User talk:Cush

MyTalk

Tolkienion Maps

Hey there Cush! I didn't know you were the owner of Tolkienion, I love that site, been going to it since the early days and have been working on getting that #1 spot on your links page for years :) All this talk about maps has got me thinking about uploading my maps I have offline to Tolkien Gateway, I know there are some in there that are yours from Tolkienion and I wanted to ask for permission from you first. Keep up the great work! --Hyarion 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Rohl

20th Dynasty of Egypt with 3 distinct lines

I have a question about Rohl's chronology (and yours I think). I see you divided the 20th Dynasty into three parts and overlapped them. It is a very interesting approach. Where can I find evidence for and against such approach? Is there any evidence that would not allow you to do this? Thanks and I'll be looking forward to your answer. AG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.202.27 (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there are three distinct lines within the 20th Dynasty (see image). Cush (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you take the chart off the Rohl page? Are you amending it? TuckerResearch (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have downloaded the New Chronology (2005).xls from the Yahoo group and I have entered its data into my Local NC manager. Now I have to structure it so I can produce a new overview. I will also have to update my database, which will take quite some effort... Cush (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

NC manager

Cush, I am mightily impressed with your NC software. Is there any way you would share this wonderful tool? I have no programming capability and a million dates and names scattered throughout a bunch of notebooks. What do you think of the Lords of Avaris? I haven't read it yet. TuckerResearch (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you support the New Chronology as proposed by Rohl? That would be a requirement. And then I'd have to think about giving you access to my database (the software connects to a server).

As for the Lords of Avaris, I am still struggling with the complexity of interconnections that Rohl shows to exist. I am re-reading it at the moment to extract usable dates out of it.

Is there a way to send a personal message on wikiedia?

Cush (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ever since I saw his Pharaoh's and Kings TV special when I was about 16. I have tweaked the years up and down because I have a different Exodus date, but all the synchronisms are the same. I haven't begun Lords of Avaris yet, and my contributions to the Yahoo! Group have been less than sparse since I started work on my PhD, but I am still a Rohlian at heart.

Is the NC manager a standalone piece of software?

I don't know about the personal messaging, if I had to guess I would say no.

TuckerResearch (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The NC manager (which is a .NET application) is not really a standalone software. It requires a database on a (web-)server and a php script that will relay the data (since my provider does not host a .NET framework yet). But if you'd install e.g. xampp on your machine it'll work. I could also write an aspx page to replace the php on a local machine, but that would require IIS to be on your machine (comes with the windows setup). On the other hand I could of course let you use my database, so everything is stored in one place ;-) It would be best if you sent me an e-mail. Just use "E-mail this user" link on my user page.

Cush (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, y'all, I have implemented an offline-version of the NC manager. Who wants it?? Cush (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, it works great so far. It is a helpful tool for people making chronologies and working with the New Chronology. TuckerResearch (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No bugs found yet? :-) I think I will implement a few new ways to export data, maybe to Excel or so. Cush (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still enjoying the NC Manager - capital work! I just began reading The Lords of Avaris, it seems there are a million more dates to look into! TuckerResearch (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

 CUSH 
CUSH

{{bibleverse||John|3:16|KJV|}}

• Example1: {{bibleverse|1|Samuel|3:16-4:18|31}} produces a link to the NIV translation (31 in the source list as linked below): 1 Samuel 3:16–4:18
• Example2: {{bibleverse||Genesis|1:15-16|HE}} produces: Genesis 1:15–16

Here is a sample list (this list is subject to change, please check link above):

Code	Translation
(do not include or, just number or text)
1000	Show user all options
31 or NIV	New International Version (Biblegateway)
49 or NASB	New American Standard Bible (BibleGateway)
9 or KJV	King James Version (BibleGateway)
105 or HE	Hebrew-English - paraellel MT and JPS 1917 (Mechon Mamre)
65 or TM	The Message (BibleGateway)

Akhenaten and Palestine

"No he didn't!" (Sorry, getting into kid-talk mode there :). What's your source for saying he did? PiCo (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can track down a book source, but have you ever read the Amarna letters PiCo? TuckerResearch (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC) -- Here: Elwell, Walter (2001). Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 409. ISBN 0842370897. - I added the citation to the Exodus page. TuckerResearch (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chronology at the Crossroads

Cush,

Do you own a copy of Bernard Newgrosh's Chronology at the Crossroads: The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia? If you don't, I can make a pdf copy of its chapter 18, entitled "A Chronicle of the New Chronology," which give a nice list of events, synchronisms, and dates between 1182 and 870, and post it on the forum.

