User talk:Til Eulenspiegel/Archive1

HI, thanks for your attention to the disambiguation page Zechariah. Actually, the Islamic prophet Zakariyya is the father of John the Baptist, not the author of the Book of Zechariah. - Fayenatic london (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have read it more carefully... Thanks for fixing it... ! Til Eulenspiegel 14:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting topic, which I didn't know about. I wonder if you could add more in-line citations, though, as there is only one and no general reference is provided. Did you get the other information from the same source and not list it, or from something else? Rigadoun (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Africa located? I forget —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.244.236 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claims made are from the British Museum's Series "People and Places" Series "Canaanites", the views of "The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives" and the book "Abraham in History and Tradition", and are documented. Please demonstrate how these documents represent a POV when they are accpeted as legitimate secondary sources by most modern scholars of the Canaanites. John D. Croft 11:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section was labelled "Modern Views on the Canaanites". The views presented have all been put forward since 1974. These clearly are modern views as they were not held in ancient times or in the Biblical corpus. The reference to the 1998 book on the Canaanites was by the British Museum. Are you accusing them of bias? Can you please show me how presenting these views as "modern" is a POV? John D. Croft 12:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In salting the earth article, I've changed the name of section "Historical examples" to more general term "Examples" to avoid source segregation but also to increase accuracy, because some sources may not be historical or reliable, such as religious sources. Is this okay? --Qsaw ^(talk) 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that compromise, but there is no reason to think other accounts of salting the earth are somehow any more reliable (or less religious) than the instance in the Tanakh. We know of the Assyrian examples only because of their inscriptions, dedicated to their own deities. There is a definite POV out there that if the Tanakh states something like this happened, then that is somehow solid evidence that it didn't happen. I don't understand the reasoning, but it is called 'minimalism', and it is a strong POV that is best avoided here if we are to strive for neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I really don't see the point in not wanting Mengistu listed as the Negus's de facto successor. I am in no way suggesting that Mengistu was emperor (which he was not) or that he was legitimate, or even that he was a good guy. Quite simply, he was in power after Haile Selassie, so he should be listed as his de facto successor, while Amha Selassie of Ethiopia succeeded him de Jure. This is comparable to Mohammed Daoud Khan succeeding Mohammed Zahir Shah, Oliver Cromwell succeeding Charles I of England or the National Convention succeeding Louis XVI of France as holder of the executive power (however brutally). Succession boxes are made to be useful to anyone wanting to follow a chronology, in this case a chronology of ethiopian heads of state. Mengistu Haile Mariam already had Haile Selassie listed as his predecessor and I didn't make that up. It is absolutely not in my intention to be disrespectful to Haile Selassie as you seemed to suggest in your previous commentary. Regards, Wedineinheck 13:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my amazement you have written the following sentence on the Scythians-talkpage:

"I have indeed seen the primary source LHF, though I admit I do not have access to your favorite secondary sources, you know as well as I do there are plenty of others."

I am amazed, because if you indeed would have seen the LHF, that is the Liber Historiae Francorum, than you would have seen that this book explicitly states that Marcomer is the son of King Priam of Troy. However on the talkpage of the Sicambri you say I am using a strawmans argument when I wrote that it is not possible that man lives for 2000 years. Now how should I see this? Do you really have seen the LHF, more than vaguely and do you still launch a personal attack on me? Or is it that you haven't seen the LHF more than vaguely, or maybe not at all?

Furthermore: on the Sicambri page I have only used the most common secondary sources: That is the most cited ones. They are not my favorite sources. And indeed I know others. However non of that other sources say something really different than Wood, James or Wallace-Hadrill. Can you name a secondary source of a mayor, well cited scholar that disagrees with them? johanthon 12:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for some good edits on the Jonah page. You were quite right that it was the similarities and not the differences between Gilgamesh and Jonah that were said to be minor - my mistake in the edit summary.

Still, I'm not sure about this. The sentence is cited to a book by Campbell (sadly not on my shelves). My question is, does Campbell attempt to draw parallels but admit that the similarities are minor? Or does Campbell attempt to draw parallels that somebody else thinks are minor? If it is the latter (which I suspect) then we need two citations, not one! Wavehunter 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification. I agree that the English etymology of worm is not relevant. As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know. Either way, your edit stands.

Changed, though, is the assertion that the similarities between Gilgamesh and Jonah are minor. This point was added by User:Kuratowski's Ghost. The original citation (which existed before I ever touched the page) made no such claim. (See Jonah, 28 August 2007.) I have left the point in as a separate sentence requiring a citation: without that it is POV (as I mentioned earlier) and should be omitted. I think readers can decide for themselves whether the similarities are major or minor.

