User talk:Ian.thomson

^{Hi, I did not misspell my own name, there's just not a P anywhere in there!}

Wikipedia does not care about you or me being qualified scholars. Wikipedia is not a scholarly site, but a summary of sources that speak for themselves. We all have the right to edit, but there are rules to make sure that proper sources are used for appropriate articles and editors are civil.

If I'm not responding, that's probably because

It is approximately 10:25 AM where this user lives (South Carolina). []

and I may be asleep, in classes, or I totally may just not care enough to bother. If it's before 8 AM or after 11 pm, you will definitely want me to respond.

If you want to:

say that I should become an admin, leave a message here.	accuse me of a Christian bias, read this.	accuse Wikipedia's policies or me of an anti-Christian bias, read this.
leave a conversational or non-serious message (wazzup, barnstar, hate mail), go here.	leave me a serious message (about article improvement), click here.	see my contributions, go here.

New stuff goes at the bottom, people. Also, please sign your posts in talk pages with four tildes (~~~~).

Clean up, everything is in the page history. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Message

i did not post yesterday...that was not me. jamiejojesus 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)jamiejojesusjamiejojesus 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC) and just for you information just because most christians or other yahoos do not consider jesus a seperate entity or even if he existed at all is not a valid source more than mine, which happens to be gnosis, experience, genetic memories. i, like your self, am not here to justify myself. i am just saying that the sources excerpted from questionable books such as the bible,written by very qeustionable men with most often nefarious,evil political agendas are not neccessarily the TRUTH and mine may very well be. and i am never rude, but please stop being condesending to me. Thank you ian. love and peacejamiejojesus!~jamiejojesusjamiejojesus 07:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC) a road less traveled has never been an easy way for those who make remarkable changes for this world. alright...ian thomson...if you will go to wiki thomas didymus judas and see that they each mean twin...as in twin brother to jesus. and since he was his twin he could of easily looked like him and well...and i beg to differ...i believe it would b e to wikis best interest to have qualified scholars...but speak for yourself...love you...mean it! the name ISjamiejojesus 07:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)jamiejojesusjamiejojesus

When did I say that you posted yesterday? Do you realize that messages I leave, say, a month ago, are saved on your talk page for the next time you log in, right? At any rate, I haven't contacted you in several months. I have contacted several IP addresses, and overly protesting readily gives the impression that you did something while logged out that required my attention.

You're still expecting there to be a picture of a peasant from before the invention of photography? Paintings and sculptures require a lot of effort and money, which is why you typically only find such portraits of rich people. Jesus wasn't rich, ergo, it's unreasonable to expect a period picture of Jesus.

Ok, wait, you say you're not here to justify yourself, but then go on to say that your "truth" might be "the" truth? Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth. At any rate, Wikipedia is not concerned with personal "truths," it simply reprints what the sources say. The mainstream Biblical sources are the closest to the period in question, and though later officials used them to their own political ends, scholars generally accept that the early church documents were written in earnest (even if there are mortal errors). We also don't use those source sdirectly, but interpretations of scholars who have studied for decades the historical, linguistic, and archaeological contexts of the works. This site is not a forum, nor a place for original research or ideas, but a place that neutally summarizes reliable sources. "Truth" has nothing to do with it.

As for the whole twin issue, the idea that Thomas was Jesus's twin doesn't appear in any text until over a century after the mainstream Biblical texts (which don't say who Thomas was twin to). The first text that does mention Thomas as a twin to Jesus (Jesus actually a pretty common name of the time), contradicts earlier sources and all sources not influenced by it, which do not mention Jesus having a twin. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you start a discussion page anyway? Regarding the Lilith article, how does one reach consensus on such an issue as whether the Collier painting is better than the Rossetti painting for this article on terms of merit?Nanib (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Never mind actually. I literally just realized that each page has a readily accessible talk page attached to it.Nanib (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

NNU Class Project - Winter 2012

Please consider adding your name at: Wikipedia:School and university projects/NNU Class Project/Winter 2012

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Lilith

Your claim in the caption is just plain wrong. According to Burney Relief, "Frankfort himself based his interpretation of the deity as the demon Lilith on the presence of wings, the birds' feet and the representation of owls." The identification was not solely based on the translation, and the line in the article that claimed that it was and had therefore been invalidated was not properly supported by citation, but rather only a direct citation to a translation of Isaiah. Please remove the misleading claim from the caption. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the next line: "He cites the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh as a source that such "creatures are inhabitants of the land of the dead"

