User talk:FDuffy/805to706

Re: Documentary hypothesis

Kudos on your recent edits; the inclusion of the Wikisource stuff is wonderful. Thanks; good work. KHM03 23:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Schadenfraude

It looks like you didn't notice that we already have an article on Schadenfreude (which is the usual spelling of the word). I've replaced your stub with a redirect to the existing article - if you think your version could beneficially be merged into it, you can of course still access it with this link. Haeleth 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you, I did think it odd that you didn't already have an article.

Please see the comments about your changes to 613 mitzvot --jnothman ^talk 12:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ritual decalogue

The article

I'm glad to finally see someone improving my article!

A couple points:

I seriously doubt people are going to let 'Ten Commandments' stand as a disambig page. This has been debated numerous times; and, after all, 99% of people don't know that anything other than the ethical decalogue even exists, so it's the ethical decalogue they'll be looking for when they type in 'ten commandments'. (Personally I think that's all the more reason for a disambig page, but I understand the other POV.)

Did you get the sympathetic magic explanantion of "don't cook a goat in its mother's milk" from an old version of mine, or from your own sources? I'd had that in there, but people insisted I remove it unless I could provide references, which at that point I couldn't. I thought that was reasonable.

I've seen references both to it being a Babylonian ritual and to it being a more primative belief about avoiding a curse. When I prepared some notes to put the article together I accidentally skipped the second half of the paragraph while I was writing the article. It's 1am here, so I'm not too keen on searching for a reference right now, but I'll look one up later.

It's now 1pm. The references are

• Babylonian ritual:(of many) Robert Gordon, Ras Shamra tablets, Ugarit
• East african "sympathetic magic":(of many) David Felder, professor of African philosophy (who performs several comparisons between the torah commandments and African beliefs. His academic work on the connection is respected to the extent that it is hosted at Harvard's Biblical Studies centre.
• Humane welfare of the mother (i.e. not any magical effect, just the mother getting depressed/upset/in shock, etc.): Richard Hiers of the University of Florida

--francis 12:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't think you mentioned it, but "don't leave the sacrifice till morning" is widely thought to be a later addition, perhaps because of the use of the word Passover. If true, one of the other commandments would need to be split up to make ten.

I did see it, but not in anything reputable enough, so I thought it best to leave it for the time being. --francis 23:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I can't see any mention of it being a potential later edition in any of the bibles annotated with critical scholarship concerning the orignality of portions of the text.

The use of the word "Passover" when "Feast of unleavened bread" is used in the earlier passage can simply be explained by the fact that, according to critical scholarship, the feast of the Passover, and that of Unleavened bread, were originally two seperate festivals (held one day apart). Therefore there is no reason to assume that the word implies a different origin for that portion of the text (i.e. there is no reason to assume that the use of the word "Passover" implies that that portion is a later addition).

"Passover" is in fact the translation of a Hebrew word meaning simply "skipping"; this is usually understood in the sense of "Yahweh skipping the Jewish homes", i.e. "passing over", but it is equally able to mean skipping as in "skipping about; hopping; prancing", the action of spring lambs, one of which is sacrificed on the feast. --francis 12:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Shalom, kwami 23:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The move

Hi Francis, I am more than just slightly unhappy with the way you've handled Ten Commandments. I am fully aware of your interest in the documentary hypothesis, and as I've stated on Talk:613 mitzvot I am not opposed to its mention in Wikipedia articles. I do however firmly disagree with the fact that you've turned Ten Commandments into a disambiguation page. This is the equivalent of turning Berlin into a disambig simply because you're a fan of the band.

The vast majority of the world, when asked what the "Ten Commandments" are, will refer to the lists in Ex 20 and Deut 5. The fact that Goethe and the DH adepts think there's another, older set is of academic interest only. This is not the slightest excuse for insisting on equivalence between the two.

I have undone the move, merged the edit histories, and hope we can discuss this on Talk:Ten Commandments. I have, however, requested an RFC on this from the community. This is a volatile article, and any grand moves like the one you've performed should be discussed extensively in advance and consensus should be sought in every possible way. JFW | T@lk 12:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you on several counts.

• I am not excessively interested in the documentary hypothesis. What I am interested in is academic scholarship, of which there is quite a lot, missing from wikipedia, but present even in things as apologetic, and old, as the Jewish Encyclopedia.
• To consider academic scholarship as less worthy than pop theology will only result in a worthless encyclopedia containing knowledge that the masses already know.
• The vast majority of the world have never even heard of the Ten Commandments. Something close to a borderline majority haven't even heard of the bible.
• The large majority of academics in the field of biblical-studies/theology/etc. support the documentary hypothesis. The ratio of support to oppose is more than 9:1. Not including it in a significant way is like not including refraction, in a significant way, in an article about rainbows, choosing to discount it because the vast majority of the world won't even have heard of it.
• The bible itself only ever mentions the phrase "ten commandments" at Exodus 34. If you believe in the literal truth of the bible, it clearly points out Exodus 34 as "the ten commandments", not Exodus 20.
• Rather than being equivalent to pointing Berlin to a rock band article, it is more like pointing berlin to a disambiguation page, with two sections, one summarising berlin the city, pointing to something like Berlin, City as the main article, and one summarising Berlin, Rock (or whatever its called).
• Pointing Atlantis to an article about a space station on a planet created by an advanced stage of human-related life, in defence against a menacing half-alien breed, in a fictional television show, simply because that may be what the vast majority of the american viewing public believe it to be, despite the vast majority of Academics believing it to be something quite different, is simply stupid.
• The subjects of the Ritual and Ethical Decalogues are extremely closely and intimately related, unlike Berlin the city and Berlin the rock band.

