T.Sulimirski, M.Salvini, U.Cozzoli, and others who point out that the said identifications are groundless. There is no archaeological evidence for the Cimmerians (or the Scyths) ever having been north of the Caucasus prior to their first appearances in the Middle East. Nor is there anything in their culture (which in the case of the Scythians at least, was Near or Middle Eastern) relating them to that area. The Cimmerians have not even been properly identified archaeologically and we must rely on Assyrian descriptions for our knowledge concerning them. Greek accounts and place names are SOMETIMES used to support the idea that the Cimmerians and Scythians originated north of the Caucasus. These proofs are actually either misinterpreted or.(says Kristensen and the authorities who support her) are literary inventions or anachronisms, based on events occurring a considerable time afterwards... '''The First mention of Gamir (=Land of the Gimirri-Cimmerians) and its date: Gamir is first mentioned in a letter addressed to Sargon ii king of Assyria. They recount the defeat of a king of Urartu in Gamir'''. Both Rusa-i (d.714) and his son Argishti-ii were contemporaries of Sargon. The date of the defeat and which king is involved is therefore uncertain. One group of researchers opts for a date between 709-707 while another claims that it was earlier, in 714, and Kristensen adopts this last opinion. 5. The role of Musasir: Around the time that Urartu invaded Gamir (i.e. the land of the Cimmerians) the Assyrian king Sargon had been to the east of Musasir in Mannae waging war in Zikirtu. Musasir was a vassal state of Assyria yet Urartu had some claim over it. Sargon king of Assyria claimed "broke off his homeward march" and with an elite army group attacked Musasir which he took "without battle, sacked and placed under Assyrian sovereignty". Sargon says he then invaded Urartu and Rusa king of Urartu apparently committed suicide... Parallelisms between the Assyrians and GIMIR: The reconstruction of the above events depends upon the unraveling of several parallel Assyrian accounts. In the War against Urartu exist the role played by "Cimmerians" in one account is the same as that of the "Assyrians" in the parallel version. In these cases the "CIMMERIANS" are paralleled by the "Assyrians" and may be identified with them since the CIMMERIANS were serving as ASSYRIAN SOLDIERS! The reasoning of Kristensen is roughly as follows: a. '''The reports about the Cimmerians said that Urartu invaded Gimir ("Land of the Cimmerians") in north Mannae''' and was defeated after which the Cimmerians attacked the land of Urartu. b. The reports about the Assyrians parallel those concerning the Cimmerians and say that Urartu invaded a portion of Mannae called Uishdish and fought a battle on Mount Uaush involving the Assyrians. c. The battle between Urartu and Gimir and that between Urartu and Assyria must have been in the same month, in the late summer of 714 b.c.e. (or 707?). d. In both the account concerning the Cimmerian encounter with Urartu and that about the Assyrian campaign against Urartu the army of Urartu seems to set out from the same base. In both cases Rusa, king of Urartu, flees from the scene of battle and leaves his army in the lurch. In both cases Rusa flees by the same complicated seemingly unlikely route. In both cases forces enter Urartu after having been provocatively attacked by Urartu: In one case Assyrians and Mannaeans march against Urartu; in the other, Cimmerians. In both cases after the battle, Urzana king of Musasir leaves (albeit unwillingly) the Assyrian side and passes over to that of Urartu. e. An Assyrian account directed to the king of Assyria which issued from the region of Zikirtu concerning the king of Urartu after his defeat states,"The Urartian, since he went [to] Gamir [now?)] is very afraid of the lord my king".-In other words, because of his defeat at Gamir (by the Cimmerians) the king of Urartu had come to fear the king of Assyria! From Zirkitu Sargon had been reported as launching his attack against the advance of Urartu in Uishdish. It follows from ALL the above that Uishdish and Gamir were one and the same place and that '''the war of Sargon against Urartu was the same as that of the Gamirra against Urartu'''!! 7. Parallelisms between the forces of Gamir and Assyria and the explanation of incongruities: According to the Assyrians, Sargon and Sin-ah-usur, the grand visier of Sargon led the cavalry from Zikirtu and defeated a numerically vastly superior force of Urartians in the mountains of Mannae after a breakneck march. Logistically such a feat seems highly unlikely if not impossible! In a parallel situation, in almost the very same words, Sargon claimed to have personally conquered the city of Ashdod even though he had not been there and one of his subordinates had done the work. At Ashdod it is known that Sargon did not personally participate but rather delegated one of his turtanu (nobles) to command the forces instead of him. The nature of the reports sent to Sargon concerning the war with Urartu also suggest that Sargon lacked firsthand knowledge of the encounter. Therefore it may be assumed that Sargon did not actually fight the battle but rather others (in this case Cimmerians in Assyrian service) did on his behalf. 8. The fortresses of Mannae: Some years prior to the final defeat of Rusa of Urartu, Rusa had taken control of 12 (or 20 according to another version) Assyrian fortresses in Uishdish. These fortresses had been garrisoned with Assyrian and Mannaean troops whom Kristensen claims had in fact been Cimmerians in Assyrian service since the Assyrians used conscripted exiles for garrison duties in border areas. It was over these Cimmerian (i.e. Gamirra) garrisoned posts and their neighborhood that the battle was fought. The said area was Uishdish and because of its Cimmerian-connections (suggests Kristensen) Uishdish was also known as Gamir. The Cimmerians therefore when we first meet them are in Assyrian service... After his defeat Rusa king of Urartu flees to Musasir and there captures and crowns Urzana of Musasir as ("mock") king of Urartu. Meanwhile, Mannaeans and Cimmerians invade Urartu and capture Urartian cities. Mannae was a vassal state of Assyria and was acting on Assyrian behalf and so must the Cimmerians have been! Sargon captures and destroys Musasir. Rusa and Urzana are either killed, suicide, or otherwise disappear. Esarhaddon and the Cimmerians: R. Ghirshman, the scholar of ancient Persian history, believed the Cimmerians to have been in the service of Assyria under Sennacherib in ca.689 if not before then. This opinion is not generally accepted though at all events, a treaty from 679 b.c.e. in the time of Esarhaddon reveals the presence of a unit of Cimmerians in the Assyrian army. In 675 Cimmerians were reported in or close to Man (i.e. Mannae) and had assured the Assyrians of their neutrality in the struggle then taking place between rebellious Mannaeans and Assyria. '''Esarhaddon did not believe them.''' Esarhaddon described them as, "zer amel hal qa ti i, who recognise neither the oath (sworn before) a god nor treaties". The above emphasised Assyrian Akkadian words ("zer amel hal qa ti i") have been subject to various translations all of more or less similar import. This expression has been translated differently by different researchers as: "outcasts"; "deserters"; "a race of fugitives"; "seed of dispersion" (Y.B.Yusifov); "vagabonds"; and "ruinous breed". These negative connotations applied to the Cimmerians in the time of Esarhaddon are all applicable to a people exiled from its land, at one stage serving the Assyrians, and later (in exile) attempting to re-assert its own identity. In Assyrian eyes they would have been deserting. The same expression was also applied to the forces of Lugdamne the Cimmerian king. In other words it is more than an epithet and acquired (in the case of the Cimmerians) an ethnic connotation. Regarding the Cimmerians near Mannae mentioned above, the opinion exists that these too were still in Assyrian service though Esarhaddon had come to doubt their loyalty. [End extracts] I don't have time to read all of this right now, but I did read a large section and what stuck out for me was the quote in section 2 "Kristensen quotes from researchers such as T.Sulimirski, M.Salvini, U.Cozzoli, and others who point out that the said identifications are groundless. There is no archaeological evidence for the Cimmerians (or the Scyths) ever having been north of the Caucasus prior to their first appearances in the Middle East." This doesn't make sense because a Finnish archeologist found numerous objects in the Dnieper and Kuban region, most of which were identified as Cimmerian. Of these, the most important are the Borodino treasure (1300 BC?-1100 BC), the Shtetkovo treasure with its bronze sickles (1400 BC?-1100 BC), the bronze foundry of Nikolayev (1100 BC?), and the bronze sickles of Abramovka (1200 B.C.); all these discovered between the lower Danube and the lower Dnieper. The French archeologist A.M. Tallgren used these discoveries to support his claims. I will have to read more of what you posted later.