Also, "Gadd, the original translator, writes: "ardat lili (kisikil-lil) is never associated with owls in Babylonian mythology"." My point about the misreading still stands. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And my point that the identification was made for several reasons, not just the owl imagery, also stands. Invalidating one of several reasons for an identification in no way implies that the identification has been disproven. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Yworo's case above doesn't explain Sundays or todays deletions on Talk:Burney Relief. I'm all in favour of giving the full case for the 1936 identification with Lilith. But it needs to be balanced with more up to date sources.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, what does representation mean? We know for a fact the religious iconography can change in a single generation. And Ishtar is also Astarte and Ashara and Aphrodite.

As regards my interests, can just any idiot be cited simply because he/she/it has a website and no one can point out the webmaster has no clothes? or simply ignore the idiot? Pardon but I have seen more than a few "authoritative" citations on religious matters that are nothing more than some anonymous and occassionally disreputable website.

If the entire point of your wiki domain is to cite only material that google can deliver what is the point of trying to do better than the google search algorithms? Seriously. You folks accept anything that google can find and make it a requirement that google can find it.

If this is all there is then it is a waste of time on earth. TWIIWT (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Another message from someone who doesn't know what a "bottom" is

Your claim that an "increasing number" of people believe that the Secret Gospel is a forgery is simply false, and you cite no evidence for it. Scott Brown and others have demonstrated the deep improbability of this point of view. You have debased Wikipedia by removing my post. I shall not bother with this pathetic entry any further. But you are dishonest and should recognize the fact. Timon1902. Timon1902 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you try looking at the references cited by the article? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me the formal process?

I want to drop officially in Spanish Wikipedia. How is it the formal process? How can I officially sign off and I erase all my data? Sonia Murillo Perales (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Upanishads

Simply have qouated out the of the book, please refer to the book refered , or please talk in the talk page before undoing anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrikanthv (talk • contribs) 13:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It is totally unacceptable to re-label Textual criticism as "misunderstanding" and replace scholarly materials with your own interpretations of the original work using incomplete citations, please see WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Shramana article

Guy adding all sorts of Shaman stuff to Shramana article in the "Etymology and Origin" section. Can you do something about it?SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The guy is going nuts. Now he created an entire new section. SaibAbaVenkatesh (talk) 17:_

56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Another message from someone who does not know what the word "bottom" means

Why am I being reprimanded for correcting an image? Someone keeps posting an incorrect image and I am being told that I am vandalizing!! Since when was Wikipedia based on false information??? Why do you not stop the person that is doing wrong instead of punishing the person that is doing right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.209.214.231 (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding on IP's talk. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable source for the use of Philistine

What is the remark about changing Philistine to Palestinian without a reliable source? There is NO reliable source for the existence of any Philistines. The sole mention of them is found in the Septuagint. They are not found in archaeology. What has been found by archaeology is given the name Philistine solely because of the Septuagint and for no other reason. Other entries in Wikipedia on this same subject say explicitely that there was no single culture or people which would have considered themselves to "ALL" be Philistines. The only credible substitute for the use of Philistine which has no reliable source is Palestinian which does have a credible source in Herodotus. Now I do not have a problem with being challenged to produce reliable sources. I do have a question as to why a book of magic and miracles that first appears in history in the mid 2nd c. BCE in Greek is considered reliable for the use of Philistine. Please tell me how a creation centuries after events is considered reliable in any sense. Even if you believe there was an earlier "hebrew" version because of the forgery of Aristeas, which is contradicted by the DSS, currently popular opinion is that it was written post exile and thus without historical records (destroyed along with the temple) how that could be considered in any manner reliable. For the record, the same thing goes for the mythical Canaanites and Canaan. They appear first and only in the Septuagint. Again, articles on the subject agree the people living there did not call themselves that and had no cause to call themselves that or to feel any loyalty to anyone else in the region. In both cases I did nothing which contradicts more explicite posts. Calling the locals either Philistines or Canaanites is like identifying Etruscans and Romans and all the rest in 5th c. BCE on the peninsula Italians. It is absurd. It is contraindicated by all the evidence.