I will be responding on Talk:Ten Commandments. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the invite to participate in the project. KHM03 18:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia name using the four "tildes" ?

Hello Duffy: Here's a simple question for you: Why are you not following Wikipedia procedure by signing your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ that automatically produces your User ID, date and time of your comment/s? It's a little frustrating (and very archaic of you) to end your comments thusly "--Francis" in all sorts of odd places on a talk page so that one is not quite sure where to look for the end of your comments and where the person responding to you then begins/follows and wishes to respond to your posted comments. Help make life easier for the rest of us. IZAK 10:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• P.S. It is also makes it suspicious that more than one person is utilizing your "ID" to make the comments, which just adds to the confusion of things around here, when four little ~~~~ will do the job just fine to keep things nice and clarified by who is saying what and where! IZAK 10:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It goes a bit wierd if I put four. Will three do? --Francis --Francis 12:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

---

something wierd happened putting The Hokkaido Crow just there

Have a look at your preferences. You need to unclick "Raw signatures" for your username to display as Francis. This may solve your problem. JFW | T@lk 23:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Biblical scientific foresight - your recent edits

I notice you have made some edits to biblical scientific foresight. Previously this article was overwhelmingly biased toward a pro-evangelical POV, which I neutralized to some degree. I do not think the POV should swing too far in the other direction. There are 2 very conspicuous sections that are entirely devoted to the various objections, so please consider expanding your objections in that space. Also, consider that in an encyclopedic article, not every single viewpoint needs to be rebutted. If we are documenting something as "some people believe..." then it is not appropriate to dwell upon why we think they're wrong. The Hokkaido Crow 22:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Something weird happened when I signed the above comment, it appears to have corrupted the previous comment section. I don't think I'm within rights to tinker with your talk page so I just wanted to mention it. I wont' sign this one and maybe it will avoid the problem. tilde tilde tilde tilde (The Hokkaido Crow)

In an encyclopedia article, making PRO a large section constituting most of the article, and ANTI a small section toward the end, completely defeats the point of NPOV. Even keeping them seperately defeats the point because you are effectively saying that, should the article get so large that it is split in two, the usual manner of which, I guess would be to put sections in seperate pages, the "Us" section goes on a completely seperate page to the "Them" section. This would leave both pages completely biased, and totally polarised. The PRO and ANTI sections need to be merged together. --Francis. (Something seems to go wrong when I use tildes). 22:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is not significantly "pro"-anything. It simply describes a belief that is held by some people, without taking a stand on whether this belief is true. In this light, the amount of debunking in the article is somewhat generous to the "anti" side. Think of articles describing animism, or christianity, etc. They do not contain point-for-point rebuttals. Please remember that in Wikipedia, we do not re-enact the debate. I just spent a month removing pro-religious debate from the article, I don't want to spend another month removing anti-religious debate. Please consider seeing it this way and observe the article talk page for recent history of disputes. (The Hokkaido Crow)

While describing a belief of a group of people is indeed the purpose of the article, describing the belief neutrally requires that you describe the comments, commentaries, and counterarguments, that others have made concerning that belief. Where that is a particularly large subject it requires a seperate article, or more, such as criticism of Islam, or Jewish terrorism. This subject though is not that large, and such criticisms, counterarguments, and so forth, should be contained in the article itself. Allowing a claim to be made, without presenting a counterclaim, is simply equivalent to going well this is true though, which in many of the cases on this subject is most certainly not the opinion of the majority of the world, least of all africans living around lions. Personally, I wouldn't spend a month removing anything, just making sure it was reworded so that it was balanced, and not overly verbose. --Francis 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

But this article, as stands, is not "allowing a claim to be made". It merely states that people believe these things, without claiming that these things are true. And the article certainly does already contain the dissenting case, in fairly direct and comprehensive form. I don't object to that, just the point-by-point rebuttal (as I opposed the point-by-point proofs in support of BSF). I see the article about Santa Claus being a good comparison to BSF. No factual assertions made, thus no need to debate the existence of the figure. My concern is that you are adding edits that are not really necessary and could resurrect the recent the edit contention (not from me but from rabid BSF fans). There's no need. Please consider not injecting debate into the article. (The Hokkaido Crow)

The problem is that, unlike Santa Claus, the article on biblical scientific foresight is about "factual assertions", and therefore requires discussion of the debate about them in the article. --User talk:FDuffy 09:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have said several times, the article does contain dissenting viewpoints, and in fact the record shows quite clearly that I personally added or improved many of them in this article. Clearly I welcome the inclusion of dissent and frankly I don't understand why you continue making pretense to the contrary. My concern is that the article needs to document a highly debatable belief, including the dissent, without turning into a re-enactment of that debate. Truly this is a subtle distinction but I believe this is an important part of creating encyclopedic-quality articles in Wikipedia, and I urge you to think about it going forward. The Hokkaido Crow 03:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Does it even give highlights when you make comments on your own user talk? --Francis 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Your page is the first page where i've seen this problem. It does not seem to happen on my talk page. (The Hokkaido Crow)

(I was actually asking myself that, as a test) --Francis 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not...

