Talk:Binding of Isaac

On the Recent Reverts
In a revert, work I did on three paragraphs in this article was reverted by User:Jytdog. That's fine: it's all part of the editing process, etc. I'd just like to figure out a couple things here before I do any more editing on this article, so that I don't wind up repeating my mistakes. First, do you object to everything I did to all three paragraphs, or is anything I did there okay that just got swept up in the revert process? Second, what does the phrase "not a neutral summary" refer to? Third, what about "goes beyond scope"? While I want to avoid whatever non-neutrality and beyond-scoping I may have introduced, I do still think some sort of expansion of the lead is probably warranted, given that the lead doesn't really seem to summarize the article content at this point.Alephb (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I restored and edited more carefully. The lead just summarizes the body so there is no need to add sources there, and it is meant to be shorter (summarize).
 * More importantly it is not clear to me if this article should discuss the restatement of the covenant or not. The discussion in the rest of the article doesn't mention that.  Am open to thoughts about that. Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I really don't have a strong opinion on where the Binding of Isaac closes. Since you've gone through and winnowed what seemed good to you to keep and what to delete, I'll just defer to your judgment on that. I don't have strong feelings either way about where exactly the "Binding of Isaac" bit ends and the material following it begins. Given that Bibles weren't originally written with chapters, that sort of thing is usually a judgment call anyhow. Alephb (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Binding of Isaac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117232228/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3708/is_199901/ai_n8828474 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3708/is_199901/ai_n8828474
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.g-dcast.com/roshhashanah

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular culture section?
Would a Popular culture section be appropriate?

Bob Dylan's Highway 61 could be added for example?

"What about the capsule version of the Akedah that kicks off the title track on 1965’s Highway 61 Revisited?"

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/249338/with-new-album-released-time-to-grapple-with-dylans-christian-period

EDLIS Café 13:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdRicardo (talk • contribs)

Removed ambiguous sentence fragment
I've removed the following from the end of the "Muslim Views" section because it's a noun phrase rather than a sentence, and I can't parse out the intended meaning:


 * In Islam, the site of Marwa near the Kaaba which rhymes with the Moriah mentioned in the Book of Genesis.

--Atkinson (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Isaac was NOT the sacrificed son according to the Qur’an
Just wanted to say that I removed the part where it said that the sacrificed son was Isaac according to the Qur’an and that there was a contradiction with Genesis. In reality, the Qur’an doesn’t say that the son was Isaac, so there isn’t a contradiction with Genesis. I don’t know why people go out of their ways to lie and cause division. We also need to distinguish between what the Qur’an actually states and what so-called “mainstream Muslim tradition” holds. The two are not necessarily the same. 2A04:4A43:437F:B738:E828:ED5C:57E4:36B1 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that your edits appear to be those of a WP:SOCKPUPPET. Users who have been blocked should not edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)