User talk:Cush/Warning about your behavior

MyTalk extension

Warning about your behavior
Cush, you had a conniption when I used an off-color term to describe on my own talk page. I was blocked for it for 24 hours. But as the following diffs show, you are regularly abusive, foul-mouthed, and bigoted, and your refusal to assume good faith and denigration of other editors has been going on for too long. I'm asking you to stop. Accept the fact that your opinion about religion is your opinion, and doesn't have any special standing on Wikipedia.

These diffs are a partial list. I got tired of going back through your history. But it's easy enough to extend the list. Change your behavior and your attitude, please.


 * 20:25, 19 August 2009 "Lisa only suggests this name change to keep out material she does not like due to her religionist disposition"
 * 07:08, 20 August 2009 "Lisa is widely known to manipulate articles to render a religion-friendly POV. She has been warned about that so many times it ain't even funny anymore." (this was a fabrication)
 * 15:40, 20 August 2009 "when it comes to historicity religiously motivated publishers are in a COI"
 * 20:37, 20 August 2009 "Reliable sources for the historicity of anything are scientific sources. That excludes all publications by religious institutions or religiously motivated individuals"
 * 18:10, 9 September 2009 "anyone who has really read the bible and has an IQ above 5 will instantly recognize that it is a big fat lie", "religionists like you who may have "reliable sources" on their side but just no common sense or logic"
 * 05:09, 10 September 2009 "you fail to admit your COI when it comes to biblical history"
 * 18:34, 18 September 2009 "Religious people are in a COI when it comes to historical accuracy"
 * 14:18, 27 September 2009 "nutjob who ever wrote about this"
 * 12:42, 4 October 2009 "there is no such thing as a 'Jewish people'"
 * 16:37, 4 October 2009 "religionist POV"
 * 20:31, 9 October 2009 Personal attack
 * 09:34, 19 October 2009 "Welcome to Wikipedia and its many endorsements of Jewish POVs"
 * 17:09, 26 October 2009 "Divine intolerance towards dissent"
 * 14:44, 30 October 2009 "digging up very old shit"
 * 21:25, 2 November 2009 "Read the fucking Bible"
 * 13:42, 3 November 2009 "Lisa is always Lisa", "Your Lisa-fundamentalism shows. As usual"

-Lisa (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What is your point? You ARE trying to push your religious views into articles, and I am highly allergic to that. I am equally allergic to vain and empty religions such as Judaism, that are built on the ill imagination of fanatics. I have known you for too long to assume that you are capable of a neutral position in matters of levantine history and the related stuff that the adherents of your religion constantly try to sell as history. Most of the events described in the bible evidently never happened. That is why I cannot accept your religiously motivated arguments as serious discourse. All it always comes down to is the claims made in the Bible. That is insufficient for me. I knwo WP is not in search for truth, but at least accuracy. Realigion never produces accuracy.
 * I do not know you personally, and I do not assail you as a person, but as a prominent WP-representative of something that I judge irrational and highly dangerous. Cush (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cush -- Lisa mentioned to me that she was talking to you here, and that's probably better than talking about a possible bias problem on the article talk page. Yes, Lisa is an Orthodox Jew and is very knowledgable about Jewish sources.  For full disclosure, I'm also Jewish.  I'm not sure what your background is, but you seem to have a problem with Judaism and view it as dangerous.  Not sure exactly what the danger is, but that's not central to the problem.


 * Lisa, being Jewish, is really good at adding Jewish sources.


 * You, being something different, have a great opportunity to add other soures.


 * But taking sources away is a problem, and doing so because you disagree with a religion is a problem, and setting up logical conundrums is a problem too. Seder Olam, for instance, is a great source for a historical view that we can cite.  There are others and they should be cited too.  None is this should be complicated, but you are complicating it anyway, and by your own words here there seems to be an anti-religious agenda prompting you.


