User talk:PiCo

[[]]==Welcome!==

Hello PiCo, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good places to get you started!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Template messages
• Sandbox

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, please either visit the help desk, or leave a new message on my talk page at any time. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold!

FireFox  ^{T C E} _{12:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)}

Book of Nehemiah

The material you cut is in the public domain and attributed as coming from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Was your cut made for any other reason that it was taken from another source? Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

counter-arguments

I noticed that you reverted a section on Internal consistency of the Bible on the basis that criticisms were fine, but including counter-criticisms was going too far - a point I agree with. I did the same on The Case for Faith, where the external links have a criticism section to which a counter-criticism has been added, for the same reason. Now it has been reverted with a comment to the effect that it's just my view as a single editor. The external link, incidentally, is to the Tektonics site. I don't want to get involved in an edit war here - could you have a look at the page and provide an additional viewpoint? Thanks. Rbreen 14:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology of Israel

Sorry, I don't have any references. The terms Canaanite and Israelite were used from the beginning of the article, which still needs much work to make it scholarly. The article does explain that there are some very divergent schools of thought among the archaeologists working in this part of the world. I'm quite happy to stick with Bronze and Iron ages, as common usage among archaeologists everywhere. Itsmejudith 06:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis

PiCo, I like how it looks. By the time I left the whole area was beyond political here, and it was hard to keep any content that talked about hypotheses post-Wellhausen. If *modern* scholarship can be preserved on these pages, so much the better. Keep up the good work. Dwmyers 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PeekyPoo!

Thank you, My love! I'm glad you like my rewritten Gothic article! I did Romanesque architecture as well.

Where have you been! i've been wondering about your signing off message!

I have been wretched! 3 cracked verti-bras would you believe.... boy, do I need some support!

I've been so down in the dumps I've sold my soul to IMDb! Amandajm 13:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Gothic architecture again

You deleted the bit about Italy completely. Was that intentional? Can you decide what part of it ought to be put back? Amandajm 14:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If you just go back in the edit history, you can find out exactly what was deleted and then fiddle with it. There is a mention somewhere there about Sicily and the Normans. It mentioned the city states and the fact that most of the Norht managed to avoid papal domination and that they warred among themselves.... go and take a look and knock it into shape. I'd always rather someone else did the Political stuff! Amandajm 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yawn! it's 2:15 in the land of OZ! I look forward to reading your Angkor article. You certainly take very good photos as well! Amandajm 16:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Lucera

Just took a loook. There are soo many fascinating places one doesn't know about! The Castle, Hohenstausen....? Amandajm 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

FACs

Ok, I've bitten the bullet! I have put up a whole string of articles, Renaissance, Goth, Romanesque, Lenny the nose-picker, Micky-baby's ceiling, Fra the Angel-babe and the Fat Btcher of Padua up as potential Featured Article candidates. If you want to write reviews/add support, go and look at the list of featured articles. Now here is a really worthwhile cause! Amandajm 07:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Very curious

you have a great user page. As somebody who would love to be living in Southeast Asia, I'd like to know if you have any advice or tips you can offer. Are you originally from the region? If not, how did you manage staying there and supporting yourself. I have a nursing license, which makes me very mobile in the Western world, but in SE Asia, they can do my work cheaper themselves :-(.

Anyway, sorry to be a bother, but reading your user page triggered something in me. Take care, and I look forward to reading more about your adventures. Jeffpw 07:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Leonardo

If you are going to delete that note (I have no view, except I would discuss first) you need to remove the note too, and renumber all the alphabetic ones from that point, above and below. I will revert while you think about it. Johnbod 03:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh oh! Don't you go making Johnno cross, now! For a little light entertainment, go and look at the Sistine Chapel ceiling talk page.....

Yeah, the Leonardo Museum in Vinci is quite an exceptional small museum. If the director has done his homework and is prepared to believe in the likelihood that Leonardo's mother was the same Caterina who was Ser Piero's slave, then I'm prepared to leave it there. Actually, I deleted it when it first went up, then changed my mind.

The problem lies in this ridiculous statement that the pattern on Leonardo's finger occurs in 60% of Arabic people, with no futher comparison. The same pattern, for all the evidence they give, might occur on 67% of people in the Arno Valley, and 83% of people in the Outer Hebrides and 99.9% of Cook Islanders.

Amandajm 09:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Aung San Oo: what is his claim for notability?

A tag has been placed on Aung San Oo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. If you can present evidence of him having made a substantive contribution to Burmese social or political life, there is no objection to the article staying, but I cannot see from the article what claim to fame he has apart from his DNA. Kevin McE 18:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo, You, Your, Ye, or is it Thine Excellency?

Oh, I am enjoying thy serious nonsense PiCo! The story of the car trying to shake off the kid with the broken leg is just horrible. My son picked up a little Vietnamese boy after the driver who had hit him sped off. Fortunately the car had passed over him without breaking anything, ... this was in Marrickville... Do you know what you are missing out on? It's bogong moth season, and they are battering against the windows. Can thou doest me a tiny favour and archive some more stuff for me, please? And thou never commented on my choice of dinner-party-at-home-with-Leo guests! Amandajm 14:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yo 2

Like your blog too. Interesting you were in Burma recently and in 1988. I was there in 89. Had a family of Chin refugees come over for lunch the other day. Just lovely people. Their case worker brought them over. Am looking forward to meeting other new arrivals to see what I can possibly do to help. Saw your comments on Bnei Menashe - just had an amusing clash with Tomer over page edits. I wish someone would write a properly researched book/article on BM and you write like someone with a sound mind. What do you think?Jinglebells01 03:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bible and History

I was somewhat surprised at your large-scale deletions on this page. You removed all discussion of The Exodus in light of historical research. True there is already a seperate article on that subject but it is long and unwieldy, the brief summary was useful. Your work is unquestionably good but please do think twice bfore removing good content.Wolf2191 05:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The question we've got to address is what people looking up in article on The Bible and History want? I imagine most of them want a brief summary of the historicity of the Exodus or Jesus and the like. Point one that you mentioned is mostly for the DH article, not this one. As far as point two - Have you seen James Kugel's new book The Bible as it was. It should address this question. Here is the appendix [1].

My studies (Talmud in a mainstream Haredi yeshiva) are going quite well but I don't have much time to concentrate on Old Testament and 2nd temple history which are my main interests. BestWolf2191 05:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Song of Songs

Thanks for your edits to Song of Songs. The article could do with a fair bit of work. I can probably help with citations if ever you are stuck, because I'm always copying articles for personal use. Cheers. Alastair Haines 07:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi PiCo!