I hope you'll agree that my other edits are worthwhile. Small text instead of superscript, and consistency in the version of the Bible quoted (avoiding confusion between Jonah/Jonas and fish/whale).

Do reply here, or come to my talk page, if you have something to say to me. I hope we can reach consensus. All the best, Wavehunter 02:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as consensus, I am okay with the status quo after your last edit. Re your comment: "As for whether Jonah is mythological, I would say he is as mythological as Jason, you might differ, but we can neither of us really know." According to the Neutrality policy, what we editors may think is supposedly irrelevant - what matters is whether all significant P-O-Vs are described neutrally, and are cited. There is no significant POV today disputing that Jason is "mythological" AFAIK, but modern references arguing for the historicity of Jonah and the rest of the OT are easy to find, and speak for significant numbers of people today, so there is the difference.

KG's addition stating that there are few similarities between Jonah and Gilgamesh seems to me like a straightforward, inarguable fact that speaks for itself, but I won't quibble if you object or disagree with that, since apparently it isn't cited. Til Eulenspiegel 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I read that there were attempts in Athens to revive the ancient Greek religion, but I don't think this has taken hold yet!) Best wishes to you and yours. Wavehunter 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. — DIEGO ^talk 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not achieved a consensus on the talk page in support of your change. PLEASE STOP NOW or you will be blocked for edit warring and tendentious editing. — DIEGO ^talk 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary for this edit represents a personal attack, especially since you completely misunderstood the clear statements of Diego. Please be careful. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it was a personal attack. Pleasestop harassing me. Til Eulenspiegel 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be nice and try to get along with others by not edit warring. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Til, I see you reverted my redirect of Magog (Bible) to Gog and Magog. I was initially going to merge it, since all things Magog are already covered in more detail at the other page, but there's really nothing to merge - almost everything there is covered more fully at the longer page, and what isn't, isn't sourced. I would almost go so far as to AfD Magog (Bible) as an unlikely search term for Magog. At any rate I commented at the talk page if you wish to respond.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find a response to Cúchullain's contact. Please discuss the proposed changes on Talk:Magog. -- JHunterJ 12:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JHunter, my response from last September to Cuchullain's above contact is at Talk:Magog (Bible). I will also respond to you at Talk:Magog, since it is a slightly different issue (where the page should redirect to, as opposed to the proposed merge). Til Eulenspiegel 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Til, your edits are good in general, but recently I have seen you repeatedly indulging in unconstructive or disruptive edits as well. Try to be reasonable. "Post-Sumerian" means that the copies were made in Old Babylonian times (after Ur III). This is taken directly from Kramer (1968). I know I could have given a page number, but if you follow me around reverting perfectly uncontroversial content just because I didn't bother to cite page number and ISBN for every sentence is hardly the wiki spirit. This apparently pedantic attitude doesn't sit at all well with you in the light of evidence that, on the other hand, you make efforts to preserve uncited fringe content you just happen to like, as you did on Aratta yesterday. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, Til, my edits to Tower of Babel were straightforward cleanup (e.g., what was a discussion of Breughel and of historical linguistics doing under "Historicity"?). I cannot accept as good faith demands to waste my time explaining my rationals for such perfectly obvious edits to you. Try to help improving the article further instead of prancing around with this disruptive parody of "please discuss". If you have something genuine to discuss, I will happily listen. Playing devil's advocate for fringe views and disrupting perfectly obvious editing will not fly. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Til, just noticed your repeated reversions of this article. Please note that editors are allowed to be WP:BOLD and do not have to discuss every edit on the talk page. These edits, particularly, go a considerable way to cleaning up this article. If you have a problem with a specific part of the edit then you should bring that up on the talk page. Also, please note the three revert rule, WP:3RR. --Strothra 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and re your userpage, then do deign to include a link to your talkpage in your sig so people can click on it. What are you here for, to help build an encyclopedia, or to play the diva? really. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been uncivil to you; there is no call for you to be so to me. Til Eulenspiegel 13:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are involved in an edit war over one section of this article. Unfortunately, you are in danger of violating the rule described at WP:3RR -- which could have unfavorable repercussions for you. I'm not taking either side in this dispute, but this is past the point where everyone involved should sit down & discuss this edit. I strongly urge you to talk with the other people in this dispute. If no consensus can be reached, the best next step to take would be to open an Request for Comment & solicit outside opinions on the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 06:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said to User:Bulbous:

The problem is that you have set yourself up as the judge, jury and executioner of the sources in this article without regard to consensus. It is well known that there are parties out there who seek to delegitimize Rastafari by any trick in the book. Removing the account of Plano meeting the Emperor at the top of the steps until it was safe to come down is a concrete example; this is a supremely important iconic event that appears in ALL the sources, including the Gleaner, not to mention available FOOTAGE of the incident, if you still have any doubts what happened. We could find numerous more sources about the size of the crowd, but no more sources should be necessary to meet your unprecedented standard which always seems to be raising the bar impossibly high. And the ganja smoking is mentioned by all sources including the Gleaner and is confirmed the video sources, so on what grounds do you remove or obscure this fact, and replace it with a half-truth that cuts out or minimizes the significance and magnitude of the event, to give the impression as if there were only a few thousand "weird" and "dangerous" people present who the military had to fend off from His Majesty's dignity? The one-sided version you are trying to write has no parallel in any source; you will be hard pressed to find any source, if you bother to do the research, that omits the Plano incident and the ganja smoke, etc. I am beginning to regard your actions against this article's well-sourced account as trolling. It seems there's one in any crowd, the sort that likes to provoke major international incidents just for the cheap thrills. Well I hope you got your thrills now, so how cheap were they? From the Rasta point of view this is all vaingloriousness, because the facts are facts and they are recorded on video and it is too late to undo them or pretend they never happened. Please leave this article alone and stop attacking the Rastafarian movement / pushing a hostile POV - unless you have done any actual research into sources on Haile Selassie I that you wish to contribute. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Til, Bulbous is not the problem. Bulbous has indeed taken it upon himself to rigorously ensure that this article conforms to its sources. He may push harder than is necessary sometimes, but he is well within his rights as concerns Wikipedia policy and guidelines. And he is entirely correct to insist that cited material in such a contentious topic be held to a high standard.

On the other hand, you continue to speak to speak from the seat of passion rather than from reason. Bulbous has yet to display any personal opinions on Rastafarianism, while you have openly declared that you intend to "help to counter some of these false claims" and accused others of trying to "attack the religious faith by making this fraudulent claim" and "provoke major international incidents just for the cheap thrills". That is, quite frankly, absurd. Nobody is trying to debunk your religion or spark a major international incident. Bulbous is trying to ensure that this article matches the available sources as best as possible, and I agree that he is doing a good and thorough job.

Please tone down your rhetoric. The constant accusations and conspiracy theories are unfounded. Meanwhile, you refuse to recognize your own POV vis-à-vis the religion you profess. You do not have the right to try and bully Bulbous out of the article ("Please leave this article alone and stop attacking the Rastafarian movement / pushing a hostile POV - unless you have done any actual research into sources on Haile Selassie I that you wish to contribute."). You do have the right to ascribe to conspiracy theories, but they hold little weight when thrown around as haphazard accusations and cast doubt on your own ability to see the article objectively ("It is well known that there are parties out there who seek to delegitimize Rastafari by any trick in the book.").

I would suggest you take some time to reflect upon and reconsider the debate going on right now. I hope that clearer heads can prevail. - Revolving Bugbear 14:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be obvious that he is trolling when he removes things that are already mentioned in the Gleaner article like the ganja smoke and the meeting with Ras Mortimer Plano. His demand for sources of things that exist on footage and tv documentaries seen by millions, plain for the whole world to see, is unsatiable; and his replacement of the sourced facts with a blatantly one-sided account is proof of his lack of neutrality. I am quite willing to have a neutral article that does not push any POV, and mentions whatever disagreements there are on both sides, when there are conflicting views. But there simply is no disagreement from any source that Ras Mortimer Planno and over 100,000 ganja-smoking Rastafarians greeted His Imperial Majesty at the Kingston, Jamaica airport on April 21, 1966. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very creative use of facts. How does "the smell of ganja wafted through the air" equate to the fact that it was widely and openly smoked? A single joint can cause the smell to "waft through the air", and it does not translate into "over 100,000 ganja-smoking Rastafarians". - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things appearing on TV are by definition referenceable, and I ma myself unconvinced of Bulbous' good intentions based on his edit pattern so far. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SqueakBox, given your exchange with Til above about "Christifari", your neutrality on this issue is in serious question. It's not necessarily credible for you to start throwing stones. - Revolving Bugbear 16:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are missing, Revolving, is that this is the article on Haile Selassie not the article on Christafari, and Christafari's beliefs around Selassie are unnotable and have no place on wikipedia other than in the Christafari article. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your reversion of my change to the article on abugidas, I take issue with the notion that the "correct" spelling of a target language of letter names or terms from a source language calls for the user of symbols that don't exist in the target language. In English, we don't write in IPA transcriptions! I disagree with the umlauted a's from the Ge'ez article as well, but since the abugida article referenced that one I thought it at least ought to follow the same convention. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]