--Moosh88 20:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Codex: I just want to commend you on your work and effort. Some good info added to wikipedia. We all thank you! == Hungarian_prehistory == Hi, after a quick glance at the article I think it has a very strong nationalistic POV (looking at the references justified this for me). It should probably be rewritten from scratch. (Although I'm not an expert or anything.) -- nyenyec ☎ 02:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) I strongly disagree with nyenyec, who is a well known anti-Hungarian agitator and hater along the wikipedia. The article is well written, thanks for it. ::''(- note: added by AAbdullah on 1 July '05)'' == Tyre == Just FYI, the user who added the comment to Talk:Tyre appears to be a vandal/troll on the subject of British/American spelling. Choess 00:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC) == POV Pushing == Quit pushing your pro-Christian Point of View. POV pushing is bad. Stop being bad. Be good. Like Jesus. WWJD? Not push POV on Wikipedia. Also, deleting factually incorrect content is not vandalism. Thanks, and have a nice day. 68.23.224.34 14:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC) :NOTE: This comment is in reference to a mild controversy on the article Code_of_Hammurabi, over whether or not it had any influence on Mosaic law - .34 taking the position that it had none. :As for asking "WWJD", this is indeed ironic, coming from an anonymous user who is so wont to making the most blatant direct personal attacks against other users. :Whenever people like this ask this sort of question, it always reminds me of the "logic" used to justify the fascist invasion of Ethiopia, when they rained mustard gas on the entire countryside, but killing mainly a lot of innocent cattle, as the populace were forced to hide in caves. Mussolini said that Haile Selassie had no right to resist the Italian invasion and genocide, and instead ought to "turn the other cheek", because fighting war is wrong, and not the Christian thing to do. :WWJD? So, you're telling me He had no opinions whatsoever, or always kept them to Himself? You must have Him confused with someone else; I think the line about "you must withdraw into your shell like a tortoise" comes from the scriptures of another major religion, but definitely not the Bible! Codex Sinaiticus 18:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC) ==AH== I think we make first impressions that clashed with each other a bit, is all. I'm listening to you... I've encountered lots of editors lately who've been pushing PoV creep, thanks for understanding. I was properly appalled when I saw I'd reverted your grammar correction! Wyss 03:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC) == Amharic Wikipedia == Hi Codex Sinaiticus, I was wondering, have you ever considered doing some work for the Amharic Wikipedia? It's really in a state of disrepair right now and could use some help. The best thing anyone could probably do for it would be to get sysop status there, and translate the user interface. Maybe create a few articles, too... It already has a logo, but the person who translated it didn't have time to work on the Wikipedia much... I was hoping you might. See the Amharic Wikipedia. Cheers Node :Hi CS, :Have you heard of UniGe'ez? You can download it at http://www.punchdown.org/rvb/email/UniGeez/UniGeez2.001.zip :It might be a little bit confusing at first, but it's certainly much more easy to use than cutting and pasting. :Cheers :Node 04:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC) ::Hi CS, ::It should work if you extract the ZIP file and click on UserInterface.exe. Then, you can click the button which says "Ge'ez ON", and you'll be able to type Ge'ez in any program. ::Node 05:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC) == Formal Warning == (Garbage deleted from my talk page) :...''Do not remove this warning before this matter is resolved, and do not obscure its visibility by commenting on it between the'' ) blah blah blah From the page on sysops: "Sysops do not have any special authority. They are equal to everybody else." Favorite teaching on '''authority''': "You know how the pagans' rulers lord it over them, and how those in authority exercise it over them. It is not to be so among you". - Matthew 12:25 Codex Sinaiticus 20:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC) === Commentary on the Formal Warning === _ _ You wrote at Talk:Noah's_Ark#As'm't_to_Cat_"Mythology" in relevant part, and referring to your multiple removals of the Category:Mythology tag: :As for vandalism, I don't happen to think it is vandalism to remove an inappropriate or offensive category; this happens all the time on wikipedia. I urge you to let go of your focus on * our uses of differing senses of "vandalism", * what you "happen to think" in general, * what, in your perceptions, "happens all the time on wikipedia", and * your confidence that you (despite others' disagreement) have definitively identified an "offensive category". None of these are facts, and continuion of your demanding, for your PoVs, status deserved only by facts (and apparently status even beyond what you accord the undisputed facts) can only end badly.
_ _ In particular, you need to keep clearly in mind that a Cat tag is, both primarily and to a much greater extent than any other MediaWiki mechanism, a ''reverse'' navigational device. By that i mean that a lk, e.g., is placed in an article as a ''forward'' navigational device, taking the reader from where the lk is to some other page; in contrast -- even tho it does have a secondary effect of informing readers of the article (Noah's_Ark in this case) where the Cat tag appears -- the most important fact about a Cat tag is that it enables navigation ''to'' the article it appears in, from the Cat page (Category:Mythology in this case). A link is an on ramp; a Cat tag is an off ramp. Complaining about a Cat tag stigmatizing an article is like complaining about your muffler or anti-pollution device lowering the power of your engine: they're not there for power, but for their affect on other car's drivers, and taking them off for more power sacrifices the major function for a minor benefit; that's not called vandalizing your car, but it's as much vandalism (against the environment) as is tagging a stop sign with your graffitti. (And, in contrast to your car, don't ever confuse yourself by thinking about "your article".)
_ _ If you've really been paying attention to what happens here all the time, you should know that some grievances have no solution, and many that have one have no quick one. You've been shown the start of the clear ''responsible'' path for pursuing a remedy to your grievance. (FYI, if you are successful, that path will lead -- if the Cat is simply misnamed -- on to WP:CfD, where some new title(s) (that you and your colleagues will have to come up with) can be offered as the replacement Cat(s) to obviate the existing Category:Mythology by filling the roles it currently fills.) There may be other outcomes , unforeseeable now, that will meet you concerns.
_ _ Get on with it.
--Jerzy·t 19:42 & 19:45, 2005 August 3 (UTC) == Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy == A discussion whose topic is : Codex Sinaiticus & Jerzy appears on User_talk:Jerzy/Codex_Sinaiticus_&_Jerzy; the following points describe the discussion:--> * 3 msgs, 03:42 thru 19:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC) * 2 participants: Jerzy·t·c·*; Codex Sinaiticus·t·c·*. * general topic(s): Interaction of these two in context of Noah's_Ark Cats * relevant reference(s): Talk:Noah's_Ark#As'm't_to_Cat_"Mythology" ::- ''(Added by User:Jerzy at 20:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC))'' ::Hey, that's pretty clever! It almost looks like a real wikipedia: namespace page...! Codex Sinaiticus 20:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ==AH== zzzzzzzzzzz Wyss 12:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Anyway, I know that my efforts to keep this article about a mass-murderer as NPoV (in both directions) as possible may sometimes seem like a claim of ownership. That's not my goal. *I think the ''Fuhrerprinzip'' content you added sometime ago is helpful and provides an insightful tie-in to a strong statement about AH's pro-active efforts against democratic process which he truly didn't believe in. You seem to want a slightly different wording than I do but I wanted to let you know I'm glad you put it in the article. Thanks :) Wyss 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) *The reference to Ernst Rohm as "flamboyant" is such a glaring codeword for "gay"... he ''was'' of course and it may even have contributed to his early downfall. My objection to the use of the word in the article is that Rohm's name is in a string of other names with no adjectives... for me the flow is interrupted in a distracting way, especially since it involves this particular adjective. However I agree that this is likely a ''big, docking nitpick'' on my part. I encourage you to feel free to discuss stuff with me, I'm more flexible than you might think, ok? Wyss 01:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC) ==von Tischendorf== The articles Constantin_von_Tischendorf and Lobegott_Friedrich_Konstantin_von_Tischendorf need to be merged. If anyone has rights to this task, you most certainly do. --FourthAve 15:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC) == Myth Disclaimer == {| style="background-color: #FAF9EC;" | style="vertical-align: top; width:50%;" | '''IMPORTANT NOTICE:''' While most English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" by the dictionary definition of "fictitious" or "imaginary", these terms, as used on wikipedia, have been agreed by consensus to have a different meaning, that does not imply this. Therefore, ''for wikipedia purposes'', a story that is 100% factual may be described as a "myth". |} Either we rename "Christian mythology" and similar categories to "Christian legends", or explanatory templates like the above should be applied to many, many pages... Codex Sinaiticus 18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC) : Hi. Thanks for the encouraging compliment. I'm sorry about the trial of conscience that this debate produces. {{User:Mkmcconn/sig|Mkmcconn|Mark}} 20:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC) == Ark of the Covenant == Sorry, I was trying to revert Reddi, not you. Jdavidb 18:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC) == Wesley == John Wesley said, "You have nothing to do but save souls...". Yes, it's Christ alone who saves, but Wesleyans feel that we have to be about sharing in Christ's work. I'm just saying that Christians can dispute and argue so much (with non-Christians and with one another) that we lose focus. Hope that helps...I certainly meant no offense and apologize if I offended! KHM03 15:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ==Religion and mythology== Please read Religion_and_mythology. JDR 18:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ==Your index of unwatched pages== Why do I keep thinking that Mormon_cricket is a game played by Latter_Day_Saints in England or by English Latter Day Saints in Utah? JHCC (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC) LOL... I actually cleaned up some badly written sentences about the insect a while back, but don't care enough to see it popping up on my watchlist! Codex Sinaiticus 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ==Ur-Nina== hi CS, can you explain your uncommented edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ur-Nina&diff;=next&oldid;=14506903 where you shifted the date of Ur-Nina by an entire millennium (but without changing the reference either here or here). dab ('''ᛏ''') 16:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC) ==Sun== Could you explain why you believe photosynthesis is so important that it must be mentioned in the intro? Others have pointed out that there are many ways in which the Sun supports life and there is no reason to place such emphasis on one. The Sun provides heat and light; photosynthesis is just one of the many processes that depend on that heat and light. Worldtraveller 16:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC) :No one has yet pointed out what these "other ways" are that are as important as photosynthesis is. They just say there are "other ways" but don't list any of them. The other ways are Heat and Light, and they are already listed. It seems like you really don't want any readers to think of the Sun as being the cause of this vital phenomenon. In fact, in your own comments, you even seem equivocal about whether or not the Sun really is a direct cause. However, there should be no such ambivalence, scientifically speaking. The Sun IS most definitely the cause, no question or doubt about it. This is crucial because it is the main method whereby the Sun ''does'' support Life, and for that matter, Oxygen. If you don't want English speaking people to have that knowledge, speakers of other languages are still going to have that knowledge in their wikipedias. When you're talking about how powerful the Sun is, why on Earth try to keep your own people in the dark? Codex Sinaiticus 17:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC) As I said on Talk:Sun, the Sun is no more a ''cause'' of photosynthesis than chlorophyll is. The Sun gives us heat and light; it does not give us heat, light and photosynthesis. It's wrong to phrase it in that way. People have in fact pointed out other vital ways in which the Sun supports life, such as ensuring that water can exist in its liquid phase. What is your reason for only wishing to list photosynthesis? Worldtraveller 17:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Your statement that '''"the Sun is not the cause of photosynthesis"''' I assume merely reflects what the state of English-speaking Science is. Other languages are spoken by scientists who view this differently. Like I said, if you think Photosynthesis is so insignificant that you won't even allow it to be linked from Sun (because you don't want English speakers to make that connection?), you're only keeping your own people in the dark. Codex Sinaiticus 18:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC) :You're not answering the question. Why do you believe that photosynthesis is so vital that it must be mentioned, when we do not list the other ways in which the sun supports life? Worldtraveller 19:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ==More Christian mythology== There is a new proposal at Category_talk:Christian_mythology/Proposed_compromises#JHCC's_new_proposal. Please read and comment. JHCC (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC) : Things have been quiet for a while. Do you want to take me to task for the solution I advocated? Or, do you think that it's fair and appropriate (distinguishable from ''correct'')? {{User:Mkmcconn/sig|Mkmcconn|Mark}} 07:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC) == ''Negus negust'' vs. ''Niguse negest'' == Hi, Codex Sinaiticus! Due to our interests I guess it was inevitable that our paths would eventually cross. The principal reason -- actually, the only reason -- that I changed the transliteration of this Amharic phrase to ''Negus negust'' is to be consistent with how I have spelled it in about 80 different articles. In short, every article I have written about an Emperor of Ethiopia (from Yekuno_Amlak to Haile Selassie) I have spelled it that way, for the sole reason that it seemed to me the simplest & most consistent way to render it in the Latin alphabet. And no, I do not know any Amharic. So if you'd like to spend an hour or two changing every time ''Negus negust'' appears in those articles to ''Niguse negest'', go ahead -- but warn me first so I don't accidentally assume that these articles are being targeted by a vandal. My principal concern is that Wikipedia be consistent, although as close to accurate as possible. -- llywrch 00:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Yes, I will gradually make the change in all the articles, since "Niguse Negest" is accurate, but "Negus negust" is neither accurate nor consistent, since it renders two different vowels as u and as e, and renders the vowel e as both e and u...! Codex Sinaiticus 02:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC) == Epistle of Jude == You may have already seen, but another user reverted your edits to Epistle_of_Jude. Just thought you should know. freestylefrappe 21:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC) ==Shepherd of Hermas== Hi. I'd appreciate it if we could borrow your expertise in the article, Binitarianism. See the Talk to catch up on the issues that are being discussed. {{User:Mkmcconn/sig|Mkmcconn|Mark}} 04:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC) == Christian Mythology Category == I've warned the anon for violating 3rr; if he does it again he will be blocked. In the meantime, do you have any links to the discussion of what is covered by this category? I'm looking myself and I just want to make sure that I've seen all the evidence so that I don't do anything silly.--Scimitar ^parley 17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC) he said see the category talk pages, and since he claims that Category:Jesus is the replacement, looked on that talk page... and saw nothing..... 134.161.138.166 17:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC) *Well, I'll take a look. Seems like it should be a lot of fun.--Scimitar ^parley 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC) **Well, it looks like your interpretation is correct, Codex. I sort of suspected it from the beginning, but I'm trying not to jump to conclusions. Thanks for your patience.--Scimitar ^parley 18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC) ::Also, thanks for not violating 3rr; it makes my life much easier.--Scimitar ^parley 18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC) ::: Um... why do we HAVE a christian mythology tag is religious nuts can prevent us from using it correctly? ''(unsigned comment by User:134.161.138.166)'' ==Magog== See Talk:Gog_and_Magog AnonMoos 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC) == Aramaeans == "I nearly reverted; this article is still very poorly written and needs lots more work; also too much valid info cut from the old article needs to be re-merged)" User:Codex_Sinaiticus I think it's very easy to say that, I find it offensive. I did not update the old article just for fun, I found it incomplete and partially inaccurate. Just read it: :"The Arameans or Aramaeans were a Semitic, nomadic people mentioned six times in the Hebrew Bible, who dwelt in Aram-Naharaim or "Aram of the two rivers," also known as Mesopotamia, and the adjoining region including parts of modern Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Iran." (old article) Do you know how many times "Aramaeans" is mentionned in the Bibles? I guess not 6 times. Despite the fact that I accept that the new article still needs work (discussion), it is not a valid reason to discourage users who try to improve articles. I guess this is what WIKIPEDIA is all about, a team working toward producing the best articles, I don't think Wikipedia counts on every user to produce perfect articles, if that was the case, then no need to that link called EDIT THIS PAGE. Although I take it with a ''grain de sel'', I hope others will not be discouraged by such comments you make. My last question, why didn't you just reverted it to the last version? --sharrukin 22:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC) == Saul and Easton's == Hi, thanks for your corrections and clarifications to my rewrite of the Saul article. I wonder if you might be interested in working with me on weeding out the articles based on Easton's Bible Dictionary. I think it is a travesty and an embarrassment to wikipedia that so many articles are based on it, and I think there needs to be some sort of organized effort to rewrite all articles based on it. This is especially true of articles on people not largely known through the Bible - for instance, various Babylonian kings, and the like. But it's true of the Biblical