I've just rewritten Edmund Blacket and now, thank's to Jonhbad's prompting, I have a triple crown, for an FA a GA and a DYK, would you believe!? About your friend Jezz, I hope that this is not my friend Jezz you're talking about.... you really are not very discreet... Amandajm 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Aaaand, about your user page, Poopsie, we need photos! Words is not enough! Amandajm 03:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Len the nosepicker, can we please just leave it because it seems to have struck a balance that people are fairly satisfied with in terms of relationships. If we start fiddling with it we'll get back to where we were before. Amandajm 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Francis Bacon

Well done PiCo! It's about time that obnoxious hate speech is put down and not given publicity! Artemis 21:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa

Good grief!, dear PiCo. Terrible lapse, inexcusable. West almost never gets things like this wrong, I, one of his constant readers do. I was misled by his remark 'The event is located at a river Iardanos (135, contradicting 133) which later commentators could not find .'(p.370). I then checked the Greek and Leaf and Bayfield's old commentary (1895) 1908 vol.1 p.413, and read 'The geography of the passage seems confused...nothing is knwn of a Keladon or Iardanos near the town (of Elis), nor apparently are there any rivers than could correspond', without double checking Geoffrey Kirk's recent edition (1990, vol 2 p.252) since it was on the other side of the house and not at hand. In that volume one reads:-

'The setting of this encounter between Pylians and Arcadians is described with notable vagueness. Pheia is said to be on or by two different rivers, Keladon and Iardanos (of which Keladon might be a tributary, Ameis-Hentze); yet classical Pheia was not on any river worth the name, neither was a Keladon or Iardanos known in the Peloponnese. According to Strabo 8.248 some thought the town was Khaa and the river Akidas. Aristarchus, on the other hand, took κeladontito be an epithet like okurooi, with a change of case by the time their noun, Iardanou, finally appears in 135. This is unacceptable, even if one suspects that rooi keladonti (cf. roos keladon at 21.16) lies at the root of the problem. As for Iardanos, the same Iardanou amphi reethra denotes a river in West Crete at Od. 3.292 (see S.West ad loc.), and the poet may have repeated the name almost automatically - though a river as such is not required by the context.'

Stephanie West (M.L.West's wife) in her edition of the Odyssey (Oxford 1988 vol.1 p.178)says of the Iardanos. 'the name is sometimes said to be Semitic, representing Jordan; but the same formula is used at Iliad vii.135 of an unidentifiable river in Elis.'

Rechecking now, I note that ML West has a note to p.370 where he remarks on three rivers by that name, the two in the Odyssey and Iliad, and another located in Lydia. I'll have to adjust my note to Goliath (or you can if you like) to correct the oversight. My apologies, and congratulations on your commendable lynx-eyed checking of the text. Regards Nishidani 11:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Some important links

We need to take in to account the groundbreaking studies below:

[2]

[3]

BestWolf2191 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Enuma Elish

Unhappy with this:

A more accurate translation of the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-3 therefore reads:

"In the beginning of God's creating the skies and the earth, when the earth had been shapeless and formless, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and God's spirit was hovering on the face of the water, God said, 'Let there be light!"[3]

I read Hebrew. Acoording to your translation the word Yotzer (formed) not Bara should have been used (though [[Abraham Ibn Ezra might agree with your version).

I'm going to search for an alternative source. (Maimonides makes a big issue of this in Guide to Perplexed)Wolf2191 03:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've got to run off again for the week :-( here is one site that discusses the Bara Yatsar thing [4]. Pity you don't have Hebrew Samuel David Luzzato discusses this at length in his commentary. Hope to use him when I get back.

Here is a bit from EJ that might be useful (Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible):

The two versions of the creation story have often been compared to Mesopotamian prototypes. The translation given above in Genesis 1:1ff. and 2:4bff., "when … then," is analogous to the introductory style of Mesopotamian epics. Tracing a theme to the creation of the universe is a feature also found in as trivial a work as the "Incantation to a Toothache" (Pritchard, Texts, 100–1), and in as major a composition as the Sumerian King List (ibid., 265–6), "history" commences with the dynasties before the Flood.

ENUMA ELISH For specific cosmogonic details the most important piece of Mesopotamian literature is the Babylonian epic story of creation, Enuma Elish (ibid., 60–72). Here, as in Genesis, the priority of water is taken for granted, i.e., the primeval chaos consisted of a watery abyss. The name for this watery abyss, part of which is personified by the goddess Tiamat, is the etymological equivalent of the Hebrew tehom (Gen. 1:2), a proper name that always appears in the Bible without the definite article. (It should be noted, however, that whereas "Tiamat" is the name of a primal generative force, tehom is merely a poetic term for a lifeless mass of water.) In both Genesis (1:6–7) and Enuma Elish (4:137–40) the creation of heaven and earth resulted from the separation of the waters by a firmament. The existence of day and night precedes the creation of the luminous bodies (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, and 14ff.; Enuma Elish 1:38). The function of the luminaries is to yield light and regulate time (Gen. 1:14; Enuma Elish 5:12–13). Man is the final act of creation – in Enuma Elish, too, before his creation the gods are said to take counsel (Enuma Elish 6:4) – and following the creation of man there ensues divine rest. There is, furthermore, an identical sequence of events: creation of firmament, dry land, luminaries, man, and divine rest. Thus, it appears that at least the so-called P account echoes this earlier Mesopotamian story of creation.

Another reflection of very ancient traditions is found in Genesis 1:21. Since the entire story of creation refers onlyPage 275 | Top of Article to general categories of plant and animal life, not to any individual species, the specific mention of "the great sea monsters" alongside, and even before, "all the living creatures of every kind that move about, which the waters brought forth in swarms" is striking. It is most likely part of the biblical polemic against the polytheistic version of a primeval struggle between the creator god and a marine monster which was the personification of chaos (see below). In Genesis this story has been submerged and only appears in the demythologized reference to the sea monsters as being themselves created by God, not as rival gods.

The second creation story, too, has Near Eastern prototypes: The creation of man from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7) is analogous to the creation of man from clay, a motif often found in Mesopotamian literature, e.g., the Gilgamesh Epic; the Hebrew name of the underground flow, ’ed, that watered the Garden of Eden, is related to either a cognate Akkadian word edu or to the Sumerian word ÍD, "river"; and the creation of woman from a rib may reflect a Sumerian motif (see Kramer).

Nevertheless, the differences between the biblical and the Mesopotamian accounts are much more striking than their similarities; each of them embodies the world outlook of their respective civilizations. In Genesis there is a total rejection of all mythology. The overriding conception of a single, omnipotent, creator predominates. Cosmogony is not linked to theogony. The preexistence of God is assumed – it is not linked to the genesis of the universe. There is no suggestion of any primordial battle or internecine war which eventually led to the creation of the universe. The one God is above the whole of nature, which He Himself created by His own absolute will. The primeval water, earth, sky, and luminaries are not pictured as deities or as parts of disembodied deities, but are all parts of the manifold works of the Creator. Man, in turn, is not conceived of as an afterthought, as in Enuma Elish, but rather as the pinnacle of creation. Man is appointed ruler of the animal and vegetable kingdoms; he is not merely the menial of the gods (Enuma Elish). The story in Genesis, moreover, is nonpolitical: Unlike Enuma Elish, which is a monument to Marduk and to Babylon and its temple, Genesis makes no allusion to Israel, Jerusalem, or the Temple. Furthermore, the biblical story is non-cultic: unlike Enuma Elish, which was read on the fourth day of the Babylonian New Year festival, it plays no ritual role whatsoever in the religion of Israel.

BestWolf2191 04:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that REF's (and Youngs) translation is plausible. Its been suggested that the special attributes of the word Bara leave open room for a more complicated explanation though. The Targumim need also be referred to. Here a Rashi translation [5]Wolf2191 04:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this discussion. That's a great summary from Wolf. It is very fair and rather significant to note that there are both similarities but also differences between Genesis and literary predecessors, and that the latter weigh more heavily. In my own study of the Song of Songs, it is obvious how similar it is to Egyptian love poetry, and there are some possible Sumerian motifs also. But it is also very different and distinctive. I presume the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but it was not written by hopeless plagiarists either. The Bible does not claim to have come via a gift from an angel like the book of Mormon or the Qur'an, quite the opposite. It explicitly claims human authors were "moved" by God, which is much more like the Indian religions, that consider some of their scriptures to be the product of "spiritually inspired" mortals.