Hello again FDuffy: Reading the comments of User:The Hokkaido Crow (above) one is struck by his salient critiques of your highly biased methodology and how it is harming other articles besides those in the Hebrew Bible section. With your near-fanatical obsession with the Documentary hypothesis ubber alles and your total disdain for the input of others you are bound to arouse the objections of those editors who do not share your POV devotion to what is only a theory within the doubtful field of Biblical criticism. You should note Hokkaido's crucial points (thus far) that:

1. I do not think the POV should swing too far in the other direction.
2. If we are documenting something as "some people believe..." then it is not appropriate to dwell upon why we think they're wrong.
3. Think of articles describing animism, or christianity, etc. They do not contain point-for-point rebuttals.
4. Please remember that in Wikipedia, we do not re-enact the debate.
5. I see the article about Santa Claus being a good comparison to BSF. No factual assertions made, thus no need to debate the existence of the figure.
6. My concern is that you are adding edits that are not really necessary and could resurrect the recent .. edit contention...There's no need.
7. Please consider not injecting debate into the article

Many editors, including myself, agree with Hokkaido's views, and therefore you should note the following very carefully in order to avoid having you and your edits brought to arbitration. Kindly view this communication as a "first resort" (actually it's way past that) to come to an understanding with you as per: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#First resort: talk to the other parties involved, because it may well be that very soon a number of editors will have no choice but to commence official arbitration proceedings against you as per: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Last resort: Arbitration. Some of the grounds would be your refusal to cooperate with other editors following repeated requests and warnings and other factors, as listed on this page and elsewhere.

In addition, you should carefully note the following official Wikipedia policies as well:

1. No "original research": Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
2. Not a place for propaganda, i.e Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine
3. This is not a battleground: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground
4. Do not create anarchy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an anarchy

Thank you for giving the above your most serious attention ASAP. IZAK 04:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As will be no surprise, I second IZAKs concerns. I must also express my concern about your use of edit summaries. When you write "tidied a bit"[1] one should expect exactly that, and not a complete rewrite. Also, edit summaries are no replacement for providing sources[2], [3], and neither are talk pages. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

"your POV devotion to what is only a theory"

It happens to be a major theory supported by over 90% of scholars in the field of academic bible study. In academia, questions of academic concern on the bible, treating them with academic rigour, rather than from a religious standpoint, are referred to as Biblical criticism. This is not a doubtful field. It is defined as the subject of approaching the bible by examining it from a standpoint which

• Does not automatically assume it is completely true
• Considers what the properties of the text alone, regardless of the story it tells, can tell us about the writer(s), and their intent.
• Treats the book as "just another" historic text, applying all the rigourous analysis that that entails

While this tells us little about how the work is interpreted from a modern religious standpoint, it does say a lot about its potential origin, and historical change.

It is also not "[my] POV devotion".

Most of the information I have given is actually from the Jewish Encyclopedia - check out that encyclopedia's article on Moses, for example, where at the base you will clearly find the Jahwist and Elohist views spelt out, as well as how the plagues of Egypt are treated in each source. That encyclopedia provides the information because it is noteworthy, and worth including in an encyclopedia article, in many articles it is included substantially. That encyclopedia does not have a pro-documentary-hypothesis-POV, it is in fact biased to be quite apologetic, but it still includes the information. And that is only the information we had before 100 years more research was carried out, into the hypothesis and its implications.

"Think of articles describing animism, or christianity, etc. They do not contain point-for-point rebuttals"

The rebuttals relevant to their subject matter are disputes over what animism is, or over what christianity means. And those are definitely in the articles.

"Please remember that in Wikipedia, we do not re-enact the debate"

But we do report on it

"I see the article about Santa Claus being a good comparison to BSF. No factual assertions made, thus no need to debate the existence of the figure."

But "God brought plagues upon Egypt" is a factual assertion, and there is certainly academic debate about its factual accuracy. Likewise "Sinai is the mountain where Moses recieved the ten commandments" and "the ten commandments are A, B, C, D..." are making factual assertions, and should be altered so as not to fall foul of the Hokkaido Crow's point.

"My concern is that you are adding edits that are not really necessary and could resurrect the recent .. edit contention...There's no need"

I haven't seen any "recent .. edit contention". And the edits are necessary. Not including the view of the vast majority of academics on a subject is like an article on smoking that only says it is good for your health.

"Kindly view this communication as a "first resort" (actually it's way past that)"

No, its the first time you (IZAK) have contacted me detailing your concerns.

Some of the grounds would be your refusal to cooperate with other editors following repeated requests and warnings and other factors, as listed on this page and elsewhere.