 * I'd suggest taking a break and dealing with subjects that you aren't so motivated about. I've had to take breaks myself in the past.  Wikipedia will still be here, and that article will probably still be here.  Take a breather.  Find an article that you don't care as much about, and then pop in to ADD some sourced information (instead of trying to take it away).  Fair?SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not fair. I will not sit and watch articles be turned into platforms for Jewish doctrine. In some articles I even have the feeling that we could just dump the article and give folks the Bible to read, or the Talmud or another Jewish primary source. I am sick and tired of the whole one-dimensional view on everything that is in any way within the scope of the Biblical story. You see how elaborate the article on Solomon's temple is, although there is no reason to think that the temple ever existed, that Solomon ever existed, and that Solomon had that temple built, except that the Bible says so, and of course those who adhere to the religions connected with the Bible say so. I wouldn't believe the Vatican's books on the historcial Jeus either, or any devout Catholic's opinion on that. It's just not reliable because of the obvious COI. The very identity of every Jew is in danger as soon as someone can show that the Exodus never happened, or that there had never been a United Monarchy, or that nobody worshiped a deity named Yhvh prior to the 9th century BCE. I do not expect Jewish sources to be honest about that, because in the end Jews would be forced to admit that Yhvh is a fabrication and an amalgam of many other traditions and theological concepts. An encyclopedia exists to reflect reality in the best way possible. That means it can describe religions and their claims, but never adopt a religious position as its "consensus". But that is exactly what some editors seek to achieve, especially Lisa who calls me an asshole when she has no evidence to show. Cush (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm NOT Jewish, but regardless, I don't think you have the "right" (within Wikipedia policy) to say as you did above "I am equally allergic to vain and empty religions such as Judaism, that are built on the ill imagination of fanatics." Please refrain from attacking other editors' belief-systems, we are all entitled to choose our own belief-system, which is exactly why we are only here supposed to be finding sources for all the various viewpoints, and not coming to fight religious wars or attack other editors' belief-systems. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just use reliable sources and all is fine. But any religious source that is used to confirm a claim of that particluar religion is not reliable.
 * You can of course adhere to any belief-system as much as you want, as long as you do not present doctrines of that belief-system as historical fact without providing evidence. I perceive Judaism as a construct of claims that are in sharp contrast to what archaeology and historical research have produced in the past 150 years. Judaism, and subsequently Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Rastafarianism etc are insubstantial.
 * I am a naturalist and a rationalist and given the character of the biblical deity I consider its adherents to be either unaware of the peculiarities of that deity or inhuman. I will not bring that into any article of course, because I pursue religious neutrality and objective POVs, but in talk pages I have no reason to hide my opinion about certain beliefs and the reasoning behind them. Cush (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cush. I do appreciate your candor here, because it makes it easier to see where you are coming from.  Not sure if this will help, but here goes: Judaism will exist even if you proved that God did not exist, that the exodus never ocurred, and that there was no such person as Solomon.  Judaism is a religion, and as such isn't vulnerable to the kind of things you are wanting Wikipedia to prove.


 * Wikipedia has a NPOV policy, but I think a lot of people misunderstand it. It isn't a "no" POV policy, but rather a "neutral" POV policy.  Most folks tend to think of their own POV as neutral.  They feel they are unbiased and things are objectively the way they see it.  But that isn't so.  We ALL have POVs.  Can't be helped.  We're human.  And as such we actually need other folks POVs to balance ours out.  And that's how "neutral" POV is acheived.  It isn't by eliminating the "opposition" but rather incorporating it into our own contributions.


 * I've often said that I welcome your POV, and in fact yours and mine overlap. I'm not allergic to religious views -- even your own views of religion, and I'm rather fond of seeing things in a Jungian way.