On the "in the beginning of God's creating" interpretation of the text: a substantial early 20th century school of thought ran with this proposal, but there are several difficulties with it. One simple difficulty is that biblical uses of bara only ever have God as subject, and always involves something remarkable and new. There are literally hundreds of references to this debate, but, by and large it ended in consensus against the proposal, the Jewish scholars being the decisive contributors, with their depth of insight into Hebrew.

Sorry to butt in like this, I guess I'm just volunteering to provide more sources, and in English, if there's any outstanding issues. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That blanky ceiling

Oh, we are having a POV conflict! Some people think that I haven't pesented the other case strongly enough and it seems that they do not understand why. I am feeling increasingly impassioned about it! Would you like to add your thoughts? [6]

...Amandajm (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Pity!

What's happening in your life? We need an update! Make it exciting! An escaped goldfish? a drunken Pot plant? a cafe that serves live baby mice in honey and basil sauce? ...Amandajm (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion on Genesis article

PiCo, I am baffled at why you have deleted so much of Creation according to Genesis. I think a lot of that material was of fairly high quality, and relevant. I feel it is a little unfair that you have acted alone in making such sweeping changes without first having a discussion about it on the talk page. Tonicthebrown (talk) 11:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, thanks for your response on my talk page. Please see the article talk page for my response. Regards, Tonicthebrown (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

DH

see

http://books.google.com/books?id=TnddGYTT-JoC&dq=particular+verses+the+four+principal+sources&pg=PA2426&ci=571,174,390,630&source=bookclip

it discusses how there is much dispute on which verses belong to which source --Java7837 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

see the right of page 2426--Java7837 (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship

You were upset about the fact the Mosaic authorship had points instead of paragraphs. I did some on work on this and made the Egyptian grammar (points) into a paragraph.--Java7837 (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello PiCo!

No, how does one do it? I've been waiting for you to come and fix it for me! How have you been? Amandajm (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

documentary hypothesis, deleting referenced material

You deleted a fact tag and material referenced to reliable sources. That's bad form. If you think the material is chaotic, rework it without deleting it. Don't remove fact tags with providing citations. Leadwind (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis Definition

When I read the Documentary Hypothesis article and the associated discussion, it struck me that each contributor had a different idea of what the Documentary Hypothesis is.

Casting back through my research (since 1998), I don’t remember anyone with an explicit definition, so I decided to try my hand at it.

Take a look at my talk page, and let me know what you think.

Thanks for your attention,

Ken Shafer kwshafer (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"...and we beheld his Glory...full of Grace and Truth." John Hardman window from St. Andrew's Cathedral, Sydney.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Hello Darling! I hope you have a wonderful Christmas! from Amandajm (talk) 06:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 05:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Re User:PiCo#People trafficking

So, will I follow up on this? Answers please on my talk page.

Yes, please. But not personally. I imagine there's one or more relevant international organisations with offices in Cambodia. Best wishes, 212.84.105.227 (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As suggested above, what you've described sounds like an operation that might be of interest to Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, especially if local governments or police look the other way. Just a thought. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

naughty PiCo!

Amandajm (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

me again. I just read the people trafficking story. How dreadful! I'd like to encourage you to do something, but what?

Amandajm (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pico! I don't know if you have emailed me lately, as I have forgotten my password!

How are you coping? What with the cold weather, the dengue fever, the people trafficking, the departure of Kim and the dead fish, You hhave been having your share of excitement!

I hope 2008 is a wonderful year for you! Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

History and the Bible/Conclusion

Hi PiCo, on the talk page you said "John, I think you know where I stand on issues of this kind," I was just curious as to what your stance is. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Book of Genesis - Wiseman hypothesis, etc.

You removed a Wiseman hypothesis link I had added in the See also section of Book of Genesis, saying, "wiseman hypothesis is pseudo-scholarship". I don't have a POV one way or the other on this, but it sounds to me as if you are removing links based on your POV regarding the merits of the points which the linked articles make. If there is disagreement regarding the scholarship of the Wiseman hypothesis, both sides of the disagreements should be detailed in the Wiseman hypothesis article. It is not the job of WP to make a judgement regarding the merits of the arguments; it is the job of WP to document the fact that arguments exist, to summarize the arguments being made to some extent, and to point to supporting sources for the information presented. Unless the Wiseman hypothesis has been totally discredited (and perhaps even if it has -- some would argue that Darwinism has been totally discredited, and others would argue the same for the various flavors of Creationist views), the Wiseman hypothesis deserves a mention in the Book of Genesis article and a {{main}} link to the main article, perhaps accompanied by the information that there is active disagreement about the validity of the hypothesis — or so it seems to me, from the distance afforded to me by my own lack of either POV or expert scholarship in the area. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxy

I apologize, but several open ports were found on the IP at the cafe and it was being abused. I will try to find a way to allow you to edit, despite the autoblock.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:A South Coast Road.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:A South Coast Road.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

David

I restored the Talmudic view of David you had deleted from the article with the caption "piety is no substitute for accuracy." WP:NOR and WP:NPOV prohibit deletion of a reliably sourced significant religious opinion on a religious subject, particularly when based on an editor's own opinion. Wikipedia expresses no opinion on the accuracy of religious belief. Attribution, such as indicating that the viewpoint comes from a passage in the Talmud (or a professor at a University) is generally considered sufficient to communicate that the viewpoint is religious (or academic) in nature. The Talmudic view of David is clearly significant and clearly belongs in the article; we can discuss details like whether it's sufficiently clear which views are religious interpretations and which come from academic historians, and perhaps it would be better to find a more contemporary source indicating that the Talmudic view of David is still widely taught in contemporary traditional Jewish religious circles (it is, and a source would be very easy to find, but as a general rule essentially anything the Talmud says on major Biblical subjects is still considered relevant in contemporary traditional Judaism). But simply taking religious interpretations out of an article on a religious subject on a claim that religious views are not "accurate" would be inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought you were taking out the whole POV, I may have misunderstood. I'll go on to something else and look at this again later. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

You have proposed very substantial and controversial changes to this page which should be discussed first on the talk page. You've been reverted twice by two different authors. Even after providing sources it should be noted that the material you removed also was sourced. I will revert once more and ask that you please bring your changes to the discussion table and seek consensus. For starters, it seems unlikely that you can simply remove Mosaic authorship from the section, as it is still a significant view, particularly for Evangelicals and conservative Jews. Thanks. HokieRNB (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:UP#NOT and make the necessary edits to you user page. Thanks! HokieRNB (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Caravaggio

You're welcome -- I will keep at adjusting the list. It's a big undertaking and is more complicated than I thought it would be. I'll take a look at all the Caravaggio articles on his paintings and him to see if I can improve or make any other adjustments.--KeithatET (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there -- Thanks for the message. Yes, I'm working mainly on the chronology now. I needed a chronology for a project I did (if you are curious, you can view it here: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=116412127296356564958.000445cdac5488c5c88f4&z=14&om=0). I will fix some of the inaccuracies and improve it as time permits. I only perused the main article on Caravaggio, but I think that after going through some of my sources, I can probably add some details. I saw your note regarding the birth certificate. I will have to check that out. I'll be in touch. Sincerely, --KeithatET (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted ref at Creation according to Genesis

If you're interested in re-adding it, I found an archive link for the article you removed with this edit:

• Block, Daniel (2001). "Recovering the voice of Moses: The genesis of deuteronomy". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 44 (3): 385–408.

