User talk:FimusTauri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

It is easier to follow discussions if they are kept in one place.
Messages posted here will be replied to here. If I message you, I will watch your page for a response.

Please note that 'real-world' issues are restricting my time on Wikipedia for a short while.
I hope to be back soon

Hebrew Old Testament[edit]

Whoops! I hang my head in shame! PiCo (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh! Easy mistake to make.--FimusTauri (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Myth and Creation[edit]

Came across an interesting article in the RBL last night saying that the author(s) of Genesis 1-11 believed they were writing science - the point being that the category "myth" is inapplicable. I believe this myself - Gen.1-11 shows signs of being very carefully crafted, a wholly literary work without any oral antecedents. Myth should surely be based on an oral transmission. Anyway, it's all really quite interesting, and perhaps we should add a section on "genre", or at least add something to the Composition section. PiCo (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

You know how much I have opposed using "myth". However, I do feel that when the word is tied into a phrase, it becomes appropriate to use the phrase, with the important caveat that the article linked to by that phrase give a full and accurate definition of the phrase. In this way, the word myth can be used, without having to worry about the definition of the word on its own. In the case of early Genesis, I believe that the phrase Creation myth is applicable, but that it is completely inappropriate to simply call it a myth. We could also use the term Etiological myth, which would almost force the reader to go and look up the term, thus removing all ambiguity.--FimusTauri (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I wonder how relevent this is - or this.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The two are fascinating. They conflict, of course, and I'd take the one from the Gallup website - not only closer to the source, but more recent and more detailed. As for relevance, I don't know - there's a lot more to Genesis 1-2 than the creation of man. Yet I can see a place for it in the relevant section of the article, where it discusses the Creationist viewpoint, and that viewpoint is worthy of its own section or subsection IMO. Incidentally, I've seen figures for similar belief in the UK - much lower - and Europe - lower again. Creationism is very much an American phenomenon. I'm Australian, and have just been visiting Southeast Queensland - I was amazed at the huge barn-like places of worship there, belonging to evangelical churches (I assume). I think these are a fairly recent phenomenon, and are found in areas which have seen massive recent growth - Southeast Queensland, western Sydney. The people who now live in these places are essentially rootless - no family within thousands of miles, no froends. The evangelical churches provide community. I think (my guess) that that's why they're so popular. And I guess the same applies in the US, another country of massive distances and massive internal migration. The UK and Europe have nothing comparable, hence the lower figures for evangelical-linked beliefs (i.e., creationism). But that's purely amateur sociology on my part of course. PiCo (talk)

Just to let you know that there's currently an opportunity to comment on the issue of these terminologies on .

I'd also appreciate any additional comments on some facebook groups that I have created on the issue (they're listed on my talk page). I'd like to find constructive ways forward.

cheers Gregkaye (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


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)

A quick glance tells me it needs a lot of work. Not sure how much time I will have, but I will see what I can do.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. My changes at Solomon to make the chronology section more encyclopedic were quickly reverted. And my talk page had a reaction from that also. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Done what I can (in a bit of a hurry). The simple fact is that there really isn't a lot of info on Rehoboam. The Bible only really lists three or four events (albeit in some detail) and there is little or no empirical evidence of his life. Regarding the chronology, I have no problem with mentioning Thiele's work (or any corroborating evidence), but to ramble on with it in such great detail is clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE. The place for that detail is on the Thiele article.--FimusTauri (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Have you seen Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Content dispute resolution? Peter jackson (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Phatius McBluff/Christian mythology[edit]

Greetings. A while back, both of us were involved in efforts to rework the Christian mythology article. You may be interested in a project that I've started. I have come to the conclusion that Christian mythology is in pretty bad shape quite appart from the controversy surrounding the term "myth". I'm currently working on drafting a re-write for the article. The project can be found here: User:Phatius McBluff/Christian mythology. (Note: Due to my schedule, my own involvement in this project is likely to be erratic.)

P.S.: The guiding principles that I have drawn up for the project are actually a bit more stringent than the restrictions that you have suggested for the Christian mythology article, but I think that's okay. The point of my project is not to legislate any kind of policy for the "real" Christian mythology article. Rather, the project is simply an experiment to see how good of an article I can draft while working under the most stringent requirements; the resulting draft can then be proposed as a replacement for the current version. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)