 * But you're too close to this right now. You're trying to eliminate Lisa's views instead of using them to balance your own.  That's a no no on Wikipedia.  A lot of us get too close and passionate about something, and all we need to do is take a breather, which is what I've suggested.  Trust me -- nothing will happen in the Wikiverse.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lisa can have her views as much as she likes to. I have no problem with that. As I said I have a problem with religious claims being presented as reality. All I ever do is ask for evidence. Research relies on evidence. Encyclopedias rely on the outcome of research. As easy as that. You can't have an article on Solomon's Temple as a real historical edifice when there never was a temple or a Solomon. All you can have is an article that repeats the biblical claim. Same goes for everything else out of the Bible that is presented on Wikipedia as real Levantine history. As I said before, Wikipedia can describe religions and their claims, but never adopt a religious position as its "consensus". But that is exactly what happens when religious editors have their way. I am dispassionate about that, but I do not want readers to be purposely misinformed. Cush (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Another example. Have you noticed in how many places on Wikipedia the term "Bible" has been replace with "Hebrew Bible"? I.e. a neutral term has been replaced with a term that refers to a specifically Jewish version of the Bible that is the basis of modern Judaism, namely the Masoretic text? That is exactly what I mean: the forceful introduction of a religious (in this case exclusively Jewish) POV into a multitude of articles. How can you justify that? Cush (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Cush. I think "Hebrew Bible" is helpful when they aren't meaning the Christian Bible (either Protestant or Catholic versions).  As for "purposely misinformed"... I don't think anyone here is trying to deliberately misinform anyone.  It almost sounds (again) as if you are thinking your POV is not only equal to objective reality (no one's is), but that you are also assuming that everyone else secretly knows you're right and are trying to sneak some lie in there for bad purposes.  While I don't think this is conscious on your part, I do think there are some Freudian slips creeping in there.  Just take a breather.  Trust me, no one will convert to Judaism because of that article while you're cooling your heels for a few weeks.  Find some sources.  Come back.  And ADD information to BALANCE what Lisa has in there.  But please don't keep up the agenda to delete things.  Seder Olam is not relevant to establish objective reality or secular history.  It is merely relevant to record a historically significant view.  That's it.  But that's enough. SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "Hebrew Bible" does not refer to a pre-Christian version of the Bible, but to a medieval and heavily edited Bible that is designed to reflect Jewish doctrine of a time when Christianity has finally fully separated from Judaism. By no means is it an ancient source that would neutrally narrate events of ancient times (just as the KJV is specifically designed to reflect Anglican doctrine). Whenever I try to replace "Hebrew Bible" with "Bible" because a certain issue is contained in every version of the Bible, I get reverted. That is unacceptable, and those who replace "Bible" with the much narrower and very specific term "Hebrew Bible" know full well what they are doing and that they are introducing Jewish doctrine into an article and remove neutrality. If they want to refer to the Tanakh or Torah in general they should write Tanakh or Torah, but "Hebrew Bible" is not the same. Especially not when it comes to dates, reign lengths and year counts in the text. Cush (talk) 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous. Even the most anti-religious person doesn't actually think the Hebrew Bible was edited into the Middle Ages.  Sheesh.  All of the ludicrous accusations you've made against me for having an agenda here are clearly true of you and not me.  You need to stop, and this discussion makes it clear that you have no intention of doing so on your own.  The next step is an RfC. -Lisa (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "Hebrew Bible" refers to the Masoretic text, which is a medieval work. It contains the numbers, reign lengths and dates that were in line with Jewish doctrine at the time. And you know that very well. And don't threaten me. With your extensive list of warnings and bans you are certainly nobody to tell others how to behave. Cush (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hebrew Bible does not refer necessarily to the Masoretic text. Nor was the Masoretic text edited in the medieval period.  I don't know where you get this stuff from.  And I'm not threatening you; I'm explaining what's going to happen.  Clearly, you don't care.  I posted here because there a requirement to try and work things out in talk.  I've done that.  You've been completely unwilling to bend in any way. -Lisa (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Just not in your way.
 * And of course is the Masoretic text medieval. And it features substantial discrepancies with earlier versions of the Bible. In the Masoretic text the Sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt (from the arrival of Joseph to the Exodus) is given a duration of 430 years, while earlier Bible versions give 430 years for the arrival of Abraham in Canaan to the Exodus. This means that the Masoretic text seeks to emphasize and lengthen on the Israelites' "bondage" in Egypt. And there are many other instances where the Masoretic text deviates form other Bibles. I find that highly suspicious and unreliable. I want historical accuracy in articles about Levantine history, but you have no intention provide that. All you do is repeat what your religion teaches. Cush (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cush -- still not sure why you are so dead set against Judaism. We editors shouldn't be dead set against anything in particular, even atheism. The issue we should ALL agree on is clarity. For instance, "Tanakh" isn't a known term for Christians, but "Hebrew Bible" is. You ask a Christian what the Tanakh is and they'll give you a deer in the headlights look. But they'll instantly recognize "Hebrew Bible" as the "Old Testament." The Dead Sea Scrolls are also in Hebrew. The Septuagint is based on a slightly alternate form of the Hebrew Bible, but even Greek Orthodox Christians (among whom I have many friends) regard the Septuagint as based on what they regard to be a more accurate (and lost) version of the HEBREW Bible. So then, "Hebrew" doesn't create a necessary prejudice. It's simply an intelligible term. Any clarification belongs in the context, but not necessarily in the term itself.

That said, you are still repeating an agenda against Judaism. We all have our perspectives and prejudices, but we need to park them offline.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not my doing that it is Judaism that puts insubstantial claims into the world that regard ancient history.

As I have said before, the suggested dates for the Exodus cover a time span of 600 years (from the 12th to 20th Dynasty of Egypt). That is equal to suggest a date for the March on Washington somewhere between now and the discovery of America. Do I really need to point out how arrogant that is when there is no evidence at all? Only after the United Monarchy period evidence surfaces for Israelite kingdoms existing in the southern Levant If nobody can provide solid evidence for what the Bible claims there is no reason to accept any of it as history. But that is exactly how many many articles on Wikipedia present the biblical tales: as real history. And there is no sense in denying that editors who adhere to Judaism or fundamentalist forms of Christianity do in fact seek to insert religious contents into articles, and they do so under the protection of the AGF directive. In how many articles does the reference section only contain publications by religious institutions? How are these reliable sources when all they do is repeat what the Bible claims? When it comes to history reliable sources are only those that provide evidence, which is the outcome of thorough archaelogical research (excavation reports and their interpretations) and thorough historical research (contemporary textual sources that cross-refer to persons and events). Having said that, I have no trouble if biblical content is presented as what it is. But as soon as someone assigns dates to events that are exclusively described in the Bible, and thus creates an alternative history, then the respective article stops being encyclopedic and becomes a religious platform. If you cannot see the seriousness of such misinformation, you should think it through a little longer. Why don't you ask the religionists around here to park their perspectives offline? Because they are more numerous? And I don't even want to start about the fact that the biblical deity does not exist and what that means for the entire reasoning of biblical content as a source. Cush (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence for Israelites in Egypt
 * There is no evidence for an Israelite Exodus out of Egypt
 * There is no evidence for Israelites staying in the Sinai peninsula
 * There is no evidence for Israelites conquering Canaan
 * There is no evidence for an Israelite confederacy in what would be the Judges period as the Bible tells
 * There is no evidence for an Israelite kingdom, and particlularly no evidence for Saul, David, or Solomon