Best, Silly rabbit (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo!

How's life? You've deleted your ramblings! I hope that Drunken Noah and his backward sons now meet your approval. Can you really imagine them walking backwards? Weee are home with colds today... but on Sunday I will go and see the Archibald Prize. My suspicion, though I probably oughtn't admit it, was that Goldscheider was stretched somewhat in the interpretation.

Poor Mick, the gloomy old bugger, was heavily into "sin". The whole bloody ceiling is about sin and suffering, and everybody says "How lovely!" .... apart from the ignudi.... they are all OK with themselves. (I guess I'd be OK with myself if I looked like that but I increasingly resemble the Cumaean Sibyl).

love, Amandajm (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that the reason is that he wasn't at all focussed on the reading of the story as Good guy/bad guy stuff. It was the degredation of humanity that was his theme. And drunken old Noah was part of it. Amandajm (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikiversity

Hey, this is Opensourcejunkie from wikiversity. Recently a random IP address came by and expressed an interest in helping me edit my wikiversity:Study in Genesis. I've been trying to track down the wikipedia user associated with that IP address, and I was wondering if you were him. Are you him? If not, feel free to ignore/delete this section. If so, stop by the talk page again as I have recently responded. Thanks for your (alleged) interest, PiCo, and awesome User Page. --Opensourcejunkie (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, let me know when you're back! ttys (I hope),

--Opensourcejunkie (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. not cool about the lap-top; I'm sorry to hear that. Hope everything works out all right.

Sinbad

I have basically reverted your last edit of this article. The trouble with the "old" introduction was that both Arab and Persian editors saw it as "unfair". While I basically share your view that this is all slightly daft (to put it mildly) I would like to see this article become fairly stable (and of course accurate) and not be provocative of further revert wars. I think those of us for whom the Persian vs. Arab origin controversy is a monumental irrelevancy need to accept that some other people (some of them quite nice folk) take it VERY seriously indeed. (as they are entitled to - viz. the very similar Scottish vs. Northumbrian nonsense over "Auld Land Syne"!!) Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I know just how you feel - I've had to trim my watchlist more than once for broadly similar reasons! Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaaargh!

I'm not doing it!

Hey, when are you coming back to the land of Oz? I miss ya! Amandajm (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Paul Bowles

The external link you added has been deleted by someone Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Economy of the United States

You put in a claim that the United States is the second largest national economy, because the EU is larger. However, the EU is not a nation-state, so this argument is invalid. Please see Talk:Economy_of_the_United_States#Misleading_Intro for discussion. Superm401 - Talk 13:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment at Talk:Economy_of_the_United_States#Misleading_Intro. Superm401 - Talk 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That's okay. I actually didn't see the discussion before reverting you either. Superm401 - Talk 09:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bible Unearthed

Hi Pico, Regarding what has turned into an edit war on The Bible Unearthed, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. There are some good examples here (located under exemplary articles) on how to structure an article on a book. There is no problem with you trying to expand the article, but the chapter by chapter breakdown is what has brought some negative attention to the article. I am going to revert back to the shorter version, and make a note on the talk page for everyone to stop reverting, and simply work towards expanding the article along the lines of those articles found in the Wikiproject Books (i.e. instead of chapter by chapter, there can be a plot section). Hiberniantears (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I actually see your point more in favor of deleting the material. However, I haven't actually deleted it, so much as placed a version up that does not show the content. You did a lot of work putting the summary up, so we should just pull it from the page history, and work on it in the Talk page. This benefits you by taking the heat off the article (i.e. having your version constantly reverted), and affords you some breathing room to get a new version up. It was my fault for being a little too agressive in simply reverting this morning (one of those days!) without offering any assistance. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

PJG

He's my favorite photographer. If you have met him you should be uploading your pictures of him to the Commons! --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Documentary hypothesis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. . --Faith (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My dear Faith, it's you who are doing the edit warring. The usual practice, when making an edit that's potentially controversial, is to try it out on the talk page first. You didn't do this. Even when I (very politely) told you that your proposal was controversial and you should discuss with other users, you persisted. I think dispute resolution is now the only option open. This is unfortunate of course, but you seem to be unable to refrain from imposing your views. Feel free to pick your own choice of admins to take it to. In the meantime, I'm reverting the article to the original wording, which is the normal way these things are done. (posted on my talk by PiCo on 20:02, 7 May 2008 UTC). You never said the edit was "potentially controversial", as evidenced by the multiple times you stated it says "exactly the same thing" (only complaining about the verbosity): "says exactly what yours says, but less verbosely", "you're taking a lot more words to say exactly what was there already", "The two sentences actually say exactly the same thing"..." why, if the two sentences are saying the same thing". I disagree they say the same thing, and I did place the reasoning on talk; you simply chose to ignore it was there. Your fourth revert is a violation of 3RR, which has led to the unfortunate need to report the violation. Faith (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that as an impartial third party, I believe both users in this incident were striving hard to conform to Wiki policy and deserve credit for that. Resolution was rapid. In my opinion the 3rr warning is regretable. At times, Wiki is a more difficult medium to work in than one might expect. I guess there's nothing new in saying that. Best regards to everyone. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The Bible and history

You missed a piece in your cut and paste. In general it is better, but can be challenging to do the move in a single edit, edit the entire article and move the block from one section to the other. If you need help, let me know here. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Been reading your talk page

You're doing great research PiCo!

Take time out of your life and do a year at a Bible college!

(Or you already have done this?)

Anyway, enough cheek from me. I do hope you're not regretting inviting my involvement.

If I cause you any distress, let me know. It'll be because I've been silly and it's better I know.

Cheers friend Alastair Haines (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I rang Alvin, the editor of the Canterbury-Bankstown Express today. Introduced myself as AL, short for Alastair, a free-lance writer from Punchbowl. Would you be interested in a series "My mate next-door: Understanding Islam"? I have a religious studies background, and I'm fascinated by living in this area.

He was great! No brilliant! "There's the Greeks here too," he said, "I would be interested in that." He added more, exploring the idea. "Unfortunately, News Limited won't let me pay freelancers." He added some good natured stuff about Rupert, profits and oily rags. Then, "would you like a full time job?"

Wow! Well, I took the details, we closed the call. I used the number Alvin gave me, then the name, but the name had an answering machine, so I'll call back Thursday.

I'm working up a journal article at the moment. It's going to be hard, if not impossible to break into Bible academia. But I can certainly do it freelance. But what about keeping the landlord off my back? I've been toying with a late-life start into journalism. I suspect age helps. But so does experience.

I was going to ask you for advice.

I think I've got some here,

"I just sort of assumed they’d let a man with a camera in, and they did."

That's the spirit of journalism!

You've got to understand people, don't you? You've got to really understand people, right?

And then, you write really, really well. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

“ “Get up! Get up!” yell the crowd in Khmer. “Stay down, you poor idiot!” I yell in English. ”

You had my heart here.

The pictures spoil your writing!