TuckerResearch (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed appreciate it very much, if you could make such a pdf for me. :-) Cush (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the pdf to your History-Book.net New Chronology forum, under Mesopotamian Chronology, in the Assyrian Chronology thread. I hope you find it informative. TuckerResearch (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Helpful site

I figured that this could be helpful to you: http://daahl.ucsd.edu/DAAHL/ TuckerResearch (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look into that. Seems interesting at a first glance. Cush (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For your recent reversion at Pi-hahiroth‎. I think we have a recurring problem, have you seen [1]? 17:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)dougweller (talk)

This is the the same stuff that is edited every now and then into the "Stations list of the Exodus" article. I am not sure there is a need for a Pi-hahiroth article in the first place. Cush (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit summary

This edit summary is very similar to the writings of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, or is it a direct quote from him? What is your problem? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep your personal attacks to yourself. The point is that only such people who have a religious interest in the Exodus being real will ever claim that it is. Without the Exodus Judaism and subsequently a number of Christian denominations are finished. The archaeological record for an actual Exodus as described in the bible is exactly ZERO. And what I hate is that the articles and discussions on WP are obviously driven by religious people. This is supposed to be a serious encyclopedia and not some fairy tale land.

BTW the Jewish ideology of chosenness is a lot closer to Mr Goebbels' ideals than what I could possibly write. The Jewish claim to be God's people is practically the same as Nazis claiming to be the Herrenrasse. Cush (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure some would draw some major contrasts between the two; but I'll leave you to your own opinions; just remember this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia, then why is all the religiously biased POV material allowed to remain? Every article that starts with "according to the bible" but then goes on to elaborate on the issue as if it were history is basically worthless. Such as the "The Exodus" article. Cush (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's one of several competing views of history. It's not worthless to explain what the competing views are - as long as we make it clear that there are competing views. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No. History and archaeology are sciences like all others. Either you have evidence to support your claims, or you don't. The reason why the "Exodus" is dated in a wide temporal range from the 13th Dynasty to the 20th Dynasty is exactly the complete lack of any evidence. All there is are the claims of a fundamentalist religion. That is worthless. And a book that was written hundreds, even thousands, of years after the events at issue and written by folks who have an interest in creating history is no reliable source whatsoever. Cush (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Cush. You have new messages at Gidonb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rehoboam

Needs a good rewrite. Some is written by a Creationist I'm pretty sure, the same person who used Bible and Spade for the chronology at Solomon which I've rewritten but needs work also. It needs to be rewritten in a non-universe style and the chronology bit reworked. Interested? Dougweller (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I can sure take a look at it and make some suggestions. Cush (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ubaid

Yeh, I updated the Ubaid Period article to include the actual site (archaeology etc) and some misc updates, and coords. Seemed mostly ready to add to COTANE.Ploversegg (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

I have adjusted the coordinates somewhat. I suppose this is the right spot?

I used http://www.baghdadmuseum.org/usace/ and entry off http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq05a.html which were about the same. Ploversegg (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)ploversegg

The latter of your websites has 30.955608920,46.046645324 for Ubaid. However there is nothing visible at the surface. And it's almost 2 km from the location I gave. So which one is right? Cush (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR Warning

