User talk:FDuffy/Archive Aug 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hannah

Because each article may be the only article anyone ever reads on the subject, and should be treated independently of other articles. --User talk:FDuffy 15:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, why are you checking all the edits I have made? I seem to remember that stalking other editors is prohibited --User talk:FDuffy 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with your STEPs, by the way, I know how hard they can be. --User talk:FDuffy 15:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kingsgenealogydiagram.png

I noticed that there is a lot of white space at the bottom of this image; would it be doable for you to upload a new version? I would do it myself, but I'm not a graphics guy.  :-) Thanks! Mdotley 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a graphics guy either, and couldn't get rid of the white space myself. I can have another try, but I wouldn't hold out much hope. If you know a graphics guy it might be best to ask them. --User talk:FDuffy 15:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ophites

Hello FDuffy. I am contacting you about the ophites article. You added the to the article that the group was persecuted out of existence [1]. And that there text was destroyed by the orthodox of their day. Could you please source that? If not it is POV and needs to be removed. Thanks LoveMonkey 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Ophites were Gnostics; they were the gnostics who put emphasis on siding with the serpent in the garden of eden ("ophite" means "serpent"), as opposed to the gnostics that emphasised Seth (Sethians), or other variants (such as Valentinians). The gnostics were persecuted by the orthodox of their day; indeed the brutal and gruesome (even by the standards of the day) Albigensian Crusade was direct persecution of the gnostics, and similarly the inquisition began as a way to weed out the gnostics. The Christian Gnostics basically no longer exist as a result.

The only complete texts from the Ophites, or any of the gnostics, that survive are really the Nag Hammadi collection, and a few other really ancient manuscripts that were hidden in the desert; none of the later copies survived, and all were banned by the "orthodox" (eg. in the Gelasian decree). You have only to look at the treatment of the people who supported the view of homoiousios rather than homoousios (a single letter difference) to work out how little tolerance of heterodoxy there was; Arius' writings were ordered to be burnt[1], and supporters of homoiousios rather than homoousios were exiled, and that was just because of a minor difference, compared to the huge difference between gnostics and the "orthodox". I put "orthodox" in quotations, because the supporters of homoousious were actually the minority, but they had control. --User talk:FDuffy 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ibid?

Hi FDuffy, may I suggest you don't use "ibid" in Wikipedia refs; if someone inserts something in between your two refs, then "ibid" will appear to refer to something else. Instead, it looks much neater to link two or more refs to the same footnote, using <ref name=foo> Author, Book etc </ref> then <ref name=foo/> thereafter.

In this case it is not clear which is your repeated ref for

Weshesh can be decomposed as men of Uash in Hebrew, and hence possibly a corruption of Asher.

- please would you clarify it? - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In the second method, if someone removes the first "ref", then you have the same problem, so I'm not exactly sure why the second method (which doesn't use ibid) is considered any better; additionally, ibid is a lot shorter to write, and something that essay/dissertation/thesis writers get very used to. --User talk:FDuffy 15:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Biblical scholars" and "Textual scholars"

Especially relevant in light of the previous comment on your talk page, I notice that you add the phrases "Biblical scholars" view and "textual scholars" believe and several similar phrases to the articles on the Israelite tribes. While it is true that some scholars of these branches of higher criticism have posited these views, a) this point of view is not universally held, as the wording you have chosen would imply, and b) you generally only cite one source for this, whereas portraying this as the viewpoint of the majority of the scholarly world (from all branches of study, not just one) would require much more than this.