articles, too. Easton's Bible Dictionary simply isn't an encyclopedic source. It much, much worse than the turn of the century encyclopedias that have been used to write articles, for instance. Anyway, if you're interested in this, or know anyone else who might be, I think this would be a highly worthwhile venture. And not even necessarily that difficult - my rewrite of the Saul article took only a few minutes. john k 23:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC) == Afar stats == :It's okay now. There really are 6 articles. The counter on the main page was broken; I've fixed it now. I was using a counter on my user page, which has always functioned; I never looked at the main page and didn't realize that it wasn't formatted. Thanks for letting me know. David Cannon 23:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC) :: I can't answer that one, except that I know that MANY wikpipedia projects have a discrepancy between the article counter and the ALL PAGES link. Whether the problem is with the counter, or with the updating of the ALL PAGES link, I have no idea. That's something you'd have to ask a Developer about. I'm not a Developer; I know User:Angela is, and there are some others. David Cannon 00:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC) ::: By all means, please do ask Angela to look into it. :::: I'm ready to recalculate the figures; I actually have a spreadsheet that automates it. I'll do that if it turns out that there really are no articles on Afar. I'll wait till you've heard from Angela, though. David Cannon 00:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC) :::::I'm sorry, but I don't know the cause of it, and I'd rather not speculate about it. I suggest you report it as a bug at bugzilla.wikimedia.org if it isn't already there. Angela. 00:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC) == Arioch/Rim-sin == What sources do you have after 1911 Britannica? From what I understand, the putative connection was not with Rim-sin, but with his brother Warad-sin, because the Sumerian transcription of the Semitic name Warad-sin could be rendered "Eri-aku." Sources that claim this connection also equate Hammurabi with Amraphel, which hasn't been seriously suggested since the '70s at the very latest. Popular overviews tend to lag behind technical publications for decades, so the Hammurabi/Amraphel equation is still brought up in popular literature, but it has no real support in recent technical literature.--Rob117 04:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC) == Elam == Putting this up at Elam, too. Codex, Rob, who knows more about the current state of Elamology than I do, says that no modern scholars accept the identification of Rim-sen as Arioch. A Biblical encyclopedia I consulted says that the Arioch in Genesis was the king of Elasar, and Elasar is identified with Larsa. It is supposed that the old Chaldean town of Larsa was the metropolis of this kingdom, situated nearly halfway between Ur (now Mugheir) and Erech, on the left bank of the Euphrates. This town is represented by the mounds of Senkereh, a little to the east of Erech. http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ellasar.html That was also the position at a Jewish encyclopedia: King of Ellasar, one of the four kings who invaded Palestine in the days of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 1, 9). The style of the chapter in Genesis is such as to make it probable that the narrative, though embellished, rests on some historical tradition. Midrash Gen. R. xlii. seeks to identify Arioch with Yawan (changed by the censor into Antiochus), and remarks further that coins the name of which bore some resemblance to the name Ellasar were still in circulation. It is now, however, generally held that Arioch, king of Ellasar, is identical with Eri-aku, king of Larsa, found in cuneiform inscriptions, though it should be added that no account of Eri-aku's campaign has as yet been discovered, so that only the identity of the two names can be maintained with certainty. We know that Eri-aku was conquered by Hammurabi, the Amraphel of Gen. xiv. 1, and that he became a vassal to him. The ruins of Larsa cover the site known as Senkereh.http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1762&letter;=A I don't know why you're insisting on what is apparently a non-standard identification. It's not particularly germane to the article on Elam, either. As far as I know, archaeologists have generally concluded that the Torah/Old Testament is not a trustworthy guide to Near/Middle Eastern history and are much less concerned to look for known historical events and places in the Torah. Is there some religious reason that you think the Torah is relevant here? Zora 02:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC) == Backwards == You guys got it backwards. If you check that link on Wedge Strategy (and other fundamentalist links) you will see that the "intelligent design" people are out to destroy science (as it now stands). Do you send your kids to a doctor or a faith-healer? If you use doctors, computers, nose-drops, autos, airplanes or any modern "convenience" then you take advantage of science and engineering, but you pay it back with insults. The worst part is (and maybe will be further) that you corrupt children's minds with the simplistic idea that for any "gap" in a scientific theory, any unknown or poorly worked-out part, the anwer is just to look in the Bible. A great place for spiritual inspiration, but not for dealing with nature. I have one question: Did you take any college science courses? What grades did you get? Carrionluggage 01:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the Haile Selassie item - pretty well written and I believe it is pretty much compatible with my approach. Of course, Selassie considered himself to be the descendent of Solomon and Sheba, and he kept Ethiopia in about the most backward condition of any nation in the world, from about 1928 to 1960 with some interruptions. Ethiopia was the last country in the world from which Poliomyelitis was eliminated, namely in 1991, though there have been spotty cases around even recently, e.g. among the Amish in Minnesota. I believe Selassie had dozens of wives (mostly simultaneously) and more than 100 children, many of whom he survived. Now, I am not qualified to judge polygamy but there is the view it's immoral because the polygamist deprives other men of mates. Anyway, I do not see how this statement from the King of Kings (as I believe he called himself) has anything to do with corrupting science by intermingling holy works or myths. The moral and religious aspects of being a scientist include being honest (no faked data, no plagiarism!), working hard, making one's work available for the betterment of humanity, in many cases accepting mediocre pay and living frugally. It makes no more sense to intrude stories from the Bible into scientific data or analysis than it would to produce a "revised" Bible full of equations and data on present-day geology, biology, chemistry, etc. Morality applies everywhere, but tales which ostensibly or rightly promote morality do not belong in a science classroom any more than lines from the Rubaiyat (or, worse, the Kama Sutra!) would fit into the middle of a Shakespeare play. Carrionluggage 06:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC) : LOL don't believe everything you hear about Selassie. If you did, you'd believe that he fed his people donkeys (like Mussolini's fascists were telling the world in 1934), or that he sacrificed children (like Castro's communists were telling the world in 1974). It's very easy for anyone to lie. His Majesty was never a polygamist. Codex Sinaiticus 14:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Sometimes we old guys have an advantage. I have not read much about Haile Selassie since about 1960 - mainly I saw news items in the period 1947 - 1958. Seems that since then the Rastafarians have probably done a good job of whitewash - many buckets it seems. Your mention of Mussolini reminds me of several Wikipedia sections: Fallacy, Reductio_ad_Hitlerum and Godwin's_law. Illogic: Mary smeared Joe. Mary is a liar. Therefore Joe is a great guy. Compare, for example, the case of Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism. For decades his name was suppressed, and for good reason. All one saw was Brigham Young (BYU, etc etc etc.) But it was Joseph Smith who supposedly received magic or holy tablets from the angel Moroni. What happened, what changed? Well, Smith moved gradually West (starting in Vermont) and as he traveled, he converted many people to Mormonism, at the same time taking liberties with many attractive young ladies. Finally, in Nauvoo, Illinois in June of 1844, the local newspaper ran a scathing commentary on his conquests of the ladies, and probably other things. Oddly, the printing presses were smashed to pieces the same night by mysterious intruders. The authorities suspected Smith and associates and jailed them, but they never came to trial, because they were lynched by an angry mob. Not to justify that - I oppose capital punishment, as well as punishment without trial, but it is a nasty story suppressed for more than a century - suppressed by omission, not by censorship so far as I know. In the last two years, there have been a lot of press releases (which tend to be picked up as human interest stories) that try to give Smith a clean slate and identify him as a martyr. Perhaps the same is happening to Selassie. (OK, if I left out the "perhaps" it would be a fallacious argument, but I am just suggesting how the passage of time can improve the images of people considered to have been religious leaders.) Carrionluggage 19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Well you are certainly entitled to your