TWIIWT (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you did not read the guidelines I linked and summarized for you... Ian.thomson (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw nothing applicable. Perhaps you could recite exactly which, singular, guideline you are talking about.TWIIWT (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"We do not publish original thought nor original research." Also, I linked to what this site considers reliable sources. You'll find that the article does not use primary sources but secondary sources by trained academics who specialize in such matters. What editors "know" does not matter at all on this site. This site just summarizes other books on the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that neither the Philistines nor the Canaanites exist only in mythology does not constitute original research or thought. It is observation. Nor does this change the fact that there is no reliable source for the existence of either Philistines or Canaanites. Observations are observations. Is not simply observing no credible source is provided for their existence and then providing a sourced subsitution, in this case Herodotus, sufficient? Why do you not consider Herodotus a credible citation? TWIIWT (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Observations such as yours do in fact constitute original research as we define it. And Herodotus can't be used to claim there is no credible source for anything - we'd obviously need a modern source for that. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I am new to this. I just came across contrary to fact, religion based claims and attempted to correct them in light of the available evidence. Why is a modern source needed to say Herodotus said what he said? Why is a modern source quoting Herodotus preferable to Herodotus himself? How a modern source quoting him differ from quoting him?

But if that is the way it is, what constistutes a derivative source? I will have to research it but I believe Livy mentions Herodotus saying it. Is that derivative enough? Must I have a modern source quoting Livy quoting Herodotus? How modern is modern?

But I repeat, there is no citation for the existence of the Philistines nor of the Canaanites. Why do these entries exist in the first place? May I create an article on alien abduction quoting the Hills or must I quote a person who quoted the Hills? And why would such an article stand without refutation for the absence of a source proclaiming a negative?

But if there is a problem with my methodology, what is the approved method of calling attention to related material for which there is no citation such as the existence of the Philistines? (Thought to be is not existence of.) I'll play it any way the rules require. I have come across some articles where a comment that an item is unsourced could be inserted several times in every sentence. I mean real sentences not the run-on sentences which appear to be preferred.

Seriously, how is a simple declarative sentence found by reading the footnote of a derivative source trumped by that derivative source writing to the contrary? What is the point of footnotes? Since when do footnotes not constitute the material of the derivative source?

Let me also add the assertion that "we're not here to promote any ideology" should, prima facia, exclude any acceptance of the bible in any from including a derivative acceptance which studiously avoids admitting its only basis is the bible. If any person including a cited person who happens to have a website or friendly publisher DOES NOT produce a source completely independent of the bible also excluding sources which pretend not to use the bible why would anyone permit such a citation? If we "do not judge" then let me work on my alien abduction article.

TWIIWT (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be frustrating, but our encyclopedia is built upon reliable sources. And sticking to the Canaanites, there are many reliable sources that say they exist. Some of these, for instance, argue that there was no Exodus and that the people we know as the Israelites were originally Canaanites, and I'm sure we've used those sources. We shouldn't and generally don't accept the Bible as factual history. If you have sources saying there were no Canaanites, take them to our article on the Canaanites and discuss them there. Not here. Dougweller (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the time to click through every reasonable link I can find and what you are sure of I cannot find. The closest to describing "them" is of separate settlements without political or social cohesion not having even a common language thus not being a group with a single name. It shows quite clearly use of the bible name is misleading. The change I made reflected this description. That change has been reverted to the original which carries the biblical implication which is contrary to fact.

By extension when it comes to sources which do consider the bible history how can they be considered acceptable?

If it is true you do not consider the bible history then should not everything which is found only in the bible be eliminated as without credible source? Any "authority" which speaks only of things which are only mentioned in the bible cannot possibly be a credible authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 04:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC) TWIIWT (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. It has nothing to do with what you, I, or any other user considers a source. Peer-reviewed sources, sources from university press, etc, items which meet the reliable sourcing guidelines linked here once again, those are the standard. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The would exclude essentially all the citations of Dever as they are from his non-peer reviewed publications, largely in his own, for-profit magazine. I agree with excluding him. He interprets finds in light of the bible. That was discredited over a century ago. I would also suggest excluding even professional citations when they are from inappropriate sources. There are many citations published by divinity colleges, particulary Oxford's. TWIIWT (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to argue against Wiki rules

What is going on here? I made a joke of an Alien Abduction article but unless I missed how to search for it there is no such article here. Yet implying the bible has validity is no different from alien abduction. I will have to research it but I think I have read data showing belief in both the literal bible and literal abduction are about the same fraction of the population.

