User talk:Juicyj2311

November 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to Book of Daniel, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we need to be clear that removing existing content in favour of views expressed in a self-published source, is not acceptable. Bottom line is that https://jonathanmclatchie.com/the-authenticity-of-the-book-of-daniel-a-survey-of-the-evidence/ is not a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am very new to wikipedia and am trying to slowly learning to cite sources. I was planning on replacing the evidence that I found from the self-published source with the more reputable sources that he cited. I see now that I should have been more methodical in my changing of the article, and should have used more reputable sources. However I do think it is important in the future to change this article to support a 6th century dating, as this is what much of scholarship agrees with, or at least mention the arguments in favor of a 6th century dating to show every side of the story. If you want, I can more reputable sources to show the sixth century dating. Juicyj2311 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you need to discuss your ideas on Talk:Book of Daniel and get consensus for changes. You seem to be introducing quite a radical change. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am sorry again for my complete inexperience as far as wikipedia is concerned. I am still a very new editor, and was unaware of the process of "getting consensus." I was also very naive for using the source that I did, and not another source. In regards to what you have asked me to do, I will gladly discuss my ideas in the talk section. I do not consider it radical at all to at least mention the large sum of scholarship that supports an earlier date. It is not that I am opposed to mentioning the later date either, but since such a large amount of people support an earlier date, I think it does academic justice to discuss that commonly-held opinion as well. Thank you for all your help and the assistance you have provided me as a new editor- Juicyj2311 Juicyj2311 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you need to have in mind the vector from which Jonathan McLatchie's 'scholarship' arises, which is the Center for Science and Culture / creationism / intelligent design school of thought. His thesis in respect of Daniel is that it's a 6th-century BCE work which proves God's word because the prophicies came true, rather than a 2nd-century BCE work which 'prophicied' things which had already happened and which provides no real support for the concept of God. It might well be fine to have a paragraph in the article about this view. It would not be acceptable to frame this as anything more than a fringe view, and it would certainly not be acceptable to replace pointers to more conventional 2nd century scholarship. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for your timely responses to my concerns. I am aware of your concerns, and I believe that there are still very good reasons to allow a portion of the article to discuss a sixth century dating, even if a mere paragraph. However there is certainly good reason to reject its being framed as a "fringe" view. To begin, his thesis does not claim that a 6th century dating does not "prove" the existence of God, but rather claims that a 6th century dating creates a statistical anomaly in regards to God's existence that ought to be examined. His claim that a second century dating provides no real support for the concept of God is mutually shared with the scholarship that supports a second century dating, so there is no real issue in that regard. I was foolish for using this as a source of course, as it was self-published, but I can assure you that this view, although held by some fringe scholarship, is accepted by many who are not considered by academia to be "fringe" and thus I do not think it to be rational to present it as "fringe." I would suggest examining the sources that Mclatchie cited in his article, as many of them are widely supported literature. Juicyj2311 (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not really up to us here and now to discuss the sources that a self-published scholar puts in a book. You should bring the matter up on the talk page, and possibly at WP:RSN. I think you will find that Wikipedia editors are not likely to budge, in important matter like this, on the notion that we cite peer-reviewed material. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am sorry for phrasing it in that manner. I merely meant that one does not have to look thoroughly to find that a considerable number of scholarship actually does support a sixth century dating. You do not have to look at Mclatchie's sources. You can search for scholarly support of a sixth century dating elsewhere; it isn't hard to find. That is why I believe this view should be mentioned along with the second century view. I agree with citing only peer-reviewed material, that I why I believe that the peer-reviewed material in favor of a sixth century dating ought to be mentioned as well. Juicyj2311 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Frankly, in the mainstream academia (WP:CHOPSY) the 6th century dating is dead in the water. If one is a mainstream Bible scholar, they will clearly agree with this, since this is one of the most famous issues diving mainstream Bible scholars from fundamentalists and evangelical apologists. The Princeton Theological Seminary is clearly not anti-supernaturalist, but they do teach circa 165 BCE dating as objective historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello sir, thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me. First I would like to make mention of a few things myself in relation to a second century dating. First, even if the second century dating is considered more accurate by academia, do you not agree that we ought to only select the arguments considered most credible by academia? For instance, we cite an argument that the book of Daniel was written in the second century because it used to not be considered part of the "prophets," but rather part of the "writings." I do not know which scholarship you read, but as far as I am aware this argument has been outdated and disproven. It was not until the fourth century AD that the book was switched out of the prophets into the writings. The Septuagint, written in the second century BC, placed Daniel as part of the prophets, various early christians called Daniel a prophet, Josephus in the first century AD called him a prophet, and Melito, the Bishop of Sardis, also considered him as part of the prophets. I do not deny that the later dating is more popular in the academia; however, if we are to do our job and only cite the more popular arguments, we ought to admit that SOME arguments in favor of the later dating are 'dead in the water' as well. Thus I first suggest, in the name of academic integrity, only including arguments about Daniel's dating that are scholastically relevant, such as the argument that the book's prophecies are believed to have failed (at the end of the chapter), marking the period at which the book might have transitioned into an attempt at future prophecy. Of course, there is a conservative response to this, but this is still a scholastically relevant topic. Also, to act as if EVERY argument in favor of the sixth century dating is 'dead in the water' is simply not true. Various 2nd-century proponents admit that challenges are posed by a later dating; if you wish for me to send you evidence of that, I am well able. I merely am suggesting that we only include scholastically relevant arguments of either side. Juicyj2311 (talk) 00:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, right now, in that article, refs 29 to 37 seem to support the 2nd century view. Other refs from 38 to 50, may also support the 2nd century. These are all reliable sources.
 * I would suggest that you start a little more modestly. Rather than seeking to challenge these sources, perhaps put together a paragraph on "6th century BCE authorship arguments" which can set out what arguments are made in support of that view, and be supported by whatever reliable sources you have to hand. No-one here is acting as if EVERY argument in favor of the sixth century dating is 'dead in the water'. We're merely, repeatedly, trying to communicate to you that wikipedia works by reflecting what reliable sources say. When you have coherent text supported by reliable sources for the 6th century claim, there will not be a problem with adding such text. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing to add 6th century arguments if they stem from reliable works. I will work on collecting these later to ensure the academic integrity of wikipedia. To be sure, I was quite confident that you would agree with me that certain sixth century arguments are not 'dead in the water,' which is why I was confused that no arguments supporting the sixth century were even mentioned. Considering you agree that certain arguments are still valid, do you not find it surprising that we have made no mention of even one? I would imagine that people will start to find wikipedia biased for making such an error, made intentionally or not. We must ensure the utmost academic integrity. Also, did you not see what I wrote about ref 50, which is outdated?
 * The article says "Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed c. 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from c. 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century." As I have said, this theory is outdated because it is generally accepted that the Jewish religion changed the genre of Daniel from the prophets to the writings in the fourth century AD. I have no problem with plenty of arguments made about the late dating, but do you not agree that this one ought to be removed for not being historically accurate? Juicyj2311 (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You do not seem to be understanding that WP reflects what reliable sources say. That section of the article is referenced to Hammer, Raymond (1976). The Book of Daniel. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521097659. If you have a reliable source which states that it is "not historically accurate" then it would be good to add that as a counterbalance to Hammer's scholarship; but it is unlikely Hammer will be withdrawn.