POV... But after a while, you get a sense of what is going to stand in an article and what isn't, and trust me brother, what you wrote in that edit I rv'd wouldn't have lasted much longer than that anyhow...! BTW I do not recognise the validity of Godwin's Law, therefore I feel free to ignore it...! Take care, Codex Sinaiticus 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) == Sons of Noah article == Hi: I can ask a colleague of mine at work who knows Georgian to look at the article, but I don't know if it will help; if Duffy can't be bothered to be courteous, this won't change it. If he has reverted more than 4 times, can't you get an admin involved or something? --FeanorStar7 16:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC) :Not sure what I should do; I feel like I am being attacked and dragged into this; I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the subject; this article was just one of the many I tried to improve in terms of syntax and grammar, not content. --FeanorStar7 00:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC) :: Hi, you don't have to get dragged into it! I don't think you're being attacked, at least I know I haven't! I only asked for your help, because I remembered that you work in the largest library in the world, and figured that if anyone could find a tome written in Georgian the fastest, it would be you! If you can't find that book, or the one by Bittel, (that should be a lot easier), or don't have the time, don't sweat it... I can always find out the content by other means... Thanks... ፈቃደ 01:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC) == Thanks. == NPOV is a lonely job. Thanks for defending it. Ungtss 20:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC) == Thank you for your help == Thanks for your help on the BCE/CE pages. Chooserr Neolithic_Europe also has had the BCE/CE reverted...could you help? Chooserr == Seleucia dates == Please don't make random changes without documentation. I don't claim to be an expert on this issue, but it doesn't match the text of the articles, and it is not necessary for the user to find the correct page. I think it violates the MoS. Please revert your own change. William Allen Simpson 21:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC) What are you talking about, those are the same dates given in the article, they are correct, and yes it does help the user find the right era. It's useful information. ፈቃደ 21:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Hi Codex_Sinaiticus, just to tell you: User:WilliamAllenSimpson is in WP since 15 Nov and has a quite aggressive attitude. He is fast in calling contributions vandalism and e.g. warning me that I will be blocked if I go to revert (to a corrected version). And he points me to sandbox. He also comes with the 3RR rule, in my case he is acompagned by User:Golbez, i.e. they have more "revert-power" ;-) cheers Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Thx a lot for your comment on the naming convention of subnational entities page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) == On editing of God == Hey Codex, I restored but rewrote the section you removed from the God article. I hope that you will find that my rewrite makes it both not POV (like the original was) and still worth having in the article. --Improv 03:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC) == ??? == Thanks much (about name change). And the coin of the Wiki-realm seems to be to write liberally, so I don't mind the Rastafarian stuff - but as it was unsigned I thought somebody might mistakenly think it was mine. Now about Noah's Ark: I find the invasion of school boards by ID people reprehensible; if successful we will just fall behind Europe and modern Asia. Right now we are coasting on our laurels (how's that for mixed metaphors). We are profiting from decades of not-too-bad education. I found the Noah's Ark item about the worst among things like Creationism, the Watchmaker item or Irreducible Complexity etc. Worse because of the strawman "objections" and "authoritative" answers. I read that tour guides from religiously oriented schools are telling children in the NY Museum of Natural History that the Ark had dinosaurs on it. My wife's aunt visited Jackson Hole, WY last summer as part of an extensive land and sea tour and was told by the tourguide (from the tour company, not from J-H) that the mountains were carved out by the Great Flood. Do you believe that the Tetons and the Grand Canyon, the Rockies and the Himalayas were carved out by the Flood? A final interest I have in the Ark is that my wife takes long showers, after which I usually tease her that I noticed animals escaping the shower area two by two. Anyway, I do not like nonsense such as Intelligent Design, Parapsychology (I was tested with those cards in black envelopes as a kid!) , so-called Objectivism (a poor cousin of Machiavellianism), flying saucer stories, etc. If you are as religious as I imagine I might ask why the Religions and religious people do not oppose more forcibly quasi-religious beliefs that encroach on their territory, such as parapsychology, contacting the dead (though it is part of the Mormon religion), fortune-telling and Tarot, and so on. Carrionluggage 03:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC) ==Ogham== I am quite fascinated with the topic myself (plus, no pov warriors! Wiki heaven, after I've been driven off from Odin, unfortunately obscure or scholarly topic are no guarantee that they will not be patrolled by the grumpy and insane:) I'm looking for references for Bríatharogam now, but google is silent, and I'll have to wait to get to the library tomorrow. dab ('''ᛏ''') 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC) :I see! I was wondering about this, but otherwise I've never even heard of the guy. Obviously a kook, I'd say, but by all means mention him! dab ('''ᛏ''') 19:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC) == Regarding the Origin of the Name section for Afghanistan == Hello, I agree with your comment on the section and was thinking that it should be shortened in some capacity, or moved below the history section, but it might involve too much controversy with other wikipedians. I did however, revamp the beginning section and removed superfluous information and substantially fixed the history section, which was filled with inaccuracies and unverifiable information. At any rate, I'd appreciate your input (and others) on the matter. Thanks and adios. Tombseye 19:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC) :Hello, you make some valid points, and I moved the section back before the history section. BUT the name Afghan as applied to the Pashtuns who have historically referred to themselves as Pashtuns moreso than Afghans does leave room for doubt as to why the term Afghan also came to be applied to them. The research thus far is speculative and not universal was my point and I think it's a valid one as during a recent course on the History of Central Asia I took, discussion of the name came up and the numerous theories put forth, but they do remain speculative as I said because the references are sporadic, sometimes derived from Indian religious texts which have no exact geography and often deal with supernatural phenomenon AND the information generally leads to similar sounding names as opposed to concrete evidence as from local usage and inscriptions from Afghanistan itself. Thus, I think it's valid to say it's speculative, but still possible. Tombseye 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) == input request == Would you mind looking in on Talk:Jesus_H._Christ#"Bored_church_attendees"? Thanks for your time. Tomer^talk 00:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC) == alphabets == Hi Codex, I've reverted a couple edits you've made to history of the alphabet, etc, so I thought I should explain myself. For this last edit, you gave ''manyougana'' as an example of a modern alphabet that's not used nationally, but as you point out, it's neither modern nor an alphabet, and when it was used it was used nationally, so it doesn't belong. The shorthand speculation I removed as being just that. In the admittedly sparse accounts I have about the history of shorthand, More's name is not mentioned, and in any case it's not clear that shorthand systems of that age are graphically ancestral to modern shorthand or Cree. If you have a reference, it would be interesting to see. kwami 06:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) :Replied on my page. More's system was not shorthand, & d n appear t b related t Willis o Pitman. Cree akshara appear t b fm Devanagari, & final C's fm Pitman. kwami 18:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC) ==Greetings, and Out_of_Africa ...== Hello! I hope you're well. I misread your reversion of the changes to the "Modern Africa" section in the "Africa" article as a reversion of my numerous edits to the table too. Forgive me for my error and Strabismus. ;) I've restored your changes and mine; let me know if you've any questions. Happy editing! E Pluribus Anthony 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC) :Great ... and happy ho-ho! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC) ==Merry Christmas!!