Rejection is not an ideology. An assumption that a book of magic and miracles and a sky god intervention is an ideology. Suggesting we can take away the magic and find real history is no different from suggesting that can be done from the Epic of Gilgamesh or The Wizard of Oz to discover what Dorethy really did. Rejection of believer sources is no different from rejecting believers in bible sources.

Believers may not be idiots but their material belongs on the same library shelf with Odin and Zeus and Gilgamesh, not on the history shelf. What is a credible source whose material belongs on the Odin shelf?

Archaeology is a science. Nothing from the archaeology of modern Israel supports a narrative anything like that found in the bible. Science rules. The bible belongs on the Odin shelf. Science demands it.

Now if I were talking about the science of physics or the science of chemistry this discussion would not occur. But for some reason the science of archaeology appears to be trumped by the alchemical equivalent of the bible. This is not reasonable.

TWIIWT (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the Bible being cited at Philistines#References. I'm see secondary sources instead of original research, I'm seeing sources by archaeologists and historians who have studied the collected knowledge of their field for decades to be able to sort through the various primary sources and compared them with archaeological sites and other primary sources. They are not just taking the Bible, repeating its contents, and calling it a day. They found historical and archaeological material which happens to match some of the stuff in the Bible, and being neutral, they didn't just wholesale reject the idea that people before the modern era could have maybe included a bit of history with their myths. Those secondary sources do not arrive at your personal conclusions which you arrived at from your original research of the primary sources. Wikipedia uses secondary sources to prevent original research. If you have any sources which do not go along with the mainstream, they're going to be handled by the guideline WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As the name Phlistines are found no place but the bible and that is a fact how is a possible for any source to use that name without having the bible as a source? All I did was change that to the name used by Herodotus, Palestinian, which is the oldest source naming the people living in Palestine. If sources have chosen to use Philistine then they have discredited themselves by using the bible.

I have no idea what you think archaeologists have found but I can assure you nothing has been found which supports any material part of the bible stories. They have found material showing it is fiction on the order of Atlantis. Similarly it has been well established for decades that there are only a few trivial historical mentions which coincide with bible stories but which in no way confirm the bible stories. These points are not in question. That someone has found a believer to write otherwise does not change the known facts.

What you continue to call me research is simply reading the material. Never in my life have I come across the assertion that mere reading constitutes research. I corrected the entry on the Maccabe revolt based upon simply reading the writing of Josephus the historian. That was changed back to a story which has no citation of source. Why? Nor is it credible to claim reading what Josephus wrote to be my personal conclusion. Clearly both are nonsense. Reading is neither research nor a personal conclusion.

I have to conclude this group lacks impartiality by declaring the histories of Josephus to be fringe when there is no source contradicting him.

Is is possible to redeem this group which guard ahistorical, ascientific, contrary to known fact entries as though they were credible? TWIIWT (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You "simply reading the material" includes conclusions not directly in the material, and material for which no sources were provided. Wikipedia also has no way of verifying any user's education, which is why we don't care about editor's own conclusions. Your understanding of the material peer-reviewed. If you want your conclusions to be presented here, submit an article to a peer-reviewed historical journal or a book to a university press, get published, and cite the published material here. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply reading Josephus says putting Greek gods in the temple was a consequence of losing the revolt against Seleucid rule not the cause of the revolt. Simply reading it says the revolt was a sedition against Seleucid rule in favor of Ptolemyic rule. Neither is a conclusion. Both are plain statements of fact. TWIIWT (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

To repeat

What is the accepted process for marking material as not having a credible source? TWIIWT (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There are some templates, but given how zealous you are in this (was it really necessary to repeat the request, especially only after two minutes?), I'm questioning the wisdom of telling you where they are. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of the accuracy of Wikipedia entries one would expect zealousness would be a desirable trait. Is that not the objective? Is this one of those infamous Wikipedia claims do not exist? For the record, a repetition is so it cannot be ignored. Refusal to assist in correcting errors is now on record. TWIIWT (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)