Such as what? The only dispute I can see has you (IZAK), JDW, and Jayjg, opposing me, Kwami, and 2 others who arrived from RFC. That seems to me to be a refusal on your part to consider the views of the slight majority of other editors.

"No "original research": Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"

Correct. I have copied my information from

• Richard Friedman
• Martin Noth
• The Jewish Encyclopedia
• Et. al.

Where have you got yours from?

"Not a place for propaganda"

Correct. So the views of the vast majority of the academic community should be included, and not consigned to a tiny part of an article, or subarticle, the remainder of the main article being taken up supporting the view of religious groups that oppose them.

"This is not a battleground"

Correct. I would appreciate less hostility.

"Do not create anarchy".

Correct. I am following the rule "NPOV does not mean not including controversial opinions" and the one dictating that "NPOV means including major viewpoints".

--User talk:FDuffy 09:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how anyone could object to reporting academic research on any subject in an encyclopedia article, unless they either (a) wish their personal beliefs to remain uncontested, or (b) are afraid of offending people who will not tolerate opposing viewpoints. kwami 09:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Your signature behavior (sequel)

Hi Francis,

Please make your signature on talk pages and other discussion pages link to your user page and/or user talk page (User:FDuffy and/or User talk:FDuffy).

I remarked your behavior on Wikipedia:village pump (policy) - since I have a few edits on that page too, and since my name is also Francis, things can go confusing if you sign without providing a link to the page that clarifies your identity. For instance, it took me some effort to discover that it was actually "FDuffy" who used the "--Francis" signature on that page, which can only be done by checking diffs (like this one)

I also see that this "unlinked signature behavior" of yours was commented on by others on this your talk page above, without you correcting that behavior. May I ask you again to do so? --Francis Schonken 09:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Should I use my full name? --User talk:FDuffy 08:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

At present, your signature is the link to your talkpage but in bold and without Wikilinks. Again, on preferences I would untick "raw signatures" and put "Francis" or "FDuffy" in the nickname box. This creates an automatic wikilink to your userpage whenever you type ~~~~. This would save readers of your postings the hassle of copy&pasting your name into the search box to reach your userpage. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request for Assistance

I see you've made a request for assistance. I have responded over there to provide some sense of balance. My response summarises my annoyances, and could well serve as a stepping stone for constructive debate, provided you don't lament your fate as being persecuted for your POV. JFW | T@lk 22:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job!!!

This is amazing! Banana04131 21:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sons of Noah

Not sure what I should do; I feel like I am being attacked and dragged into this; I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the subject; this article was just one of the many I tried to improve in terms of syntax and grammar, not content. --FeanorStar7 00:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Table of nations

Thanks for the note. Did you move the page? — goethean ॐ 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As you probably know, you should have discussed the move first. If I voted, I think that I would have to side against you. "Sons of Noah" (if you take sons to mean descendents) is a more general topic, and "Table of nations" is a particular interpretation of that topic. I read Henry Morris' The Genesis Record when I was in high school, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with the topic.

As far as foul play goes, I don't believe that there is any policy against publicizing votes. It actually happens quite often. Perhaps that policy should be changed, but there you go. — goethean ॐ 22:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that that sentence was POV or Original research, but I don't see what it does for your case. — goethean ॐ 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The other paragraph I added to your talk was for my case. I pointed out that sentence to demonstrate that the article was one sided. The choice of title was very one sided, the majority of academics, as well as references, refer to the topic as the Table of Nations not the Sons of Noah. --User talk:FDuffy 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate that your intent in moving the page was npov-ization. But I still think that I would still name it Sons of Adam for the reasons that I outlined above. — goethean ॐ 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean like Generations of Adam which discusses a quite different subject (see also the barnstar above)? --User talk:FDuffy 23:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry....I meant to type that I would leave it at Sons of Noah. — goethean ॐ 23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

For what reason? Academics refer to it as Table of Nations, so do all the major encyclopedias, the only people as far as I can see to call it Sons of Noah are wikipedians. Isn't there a policy somewhere about avoiding original research and neologisms? --User talk:FDuffy 23:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Because, as I said above, the biblical passage is ostensibly about the descendents of Noah (maybe Descendents of Noah is a better title). Some see the passage as a table of nations. Thus I'd go with Sons of Noah. Sorry — that's my opinion.

Yes; original research is forbidden. Of course, everyone disagrees on which particular examples qualify. — goethean ॐ 23:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you could cite those academics that would solve about 80% of the problems. I would change my vote on that move if you could procure this. JFW | T@lk 23:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

All the scholars contributing to the Jewish Encyclopedia for a start - here is a link listing some of the references in that encyclopedia [4] (its a google site search as the online version of the Jewish Encyclopedia - www.jewishencyclopedia.com - has some major speed issues - look at the cached versions (it doesn't change) - if you've got access to a paper copy, and can read hebrew, or have a translation handy, thats even better),

Then we have

• Dillmann
• Kautzsch
• Noth
• Friedmann
• Finkelstein
• etc.