 * The "fact". See, this is part of the problem, Cush.  You think things are facts that aren't.  And you insist that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or a villain.  That's not the right attitude for Wikipedia. -Lisa (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the core issue, isn't it? Belief in the supernatural and its alleged impact in the real world. But I am afraid I have to inform you that Yhvh is not anything else than Zeus, Thor, Shiva, Fairies, and the Easter Bunny. Once you realize why you reject the latter five you know why holding on to Yhvh is pointless. Faith is completely arbitrary and detached from reality. You may adhere to your faith, but you cannot replace history with religious claims. Not only because it is not encyclopedic but because it is plainly dishonest. Cush (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. So you're a missionary zealot for your great unGod.  I'm happy for you.  I don't care what you believe or don't believe or disbelieve.  Like Tim has said, you're allowed to have a POV here.  You just aren't allowed to edit with it. -Lisa (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But you are??? You have no evidence and no reliable sources. Cush (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush, this is a lot more serious than I thought. There are ways to edit and ways not to edit.  Is the creation or the flood to be presented as fact?  Well, no.  They are to be presented as examples of the Biblical (and other literary) narratives.  The flood is in the Bible, Gilgamesh, both poetic and prose Eddas, and Ovid's Metamorphosis.  Is it fact?  Who cares?  Wikipedia isn't a platform to promote religion or irreligion.  It isn't a platform to promote editorial bias either.  Wikipedia exists as an online repository of links and examples from notable and verifiable sources, to say what those sources say (so people can do further reading).  We don't prove anything, and we don't disprove anything.  We simply say that the Bible has the flood around x-or-so year and Gilgamesh has it in such and such place, and Ymir's blood-flood is given in such and such passage.  We can also report that thus and so historian links it to the rising sea levels and breaking of the land dam between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.  And, if we wish, we can report that some Jungian or other links it to the trauma of birth and the flood of amniotic fluid.  It's all fair game -- as long as it is notable and verifiable.  ALL of it is interesting.  We editors are supposed to keep trivialities out when they become too trivial, but even trivialities have their place.  While Robert E. Howard's sinking of Atlantis in his first great cataclysm doesn't belong in an article on Noah, it WOULD belong in an article on Conan the Barbarian.  We even report fictional narratives in their BCE/CE settings.  Conan is either around 14,000 or 40,000 BCE depending on the chronologist.  It's all interesting and relevant to its own context.  At best we can try to move things from one place to another, but most subjects are fair game as long as they aren't too trivial to the context in which they are placed.  This whole agenda of yours is both unwinnable and unnecessary.  No deyed in the wool atheist will convert to Judaism or Christianity because of a slip on wikipedia, and no deyed in the wool theist will unconvert either.  It just ain't happening.  We aren't that important.  We're a GREAT bibliography for further reading as long as editors like you don't wipe out notable and verifiable information.  Neither Lisa nor I want to keep out anything relevant that you want to add.  But I will strongly oppose the deletion of notable and verifiable information from ANY perspective.  It's a waste of other people's hard work, and it serves no purpose here.  If you don't like where something is placed, move it to a better place -- but don't delete it.  As I mentioned above, Howard's Atlantean flood wouldn't be relevant here, but that's no reason to delete it.  You MOVE it to a better spot.  What are you going to do, police all of Wikipedia for anything you disagree with?  This isn't the place.  Add information you are aware of, from sources you know, in articles that they would be notable in context.  But this crusade to delete other people's hard work needs to stop.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since when do I delete stuff? I put my protest in talk pages and put tags in articles. Sometimes I remove or change words to remove charged language. Stop claiming that I remove the hard work of others. And really, stop treating me like I were an idiot. I know the difference between myths and facts. And I want WP to present myths as myths and facts as facts. But that is exactly not what Lisa and other religious editors seek to do. I have been here too long to not see the abuse of the AGF policy by these editors who play innocent while they place their doctrine in articles. They want to mix myths and history to advance a religious POV. That is what has to stop if you want articles to have any educational value. I will put undue-weight tags in every article that I think is dwelling solely on biblical material, be it directly or indirectly. I have dealt with these issues too long to not see to the whole picture. I have fought creationists for the past 20 years and I know all the arguments and why they are invalid. It is always the same. And the claims of Judaims are the same as well, most creationist claims are directly derived from Jewish doctrine.
 * And as for Lisa... Why can't Lisa write balanced articles? Why does she delete material that is critical of Judaism or its deity? Why did she remove the list with the numbers of people killed in the Bible by Yhvh?? If I had time I would assemble a list of Lisa's deletions and inappropriate injections and plain personal attacks, but honestly I am too lazy for that. The list of her warnings and bans says it all already. I am not stupid. Cush (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush, this isn't the place to fight the battles you are trying to fight. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and needs all POVs to balance each other for a NPOV result.  Believe it or not, you NEED religious editors to balance out your agenda.  As for myths and facts... I have a high regard for both, and I respect the fact that many editors disagree about the boundary (or need for one) between the two.  No editor involved here is tgying to promote "myth" in the sense that you appear to mean it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean to collect arbitrary POVs and hope they will balance each other out some day. NPOV means to write balanced articles from the start. It is of course always easy to start an article with a religious POV, because it takes no effort as no evidence is required, just some secondary source that repeats what the Bible says. It is a lot harder to balance that with scientifically sound POVs. And you know that.
