User talk:Wetman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Epic Barnstar | ||
For tireless vandalism reverts and all-around improvements to classical-themed articles, I
hereby award Wetman the epic barnstar Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004
- User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive23Jun2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive3Sep2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive1Dec2005
- User talk:Wetman/archive28Mar2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive3July2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive15Oct2006
- User talk:Wetman/archive7Feb2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive25Jun2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive10Aug2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive28Dec2007
- User talk:Wetman/archive16April2008
- User talk:Wetman/archive4July2008
- User talk:Wetman/archive7Oct2008
- User talk:Wetman/archive10April2009
- User talk:Wetman/archive14Sept2009
- User talk:Wetman/archive7Nov2009
- User talk:Wetman/archive5Apr2010
[edit] DYK for Casco de Leiro
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for Chantilly porcelain
Materialscientist (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for you edits on Violante Visconti!
Mahalo for your edits on the Violante Visconti article! Aloha, Peaceray (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Peaceray
- ...I just intended to simplify some tangled sentences and put emphasis where you intended. Thank you for noticing.--Wetman (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] 2003
I thought you'd find this interesting;
User_talk:Milkunderwood#History_prior_to_last_500_edits_archived.3F
Chzz ► 02:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, by 5 October 2003, a month after my initial edit, I had already discovered that the simplest way to get information into Wikipedia is in the form of quotes, with dependable citations. --Wetman (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Massacre of the innocents.
Hi, please have a think about your rv of my edits. The material is still there - just not in the summary. Some of the stuff I rm'd is also a little weaselly - eg here [[1]]: "seen" is I think NPOV. I am about to add some sourced further stuff on historicity btw. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-
- Seen is a red herring: in actuality the idea that you'd like to suppress is Like much of Matthew's gospel the incident is introduced as the fulfilment of passages in the Old Testament read as prophecies. That this is the organizing principle of "Matthew"'s narrative runs counter to your indoctrination no doubt.--Wetman (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Interesting assumption, but your view of my beliefs is wrong (and your assumption that I have been indoctrinated impolite - please follow WP:CIVIL). I agree that much (actually I would say all) of Matthew has the idea of fulfilment of OT scriptures as a theme directing his narrative structure - and of course not all agree that the scriptures involved are prophesies, or are fulfilled as Mt says they are. I will have a go at addressing your concerns. Springnuts (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- We are agreed in my only assumption, that the fulfilment of passages in the Old Testament read as prophecies is the organizing principle of "Matthew"'s narrative. That the passages in question actually were "prophesies" is impossible of course, but insisted upon by Christians.--Wetman (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- At least an organizing principle, maybe not the one. And that the passages are prophesies is insisted upon by some Christians no doubt, but by no means all - see for example the nuanced treatment of the Jer material by RT France among others: France (who is a conservative) seems to me to say that Matt, following his narrative structure, has to find a scripture, so casts around and comes up with Jer, which is not immediately apparent as related - that is one reason why he regards the incident as not deriving from the scripture in fact. Be that as it may, I have rejigged the historicity section, added France's views from the recent NICNT commentary, and moved it to a more logical place in the article. I am still not entirely happy with the layout of the section, but it is the best I can do tonight! Springnuts (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] DYK for Christian Tobias Damm
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Elephantine papyri
Hi, It is offen said "anti-Semitic rampage". I didn't delete the phrase, but better would it to write "anti-Judean rampage". Anti-Semitism is a phenomenon from the End of the 19. century. And in the matter of Elephantine there is an argument about the reasons. Kottsieper and Kratz (the most recent contributions) think that it was the achievement of a political and religous authonomy by the persians that raised the haitred of the Egyptiens. According to an elder thesis it was the sacrifice of rams esp. at Pessach that raised the hate of the priests of Khnum the ram-headed God in the neighborhood of the Yaho-Temple.
Best wishes Steffen le (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I surmise that your unusual personal limitation of Anti-Semitism to the late C19 would effectively let the RCs off the hook altogether. Your concise report of the published arguments and conclusions of Kottsieper and Kratz re the occasion provoking of anti-Semitic riots and vandalism at Elephantine would certainly make a useful addition to that article, or to Elephantine.--Wetman (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)