Here is a random selection of other references verifiable online:

• Hope College, Michigan - [5]
• Custance (univ. Ottowa) - [6] (there is a good "family tree" diagram on that site)
• Washington State University - [7]
• Eastons Bible Dictionary (under Dispersion, for example)
• University of Georgia - [8]
• The australian national university - [9]
• University of Wisconsin - this is a pdf
• Cambridge University - [10] (as in "Oxford and Cambridge")

Significant non-academic entities using the term

• Creationism.org - [www.creationism.org/books/CooperAfterFlood/CooperAF02.htm]
• Christiananswers.net - [11]
• Bibleorigins.net - [12]
• Bible.org - [13]
• Southern baptists - [14]

Is this enough? --User talk:FDuffy 00:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So why couldn't you tell us this on Talk:Table of nations instead of boycotting the vote? JFW | T@lk 00:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to. "Sons of Noah" is a neologism, and as far as I understand it, that isn't allowed. --User talk:FDuffy 00:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You could still have voted, giving a good reason, such as the above. As I said, I would have revised my vote had you given adequate source support. I have better things to do than go to Google to justify your moves. BTW are you fixing your signature? I've explained to you above how this can be done. If you unclick "raw signatures" and simply type "Francis" in the nickname box it will stop you getting flamed for it. JFW | T@lk 02:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting is about opinion - original research, not factual merit. You may have better things to do than go to Google to justify my moves, but you could assume good faith and do some research to see if the opinion is valid before you decide to attack it. Or maybe you prefer just assuming, without evidence, or non-original research, that your opinion is automatically the correct one. --User talk:FDuffy 08:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas

Did you intend to un-do my changes in your most recent edit? — goethean ॐ 22:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean moving discussion of saying 114 (the last saying) to the section on dating, then yes. Saying 114's features are usually regarded as marking it as a late appendage to the collection. --User talk:FDuffy 22:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No; if you look closely, you un-did a couple of other things. I'll fix it and also retain your change. — goethean ॐ 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

IRC

I'm now waiting for someone from the chatroom # channel to turn up having been encouraged to do so by a POV warrior...

--User talk:FDuffy 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

AMA Request

If you are still in need of the services of an advocate feel free to contact me so we can discuss the situation a bit further. --Wgfinley 00:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Spelling

Re your comment:

spelling - we use authors choice here. Entire-world-outside-US usage is exHalted, LikelYhood, and leAd is the past tense of lead, which is the original author's usage

Not in the U.K. it isn't. I would regard "likelyhood" and "exhalted" as non-standard spellings. My dictionary (a small Oxford dictionary, but I'd be happy to get the big dic out) does not even give any one of these as an alternative spelling of "likelihood", "led" and "exalted" respectively. Google also has very low hit counts for the variant spellings "likelyhood" and "exhalted". What part of the world are you from, and what dictionary are you using? -- Karada 13:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. The OED has exHalted, LikelYhood, and leAd. The only thing "Led" means in English English is Light Emmitting Diode. --User talk:FDuffy 13:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actual usage statistics for sites in UK, Canadan, and Indian ccTLDs, via Google:

• "exalted site:uk": 375,000 (ca: 78,300, in: 603)
• "exhalted site:uk": 391 (ca: 522, in: 18)
• "likelihood site:uk": 1,860,000 (ca: 1,310,000, in: 45,800)
• "likelyhood site:uk": 32,200 (ca: 897, in: 186)

-- Karada 14:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've got the Big Dic out: New Oxford Dictionary of English, assembled using corpus analysis, page 1047, ISBN 0-19-861263-X:

• lead verb (past and past participle led /lεd/)...

page 1069:

• likelihood noun [mass noun] the state or fact of something's being likely...

("likelyhood" is not listed at all)

page 639:

• exalted adjective 1 (of a person or their rank or status) placed at a high or powerful level; ...

("exhalted" is not listed at all)

Would you like any more verbatim quotes? -- Karada 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

New oxford? There is only one OED - the Oxford English Dictionary published by the Oxford University Press. As the New Oxford .... article states This dictionary is not based on the Oxford English Dictionary and should not be mistaken for a new or updated version of the OED. It is the OED which is the big dictionary with scholarly credentials, please refer to that in future. --User talk:FDuffy 14:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The NODE is published by the OUP, and represents (in their opinion) the state-of-the-art of English scholarship. But since you ask, my copy of the Pocket Oxford, the 7th edition, which is a condensation of the full OED, also concurs with the NODE. I have access to the British Library, so I can look up any edition of the full OED; which one are you using. please? -- Karada 14:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, while it is published by the OUP it only represents state-of-the-art scholarship in the eyes of its minimal authors. Their approach comes under heavy criticism by virtually every linguistic scholar, and it is not authoritative.