I could smell the sweat and hear the thuds. I was there until the pictures took me to some 2D other place, with only colour to recommend it — a very poor exchange.

Alastair Haines (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries

You didn't hurt my feelings. I was concerned about not being informed you planned a substantial changing, as it seemed I was being ganged up on a bit by you telling three other users, but I can fend for myself regardless, so even that wasn't really a big deal. I took it more as a misstatement than any bad intent, so no worries. Faith (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Internal consistency of the Bible

Hi PiCo, the link you left me goes nowhere. I do have some comments, for what they are worth, if you want to post themelsewhere feel free.

Here is the short answer to your question: since the Bible is not a theological work, I am not sure it makes sense to ask whether it is theologically consistent, or what its theology is as such at all. All we can do is either guess what theology its authors had, or be inspired by it to reach our own theology. for this reason I think the best way to handle this topic is not to have an omnibus article but rather to have specific separate articles for different books on the topic e.g. an article on Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed which is a Rabbinic attempt to propose a "Biblical theology" and Yehezkal Kaufmann's The Religion of Israel which is a critical scholar's attempt to propose a Biblical theology.

As to your larger point, on how to deal with inconsistencies in the Bible ... I do not think that any article or part of an article should be argumentative in the sense that we do not write articles to prove points. I do believe articles and parts of articles should prepresent all points of view. It seems to me that there are two major points of view here (I limit myself to the Hebrew Bible). These views are so distinct that I think they are worthy of their own articles which would represent a content and not a POV fork. One is the view of Midrash, the traditional exegesis of the Bible. Midrash itself is composed of a variety of independently written texts. Most are premised on divine authorship of the Bible hence that the Bible expresses one point of view hence it is internally consistent. When people working within this tradition encountered apparent inconsistencies, they often created new stories to explain the consistency. It is not for us to judge th truthfulness or falsity of these stories but I do observe tht non-fundamentalist scholars of Jewish history consider the Midrash to be a treasure of Jewish literature in the same way that Milton's Paradise Lost or Dante's Divine Comedy are considered classics of literature. I think it would make sense in an article on Midrash to explore this body of literature. Of course isnce Judaism is not a dogmatic religion there are different strands within midrash that are not consistent.

The second major view is that of Higher Criticism which also has (and deserves) its own article. As i understand it this tradition accomodates both views, that the Bible is and is not internally consistent. It accomodates the negative view because it sees Biblical texts as being written by different authors at different times and thus express diferent points of view; inconsistncies in th Bible help scholars date then those fragments were written. But according to the Higher Criticism there is a Redacter (R) who edited these independent narrative together and as far as i understnad it Highe Critics assume that "R" did have his (preumably it was a guy) point of view which does unify the Bible even as it preserves texts that contradict one another. A good article on HC ought to provide an account of the multiple authors and also of R.

So it sems to me that the above are the two appropriate articles for exploring the issue you raise, not a new article. Frankly, I see no purpose to a new article on this topic. I really would rather just see these two articles improved.

Finally, we do have articles for each book o the Bible. I do not have the time to work on them but if I did I would have a basic structure for each article. First, I would provide a simple outline of the book - the narrative arc, major characters, plot, themes. Then I would have a section on critical scholarship of the book (i think the single best source is The Anchor Bible) which would discuss authorship including multiple authorship, when it was written, the relationship between this book and other books, etc. And then a section on "traditional" interpretations. On this the best sources are the Mikraot Gedolot, and some books have their own Midrash. We should strive to represent these accounts accurately, as well as mainstream scholarship.

Whether providing an account of Higher or source criticism or other critical scholarship on the bible, or traditional exegesis such as Mikraot Gedolot and the Midrash, I think all we ought to do is provide all notable views from reliable sources in a neutral way.

I don't see this as tricky at all - did I misunderstand your question/invitation? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I am happy to use the term "source" criticism. My main concernis to avoid violating NOR (esp. via WP:SYNTH) and I think the key thing is to write articles that correspond to notable works of scholarship or scholarly debates without making arguments. Whether the Bible is or is not internally consistent just is not a scholarly debate that I am familiar with. For both source critics and orthodox Rabbis apparent inconsistencies are entirely explicable although in fundamentally different ways and to different ends. And I do not know of any important (or in my own view interesting) argument between source critics and Orthodox rabbis or theologians. I see debates among source critics which I would love for us to cover. And I see debates among theologians or rabbis which I would also love to see us cover. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Biblical inspiration

Hi. I'd appreciate it if you could explain this edit on the article's talk page. Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please see Talk:Biblical_inspiration#Catholic_view_redux. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ark vote

• Already on it. Thanks for the heads up.--ragesoss (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks.It is raining a lot here... no floods yet though, as far as I know.Andycjp (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bible Difficulties

My reference is indeed Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Links, add links, they really help. @@ •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Tay Za

I thought you wanted to stay anonymous ...! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 10:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What da heck happened ...

To the Ark article? I'm not saying it's bad (I see you've been keeping on top of it), but it sure is different. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone ever raised the question of what would have happened to fish in a "great flood"? As saline levels would drop significantly in the oceans and rise significantly in fresh water, the odds of most (if not all) fish surviving the flood would be pretty slim. Unless Noah had a bloody aquarium. Even if he did, I doubt he would've been able to put whales in there. Kinda screws up the story of Jonah. Oh, wait, he was swallowed by a great fish. One of the ones that couldn't possibly have survived. Weird, huh?  :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Source criticism

I think the parent topic is source criticism, one of many branches of literary criticism, which also includes text criticism. Properly speaking, source criticism doesn't imply the Bible as the object of study. Pentateuch is a non-confessional term, and Latin more familiar to English speakers than Hebrew Torah.

So, I think what you say is right. Source criticism of the Pentatech was sporadic until Wellhausen. It waxed, and has now waned, having its wings clipped of excessive speculation; but conservative versions of it are now pretty standard in all but the most dogmatic writing.

For example, I'm happy to consider the possibility that the Song of Songs may have been modeled on Egyptian love poetry now lost. What survives shows some striking similarities. At face-value, the Bible claims Moses was a prince in Egypt at the time the Egyptian love poetry we have was written. Again, Solomon, the Bible claims, married a daughter of the Pharaoh of the time, and some have even claimed the Song was written by Solomon for her. Then there's Sumerian poetic reference to fairly explicit encounters between Inana and Dumuzid, who is probably refered to in Ezekiel, well after Solomon's time. Some of the Sumerian material also looks like the Song. So literature in the ANE could last 2,000 years and influence people theoretically ideologically opposed it. But then again, differences are often more striking than similarities, and some similarities could be accidents, or reflect cultural, rather than literary affinity.

What matters to me, and to most other conservative scholars, is the existence, at some point, of a "final form", in due course copied and canonized. Perhaps the copyists were the true de facto canonizors. Perhaps their work with sources, in several cases (like Kings explicitly), is lost to us except in the final form that has come down through the transmission history.

Very many of the best conservative academics (Jewish, Catholic and Protestant) politely ignore dogmatic assertions that may caricature the Pentateuch as simplistically Mosaic, while being willing to admit personal belief that the received text is authentically divinely inspired. Divine inspiration is impossible to prove, it is simply a hypothesis, and actually quite hard to disprove also. Many of the best atheist biblical academics find themselves quite at home discussing purely literary features of the Bible with believers. Whether or not one believes God to be behind the text of the Bible, everyone wants to work out what natural processes are involved in it being what it is.

