User talk:Karma1998/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Karma1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 11:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Australian Labor Party. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  General Ization  Talk   12:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to add to the above, the commented note in these fields of the infobox is there for a reason: it reflects previous discussions on the article's talk page. If you would like to re-raise this issue on the talk page, please do so. But please stop edit warring first. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I got the message, I won't do that again.--Karma1998 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Conservatism into United Russia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about this problem, but I wasn't aware of this regulation. I will remember this when I have to copy again. -- Karma1998 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United Russia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 14:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Il Fatto Quotidiano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-corruption ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Il_Fatto_Quotidiano check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Il_Fatto_Quotidiano?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Social Democratic Party (Brazil, 2011), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Georgia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Congress of Brazil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Labour Party and Brazilian Labour Party ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/National_Congress_of_Brazil check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/National_Congress_of_Brazil?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hi Karma1998 and thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia. Would you please ensure that you add edit summaries when you make changes, and also add citations where appropriate? (E.g. I found this citation to support your recent change to the People's Party (Spain) change: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-royals-idUSKBN0ED0NS20140602.) Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Syriza and 'left-wing nationalism'
I saw your change. In general, certainly the party doesn't identify as 'nationalist'. The main 'constituent element' of the coalition was a party that had been described as democratic socialist, ecosocialist, eurocommunist, environmentalist, feminist, pacifist. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaspismos

It is true that during the crisis, especially during 2011-2015 they used some short of anti-German populist rhetoric. So, what is written in that article was true to some extent but is not so true today, imho. They don't use that rhetoric after signing the 'third memorandum' and the party split. Read also about the Prespa agreement and the reactions from nationalists in both Greece and North Macedonia. Syriza was against those nationalists.

Someone had added 'Social-democracy'. Someone else 'Anti-capitalism'. The first one was using as a reference the view of a Greek scholar who sees a move towards center-left political positions. That is certainly true about their rhetoric. Today Syriza advocates cooperation between European Left, Socialists and Democrats and Greens at the European level. The other one was based on the opinion of a dumb British (?) artist who called people to join Greek 'revolution'. I had removed both, even though I believe the move towards center-left is real (but maybe in progress)

I don't want to revert any changes though anymore. Consider it yourself. Sorry for any syntactical or other mistakes. Apostolos Papadimitriou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on John Woodcock (politician). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

European Coalition (Poland)
Hello. I am sorry to bother you, but if you do not mind I would like to ask about something. Yesterday, the next political party decided to join the European Coalition - source. It was previously called the Union of the Left, but in 2015 changed its name to "Wolność i Równość". Could you add this information to both articles I mentioned above, please? You are a very experienced user, and I don't speak English fluently, thus I would be very grateful for your help. Thanks a lot in advance! PS. I also noticed that in the European Coalition article there is a doubled "and" when the parties included in KE are listed, probably because of adding SDPL after the Union of European Democrats without changing "and" into a comma between the Polish People's Party and the latter. Kind regards, 89.66.254.10 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Parliament of South Africa
Hi, there. I have reverted your edit. GOOD Party Leader Patricia de Lille said upon her appointment that GOOD remains an opposition party, even though she serves in the National Government. The Second Cabinet of Cyril Ramaphosa isn't necessarily the government. Please read here and here. Thank you for understanding. Have a good day. Lefcentreright (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opposition Platform — For Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page For Life ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Opposition_Platform_%E2%80%94_For_Life check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Opposition_Platform_%E2%80%94_For_Life?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

State Duma
Please add a source saying Rodina and LDPR support the current government. Thank you! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In 2012 United Centre gained parliamentary representation for the first time....
Thanks for your edit on United Centre. But in your edit you claim United Centre gained parliamentary representation for the first time in 2019 while a few sentences above (your new writing in the article) it is clearly stated and referenced that the party won 3 seats in the Ukrainian parliament in the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election..... I am hoping that I am right to assume that 2012 was before 2019 on both our perceptions of reality  —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  13:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello, I'm Alexander Zubatov. I noticed that you recently removed content from PAIS Alliance without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Removing sourced content, unless there is an explicit reason to do so, is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia. Alexander Zubatov (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Party (Italy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Europa ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Democratic_Party_%28Italy%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Democratic_Party_%28Italy%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited João Goulart Filho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Labour Party ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jo%C3%A3o_Goulart_Filho check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jo%C3%A3o_Goulart_Filho?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Assembly (Namibia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDV ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/National_Assembly_%28Namibia%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/National_Assembly_%28Namibia%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free Destourian Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Free_Destourian_Party check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Free_Destourian_Party?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Free Democratic Party
Hi, I noticed that you recently added back "economic liberalism" to the infobox on this page. I removed it because "Economic liberalism is already implied by classical liberalism by definition, so it doesn't need to be listed. Economic liberalism is already addressed in the lead." Do you disagree with this, or can I remove it again? Thank you in advance. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my reasoning. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Exodus, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution (2nd request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Eilat Mazar into Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Census of Quirinius appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. By fringe I mean that source, which isn't WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes ( ~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
 * "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:


 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
 * A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.  In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence.  In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
 * Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
 * We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01 April 2021 00:45:56 (UTC)

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources
Please read Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01 April 2021 00:45:56 (UTC)
 * As usual, when someone tries to defend the Bible, he's a "bigot" and a "fundamentalist". Well, I give up; if Wikipedia wants to be an anti-Christian website, so be it. -Karma1998 (talk)
 * We're not anti-Christian to the same extent we're not anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, or anti-Muslim. But in a way, you're right: we're anti-fundamentalist. If you want to put it this way, in the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, Wikipedia chose the side of Modernism. Not Christian modernism, mind you, but modernism unspecified. Since that is what the mainstream academia teaches about the Bible in particular and religion in general. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, . Wikipedia has made a choice, and I respect that, however undemocratic that is. I will not make any further attempt on it. Perhaps it's time for me to use other encyclopedias who are less politically motivated. -Karma1998 (talk)
 * WP:DEM: writing an encyclopedia isn't democratic, it isn't undemocratic or anti-democratic either. False dilemma. It isn't party politics, in the meaning of choosing between Socialists, Republicans and Democrats.
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your nonsense, . Write whatever you want to, ban me if you want, I don't give a damn. I'm off this biased, one-sided Wiki.--Karma1998 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? I don't care about your nonsense. You're waisting your time --Karma1998 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? I don't care about your nonsense. You're waisting your time --Karma1998 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you are misunderstanding me this time: I'm not stating that minimalists are wrong, I'm simply writing the answers Herzog received from other scholars. Are those answers to be censored? It's not about religion, it's about facts.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Herzog won, Shanks lost. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What the hell? What is this, a pod-race? Man, the way you express yourself is astonishing.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want me to restate: the evidence (or lack of evidence that should have been found by now if it ever existed) preponderantly favors Herzog over Shanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And therefore Shanks's opinion is to be censored?--Karma1998 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Demonizing minimalists is a debate tactic that proved to be wanting and unconvincing. Why? Because the actual evidence tends to favor minimalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not demonizing anyone. I'm stating facts. And actual evidence doesn't tend to favor minimalists. Please look at the results of Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations --Karma1998 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup, it does: the United Monarchy is in a state of deep coma, and only a god could save it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * exept that it isn't. The existence of the United Monarchy is supported by important archaeologist like Amihai Mazar, Avraham Faust, Eilat Mazar and others. And, with perhaps the exception of Eilat Mazar, these are in no way fundamentalists.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Since this debate began, Amihai Mazar proposed the Modified Conventional Chronology which places the beginning of the Iron IIA period in the early 10th century and its end in the mid-9th century. Amihai Mazar has strongly argued against Finkelstein's views. Today, the consensus of archaeologists is in favour of Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology. [Source: Lester Grabbe, Ancient Israel, 2017, pg. 84]" I'm quoting Wikipedia itself.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All those chronologies are unfalsifiable. Finkelstein thought If It Don't Fit, Use a Bigger Hammer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, no-one is right or wrong. Which is my point from the very beginning. Therefore, let's leave both opinions in the article withouth ideological prejudice.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So, no-one is right or wrong. Which is my point from the very beginning. Therefore, let's leave both opinions in the article withouth ideological prejudice.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to explain my point of view, so that our ridiculous bickering can finally be over. I don't believe the exodus happened in the way described by the Bible; I don't believe that three million people crossed the sea. I simply believe that a small group of people left Egypt and returned to Canaan, bringing their cult with them. However, I don't like the aggressive way that Wikipedia uses to handle the situation. The fact that Shanks has an opinion that is not shared by others doesn't mean that he has to be censored. -Karma1998 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