For the moment, I am simply adding the word "some" to the text; I believe that without qualification this introduces weasel word terms into the articles, and I may seek to refine the wording further to reflect, as nearly as possible, a neutral point of view regarding the scholarly position. ◄Zahakiel► 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources page, certain sources - mainly well-respected encyclopedias - can be quoted as fact; the 1906 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia is an extremely well respected encyclopedia (later editions are generally considered somewhat inferior), and generally considered very neutral (for the record, its written by Jewish scholars, and is, in my view, often biased in favour of Judaism). As it happens I do generally check things against a number of sources, but I prefer to cite the most respected and publicly available, rather than the less public academic journals, papers, verbal discussions, etc. --User talk:FDuffy 15:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If this particular position has majority support in the academic world, there should be many independent sources for it, whereas so far I have only seen one. It would be misleading to claim that Finkelstein's claims were not controversial, so it follows that adding the qualifier "some" to your statement would improve its factual accuracy and reduce the degree to which it could be considered misleading. I would not dispute your statement if it were indeed, as you have implied, "the" academic view; however, until evidence is provided that there is no significant dissent in the academic community with Finkelstein's position, I and others will continue to contest this point. As for not reverting articles for matters of mere presentation, I would ask: if a sentence is presented in such a way that the factual information that it conveys is misleading, should it still remain unaltered? Robin S 21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; inserting "some" is being generous. On Robin's talk page you inserted a comment that appears to be directed at me. I am not in the habit of reverting changes because I dislike their presentation - I improve them. Regarding your "curiosity," I accept the academic view just fine... what you have attempted to add isn't it. The information you have added is misleading, if not because the content is false, then at least in the way it provides the impression that the theories you appear to espouse are accepted to any wide degree in academic circles. That is decidedly not the case, and you've been told this several times. My aim in those articles is not to make them the target of debate, but one person saying something while the major stream of current thought is against him is not a debate. Wikipedia is not intended to promote the viewpoints of a few isolated groups - these viewpoints may, of course, be mentioned, even featured, if they are verifiable and notable enough, but they must be clearly labeled as non-mainstream. I don't think you are under the illusion that Finkelstein's view is mainstream, so you are either attempting to legitimize his position by stirring up controversy on purpose, or scorching the earth around you because you happen to agree with it. Either is right on the borders of WP:POINT, and does nothing to provide accepted information about the articles you have altered. ◄Zahakiel► 02:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Israel Finkelstein is the Chairman of the Department of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. His viewpoint is certainly the mainstream, and indeed professor Zeev Herzog (respected Israeli archaeologist) published an article in Ha'aretz stating that the scholarly community was almost entirely in agreement on the dubious historicity of the early part of the Bible. Herzog's words include:

It's difficult for the public to accept this, but it is clear to scholars that the Israelites did not dwell in Egypt, that they didn't wander the desert, that they didn't conquer the Holy Land and divide it among 12 tribes, and that the kingdom under David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom

Magen Broshi, a professor of archaeology working at the Israel Museum states:

The notion of the Conquest of the Land in the Book of Joshua is an epic, no more.... the archaeological surveys and exacavations showed that the picture on the ground is 180 degrees different from what is described in the various history books of the Bible. I think there is no serious scholar in Israel or in the world who does not accept this position. Herzog represents a large group of Israeli scholars, and he stands squarely within the consensus. ... Even the extreme leftists, avowedly secular, find it hard to accept the notion that the stories they grew up with are not true, that the greatness of David and Solomon is a matter of epic, not of history. I tried all this out on my friends, but they simply are not ready to hear it...

--User talk:FDuffy 10:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that the scholars you mention "tried all this out on [their] friends" but did not gain acceptance. It is interesting that you keep citing a thimbleful of scholars who have an unaccepted view and then say that this viewpoint, "is certainly the mainstream." I assure you, it is not; although that may be as difficult for you to accept as the majority of scholars do this particular interpretation of the data. It is ludicrous to maintain this position when, for every one scholar you repeatedly quote, multitudes may be produced who say exactly the opposite. To say, therefore, that "scholars" accept the position you are advancing is simple academic dishonesty. Further, it doesn't mean much for a scholar to say, "I am in the mainstream," and "I have consensus on this," when the only sources provided to establish this are from that individual and a couple sympathizers. ◄Zahakiel► 15:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)