I'd welcome your article. I think you're right, editors follow a simple dualism reinforced by Wiki having only two approaches. So long as the main articles are DH and Mosaic authorship, and anything smelling of source criticism is relocated to one or other of those articles, we're actually silencing some of the best recent scholarship.

Source criticism of the Pentateuch I think is the kind of name needed, and very modest expectations when it comes to definitive answers. An article listing a dozen notable scholars with a spectrum of views is probably the sort of thing needed. You really need open access journal articles, not websites, which are normally pretty polemical. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pentateuchal criticism sounds perfect to me. That makes it a parent article for Documentary Hypothesis and Mosaic authorship ... and quite a lot more. More importantly, I like your sources ... and your willingness to do this work! :) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tycoons of Burma

Thanks for that article link. It should be possible to get some of the photographs into commons. The article is from Irrawaddy and it should be easy to get releases. I'll send them email and ask. A Tay Za picture would be especially nice just in case we run into him one day! --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 23:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Neat change

Thanks for the neat copy-edit at Comma Johanneum. I worked out the semantics was not sufficiently explicit, but just threw a relative clause in to fix it. Much smoother prose your way. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

If you get a moment, List of New Testament Latin manuscripts is turning into an article rather than a list. That's a good thing, really, but since there's prose, there's room for copy-edit. How's your infant article coming on? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Noah

You seem to have problems with the contribution on Noah. Keep in your mind that removing scholar and referenced text is an violation on Wiki. If you want to explore you can leave comments on the talk page. Perhaps you are from different origin and do not have knowledge of other prespectives. You should go consult with somebody or go research for some sources. If theres any problems you can contact me on my talk page and we can discuss an resolution. --Padan (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you can wait and i will post the scholar information. --Padan (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism?

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church article 'Pope' presents sources that place recognition of a special place for the Bishop of Rome in the early fifth century. At the time the Bishop of Rome (Damasus) requested Jerome's work, any special authority for the Bishop of Rome appears to have still been pretty controversial. I deliberately avoided using either Bishop of Rome or Pope. Historically, Bishop of Rome is always accurate, and from a point X until the Great Schism, the claim to a Petrine prerogative was also universally accepted. But that point X seems to be approximately co-incident with the circulation of the Vulgate, but not with its composition. It would appear the papacy controversy was pretty much the "talk of the world" at the time of Damasus, who had things to say about it.

The primacy of the Apostolic See, variously favoured in the time of Damasus by imperial acts and edicts, was strenuously maintained by this pope; among his notable utterances on this subject is the assertion (Mansi, Coll. Conc., VIII, 158) that the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Roman Church was based, not on the decrees of councils, but on the very words of Jesus Christ (Matt., xvi, 18).

— Catholic Encyclopedia

Alastair Haines (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't assume this matter was important to you, I'm relieved it isn't. I still want to treat it in an NPOV way.

I've also received excellent feedback (lots of suggestions for improvement) from Dr Hugh Houghton, an expert in the field.

He was wonderfully supportive, saw us as contributing to a global project of public information, rather than as amateur competitors.

I think I'll probably need to expand the article greatly, treat it more as an article than a list and restrict it to the Vetus Latina. These measures should allow a slightly more full, but still summary treatment of Jerome and the Vulgate, which distinguish the boundary of what Vetus Latina actually means.

Best wishes for Pentateuchal criticism, looking forward to dropping by again later. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you PiCo, I think you do appreciate exactly what I'm doing.

My thinking is this.

Many good web-sites with similar information already exist, I don't feel the need to try to do better, and don't want the work of keeping them up to date.

Wiki provides three excellent advantages over the excellent web-sites of various scholars:

1. internal links can be made to articles on manuscripts, editors, libraries and museums;
2. other editors can maintain the work into the future, keeping the bibliographies current; and
3. Wikipedia articles discussing manuscripts can utilize the lists to find articles at Wiki, or use the Bibliography and links.

I created the List of New Testament papyri and List of New Testament uncials a little over a year ago. Use the What links here button at those pages to see how widely cited at Wiki these lists now are. I'm really pleased with that result. Additionally, a very generous contributor has written many articles on specific Uncials, because the list makes these easy to find. That'd be my ultimate delight, for Wiki to have articles on many, many of the specific manuscripts -- pictures, text and translations of a lot of them included.

The Bible is not something you can buy in a shop. It was a set of documents, the text of which can only be deduced from the evidence of tens of thousands of idiosyncratic and irreplaceable copies. Wikipedia has the potential to provide unrivaled access to all that, due to its medium of information aquisition and presentation (unless theopedia beats us to it). Alastair Haines (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm running a training course for a week, so I'm still fiddling about with Wiki rather than doing serious work. Thanks for your note. I hope your real world work doesn't have its usual consequences for public order. ;) I also sense a word of wisdom, I will indeed be majoring on my thesis when the course finishes. I need to get a journal article produced quick smart.

You didn't read Newsweek this week did you? Alastair Haines (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Bowles Hamri

I knew them both. It is amazing the way the Bowles circle and estate have created a number of complete fabrications that they defend by first screaming, then threatening and bullying. It is even more amazing, given the sources that exist, that they get away with esp on this site. Jajouka, Joujouka, Bowles, Janes Bowles, Brion Gysin and a host of other pages have been the front line of their revision of history despite the existence of very good independent sources. eg see User:Emerman edits he could write 5000 words on a talk page in moments. No one could be bothered to keep up. He was either a sock of User:BKLisenbee or an editing partner; Stopped editing when he lost the argument and then User:BKLisenbee appeared in the argument pretending to be reasonable. It is all on the record here. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting Wiki page in its self. The great Tangier cover up. Thanks Opiumjones 23 (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That story is true alright. And I agree about the writer thing UNLESS there is some coverup aspect that is hiding some darker truths to achieve a veneer "respectability" and I dont mean being gay. There are several dark truths including how he actually treated his wife, some people believe he drove her mad , deliberately. She was a rare talent also. If you get Michelle Green's Book Dream at the End of the World you will find it interesting and informative. check out the festival on www.joujouka.net Brian Jones 40th Anniversary of recording in Joujouka/Jajouka. its on 28th July. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yoohoo, PiCo!

How are things with you? I have been painting lots of pictures and drawing a divine youth who Donald Friend would have loved. So I haven't been doing much writing. love Amandajm (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, Darling, he's a professional model. We also have a female model for whom the word Goddess is no exageration. I'm having a lovely time, having painted more pictures in six months than in the last 20 years. This evening I drew from a photo a portrait of a dear friend, recently deceased. I'm moderately pleased with it, but I know his nose isn't right, and unfortunately, he's no longer around to look at. I'll see if my email is working and send you a pic. Amandajm (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I intend to seek mediation between you and I in light of the fact that you have deleted of two entire sections in the Noah's Ark article, despite the fact that both sections were agreed to by a consensus of editors after considerable discussion. I have documented your repeated accusations of bad faith and your destructive edits (including repeated major edits without consensus). If you refuse mediation then I will take the next step in the conflict resolution process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't get involved in this I'm afraid. I like both of you too much. I wish this would go away though. Soon. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm a push-over, I will get involved. Here's a weird move from me. I can't find your email PiCo. But I did have a very heart-warming roam around your e-zine. I really like it. I think your team are really onto something. I like the "radical middle" (a.k.a. real common sense) concept. I really like the openness to spiritual exploration, indeed the suggestion that a certain spiritual something is "at the heart of it all". I have a personal take on this, more amateur philosopher and ex-politician than professional theologian, which probably already sounds like I'm fitting in.