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

I have informed Dougweller of your disruptive editing on the Passage of the Red Sea article without engaging in a discussion first. You are restoring the Rktect stuff without any consensus. Please stop forcing your or his WP:OR into the article. Cush (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't my POV. Yam Suf has been identified as the Red Sea throughout most of recorded history, including in the Bible itself (in the only place where geographical indications exist). I don't care if Rktect included that as part of his agenda; you can't delegitimize the translation just because Rktect used it as well. -Lisa (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yam Suf does not translate as Red Sea no matter how much you may twist your biblical text. I do know that many older renditions (including the KJV) erroneously translate the term thus but more recent translations all have "Sea of Reeds". The most important point is to note that the Hebrew term literally means Sea of Reeds and that it derives from Egyptian, where the term never refers to the Red Sea to my knowledge. And given the geography of the Eastern Delta region of Egypt in the respective time frame it is obvious that any group flying from Egypt must have somehow crossed the chain of lakes between the Mediterranean and what today is called the Gulf of Suez (cf. map). The ONLY way out of Egypt was to avoid the military strongholds at Tjafanet (Zafane) and Miktol (Migdol) and the heavily guarded road "via maris" to Gaza (the seat of the Egyptian governor). Cush (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that all modern translations of the Bible read "Sea of Reeds," but that's the opposite of the situation. In fact, a search of all eighteen versions found on biblegateway.com shows that not one of them has "Sea of Reeds." You can't keep just stating your feelings as substantiated fact without backing them up. Citations, Cush. Mitchell Powell (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of these Bibles have in their footnotes that the literal translation is "Sea of Reeds", even when they retain the erroneous old term in their main text. Of course the Hebrew term says exatly that, and since it is derived from Egyptian (pa-zufy=the reeds) there is no way that it means something else, as the Egyptians had never used the term "Red Sea" for the Arabian Gulf (sinus arabicus) or adjacent bodies of water (such as the Bitter Lakes).

Some links

You might be interested in this site - it's a blog (very academic and respectable) with lots of links to online resources. Haven't found anything in it about biblical chronology yet :) PiCo (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Which site? Cush (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - [2]. PiCo (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a lot of religiously motivated material. I do not trust religious people when it comes to archaeological and historical accuracy simply because of their obvious conflict of interests. Especially I do not trust Jews, because people who fabricate deities have no trouble fabricating history as well. Jewish records of the Exodus or of the glorious kings and judges are just not sound. I wouldn't trust or even ask the Vatican or Evangelicals about the historicity of Jesus either... Cush (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The site is academic, not religious. "PaleoJudaica.com is an experiment that aims to chronicle and comment on current developments (mainly as recorded in Internet sources) in the academic field of ancient Judaism and its historical and literary context." People with a religious slant would call it atheistic. It's run by Jim Davila, Reader in Early Jewish Studies at St Andrews University, Scotland - quite respectable in terms of his competence to pick what's relevant and interesting in the field. The link I put above is to various sources Davila has found online. His actual blog is here. PiCo (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What in the world distinguishes Jews from Christians, Hindus, etc when it comes to 'fabricating' gods? It's just part of human nature in any case. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Rktect

Although I'm not happy about your comments about me, I thought I'd tell you I've removed some of his material from Moses and Midian and am looking at the articles he created. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So if you are going after the Rktect stuff, please remove the File:Horeb.jpg image, because it is a map altered by himself to advance his position that the Exodus took place at the Gulf of Aqaba (he inserted the Horeb label at the bottom of the image himself).

And what comments? Sometimes I am just not so sure whether you demand adherence to WP rules from everybody in the same manner. Many articles about issues related to the ancient Middle East and subsequently the bible come across like religionist manifestos and are full of OR, e.g. from editors like User:Lisa (wasn't she an admin once?). Adherence to WP rules does not always produce the best results anyways, because the demand for secondary sources does not at all ask for the quality and neutrality of those sources (reliability is not the same as accuracy, Kenneth Kitchen is regarded a reliable Egyptologist but a closer look at his work reveals sloppiness and a clear submission to his christian fundamentalism). And many articles only have jewish or christian encyclopediae in their references section. That is just ridiculous. And I also wonder why you are the only admin around to take care of this whole mess of bible/history-related articles. WP is not religiously neutral, and I have no clue where you stand on that. Cush (talk) 10:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you don't remove the map yourself, why is that? I try to be consistent, I'm sure I fail at times. I believe in WP:RS and the statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." If you can built an argument that Kitchen shouldn't be used in an article that I can support, I gladly will. Don't ask me why other Admins aren't involved in some of the articles I am, I've no idea why that is. I hope you've read WP:Religion because it could be a real problem and you might want to comment on the talk page, although at the moment it seems pretty quiet. I'm not sure what you mean by WP is not religiously neutral, do you mean by policy or? Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I remove an image?