 * And editors do in fact promote myth in the sense that I mean it. Example?
 * I have no problem with an article about King Solomon as long as you say he did this and that according to the Bible. The problem starts when you say he reigned from 971 to 931 BCE, because then you need evidence. Then it is no longer inside the Bible but enters real history. That means you need archaelogical and independent historical confirmation. And we both know there exists no such evidence. Solomon/Jedidiah is absent from the archaelogical and historical records. And WP must present that unmistakably. Same goes for quite a lot of articles. Do you at all understand what I say? Cush (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack. There are plenty of respected archaeologists and historians who do not agree with your view that Solomon didn't exist. You present those who say he didn't, I'll present those who say he did, and we'll all sing kumbaya and be happy. The problem -- again -- is you insisting that only what you think is true is true. If that's the way you feel, go start a blog. Leave Wikipedia to those of us who can tolerate views that we think are wrong. -Lisa (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha. Then you should have no trouble directing me to the publications by those plenty of respected archaeologists and historians that have the excavation reports and the contemporary historical sources that confirm Solomon's existence, right? "Lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack" is the typical creationist pseudo-argument. That does not impress me at all. Cush (talk) 05:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush, of course you are supposed to list the source for whatever information you are trying to present in an article. Solomon lived and did certain things according to the Bible.  That's not a problem.  But if you disallow the source, then you disallow the subject entirely -- and this is what seem to be trying to do.  Setting up fake requirements isn't objectivity.  It isn't neutral either.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bible is the primary source for the existence of Solomon and there are no other sources. The plenty of respected archaeologists and historians have failed to produce any evidence that Solomon is a historical figure. Subsequently everybody who says something about Solomon does so because the Bible says so, no matter how many intermediate steps of publication are involved. Solomon is a biblical character and that's all. If a publication only repeats what the Bible says it is not really a secondary source, and it is certainly not independent. It isn't a fake reqirement to ask for evidence if you want to present Solomon in an article as a real person. That is part of the Reliable Sources and Verifiability policies. Cush (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There you go again. Cush, there isn't any proof Jesus existed either, other than whatever primary sources we have.  There isn't any proof for a lot of things other than their primary sources.  The best we can do is to use primary sources as the basis for an article entry, as understood by secondary sources.  That is, we use a secondary source to tell us that the Bible says that Solomon did thus and so.  AND THAT'S IT.  If people dispute the veracity of the BIBLE, that belongs in the Bible article.  If notable and verifiable people dispute the existence of Solomon, that belongs in the Solomon article.  And if the Bible is the only primary source, then people who don't believe in the Bible will take it or leave it.  But you can't simply say that, "we won't have an article for anything that's only covered in the Bible."  To quote fox news: "we report; you decide."  We report ALL notable and verifiable views, and let readers take or leave what sources they wish.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No. According to WP policy WP is not a collection of loose information. And WP is not fox news. "we report; you decide." is not WP policy. WPpolicy is "what we report is acurate and comprehensive". Cush (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We accurately report what specific sources say, as long as those sources are notable and verifiable. The Bible is such a source.  That does not make the Bible any more true than "The Three Musketeers," but it is accurate to say "D'Artagnon did thus and so in such and such book."  We can do the same for Solomon -- even if we think him to be pure fiction.  I've edited Conan Chronologies with the same interest as you have here -- but instead of you I had constructive inputs to something I regarded as fiction, but INTERESTING fiction.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That is simply not true. The article does not only say that he did whatever he did according to and only inside the Bible. King Solomon is not presented as a purely literary and ficticious character. He is presented as a historical figure, and he is presented thus for religious purposes. The problem is that there is nothing to add, because there is simply nothing at all. As I have said before, king Solomon is absent from the archaelogical and historical records. Many articles about biblical issues are written in an in-universe style and suggest veracity to an extent that is not supported by research. 09:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush, although I provide examples from fantasy, I do not regard Solomon to be a fantasy figure. Embellished, perhaps, but there is no reason to regard him as fantasy.  Do we have evidence for his existence?  Sure.  It's called the Bible.  Does that mean he absolutely existed?  No.  But we do have an ancient document (i.e. the Bible) that says he existed.  I believe the entire article about the Chronology of the BIBLE indicates that these are BIBLICAL figures being discussed.  Because of the context and title, you don't have to add "according to the Bible" to every sentence in the article.  Also, you seem to be regarding absence-of-evidence as if it were evidence-of-absence.  The two are not identical.  Solomon may or may not have existed, but he certainly would belong in the context of Biblical narrative.  That's enough for him -- and it should be enough for you.  This special pleading you want to add if someone does mention anything Biblical is excessive and unnecessary.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Bible is no evidence. It is only a story. King Solomon is more like King Arthur. A fantasy figure embedded into real settings. There is no reason to assume that Solomon is real.