I'm going to write something for you. I'll try not to be too serious. Heck, I might not even quote any sources but my own heart. Do as you will with it, "submission is permission". I hope you'll consider giving poor Taiwan boi a break, it's just not fair to wind up people of his dedication. He's got soul, he's not "them what are just begging for a revolution".

Try this for size, please tell me if I'm wrong. My guess is that it is a good thing Wiki processes are pretty messy. Push 'em and push 'em and we'll only have ourselves to blame if Wiki turns out to be as beaurocratic as our "information age" horror era your friends are exposing.

Please have mercy PiCo. I think Wiki needs you. Just not in this way, in this place, at this time.

Please consider emailing me (Email this user in left side panel at my user page). I think some of your motives are too sacred to be demeaned by discussion in a mediation forum. I want to understand what you are trying to say my friend. I'm very open to learning.

That's all for now. Please expect to receive a short speculative piece of writing from me about where the missing heart of the 21st century is exposed. No sources, not even the Bible. Just my heart and mind.

Savage my writing, not Taiwan boi's. Is it a deal? Alastair Haines (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To date I have received no response to this. If I receive no response by the end of today I will progress to the next step in the conflict resolution process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for PiCo, but to my understanding he is confident of his case and willing to discuss that in a mediation context. Process normally allows parties in a dispute to yay or nay specific mediators. That may take some time depending on how selective the parties are. If two mediators are acceptable to both parties, that may take substantial pressure off everyone, but that's just my opinion. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, I have already taken the initiative. I told you I would be seeking mediation, and shortly after you were contacted by Alastair (the mediator), who made it clear what was required and invited you to respond accordingly. I have seen no evidence that you wish to enter into mediation. If this is the case, then I will proceed to the next step in the conflict resolution process. --Taiwan boi (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh woops! OK, yes, I did accept the role of informal mediator.

My apologies to everyone, because I didn't announce myself that way.

I failed to make that clear to PiCo, because I was genuinely approaching him as a friend.

I failed to report back clearly and promptly to Taiwan boi regarding PiCo's response.

I do hope I have done all that I promised, and that I've betrayed no friendships or confidences.

Again my apologies for being very slap-dash in my involvement.

As I understand things at the moment, PiCo is happy to enter formal mediation.

He is content with his stance at Noah's Ark and happy to answer to anyone for it.

I was mediating, I will express no opinion, nor articulate the views of either party for them.

Each has a genuine case to make.

I was pleased Taiwan boi asked me to help him attempt an informal resolution.

I was pleased PiCo was happy to discuss his position.

I trust the Mediation Cabal to provide people who will genuinely stay with the issues and attempt to resolve them.

I think the conflict was inevitable but formal mediation is a positive step that should start as soon as possible.

One final thing, though, I did not understand my informal mediation as a substitute for the involvement of the Mediation Cabal.Alastair Haines (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia conflict resolution process requires conflicting editors to communicate with each other first, and then if that fails they are to seek informal mediation before seeking formal mediation. This is a couple of steps away from Arb Com yet. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I will possibly regret my involvement should it be considered by others as such a substitute.

I do not consider I made sufficient effort to resolve the conflict for it to be counted this way.

That was not what I understood myself to be promising.

By all means approach Arb Com with this Taiwan boi, but there's a good chance they'll return it to the Cabal.

Sorry again to all if I've been muddle-headed here. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation process

As far as I understand, since I did this for the first time only a week ago. The proposer (that was me) puts some magic WikiCode into the talk page of the article under dispute. By and by a friendly member of the Mediation Cabal arrives (they promise to arrive within a few weeks ;). I was lucky, our mediators arrived quickly, and I got a bonus co-mediator, so now there's five of us in the talk-fest, lol. Anyway, I wasn't sure how it would work out or where to show up when, but someone dropped a note on my user talk page, to say everyone else had arrived, and would I formally approve the mediator, which is kind of a nice way to start.

As I understand it, mediation seeks to genuinely resolve differences. I'd expect a number of mediators might even start by "serving coffee". ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing this isn't for the Noah's Ark article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Documentary hypothesis at Editor assistance

Hi, there's a discussion involving you at WP:EAR#User:PiCo/Noah's Ark which I'd like you to discuss your position at. A user has stated concerns about your editing and your side of the story would be much appreciated. Thanks. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing behaviour at Noah's Ark article

I note that your disruptive editing behaviour at the Noah's Ark article has ceased over the last few days. I would like to be clear on whether or not you intend to renew this behaviour. Your edits and arguments have been rejected by a number of other editors, and I do not expect to see them repeated. You also ignored attempts to discuss the article with you through editorial assistance. If your previous pattern of behaviour is repeated, I will go to WP:RFC. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo!

Just wondering how the book is progressing? Amandajm (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Note to readers

Just a brief note to anyone thinking of posting here: I've been blocked indefinitely (does that mean forever?), the reason being that my ISP has been identified as an open proxy, whatever that is. So you can post, but I can't reply. PiCo (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

J the B

I think it's a great idea! How about you suggest it to Johnbod? Have you received the email I sent you? Amandajm (talk) 11:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Peeki-poo!

What are you doing? If you want a really long disertation on what makes Leo the greatest, I will do it, but then I'll have every well-meaning person in the place on my back because of POV and flowery language. What do you thing... split, or not split?

Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh!) I agree with everything that you say about Leonardo. However, I have just been strongly criticised for writing other people into the article... the details of the two great horses were cut out (and put back again by me.) I am asked why we need the section that mentions all those other people who were around at that time... well, they were part of his background, and part of what made him what he was.

If I split the article, then I can go to greater lengths. If I try to add to the present one, then I'll be under fire.

Meanwhile war is raging on the other page, over the issue of his personal relationships, and simultameously over wheteher all the crap should be reinserted here.

About psychopaths. I have known two. They can be quite charming. The advantage of being able to look at a person and label them is that you are better able to protect yourself from the harm that they can inflict on you if you are unable to recognise the pattern in their behaviour. Amandajm (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just read what you put on Leo's personal page! I love you, PiCo! Amandajm (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Donald Friend, I think it is a great idea, and you would be a great person to do it. But I have no idea how you would get funding. Has there been a book, since the small one by Robert Hughes, 1965? Definitely time for a nice big lavishly illustrated book. Have you got my regular email address? I think the one that I set up in my wiki name has closed from lack of use. Amandajm (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"higher criticism" query on your edit..

Hi there, just wanted to ask what you mean by higher criticism, seems a bit of an ambiguous to me. Do you mean higher = senior ranks of the church, higher = more sophisticated..? Thanks, NathanLee (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the run-down, I guess the terminology was just a bit unfamiliar and the one you replaced had seemed to make a bit more sense than a "generic" sounding "higher criticism". I'm not sure if you could mesh the two terms together to cover both bases if they are both somewhat in use? Or give the jargon some context? NathanLee (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

John the Baptist

Great Idea! Did you get my email? Amandajm (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biblical archaeology school, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

PiCo!