(Removed own incorrect comment: the NODE is not the basis of the OED2)

-- Karada 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The OED is the most prescriptive dictionary in the world, and has thousands more scholarly qualifications than the closest competitor. NODE (your "New oxford dictionary of english") is NOT the same as NOED (New OED), please pay attention to the spelling and note that [NODE] is not based on the Oxford English Dictionary and SHOULD NOT BE MISTAKEN FOR A NEW OR UPDATED VERSION OF THE OED. The Pocket Oxford is NOT authoritative, the OED is a huge work containing around 60,000,000 definitions, and constitutes a volume weighing a hefty 20kg with text in 2pt type in its most consise printed form. --User talk:FDuffy 14:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a copy to hand, or are you working from memory? Would you mind posting verbatim quotes from the OED that support your views, citing edition and page numbers, as I have from the more up-to-date NODE? -- Karada 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do mind. This is verging on trolling. We respect AUTHOR's CHOICE here in Wikipedia. --User talk:FDuffy 15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm taking your arguments seriously, which is presumably what you want. Are you saying that you don't have your dictionary at hand, or you can't be bothered to look it up?

We respect the author's choice of British, International, or American English. However, according to you, based on your assertions here, the NOED, and the vast majority of English speakers in the United States, England, Canada, and the United Kingdom, are all spelling these words wrongly.

No, I'm saying that YOU are spelling these words incorrectly. --User talk:FDuffy 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Would you like me to look up these words up in the full, and totally unabridged, electronic edition of the OED? -- Karada 15:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you stopped trolling. --User talk:FDuffy 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Given your unwillingness to provide verifiable cites from your sources, I agree, I'm happy to end this dispute here. Oh: one further data point: the 1911 "Scholars' Edition" of the Encyclopædia Britannica uses "exalted" and "likelihood" exclusively. Sorry, couldn't resist it. Must... stop... now... -- Karada 16:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be one of the editions when it was under an American publisher (1902-1922ish if I remember correctly). --User talk:FDuffy 20:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Dinah

Thanks for your work on the Dinah article. I was wondering though, where does it say (in the Bible or otherwise), that Dinah was rescued? I do not think that was mentioned in Genesis. --Fang Aili 17:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

AMA Reqeust Response

I took a look at your problem, you are going up against some very notable Wikipedians. However, I noted the AfD on that topic is going pretty well for you. Will try to follow it some more and see how I can help.

--Wgfinley 06:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_wife_confused_for_a_sister

Hi FDuffy, the reason I voted delete is that I think there needs to be more than just a list of books (although that's a start) to properly source the ideas (not to mention the title). Can you attribute specific ideas to specific people? For example, if the article presented content like this: "Israel Finkelstein posits x, y, z" or "Robin Lane Fox explains that ...", it would be proper citation. As it stands, the only attribution for specific content is to "Biblical criticism", which is far too vague. We have no way to know what in the article is just your interpretation of what the authors of those books actually say, and please realize that your interpretation of sources would still be original research. If you forsee being able to more specifically attribute the ideas (rather than just list books at the end), perhaps the AFD could be stalled or postponed to give you more time to bring it up to a more acceptably sourced article. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have mentioned this same point in the AFD, on the article talk page and on my own talk page. With yourself being the main author, it falls to you to attribute material to the right sources. At the moment all we have is a hypothesis mentioned in passing in the Jewish Encyclopedia (which apparently did allow original research), but the development of the point seems to have been your own work. JFW | T@lk 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The modern references are those referring to the hypothesis. The Jewish Encyclopedia, in this case, mentions it in passing ("its so alike that critical scholars think there is only one"), but is mainly the source for the midrash commentary. --User talk:FDuffy 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you know this, why not edit the article accordingly and link every hypothesis with its source? Where's the Midrash you're referring to? There are several people on the AFD requesting that you do this, and your unwillingness to do so makes me wonder whether you actually care about your article. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It strikes me as amazing that people vote and talk about a subject they don't fully know about and can't be bothered to investigate themselves. --User talk:FDuffy 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I interpret this as laziness or as contempt for the community? JFW | T@lk 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

laziness on whose behalf? --User talk:FDuffy 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yours, of course, if you can't be bothered to accede to basic requests of WP:CITE. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Also: should we purchase all the books you are referring to before you allow us to vote on your AFD? JFW | T@lk 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but they are books written by very major scholars in the field. You will find them in any university library (if the university has archaeology + theology departments), from where you can borrow them. Or, if you are not an academic, you can always borrow the book from a local library.

Of course, remembering that you clearly have an interest in the subject area of the Bible, and wish to contribute to wikipedia upon it, I would recommend buying at least some of the books (The Bible Unearthed, Bible with Sources Revealed, and The Unauthorised Version). These are standard works on university reading lists for the subject. --User talk:FDuffy 19:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if you are only voting and editing on these topics to preserve your own religious POV, and do not actually have an interest in the subject area, then reading the books would of course defeat the point. --User talk:FDuffy 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How familiar are you with the works of the Jewish opponents of Biblical criticism? You may potentially have read Cassuto but has anyone bothered to inform you of D.Z. Hoffmann, M.L. Malbim, S.R. Hirsch and more recently Prof David Gottlieb?