WP:RS fails in producing reliable WP articles. Just because something has been published does not mean it is worth anything. What's more, the source of a publication is essential to its reliability. If an article about the historicity of a biblical figure refers to soures that are published by jewish or christian institutions then the reliability is zero because of the COI that these would be in if they were to produce accurate material. I wouldn't expect the pope to publish anything meaningful about the historicity of Jesus, but nevertheless a book by the current pope on exactly that matter exists and it would be accepted by WP as a reliable source. Does a reliable source not have to be neutral? Equally using Kitchen as a source should be rejected exactly because he is a devout pentecostal evangelical. What I have learned about the Kitched-Rohl enmity is that the chronology by Rohl does in fact open a possibility for the bible to be real history, but it also makes divine involvement superfluous. I think that is the real reason behind Kitchen's disproportionate rejection of Rohl. He reminds me of creationists rejecting evolution. But such considerations cannot reflected in WP articles, because it would amount to OR and personal POV.

WP is not religiously neutral because it allows editors to use non-neutral language in articles. Whenever I try to alter "Chosen People" to "Israelites" or "Promised Land" to "Canaan" I get reverted. I mean, such language can appear in quotations, but certainly not in the text body of the WP article itself, even if the context is clear. There are tons of neutrality violations in WP, and I suppose you know that. It is my impression that due to the large number of religionist editors such charged language is tolerated, although it violates WP:Religion "There is no "default" position".

Oh, and I really see no use in having citations in Hebrew as if this were the Encyclopedia Iudaica. Cush (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Religion has no status right now I believe, a good thing because it would not help. I know there are a lot of neutrality violations, but I can only do what I can.

You can delete the image from the article easily, just as though it was text.

David Rohl considers the Bible to be more or less historical truth even though he's not a Christian, so I'm not sure how much better he is than Kitchen, he's just makes different arguments. I wouldn't make a creationist-evolutionist comparison here. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• So WP:Religion is a guideline, not a rule? I did not say you should remove all the neutrality violations, but I definitely miss a concerted effort of admins to reduce the religious bias in the wording of so many articles.
• No, I mean removing the image, not just the usage in an article.
• Ok, there are two sides to this. Rohl's revision of Egyptian chronology had the effect that the biblical dating suddenly fell in place with the new dates he arrived at for Egypt. So, unlike everybody else in the past 150 years he did not start out with the bible and sought to verify it. He went on from there and tried to inject the info given in the bible into his Egyptian chronology to explain certain peculiarities in Egyptian history. I do notice there is sometimes too much readiness to take a biblical tale seriously. I did in fact realize while reading his books that in some passages he went overboard, which of course reduces the credibility and unfortunately moves Rohl in the Velikovsky direction. Some of these passages are clarified in his later publications, unfortunately not all. The point I am making is that although I do not uncritically accept Rohl I know for sure that the incorporation of the biblical story into the orthodox chronology does just not work, except when one arbitrarily picks and chooses from the bible whatever seems fitting. I like the coherence in Rohl's model which I miss in the others. I do agree, however, that Rohl and others needs to refine the model. But if Rohl is overall wrong, why has he not been shown to be wrong? Where is the evidence-based refutation? If he is wrong, showing so should be easy... Cush (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Religion is just a draft, not even a proposal, and it may never get any further than a draft. I don't see any grounds to delete the image, what grounds would there be? I don't think that the Exodus, etc ever took place, I'm one of those that think the Israelite tribes in the main were indigenous to Canaan and that Judaism developed there during the first millennium. It doesn't appear many people take Rohl seriously enough to try to refute him. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So you follow Finkelstein's reasoning? Cush (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

New Chronology page

Hey Cush. I just wanted to drop by and say that you've acquitted yourself very well in the "battle royal" over the New Chronology (Rohl) page. I particularly like your image, "File:NC Egyptian chronology comparison.png," though I'd like to recommend that you tell us who the "Shaw" of the conventional chronology and what work you got it from. You could put it in the caption or on the image description page. Otherwise, kudos.

TuckerResearch (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the identification of Shaw above. You probably noticed I fixed up the image's page. Also, so you know, I merged David Rohl - geographical theories into the New Chronology (Rohl) article, as I think there was a consensus that the page wasn't notable enough or necessary (see: Talk:David Rohl - geographical theories). TuckerResearch (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Warning about your behavior

moved to User talk:Cush/Warning about your behavior

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush

An RfC on User:Cush's behavior has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cush. -Lisa (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Next time you post something like "Read the fucking Bible" [3] I'll do anything I can to get you blocked. Such language is insulting to the Bible as well as to me personally. If you can not keep a cool head while editig Wikipedia, better you shouldn't edit at all. Debresser (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To you personally I apologize. But there is no way to insult a book. Cush (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Appologies accepted. I am not the person to keep a grudge. What I meant is that one shouldn't use such words about a book that is revered by many as a holy book. Debresser (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yahweh