I haven't got a clue where to find the email address on your personal page! Also, why is everything on this page slashed through? Amandajm (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're welcome: a comment had been removed earlier on (see this), leaving a stray piece of formatting remaining. I fixed it here. Acalamari 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Noah's ark not about the flood?

Hi there, you chopped out some references to science views on the ark: I don't see how you can have one without the other. Without the flood, there's no ark and no mythology to speak of. If the article is about the ark then we should just repeat the few paragraphs in the bible and be done with it because that's all the information available on it. NathanLee (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wotchit!

just worchit, OK! There are some naaaassty people out there. Amandajm (talk) 10:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you collected an email from me via Wiki yet? Amandajm (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tetragrammaton

Hey PiCo. The issue is that while the name of that article may be in common use, it is incorrect to state that it is God's name. It's POV and OR to make that claim. I'm not entirely sure why you want so much for the article to make that claim. There's not a single archaeological source that gives that name. It doesn't exist until a very short time ago, historically speaking. The very definition of it is a theoretical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton.

You write about "the first appearances of the name in the archaeological record", but there are none. That's my problem. An encyclopedia article shouldn't confuse two things. The Tetragrammaton is one thing. A theoretical vocalization is another thing. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your deceiving Lisa I really do. The Tetragrammaton has been pronounceable; otherwise it wouldn't appear in the Bible. Therefore, when the Patriarchs used what the Bible says YHWH, they didn't say Yod, Hay, Waw, Hay, - they said the Name. The Jews took the vowels out of the Name YHWH in an attempt to prevent it from being pronounced, but this was a later innovation. Alleichem (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Caravaggio

I've added this section in good faith. I don't think it's very constructive for us to repeatedly delete and then restore. Let's resolve this through discussion on the talk page. But in the meantime the text stays as the principle of wikipedia is to add to and improve articles rather than take away. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

gopher wood

"מ‎כשם פופסבד‏םשם" (let's say, "kasham pupsabadamashamam") definitely makes no sense - please check your source, as this is clearly gobbledygook. -- Y not? 03:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Promised land and Israelites

Could you take a look at the recent edits to these? Thanks Doug Weller (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo!

I saw took the boys to the Caravaggio exhibition in London. Wow! It was overwhelming. One of the things we really enjoyed was being able to see two Supper at Emmaus pics side by side. Hope eveything is OK with you! Gotta go ter bed. Yaaawwwn! Amandajm (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Leo again

Am I being too nice? He was a rather interesting personality, and we do know more about his vegetarianism than his purported liking for chicken. Amandajm (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Leo's the one of interest. I think that it's probably reasonable to state a little more of what little we know of his personality. I'll send you some pics. Right now I am listening to a wonderful CD of Cantillation singing something madly joyful. Our local music store has a birthday sale... I could go mad in there. What's your current project? Amandajm (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Darling Poopsie

I was told the other day that there are not enough sadists to go around for all the masochists. What do you have in mind exactly? Amandajm (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, I've just done another Australian artist... an immensely popular one at that- S. John Ross (artist), so then I had to go and fix up the article on Silhouette. Did you ever have your portrait cut at the Show? I can't find mine! Amandajm (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could, if you think it would add something ... maybe he has a craving for Edam Cheese.... can you buy Edam Cheese in Cambodia? Where did you suggest he originated? .... Yawn! ... it's 2.30 here and I'm nearly falling off my perch! I've been really sick with a cold. My blood pressure is playing up, so I'm trying to avoid coughing. Good night, PiCo! I would love to chat but I'm toooo tired! Amandajm (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Documentary hypothesis (Section: After Wellhausen)

You had just recently deleted an entry and citation to the above mentioned section. THe deletion was marked with the comment: "Is Koutoupolis notable?" I do not understand what this means and why it was deleted. It was a valid entry with a valid published citation by a biblical scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkoutoupis (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Name calling

"Harry Orlinsky, you jackass!PiCo (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)"

this is unacceptable behavior. Hardyplants (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Creation according to Genesis

Thanks for going through and cleaning the article up. Cheers, Ben (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop deleting reliable information that is pure fact. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's not mainstream. I will report you if you keep up your vandalism. Some courtesy would be appreciated, thank-you. Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

your biased use of the word "many" has shown up here again. Two does not make many (and one of those two is you! lol) Two have also deemed them good edits! What do you make of that? 2 vs. 2... now why would you call your side a majority? Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, this last revision I have did represents both side accurately. Can you not see this? I am not deleting, defaming, or name-calling, your beliefs, but accurately representing two major schools of thought. Or do you have a problem with accuracy? Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page. PiCo (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Creation according to Genesis, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Creation according to Genesis. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 15:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have instated temporary protection and it is a good sign that you are willing to cooperate with the other editor. However, it is important for both of you to remember that no one is exempt from the 3RR rule. It is arguable that both of you have broken it or have edit warred enough that would endanger you both of a block. For now take some time to allow the incident to cool down and once things aren't so heated, see what you can work out on the talk page. Good luck.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Cardinal del Monte

Thanks for the tip. I will look this source up. I have been having difficulty clarifying his exact ecclesiastical titles and when they were given. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Article splits

I can't quite figure out what has happened here. We now have Biblical archaeology school but go to [7] and then click on the article. Then click on the talk page. Then there are these moves [8] so I am completely confused now. dougweller (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) I think the real question is where does this go: [9] dougweller (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article sabotage and personal attacks

Your repeated efforts to sabotage articles with misleading or false information, together with your repeated personal attacks, have been noted before, and not only by me. This is not the first time I have had to seek third party moderation in order to have you restrained. You have an hour to suggest a third party moderator, or I will. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have already made my case explaining to you that Biblical literalism is not a term to be used in the manner you are using it. I have shown you this repeatedly. Your refusal to agree to arbitration is noted. This is not a matter of me being thin-skinned. I put up with your repeated personal attacks and your article sabotage for months. I suggest you read this and this if you don't remember the previous history. I have it all documented. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As a further note, you are also wrong to say 'I know, you think some of this material is not about a belief in a literal (i.e., real, touchable, made-out-of-wood) ark'. I have never denied that most of it is about 'a belief in a literal (i.e., real, touchable, made-out-of-wood) ark'. That is not under dispute (though as I have already pointed out, the Universalist view referenced rejects 'a belief in a literal (i.e., real, touchable, made-out-of-wood) ark'). The real issue is that you are taking interpretations which hold to the Ark as historical, and claiming they are Bibllical literalist when they are not. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Came here to let pico know about something else: but taiwan boi, I'd say you need to chill out a bit. You are being thin skinned by the sounds of it and stop with the Gestapo sounding crap ("i have it all documented", "have you restrained" etc) and discuss things. Taking something literally implies historical I would think, but that's just personal opinion. I don't see how you can claim the bible to be historically accurate while not being literally true. NathanLee (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Noah's ark lead stuff

Hey PiCo, just a courtesy note: I reverted the change you made (although I too agree there's a need to put Qu'ran in there (as I'd started to do also), albeit with a bit less "christian is primary" feel to it. But as Ben pointed out to me (and reverted my changes) the lead is under consideration by another editor as mediation goes on. So probably worth leaving it alone for a bit.. There's enough mess for them to sort through without the lead changing every 5 minutes. :) regards, NathanLee (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship

You have removed the quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia, why? --Alpha166 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind comment on the Mosaic authorshp talk page.Same sentiment on my side. Happy holidays!Wolf2191 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)