I have heard of Hirsch and Hoffman, but not Malbim and Gottlieb. I don't see why you regard Biblical criticism as something where opponents have to be either Jewish or Christian. If these are the only opponents, doesn't it strike you as odd that the only resistance to it is from those who exhibit an inherent religious bias against it, whether or not they allow that bias to affect their work? --User talk:FDuffy 20:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And why should I not be allowed to vote according to my religious conscience? For you, divine biblical criticism appears to have taken religious proportions given your un-academic ferocity, and as a scientist I'm rather appalled by the claims that this "academic" speculation should pass for science given its glaring problems in setting up a falcification experiment. Your complete lack of respect for the classical commentators and your neglect in mentioning them is similarly a cause for concern.

Because religious conscience is just that - personal opinion - not rigourous academic consideration.

Calcification of falsification? Either way, it is easy to falsify - just find a copy of the Bible dating from 1200BC that has the entire Torah as it stands now. --User talk:FDuffy 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And I fail to see how you think I do not respect classical commentators when I am quite happy to include midrashic commentary, and quite often do. This article, for example, has plenty of references to the opinions of the midrash if you would care to look. --User talk:FDuffy 20:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So don't you lecture me about preserving a religious POV. Doesn't it strike you as odd that numerous editors have similar problems with you, even those without a stated allegiance with Orthodox Judaism? JFW | T@lk 20:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as at all odd that editors who frequently act as a unit (Codex Sinaiticus, Jayjg, IZAK, and yourself), cropping up in the same places on this subject area, supporting the same side of the argument, again and again, have similar problems with me. Nor does it surprise me that editors who have been collected by a campaign of drumming up support by Eliezer and another user (whose name is a little less familiar) also exhibit similar issues - after all, why would Eliezer and the other user bother rounding them up if they didn't?

What should be noted is that Wetman, a well respected and highly scholarly editor, does not have a problem with me in this way. That is enough for me to know that I am doing ok. --User talk:FDuffy 20:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"This article, for example, has plenty of references" - but not where we need them. And if you're bothered by us band of antis, why not recruit your own lot instead of complaining of meatpuppets and what-have-you?

Why not? Because gerrymandering isn't the right thing to do. --User talk:FDuffy 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You've heard about Hoffmann and Hirsch! Wow. Your teachers are truly academic then, if they can't bother teaching you about scientific criticism just because it comes from the pen of a rabbi. Well done. Very scholarly to be sure. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of my teachers was Professor James Dunn (though I changed universities after my first year, owing to personal circumstances requiring me to be in a quite different part of the country after that point). If you don't think he is an academic then I am afraid there are a lot of people who will disagree. --User talk:FDuffy 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

One can be an academic yet neglect the basic principles of academe when it comes to presenting knowledge to students. Thankfully I was taught about Ivan Illich in medical school, and we had interesting debates with speakers propagating alternative medicine. That enriches an university education and makes one more cognisant of conflicting and dissenting views.

It is easy to misconstrue my reactions as an attack on the presence of Biblical Criticism on Wikipedia. In that case I could have systemically removed all your contributions to Bible articles and put all your articles about the Genesis narrative up for AFD. But I haven't done that. But I will make sure that your interesting work is not hampered by non-adherence to non-negotiable Wikipedia policy. Something that looks like original research is exactly that until it can be satisfactorily proven not to be. Similarly, simply listing sources without attributing views is in violation of the spirit of WP:CITE. Have a look at Norman Pearlstine, a bio I basically wrote to replace a substub. Almost every sentence is linked directly to its source by the means of footnotes. The featured medical articles asthma, prostate cancer and multiple sclerosis use elaborate footnote systems to link every statement to its academic source. I must encourage you to use this kind of referencing. It makes your work much less vulnerable to fundamentalist attack, and easier to take at face value for the confused, misinformed and benighted believer. JFW | T@lk 22:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that somewhere there is something called Wikipedia:Assume good faith. There is also something somewhere that says that stalking people's edits is a bad thing to do. --User talk:FDuffy 00:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Where have I stalked your edits? And in what respect do you expect me to assume good faith where numerous more polite requests for cooperation have been ignored? JFW | T@lk 08:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Francis,

I myself don't bother to cite my edits very often. If anything, I might just mention on the talk page where I got the info. It's seldom a problem with other editors, because people's identities aren't at stake if I get the inclination of Pluto's moons wrong, or give the wrong number of vibrations in the average bilabial trill. And we don't have to fight many psychos claiming that Pluto is a spaceship from Alpha Centauri, or that bilabial trills are holdovers from the Neanderthals. But when it comes to religion, politics, and history, not only are the facts more elusive, but the articles are swamped with crackpots and self-appointed gurus, and it can sometimes be very difficult to distinguish them from respectable research. I can see why people would want every assertion backed up with a ref and page number, and I even have a modicum of sympathy with people who wish to delete articles that aren't well referenced, rather then just tagging them as uncited or possible original research. There must be a ton of articles like that, and it must be a real headache to keep up with them all. When I wrote up the Ritual Decalogue article, I wasn't anticipating this level of scrutiny (I was only expecting to write a stub), so I didn't have my notes in order and it was quite difficult for me to justify my edits. I'll know better next time if I do another article on religion.

I'll continue to support you against deleting the article, but, except perhaps for a couple anti-academics, the requests for you to justify your work by dotting all the jays and crossing all the tees seem quite reasonable to me (even if the debate isn't always terribly civil). This needs to be done, and the result will probably be more coherent if you do it than if your critics do, assuming any of them even have the interest.