Cush, if I can tear you away from your exchange with Seeker, I really would like your views on what we can do to reduce the amount of space taken up in Yahweh by huge slabs of quotation, and to re-focus that section more on the nature of Yahweh as depicted in the various books. (And frankly, I don't think that discussion with Seeker is ever going to be fruitful). PiCo (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact I fail to understand what these quotes do to illustrate the character of the biblical deity. There should be descriptive text instead to explain what the quotes imply. Just quoting the bible without giving interpretation by a reliable secondary source is OR and should be tagged with the religious-text-as-primary-source tag. CUSH 02:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd be grateful if you'd put that on the Yahweh talk-page. PiCo (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

POV Yahweh Vocalization Side-note

Hello Cush. Just replied to your latest reply to me in the Talk:Yahweh page, and I wanted to add a personal side-note to that. I don't think we actually disagree on what I was saying, I may just not be explaining my thought clearly enough. I have generally noted that you and PiCo are — for the most part — on the same page as I am on cleaning up the Y article.

Now that we have finally removed the behemoth sections about the vocalization that use to be in the article, I want to be vigilant about making sure all that does not creep back in. That discussion should, instead, go to the Tetra"n article, and that any discussion about the vocalization that remains within the Y article be kept to a absolute minimum (only present where really necessary, not going into much detail about it) and that it be neutral about that discussion (if people want to know more about it, they can go to the Tetra"n article for it).

That's a basic summary, and I get the feeling that you agree with these thoughts. — al-Shimoni (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Genesis talkpage

Really, no hard feelings. I find it much more difficult to work with people when they think I find their most heartfelt beliefs childish and distasteful, so I try to distance myself from such arguments. The worst thing you can do in an argument with a fundamentalist is drop to their level of argumentation. Try soundly refuting it instead. If they don't listen, you can walk away and still win (presuming there are witnesses ;D) --King Öomie 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have given up having arguments with religionists. I have no more intentions to somehow get them back into reality. But I will not let their charged terminology be spread in WP. The Genesis creation story is a myth, just as everything else in Genesis. There is no historical or archaeological basis for it whatsoever. So "account" is a misnomer. CUSH 15:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, that's why I continue to argue and debate on the page (and so far the page reflects that). I'm saying your method of argumentation is counterproductive. If a civil, non-snarky argument can't be made, I'm asking you as a fellow secularist to leave it alone. --King Öomie 15:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, we'll have a hard time proceeding if the people in favor of 'account' don't acquiesce. The last thing I want to do is piss them off, which might make them hunker down and stick to their guns for ANOTHER week, regurgitating the same arguments. --King Öomie 15:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you are somehow afraid of the sheeple. CUSH 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I cannot physically stop them from being obstructionistic towards changes. It's outside of my power. So I avoid incentivising that behavior. It's hardly fear.

I place Wikipedia policy before my own convictions here. Which means I stand firmly behind Wikipedia's non-judgemental nature (within the constraints of WP:DUE). Which means no edits like this. --King Öomie 20:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If you just stick to what you have reliable sources for, you are safe. Because the religionists never have reliable sources. You don't have to be judgmental. CUSH 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

When you're talking about religion, a law adage comes into play- "For every PhD, there is an equal but opposite PhD". No matter how good your source is, someone with sufficiently advanced google-fu will be able to find someone just as qualified saying the exact opposite. Just look at templeknight taking a source Gabbe provided and using the NEXT PARAGRAPH from the cited text to 'disprove' the point that the previous section made.

And to what I said before, you talking about the inherent lack of truth in the bible directly gave TK an argument, which I'm sure we'll be seeing again. Argue from the sources- about the term Creation Myth. This entire argument stems from people not knowing, or not caring, what the definition of the term is. They're 'under attack', and your style of argumentation vindicates their suspicions and amps them up. The factual veracity of the text it refers to is entirely irrelevant to the discussion- and is detrimental to the argument at hand. If you want to debate people on religion itself, Wikipedia probably isn't the place. --King Öomie 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

But the issue is not religion as such, but whether or not we treat different religions differently. I see absolutely no reason to give Judaism/Christianity/Islam any preference over other contemporary or extinct religions. If we use the designation "myth" for the Greek, Egyptian, Mesopotamian creation stories, we must apply the same terminology to the creation story of Judaism and its offshoots. And we cannot let someone present the biblical creation story as factual (by calling it an "account") without evidence. I am of course aware that there is no such evidence. CUSH 17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Genesis creation myth. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean 2nd warning? I haven't edited anything since your first message.