== Image:RacingBicycle-non.JPG 22:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)]] ==Mythology== I've made a lengthy suggestion at Talk:Mythology#Etymology_and_usage_—_some_analysis_and_a_suggestion. I would appreciate your input. Thank you. JHCC (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC) ==You were probably right about God== Codex, I'm beginning to think you were right initially that the neurological findings section in God doesn't belong. It doesn't really fit the topic of the article very well, and I regret rewriting/restoring it some months ago. If you still feel the same way, maybe we should be bold and delete it, and work on convincing others if that's contested that it's really more about ''belief'' than it is about the ''concept of a monotheistic god''. --Improv 04:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC) ---- Thank you for this edit, it made me happy. Sam Spade 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ==(2006) Historicity of Jesus== Dear Siniaticus, I moved the sentence because it seemed to me to apply to the "Testimonium Flavianum" in general and just to that alternative version. And I still think it does apply. AFAIK, scholars nowadays tend to prefer interpolation to outright forgery. Str1977 16:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC) ==Myth== Sorry, i am not trying to suppress it. More trying to figure out where it belongs. I should have kept it on the talk page. What I was wondering was why when adding the link you deleted out the rest of the definitions? I'm sorry if you have been over this ad nauseum but as a new comer I'm still trying to figure out the details. This is quite a complex argument with respect to resolution. David D. (Talk) 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) :Codex: I left a message on DreamGuy's talk page, and figured I'd do the same for you...the "Mythology" debate won't bear much fruit unless we all watch our language. Accusations and name calling aren't good for anyone. I really think you'd get further without the "lies" language, even if you ''do'' feel DreamGuy is lying, and even if he mistreats you or misrepresents your position. You're a better editor than I am, and probably know WP:CIV and WP:NPA better than I do. I just thought I'd offer this friendly reminder; hopefully, we'll all reach a compromise. Thanks...KHM03 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) ::Hi Codex, i just sent you an e-mail through wikipedia with the text from the 2003 and 1989 editions. David D. (Talk) 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ==Mythology== I've put a suggestion at Talk:Mythology#A_suggestion on which I would appreciate your input. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) :Codex I don't think your arguments are irrelvant. It is in fact one of the more interesting talk pages i have come across as this is a very good discussion. Just out of interest do you know why the OED switched the primary definition after the other dictionarys? Or were the other dictionaries always using the academic definition as the primary meaning? David D. (Talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC) == Re: taxis == I just don't recall seeing a taxi with twelve seats. I remember the two front seats (one for the driver), then one or two rows each with two seats, then a back row with three or four seats. Which makes 9 or 10 seats. Of course, someone might try and fit 12 or more people among those seats (though if we saw this happening we usually waited for another taxi). I'm just not sure about the statement that they "can sit at least twelve people," sort of like the old joke about how a Volkswagen can hold 10 people... if they are college students or circus clowns, maybe. ;-) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) :Now in Nazret/Adama, some of the blue & whites were small pickup trucks with a passenger compartment in the pickup bed. The seating was like you described. But I don't remember seeing these in Addis (maybe because we usually stuck to a few routes). And in Modjo [sp.?] I think the only taxis were Garis. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ::Well yeah there are the ones known as 'talkers', the pickup trucks, because you can talk to the other person across from you. Many of the normal taxi I'm have 4 rows of seats plus the front seat so that its twelve seats, at least. Those can probably fit at least fifteen. == :-p == Thanks. I was looking for something better. I still don't think that's exactly correct, since there's little evidence to support the assertion there that extant animism originated in E. India as opposed to somewhere else (notably central indochina)...but I suppose your fix is better than the assertion it almost seemed like I was making, that the Br. E. India Co. invented animism. :-p Tomer^talk 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC) == notes on the History of Mythology == *The article Mythology was created by Cayzle on 14 Dec, 2001. In its original incarnation, it read: :the connotation of the words "myth" and "mythology" is that the stories are false, or dubious at best. * 28 Dec 2001 - 18 Sep 2002: Incarnation I (Cayzle / Slrubenstein) excerpt: :Some use the words "myth" and "mythology" to identify stories as false, or dubious at best. Others use the words to refer to stories that, while usually not strictly factual, reveal fundamental truths and insights about human nature, often through the use of Archtypes. * 18 Sep 2002 - 11 Apr 2004 Incarnation II (major rewrite by TUF-KAT) Still a fairly neutral article that covers all pov's. excerpt: :People within most religions take offense at the characterization of their faith as a myth, for this is tantamount to claiming that the religion itself is a lie. * (slightly modified 12 Jun 2003 by anon IP) * 11 Apr 2004 - Incarnation III (major rewrite by Wetman) replaces meaningful definition of myth.. End of npov language.. Excerpt: :Some people, especially within "revealed" religions that are justified in terms of an authenticated scripture, may take offense at the characterization of any aspect of their faith as an expression of myth. An aspect of Fundamentalism requires that every incidental element be accepted as literally true. TO BE CONTINUED... (checked revision history up to June '04 so far) ==My African Map== Well my map is from 1976, and I erased most of the Spanish titles. I will keep it off because of its inaccurate portrayals.--King of the Dancehall 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) == Pocahontas == See additional points made on article's talk page. Thanks. WLD 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC) ==Myth again== Codex, I reverted your change to Myth not because I disagree with it, but because it is secondary to the larger issue of whether the "this usage arose from the labelling of religious beliefs" language is either accurate or inappropriate. See Talk:Myth#Edits_to_popular_sense for details, and please join the conversation there. Cheers. JHCC (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC) ==Ge'ez_alphabet#Amharic== hey Codex, maybe you can help me figure out the phonetic values of these modified letters, especially ሸ vs ሰ, ቐ and ኸ vs ቀ and ከ, and most of all ዸ (could it be [{{IPA|ɗ}}], ''implosive''??) dab ('''ᛏ''') 14:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC) *ሸ is the same sound as "sh" in English, so s-scaron *ሰ (unmodified) is s *ቐ - not used in Amharic, possibly Tigrinya *ኸ - has coalesced with other "h" sounds, all like English h, but this is the only character that can be used for the ä vowel sound in modern Amharic *ቀ (unmodified) is q (sound not in English, but as in Hebrew) *ከ (unmodified) regular k, as in English *ዸ - don't know, not used in Amharic but possibly Tigrinya, looks too much like the sign for P'... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks; I'm really curious about the value of ሰ in Ge'ez (as opposed to Amharic), but I'll have to dig into the literature... The value for ዸ I took from http://syllabary.sourceforge.net/Ethiopic/Geez.html, but that's not a very good source. I am not very familiar with Old Irish phonetics, and you may get a better reply on WP:RD/L, but if not, I'll try to piece it together. regards, dab ('''ᛏ''') 15:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Giiz isa very difficult language to learn, I don't know everything but I do know enough about Giiz to say that ሰ corresponds to samekh (English s) while ሠ corresponds to shin (English sh)... Nowadays in Amharic, both these letters have the same sound (s) and are interchangeable, while ሸ is substituted for sh... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC) == DreamGuy == Hello, this is just a courtesy note. I am currently gathering information for an RfC to debate whether or not DreamGuy's recent behavior may have been uncivil. Would you be interested in participating? If not, I understand, but I wanted to make you aware. Thanks, Elonka 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC) == Ethiopian birr == I noticed your comment on Talk:Ethiopian_birr and I was hoping you might be able to help me with some information about the early Ethiopian currency. I've been working on succession boxes for currencies. I have a couple of sources I use, which don't seem to agree on what the currency was called from the introduction to 1936. The Ethiopian_birr page calls it birr. The Standard Catalog of World Coins agrees. http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/banknotes/ethiopia/EthiopiaP6-2Thalers-1933_f.jpg shows an example which calls it thaler in what appears to me to be French, but I can't read the Ethiopian script. Other sources call it a talari (which I'm guessing might be Italian for thaler). I created Ethiopian_talari, and either need to delete it or update the text at Ethiopian birr. Can you read what the note says? Or do you have any knowledge of the currency? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Ingrid 02:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC) :Thanks for your quick reply. Ingrid 04:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC) ::I added a paragraph to the article explaining the reasoning for splitting Abyssinia and Ethiopia even though there was no political change. The currency did change from being issued by the Bank of Abyssinia to the Bank of Ethiopia, which was presumably the same bank under a different name. If you think it needs more, please let me know (or feel free to fix it, of course). Ingrid 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC) == Help on Turkic_peoples == Hi Codex Sinaiticus, Some Turkish editor is removing entire sections on the Turkic_peoples without giving a full explanation. Please help. He has already reverted 4 times. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 18:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) == Talk:Ugarit == Just wanted to say that I appreciated our dialogue in Talk:Ugarit. As a conservative Christian, I find myths fascinating stories, but I don't necessarily believe they represent truth, although, like all stories, there may or not be some truth in them. Growing up, a few people I knew thought myths were dangerous, but most of us thought they bore no threat to anyone grounded in their faith and were worthy of study like great literature, history, and heritage. I have no idea what your background might be, but I just thought I would throw that in. When I approach myth, it is much the same as I approach literature: get the story strictly right as it was written and with a view to any truth about life that may be there. I think that keeps me with NPOV. One writer in English whom I respect is C.S. Lewis. He says that for him old myths were stepping stones from atheism to conservative religious belief, and his Narnia series uses European mythic imagery to produce his religious ideas. You may not agree with any of this, but I thought this might find this interesting. I admire your teaching yourself an ancient language and your truthfulness. Cheers. Castanea dentata 00:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC) == Armenian Arsacids == Greetings, I was wondering if you could help me jumpstart this article: Arsacid_Dynasty_of_Armenia aka Arshakuni Dynasty, the junior Armenian branch of the Arsacid_Dynasty. I'm asking you because of your impressive edit history in related subjects. I'm currently involved in a nasty dispute regarding the intro for Nagorno_Karabakh. Any suggestions or help would be much appreciated.--Eupator 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC) ==Image copyright problem with Image:EUROPEmod2.jpg== Thanks for uploading Image:EUROPEmod2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia_Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of Copyright_law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy). The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are Open_content, Public_domain, and Fair_use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -- Longhair 11:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC) == Voting == Hey, Codex. I saw you recently make an edit on the Nagorno Karabakh page, and I was glad that you contributed. If you have any further ideas, your input on the talk page will be appreciated. I remember when I first started editting months ago, you were the first one to help me with some rules and technical stuff, so thank you. There is a voting going on on the Armenian Genocide Talk page. It's about whether to remove the POV tag from the article. The article is quite neutral, maybe too much, and to my opinion the tag should be removed. But since you are a neutral person, your vote would be especially appreciated. If you want, you can take a look at the article and decide for yourself. Thank you in advance.--TigranTheGreat 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) == CE not AD == You have reverted the dates 3 times - contrary to Wiki rules - I am therefore suggesting that you should stop or risk suspension. There is no reason why the article should be an "AD article" as you put it - AD is outdated and irrelevant though many find it\d |"christian" slant offensive. Please stop reverting without discussion and please stop wanting to install a POV date system. Robsteadman 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Robsteadman, the manual of style suggests that both are acceptable, and tradition on the wiki is to leave dates in a particular format alone. In other words, if it is in style A, don't change it to style B (and vice versa). --Improv 17:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Maybe the Wiki manual of style needs to be updated? AD is not acceptable as it suggests a POV Robsteadman 17:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Fortunately, you alone cannot overturn the established consensus that was hashed out by numerous editors, in accordance with your own pov notions of what is or is not "acceptable". Now if you don't mind, enough pages have been filled up already with this non debate; please do not fill mine with it any further. Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) That's your 4th revert. So much for Wiki policy! It is not a non-debate - it is important - AD is offensive and POV it bnreaks Wiki beutrality which is far more important than keeping a status quo. You have broken the 3RR rule and should be blocked - how do we get an admin to do this? Robsteadman 19:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Improv is an admin... Why don't you ask him? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Robsteadman, this has been hashed out a million times before, and sadly will probably continue to be hashed out a million times in the future. To some people, CE/BCE is seen as offensive, and these things don't even break down cleanly by religious affiliation. People have tried to change this, and nothing has ever come of it. For a recent attempt, see Wikipedia:Eras. Unless the policy changes (and I honestly don't think it will anytime soon), please respect the current way things are done, which I have described above. There are some circumstances where, for the good of the community, rules are broken, but those cases always involve a pressing social good -- CE versus AD is not at all similar, and people who prefer one or the other can learn to deal with not controlling the language of all the discussions they're in. I believe you will find great frustration if you attempt to change the policy/guide (although you may surprise me), and even greater frustration if you attempt to press forward without changing the policy/guide. --Improv 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC) If AD is used it belittles the whole neutrality of Wikipedia. AD is POV and should not be used unless you are trying to be offensive to other "faiths" and non-believers. It is only a guideline and needs to be addressed. Wikipedia should use CE throughout. Robsteadman 12:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC) *If you want to address it, go take your case up there then. Until and unless you manage to change things there, don't ignore the way we do things on Wikipedia. I can just about guarantee that there are enough people who care about the issue in various ways but have so far accepted the current comprimise that you will do one of two things: either be immediately reverted (and possibly eventually be blocked from all editing) or stir up a major disruption on Wikipedia. Neither of these will get you your way on this issue. --Improv 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC) A shame that you cannot see the bias, offence and POV that AD carries with it. Robsteadman 16:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) == Reverting discussion == Codex, I'm wondering if I might ask you to be a little bit less liberal in blanking discussion. I realise the anon is putting themself up on a pedistal, but I think discussing this is more healthy than zapping it. Some of the edits were simple vandalism or mockery, and should've been zapped, but being a bit more conservative on deletions is more in tune with respecting discussion. Don't feel an obligation to respond to everything they say. --Improv 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC) :I usually don't blank discussion under any circumstances, but in this case I didn't see any redeeming merit in any of the comments from this anon who 1) pasted photographs of genitalia into the text 2) is surely the same anon troll who just got blocked for repeatedly making the same racist edits, and who vandalised my homepage... If you really think any of that diatribe needs to be restored, go ahead... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) == Good Work Yourself == Thanks for your kind words, I appreciate your work as well. Unfortunately my Amharic isn't as good as it was when I was a little kid, so I don't think I can properly contribute to the Amharic wikipedia. Be sure that I will add what I can on the English one, though. Yom 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC) == POV on God entry == Thank you for pointing out as such; I'm admittedly late to the conversation, and was hesitant to make the reversion. There are too many people who want to push their own lack of religion on those of us who are Christian or otherwise spiritually inclined. Mhking 21:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ::Looks like someone else beat me to the punch. I guess I'll just have to remain vigilant. Mhking 22:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC) == Opening to God == Codex, I'm wondering if I might convince you that the opening to God is presently not good at being NPOV, given that it asserts the existence of a god: :God is the term used to denote the mythological deity which pertains to all known existence It would be better, I think, to try to state it in a way that does not take a position on the issue, calling it neither mythological nor stating it to exist. --Improv 23:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Test of possible new signature '''Ш'''20px20px20px == Original sin == Not in a spirit of opposition, but simply