Best, kwami 01:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Kwami, I don't think you should categorise a large number of editors as "crackpots and self-appointed gurus". This is just as contemptuous as Francis refusing to cite his sources properly. Obviously biblical criticism has a few opponents, and some of those happen to be editing Wikipedia and caring about the coverage their religious literature gets on this project. This is legitimate, and classifying one as "anti-academic" is extreme strawmanning; does that make the concerns illegitimate? On clinical depression we need to mention St John's Wort, not because mainstream medicine believes in it, but because so many people ("anti-academics" who prefer something herbal in the face of better and safer antidepressants) believe in it. As per NPOV I would not be able to remove this! Can you see my analogy? JFW | T@lk 08:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that biblical criticism has a few opponents. It is also true that biblical criticism has few opponents. --User talk:FDuffy 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that you could say the same about people who prefer using Willow Bark to clinical medicine, but that would demonstrate a clearly closed minded assumption, and totally neglect to realise that Aspirin derives from an extract of Willow Bark. The anti-academics are the people advocating that we ignore herbal medicine. --User talk:FDuffy 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, JFD. I'm not saying that you or the other responsible editors are crackpots. I'm saying that fields like religion attract more crackpots than many of the "drier" fields, and also that, because so much depends on interpretation and is thus hard to verify, detailed citation will be more important than, say, in the hard sciences. And by 'crackpot' I don't mean common beliefs such as St. John's Wort. Of course we leave stuff like that in. (In the Iapetus article there's a section on speculation that it's an artificial moon, because of that bizarre equatorial ridge.) In astronomy and linguistics we get crackpots too, but there it's much easier to filter them out, so a book or website listed in a reference section is often sufficient citation for an article - precisely what you're objecting to Francis doing for this article. kwami 19:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bible verses

Please stop adding Bible verses to VFD, this issue has been discussed to death. There have so far been seven separate VfDs on this issue, six ended as keep and one that ended with no consensus. Even if one of your nominations does earn consensus to delete, it would still be meaningless as hundreds of others have in the past decided that these articles should be kept.

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20:16, and future Bible verses
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/John 20 and all linked verses
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 2:16 also applied to Matthew 2:1-15
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Genesis 1:1
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1 and all similar articles
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses
• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses

There have also been two lengthy centralized discussions, one at Wikipedia:Merge/Bible verses and one at Wikipedia:Bible verses. Rather than VfDing individual verses in isolation, any discussion should be brought to those pages. - SimonP 14:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Its pure bible cruft. The only reason I can see that consensus wasn't reached last time is because the closing admin chose to state that 17 merge votes, 7 delete votes, and 12 keep votes, constituted a lack of consensus therefore keep, when in fact the opposite is true - 24 people (vs. 12) clearly thought the article shouldn't exist independantly. --User talk:FDuffy 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If you want to propose an alternate approach, or even the deletion of material, please join one of the centralized discussions. It is bad form to nominate individual articles for deletion when no consensus has been reached on the basic issues. - SimonP 14:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's bad form to create masses of bible cruft on totally non-notable verses. Those discussions appear to have ended many months ago. I don't see what's wrong with putting up bad articles that are completely non-notable and unencyclopedic up for deletion. Particularly if no consensus was reached many months ago. Trying to bog attempts to delete them down in "discussion" is really quite underhand behaviour. --User talk:FDuffy 14:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

When it becomes bad form to add large quantities of high quality content to Wikipedia, that is the day I leave the project. Fortunately as the previous VfDs have shown your views are in a distinct minority. Also please stop adding noteworthy to articles. Wikipedia has no notability requirement, and long ago adding words like famous, important, and noteworthy to lists was eliminated. - SimonP 15:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this high quality content? Putting "AAAA BB:CC is the CCth verse of the BBth chapter of AAAA" and then putting down two translations of AAAA BB:CC, is NOT high quality. And according to the prior AFDs, it is YOUR views which are in a minority, the majority do not believe the articles should exist independantly (note the wording - merge and delete votes counted together significantly outnumber keep votes).--User talk:FDuffy 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write John 20:19, I have never edited it, and I have now voted to delete it. This is not a very good example. Also it was only one of the seven where merges outnumbered the keeps, all the others had far more keeps. - SimonP 16:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that you know this, and clearly have an interest in the area, why did you not merge it yourself in the many months between then and now? --User talk:FDuffy 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles For Deletion

Hi, one or both of the following situations applies to you, and you may therefore be interested in related discussions.

• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 200 verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 199 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew
• You expressed an opinion about the proposed deletion of an article concerning one of the first 19 verses of the 20th Chapter of the Gospel of John. Would you therefore like to join a centralised discussion about the other 18 articles at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20

You may also be interested in a discussion of whether or not the entire text of a whole bible chapter should be contained in the 6 articles concerning those specific chapters, and whether or not they should only use the translations favoured by fundamentalists. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text.

--Victim of signature fascism | Don't forget to vote in the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections 17:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Moderndocumenthypothesis.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Moderndocumenthypothesis.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- Longhair 02:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)