 * Btw I am well aware of the creationist "argument" that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that is that what is going on here. The archaeological and historical records are not silent on the 10th century BCE in the southern Levant. It just tells another story than the Bible. That is the principal reason why there is no space for a historical Solomon. And of course it is far worse when it comes to the most essential and defining event in Jewish lore: the Exodus. No-where in Egyptian history is there any space for the circumstances leading up to the Exodus as narrated in the Bible. Cush (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush -- I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not proposing a creationist argument, and I'm not a fundamentalist.  When I say that Solomon is probably more embellished than fictional, I could say the same about Arthur.  The idea of a king of a golden age is quite common in national lore, but that doesn't make them entirely fictional.  SOMETHING was the basis for the Solomon stories, even if it wasn't a single individual or under the name "Solomon."  These are unknowns.  Nevertheless, to say that the Bible is no evidence at all is just as childishly ideological as saying that it's infallible evidence.  You, sir, are a fundamentalist-atheist.  The fact is, the Bible is some kind of record.  The fact is, it is ancient.  The fact is, it is historically significant at least on a literary level.  The fact is, it contains many things that can be externally corroborated and many things that can't.  The fact is, ideologues on both extremes are very difficult to work with on Wikipedia.  And the fact is, Wikipedia doesn't care about your fundamentalist-atheist truth any more than it does the fundamentalist-theist truths out there.  We report what primary sources say as understood by secondary sources.  Although we are not obligated to add information we think is false, we are not allowed to go around purging Wikipedia of everything we disagree with.  The idea is to NEUTRALIZE articles, rather than purge them.  Most of the time it's a simple matter of adding a caveat line in there somewhere instead of galloping forth with a sword and a white-out pen.  Relax.  Wikipedia is a NPOV source.  We record relevant and notable information.  We have editors who disagree with each other.  Those disagreements enhance neutrality.  Learn to love the opposition.  They are your best friends.  And you, my friend, REALLY need some of that opposition to help you out.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone were to come across a version of the Lord of the Rings in 500 years, would that count as evidence for anything then? And the Bible is just not ancient enough to be a valid source for the 10th century BCE. And it has been edited so much that it is hard to say what's not exaggeration and distortion and fiction. I know that SOMETHING was the basis for the Solomon stories, but there is no hint in archaeology or history what that might have been. I mean there is not only no mention of your golden-age king, but also trace of that golden age. There are no excavations of grand palaces and temples. No sign of the wealth assigned to the period by the Bible. Nothing at all matches the biblical story. It is not me who disagrees with the Bible, it is the archaelogical and historical records. Even if there were a grain of truth in the story, it would still be fiction, just as the King Arthur story. I can of course understand why Jews and Christians have to insist in the veracity of the Bible, because everything else would threaten their identity (hence COI). But WP is not here to endorse religion.  Cush (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cush, Wikipedia is neither the place to endorse OR denounce religion. If you have a source that says there is no external evidence for something, by all means throw it in as long as it is relevant to the article, notable, and verifiable. A simple caveat is all that's needed to neutralize an article. This whole crusade of yours is a huge waste of everyone's time -- including yours. What are you going to do, police the entire encyclopedia? That's not our role as editors.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What would be a simple caveat? One sentence somewhere? A small section to balance the entire inflated religious circularly sourced stuff? Certainly not. The entire article text must be written in a style that makes the nature of the issue clear. Faith must never presented as fact. Cush (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't present ANYTHING as "fact." What WE do is quote sources that say "thus and so is a fact".  An encyclopedia is a glorified bibliography.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As soon as you assign reign dates to Solomon you present his existence as fact. Cush (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cush. The reign dates are based on a primary source (the Bible), as understood by secondary sources.  That doesn't establish them as fact.  They merely establish when the primary source says he reigned.  In any case, I think we've beaten this to death.  I was on a sabbatical of sorts on Wikipedia and need to start back to the real world again.  Good luck with your concerns.  Hopefully you'll work it out for something that is good for everyone all around (including yourself).  And if you need anything, feel free to pop me a note on my talk page.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You just don't get it. E.g. the article on Tel Arad contains a line "The citadel and sanctuary were constructed in the time of King David and Solomon.". Another example is in 10th century BC. The biblical/mythical kings are referred to as actual rulers of the area in a certain time frame, although there is not a single piece of evidence to confirm their existence. All that exists is wishful Jewish historization of a "golden age" that was invented much later. Such references are all over WP and David and Solomon are presented as real. That is unacceptable until you provide evidence. Cush (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush -- this is what I was trying to explain to you about your "special pleading." You disallow evidence and then claim there is no evidence because you disallowed it.  Regardless, there are ways to neutralize a phrase.  For instance, let's say that I was describing a tablet from the 10th century BCE found in Israel.  If, "the tablet comes from the time of King David" is a problem, how about, "the tablet comes from the time described in the Bible as the reign of King David."  While Wikipedia doesn't like too much weasel wording, a little nuance is okay.  But it is not okay to wipe out these kinds of linking references, because it's very helpful for readers to find related information.  You can't just eliminate the Bible from Wikipedia.  