wanting to know the facts, I would like to ask you to indicate the verifiable source for your statement about original sin in the Oriental Orthodox Churches. It seems to be contradicted by an Armenian website, which states that the Mother of God "was cleansed of all sin (original sin) as she was the vessel in which God manifest was to be incarnated". Lima 08:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC) A week has passed without a source being quoted. I have therefore, at least provisionally, replaced your statement in the Original_Sin article. Lima 05:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC) ''It seems you are on some kind of busy-body agenda to go around to every Church or religion in the world like you are the authority, and ascribe Original Sin to them. DO NOT DO THIS. Stick to your own beliefs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)'' Amasaginallehu - Thank you for your courtesy. Lima 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC) ''Abro yisTen. If you have figured out how to say 'Amesseginallehu, you might also perceive that no one in the Armenian Evangelical Church can set doctrine for any Oriental Orthodox Church outside of Armenia at any rate, so I was a little taken aback when after a week you told me "time's up, I'm reinserting what I think your doctrine is for you!" I apologize if I sounded brusque, but it just looks like you are coming out of nowhere, like someone had specially appointed you to point out what you think other churches doctrines are or what you think they should be... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC).'' You seem to be under a misapprehension about the New York-based Armenian Church diocese whose website I quoted. It is part of the Armenian Church headed by His Holiness Karekin II, Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicosate of All Armenians, and is listed as such on page 31 of the 2005 edition of ''Orthodoxia'' (Ostkirchliches Institut, Regensburg). The content of the website should be enough to show it is not of the Evangelical/Protestant variety. You will have seen that I have not reverted your revert, and have not raised the question publicly on the Original Sin talk page. I prefer to leave it to you to restore to the Original Sin page the account of what the Armenian Apostolic Church, which, as you know perfectly well, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches, actually teaches, not what someone thinks it should teach. Perhaps you will also give a source for your own statement about the teaching of one or more of the other Oriental Orthodox Churches. I do not wish to remove your statement from the page as long as there is some hope that it can be shown to be verifiable, as required on Wikipedia. (Some day, I must ask you to be good enough to explain to me, preferably with International Phonetic Alphabet characters, what exactly are the seven Gi'iz and Amharic vowels: I believe I was wrong in supposing that the vowel in "Gi'iz" was the Slavic /y/ or the Turkish /ı/. That's enough ውይይት - with more of the vowel that I mistook - for now.) Lima 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC) == Talk:Babylon and User:Zmmz == Should I even bother over there, or am I just wasting my time? -Ben 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC) : I've blocked Zmmz. But - please be cautious as to your 3RR state. William M. Connolley 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC). CS, if you continue to edit Babylon as you wish, without presenting any legitimate arguments and references, and without a general consensus--I WILL report you for your 3rr violations, and whatever else I can.Zmmz 02:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC) ==Kingdom of Axum== The theory that Axum was an indigenous empire (as well as it's predecessor D'mt) is not that new. It's only "new" in relation to the older theory that it was founded by Sabaean immigrants, a thesis that is no longer accepted by many prominent Ethiopian historians. Firstly, the former theory was introduced by Conti Rossini, according to foremost Ethiopian historian Richard Pankhurst, "based on largely conjecture." Moreover, the finding of Ge'ez Graffitti and inscriptions just as old as the Sabaean one greatly undermines the former theory and even the current belief that Ge'ez script (if not language) is derived from South Arabian. Moreover, work by Jacqueline Pirenne showed that Sabaean immigrants were in Ethiopia for just a few decades. Not to mention that the kingdom of D'mt was already established by the time of this South Arabian migration. http://www.addistribune.com/Archives/2003/01/17-01-03/Let.htm (by Richard Pankhurst) Dr. Stuart Munro-Hay, a foremost scholar on Axumite history, also is doubtful of the Sabaean colonization hypothesis and presents sound evidence undermining it. :This period is not of major concern to us here, and in any case we have very little information about it; but some consideration should be given to the situation in Ethiopia before the rise of Aksum, since the source of at least some of the characteristics of the later Aksumite civilisation can be traced to this earlier period. Perhaps the most interesting phenomenon in this respect is that by around the middle of the first millenium BC — a date cautiously suggested, using palaeographical information (Pirenne 1956; Drewes 1962: 91), but possibly rather too late in view of new discoveries in the Yemen (Fattovich 1989: 16-17) which may even push it back to the eighth century BC — some sort of contact, apparently quite close, seems to have been maintained between Ethiopia and South Arabia. This developed to such an extent that in not a few places in Ethiopia the remains of certain mainly religious or funerary installations, some of major importance, with an unmistakeable South Arabian appearance in many details, have been excavated. Among the sites are Hawelti-Melazo, near Aksum (de Contenson 1961ii), the famous temple and other buildings and tombs at Yeha (Anfray 1973ii), the early levels at Matara (Anfray 1967), and the sites at Seglamien (Ricci and Fattovich 1984-6), Addi Galamo, Feqya, Addi Grameten and Kaskase, to name only the better-known ones. Fattovich (1989: 4-5) comments on many of these and has been able to attribute some ninety sites altogether to the pre-Aksumite period. :Evidently the arrival of Sabaean influences does not represent the beginning of Ethiopian civilisation. For a long time different peoples had been interacting through population movements, warfare, trade and intermarriage in the Ethiopian region, resulting in a predominance of peoples speaking languages of the Afro-Asiatic family. The main branches represented were the Cushitic and the Semitic. Semiticized Agaw peoples are thought to have migrated from south-eastern Eritrea possibly as early as 2000BC, bringing their `proto-Ethiopic' language, ancestor of Ge`ez and the other Ethiopian Semitic languages, with them; and these and other groups had already developed specific cultural and linguistic identities by the time any Sabaean influences arrived. From ''Aksum, a Civilization of Late Antiquity'' Yom 18:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC) :Not trying to rush you, but do you intend on answering my comments on Talk:Kingdom_of_Aksum? :Yom 17:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC) == 1948 or 1946 == ''I would be interested to know how 1948 A.M. is arrived at for Abraham's birth. Because the book I have that adds up all the ages found in the different versions says 1946, and it's using the same figures from the MT to get that number. I'm just wondering what might be causing that 2-year discrepancy. I can reproduce the whole calculation adding up to 1946 if you like. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)'' :I believe it is explicitly stated in the Midrash. Also if you add up the years in Genesis 5:3–5:28, factor in 7:11, and then count the years in 11:10-11:26, you get 1948 years. Of course, that very last link is weak unless you believe that Avram, Nahor, and Haran were triplets, but as Avram is mentioned first, it is likely the 70 years applies to his birth. Furthermore, the midrash has the exodus occurring 2448 after creation. Factoring in the tradition that this was 400 years after Isaac was born , that would make Isaac's birth in 2048. Abraham was 100 years old at Isaac's birth, which would make him born in 1948. I would have to search for an explicit midrashic reference, but this tradition is millenia old. -- Avi 22:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC) OK, that still leaves me curious as to how the 2 year discrepancy came about, so let's see if we can figure this out. Here is the calculation in my book (The Interpreter's Bible, old Edition, Vol. I, p.143): (Numbers refer to the "age at giving birth" given in the Masoretic Text, of course the older versions have different figures, as I mentioned): Adam - 130 Seth - 105 Enosh - 90 Kenan - 70 Mahalalel - 65 Jared - 162 Enoch - 65 Methuselah - 187 Lamech - 182 Noah - 500 Shem - 100 (Flood is AM 1656 according to this calculation) Arpachshad - 35 Shelah - 30 Eber - 34 Peleg - 30 Reu - 32 Serug - 30 Nahor - 29 Terah - 70 All these figures added together=1,946 AM when Terah gave birth to Abraham. Where are your figures different? Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC) :Here is the discrepancy: Genesis 11:10, Arpachshad was born two years AFTER the flood. -- Avi 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC) ==Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy== I have noticed your interest in this article. I would like to encourage you to cast a vote for the alternative names that are currently being proposed. Thanks for your help on this matter --T-rex 04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)