 * My position on 2 versus 6 century is neither here nor there. In the same way, your views on 2 versus 6 are not important either. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not that I doubt Hammer's scholarship, but I merely say that this view is outdated; it was written in 1976. For instance, it was once considered one of the primary arguments against an early dating that the book made mention of a man named Belshazzar, of whom no other historical records existed. However, since 40 years ago various Babylonian writings pertaining to this man have been found, and nowadays not a single real scholar would make the argument that it supports a late dating. In fact, various reliable scholars say that if anything, the Biblical record of Belshezzar now supports an earlier dating. A similar case takes place here, where Hammer's scholarship is frankly outdated and contradicted by the recent discoveries of academia. In the name of complete academic integrity, I understand that what WP reflects is merely the opinions of noteworthy scholars. Thus I believe that all noteworthy arguments from both sides ought to be included. You have agreed that there are noteworthy arguments for a sixth century dating, yet WP has not discussed a single one. You have asked for me to suggest noteworthy sources in favor of a sixth century dating, and I will do that this weekend. I will also find noteworthy sources that prove Hammer to be outdated. I believe you will find it convincing enough to remove, or at least place an adjacent alternative perspective. Juicyj2311 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't Hammer. Just stick to mainstream Bible scholarship from the past 20-30 years. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Discussion of historical records pertaining to Belshezzar have nothing at all to do with the Hammer assertion in the article, which is that "Further evidence of the book's date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed c. 200 BC, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from c. 180 BC, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BC, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.". One of the characteristics of McLatchie's self-published thesis is flooding the zone: throwing up all sorts of information, whether verifiable or not, historic or ahistoric, and weaving a preferred narrative through it all in the expectation that most readers will be dazzled by the shit which seems to stick to the walls. Here you are throwing Belshezzar at the wall, without establishing that it has anything to do with Hammer's thesis, and in fact verifiably having nothing to do with the Hammer assertion in the article. Colour me unimpressed. You are being tasked with finding not noteworthy sources, but reliable sources. Good luck with that. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sir, perhaps you have misunderstood what I was trying to communicate. I never said it directly had anything to do with Hammer's assertion. Let me rephrase it if I was unclear so you could understand my point. I know that Belshazzar has nothing to do with Hammer and I never claimed that to be the case. I only brought up Belshazzar to prove that even "reliable" sources can become outdated, because academia has shifted its perspective on him, due to the fact that Daniel used to be the only record of his existence. Academia claimed that this was a great evidence against an early dating, because Belshazzar was likely invented. Now that his existence has been proved through Babylonian records that have been uncovered over the past few decades, academia has SHIFTED its perspective. In a similar manner, Hammer once had a view commonly held by academia. As I said before, the idea that Daniel being in the "writings" proves a later date completely outdated, because it is verifiably true that Daniel was not categorized as such until the fourth century AD. I only used the Belshazzar thing as a connection to prove that even though Hammer can be considered "reliable," he can still be outdated. Mclatchie made no attempt to discuss Hammer's work, but I think we have established already that I will have to find other sources, which won't be a problem, I can assure you. It is as you said yourself, we need to find "reliable sources." Because Hammer's writing is now too outdated to be considered reliable, why do you support it, even if it has been disproven in recent times? Just because he is noteworthy does not make him reliable. His information was reliable at one point, and much of it still is, but it is a simple fact that Daniel was actually considered a prophet until the fourth century AD, causing his work to be outdated. I think we should make sure ALL of our sources are reliable, don't you agree? Juicyj2311 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We only have your assertion that "Hammer's writing is now too outdated to be considered reliable". You say "it has been disproven in recent times" but you have yet to provide a reliable source for that claim. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Nabonidus Chronicle acquired 1879; Cyrus Cylinder discovered 1879; Cylinders of Nabonidus discovered till 1881; translation of the Verse Account of Nabonidus published in Pritchard (1950). These are the main sources about Belshazzar and are known for much more than 40 years. At least since 73 years ago. When Hammer wrote his book, the real existence of Belshazzar was known for at least 50 years. Christian apologists who deny it are ignoramuses. In the Book of Daniel several claims about the historical Belshazzar are plain-out false. And Nabonidus got purportedly mad, and he was conflated with Nebuchadnezzar; none of them has ever converted to Yahwism. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Hello, I'm Qzd. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Patrick Warburton—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Qzd (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)