You can neutralize it, but not eliminate it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean "I disallow evidence"? The Bible is no evidence. It does not contain excavation reports and its contents is not confirmed by any textual sources of the time periods in question. Writing something into a book does not make it real. We see that with the fabricated foundation of Mormonism. The Bible is insubstantial. And if you choose to believe in it because you adhere to a certain deity that is your problem. Archeological and historical research refutes the Biblical tale so thoroughly that it is incomprehensible how someone could adhere to the Bible inspite. But of course the religionists have always been shouting louder and have gained more public attention than solid science. If you take together everything that has been unearthed about Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Aegean, Anatolian history of the pre-Persian period in the passt 150 years, there is just no room for anything that the Bible claims as history. It is not just the case that there is no evidence for the Biblical "history", there is also every evidence for an entirely different history. The Israelites emerging from a Canaanite tribe, as it is now generally assumed, have nothing to do with the biblical Israelites. Period. Accept that. The Bible is not a reliable source, primary or otherwise.
 * And there is another aspect of this. The Bible exists to literally solidify in the weltanschauung of its audiences the existence of a certain deity (a pretty nasty deity I might add, for which reason I deem adherence to it a flaw of character). However, this deity is not as ancient a concept as people might think. The post-exilic Jewish Yhvh is an amalgam of quite a number of religious concepts and traditions from all around the Middle East. And prior to the Babyonian Exile the inhabitants of the southern Levant were as polytheistic as everybody else. So if authors of a text can fabricate a new god out of bits an pieces of other gods, why on earth would you assume that they would feel remorse to fabricate history? When the Bible was first assembled out of a loose collection of Jewish folk tales in the Hellenistic era, the authors and redactors knew very well that nobody would be able to check their claims for accuracy. Hence they took the chance to re-write Jewish history to give it a grandness that could at least in some degree compete with the histiories of the real powers of the ancient world. The probability of Biblical tales to be historically accurate is further reduced by the probability that their authers are lying. So if you have an untrustworthy primary source that is not confirmed by any other primary sources, and secondary sources only repeat what the Bibly claims (i.e. they provide no reliability and no verifiability), what do you really have? Exactly: nothing.
 * There is just no reason to accept biblical dating into articles about ancient history, or anything biblical for that matter. Cush (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, you merely tweak the wording to be neutral and move on. In my previous example, the wording "the tablet comes from the time described in the Bible as the reign of King David" would suffice even if every one of your statements here were correct. As an editor on Wikipedia, I don't really care beyond that. You have your POV. True-believers have theirs. That's why Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. So, go collaborate.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "the tablet comes from the time described in the Bible as the reign of King David" Actually, that is just a re-phrasing to weasel biblical content into an article without need. The information contained in this is equally zero, only that we now know that the Bible makes claims about history. But we already know that. No reliabilitzy or verifiability has been added. That's the entire problem of tru-believers' POV: lack of evidence. Any evidence. And why? Because the supernatural is never evident. The insubstantial is insubstantial. I do care beyond. CUSH 00:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush, by your logic, NO prescientific writing counts for any evidence at all. Homer didn't exist.  Shakespear didn't exist.  Cervantes didn't exist.  Scientific writing is extremely valuable, but that does not discount prescientific writings, which contain evidence of history.  They are not the final word, but neither are they no word at all.  You, sir, have an agenda.  That agenda to eradicate anything Biblical is unnecessary and contrary to NPOV collaboration.  It is also, by this point, a waste of everyone's time.  It's time for you to take a break -- and even if you don't, it's time for ME to take a break.  Good luck to you.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have no clue at all how archaelogical or historical research works. How do we know that Homer or Shakespeare or Cervantes existed? Because whe have confirmation from independent contemporary sources. The same does not apply for David or Solomon or any other biblical character prior. All there is is much later Jewish doctrine. And the complete absence of any confrimation for the biblical tales makes them what the works of Homer, Shakespeare, and Cervantes are : fiction. And it really does not matter whether there is a grain of truth in it, it just will never be a reliable or verifiable source. And to be blunt, with the given number of Jews in the world (less than 15 million = 0.23%), Judaism and its religious interpretation and fabrication of history is fringe. No serious archeologist or historian today assigns any credibility to the biblical tales anymore. Just read the respective WP articles. CUSH 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cush -- I agree that we need to wind this down. As for archaology and Biblical stories, there is a good bit of ongoing research into these matters.  Do archaologists and historians give credibility to the Biblical accounts?  It depends on what you mean by credibility.  First, there are scholars who really believe in the Exodus or the resurrection of Jesus.  Are they non scholars because of this belief?  No.  Scholarship is a methodology and not a point of view.  Archaologists will not agree on what the evidence means in a lot of cases, and that disagreement is an important part of scholarship because of the simple problem of human bias: a true believer and a true disbeliever will look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.  Thus, peer review becomes important as scholastic methodology seeks to minimize (though never eliminate) human subjectivity.  Now for credibility: let's look at the flood of Noah.  Was there a worldwide cataclysm that covered the entire planet and wiped out all life on earth except for a few species carried in a boat?  While few scholars would retain THAT extreme point of view, few others will hold the opposite piont of view -- that the story itself has no basis.