And as for the content: Wikipedia is not a platform for creationist nonsense, which you obviously seek to introduce. Saying that the Genesis creation narrative is as scientifically sound as the Big Bang Theory then you have disqualified yourself from taking part in the article discussion. CUSH 17:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

3rd warning

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here: User talk:Cush. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please false acusations, do nothing to help. Saying that i am disqualified to take part in a conversation does not help, i consider it a personal attackWeaponbb7 (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

are you an admin?

does it matter Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

yes. ordinary users don't deal out warnings. CUSH 17:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true, you do not have to be admin to hand out warning, I do not have the power to block you. But handing out warnings is permitted.Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Normal users can warn, yes, but none of these are actually valid. 'Personal attack' means 'personal attack', not 'generally insulting attitude towards a point of view I ascribe to'. If he calls you an idiot, sure, personal attack. But when he says "your position is backed by a profoundly hilarious lack of evidence", you may be insulted, but he's done nothing wrong. --King Öomie 17:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Personal attacks it is Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You only feel personally attacked because I caught you lying and told you that your position is invalid. However, claiming that Genesis has the same standing as a scientific theory is an attack on the intellectual integrity of everyone who has made it past high school (or the non-US equivalent). Such a position is only held by people who put faith over fact. But that is not encyclopedic. CUSH 18:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cush, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for or against theism or any other ism. I think that on an objective level you and I agree about geologic history -- and we also agree on the use of title in the Genesis creation article. But my motivation is ease of navigation for Wikipedia readers and neutral editing. Calling the position of another editor laughable and beneath the intellectual integrity of everyone who has made it past high school is neither neutral nor civil. Please refrain from insulting the positions or theoretical motivations of other editors. Wikipedia isn't here to prove or disprove God. It is here to present information about historically notable positions in their native context in terms most accessible to a reader with no specialized background in the subject matter -- and THAT'S ALL. Wikipedia is much more humble in design than you are trying to make it.EGMichaels (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that I am an annoyance to all the editors of faith. But that is only because I keep asking them for evidence and reliable sources, but they cannot come up with any. I am a strictly rational person and I do not accept supernatural explanations for anything. And as long as nobody can show evidence for the supernatural, there is no reason to change that position. The assumption that the Bible is true has been refuted so many times and so thoroughly that it is simply unacceptable that the same old claims are repeated on Wikipedia over and over again. The Bible is evidently wrong when it comes to most of its depictions of ancient history. There is no reason to accept biblical claims as equally sound as the result as archaeological and historical research. However, editors of faith constantly seek to introduce some weird fairness argument so that religious positions should be presented alongside scientific findings. That is surely not what Wikipedia is about, especially when there are no reliable sources for these religious positions whatsoever. Wikipedia is not here to lie its readers in their faces. CUSH 19:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Cush, Wikipedia does not determine or enforce truth. Wikipedia merely reports all the historically notable positions. It is notable that the Bible records a six day creation, not because it took six days, but because this is a historically notable view. Ever heard the expression, "consider the source"? Well, we list the sources, and the reader considers them. But the ONLY thing we consider is whether those sources are notable. "Notable" can be from widespread use, popularity, historical debates, or scholastic backing from peer reviewed non-theistic sources. You are trying to obliterate all but the last, and that's the problem here. The very people you are railing against are precisely the people you need to collaboratively edit here. You can't collaborate if you obliterate.EGMichaels (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the title, but about the veracity of Genesis as a description of the world's origin. And you know that. The only reason why some of the editors reject the word "myth" is because they will not accept its implied meaning of falsehood. But there is no reason to have other articles titles "X creation myth" but to treat biblical stuff differently only because the editors of the English WP adhere to certain religions. That is intolerable, no matter how notable the belief is.

And there is another thing also: religious editors are in a COI when it comes to editing articles about issues of their faith. It is unlikely that a religious editor will ever write anything that may endanger his/her positions of faith, becasue it would mean that they invalidate themselves and their real-life weltanschauung. CUSH 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)