 * There are any number of bases for such a story. A Jungian would see in the story a true basis for human psychological development.  While not a literal flood, there will be a valid psychological basis for this kind of story spanning cultures around the globe.  Although I do see a lot of validity in Jungian theory, most folks need something more than that as a "basis" for any kind of geologically historical account.  Coming down toward archaology, there IS a possible basis for this story.  The black sea and mediterranean were once divided by a land bridge.  When the old ice sheets began to melt at the poles, the oceans rose.  Sometime around 9,000 years ago the oceans rose to such a level that the land bridge was overcome and the black sea basin was flooded.  While this may not seem cataclysmic to us, we have to bear in mind that most human civilizations have been (and still are) clustered near water -- oceans, rivers, lakes, and seas.  Rising waters not only engulf villages, but entire civilizations.  And while the people are not literally drowned, their culture, buildings, and way of life often are.  We are only beginning to explore undersea archaology, and there is a lot we should continue to find as we pursue this field of study.


 * Now, does that make for a literal boat with all of humanity and animal and plant life destroyed? No.  Does that give credibility to the Biblical account?  Yes -- not as a blow by blow account, but instead as evidence for some kind of traumatic event involving flooding and prehistoric civilizations (even if those civilizations are extremely primitive).


 * Wikipedia is a great place for this kind of middle ground to be included within various ranges of views. It is our job to present sources that say that 1) Noah is complete horse-hockey, 2) Noah is literally true as inspired by God, 3) Noah and other worldwide flood accounts has some kind of individual developmental psychological foundations (thus their breadth around the globe), and 4) cultures have historically been clustered around water, and rising waters in this interglacial period have rountinely flooded one culture after another, displacing people around the globe.  We HAVE this opportunity because of our NPOV policy.  It's a good policy and is meant to include the breadth of information that is available, with input allowed from true believers, true disbelievers, and those in the middle like myself.  We all participate, adding from sources that are dear to us, as filtered for notability and verifiability by those with alternate POVs, and combined into a single collaborative effort.


 * You, as a true disbeliever, COULD become a valuable asset to Wikipedia. The only thing you need to do is to embrace this Wiki-culture of collaboration and to see the positive in other points of view, incorporating them into a neutral finished product.


 * But I haven't seen any progress yet. I'd welcome it, and I'd like to see you become a constructive editor here.  You CAN do it.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cush--I have to agree with these folks. Although I don't have a deep knowledge of your work with Wikipedia, what I have seen is a tendency to repeat a single fabricated assertion--in this case, the assertion that all modern editions of the Bible read "Sea of Reeds," which I have demonstrated on the "Crossing of the Red Sea" talk page to be the opposite of the real situation. In view of your ability to brandish made-up stories as fact while at the same time speaking at great length about how logical and rationalistic you are, I think you need to have some reserve when correcting people. It's not appropriate anywhere, especially in a situation where the goal is to produce a consensus-driven and fair scholarly encyclopediaMitchell Powell (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)