by the way, William G. Dever is not a conservative on the biblical archeological field, he's a centrist. Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier are conservatives. -Karma1998 (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
Your recent editing history at Kingdom of Judah shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not engaged in an edit war, I'm simply stating the opinions of mainstream archaeologists and recent archeological discoveries.-Karma1998 (talk)
 * I'm willing to accommodate what William Dever and Amihai Mazar say, that's not the problem. The problem is that neither side of the dispute has prevailed, and that real evidence is extremely hard to come by. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's make a compromise, shall we? Let's insert both opinions, either maximalist (Dever, Mazar, Faust) and minimalist (Finkelstein, Herzog and others). How can we do it? --Karma1998 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * just stop bothering me, I don't have time for your whining.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Fabricating sentences; this is a formal warning to desist forever
I am aware of four instances where you were fabricating sentences and pretending those were verifiable in the given sources (see WP:NORN for details). Consider that the next attempt to do that will be the end of your editing career at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * just stop bothering me, I don't have time for your whining.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But you do have time to fabricate sentences out of whole cloth. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The other guys told you to leave me alone, so I suggest you do it. I'm so sick of you, your arrogance, your childish behaviour and your ridiculous threats (the end of my Wikipedia career? Who are you, the boss around here? I strongly doubt it). Just Simply Go Away. I won't discuss this any further. -Karma1998 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have been noticing this back and forth between both of you. Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a battle ground.
 * Also I’m starting to speculate their is some bias coming from both of you.


 * I must ask were the sources added in those articles problematic? Did you look at the sources he added?
 * I’m no Bible scholar and I don’t really research on this topic. But it does appear the sources added are from legit Bible scholars.
 * Like what’s the problem here? CycoMa (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * "Try to gather as many diffs of edits that fail verification, as that seems to be Karma's biggest issue. I'll do a write up on it to take to ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)"
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why, but tgeorgescu has always been invariably terse when not discussing sources directly, so let me add:
 * A large number of Karma's edits use sources that do not support the text. I'm doing a write-up now, in case this needs admin intervention, and I've got examples of Karma citing a work of theology to support historical claims (the work was written by a scholar with a history degree, but is rather clearly a theological work). I've got examples of Karma changing existing text to say unrelated things, while leaving the existing citation in place. I've got examples of Karma adding new claims and a new source which doesn't support those claims. I'm going to post all of this stuff, either at ANI or on a user talk page. I'd prefer the latter, if Karma would just put forth the effort to understand the problem and commit to taking further care in the future.
 * As for tgeorgescu's attitude; they're frustrated. I don't blame them. This issue has been ongoing for months, and Karma shows little signs of even understanding what the problem is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I should point this out, I have checked some Bible related articles and I have noticed people cherry-picking certain sentences from books to put their beliefs in an article. But when I read further through the book it said something slightly different. Just a personal experience. CycoMa (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Bible articles kowtow to what is taught at WP:CHOPSY as Bible scholarship, so yes, we are biased. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * yeah I already know about the CHOPSY test I have seen you link it to other editors many times.
 * Also did you read what I said, I really don’t care who is bias in the slightest. I don’t appreciate it when editors cherry pick without read the whole thing or understanding the context.
 * You got that, also I have told you many times I don’t even really care about this subject that much. CycoMa (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Jesus
Would you please add page numbers to your recent citations at Jesus for the sake of verifiability? Pathawi (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I will, give me just a moment. -Karma1998 (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Karma1998, just minutes after your reply here you added another two references to the Jesus article without citing page numbers. Like MjolnirPants here below, I believe that you are a knowledgeable editor who could be of great value to the project, but you need to understand that the anonymous, hypertextual, and anarchic nature of Wikipedia necessitates a much more rigorous approach to such things as verification. We just can't rely on your reputation or knowledgeability, because we don't know who you are, and are not supposed to know who you are. Instead, we need your edits to provide everything needed for reliability, and that includes page numbers. Thank you for taking this into consideration, Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you refer to my edits about the Gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas?-Karma1998 (talk)
 * I'm referring, like, to this edit and to this one. I think they're both great contributions, but they need to be properly referenced. On your first try, you were reverted by because you did not provide any reference at all, and it's great that you did add those. However, both Pathawi and I are now pointing out that we also need page numbers, so that readers can properly verify the info you're adding. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 21:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Empty tomb. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did use sourced material, quoting the most respected scholars of the historical Jesus (Raymond E. Brown, Ed Parish Sanders and N. T. Wright. But you simply don't care, I presume, so whatever.--Karma1998 (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please answer the charge at WP:NORN. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I did, please read. --Karma1998 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

About "threats". Something to ponder on.
"There are more eyes on you now than if you hadn't made this report. I am not seeing anything actionable here - if this is stalking/harassment, then I should hand back the keys to my account because I routinely click through to Users' contributions if one of their edits seem a bit suspect. I would withdraw this and carry on as if nothing happened. -- a they/them &#124; argue &#124; contribs 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)"

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits that failed verification
Ok, I've dug through your editing history and tgeorgescu's examples as far as seemed reasonable. As I said before, these seem to be simple mistakes, not malfeasance or gross incompetence on your part, and many of the edits I checked (which do not appear here) were very good edits that make substantial improvements to the articles. I greatly appreciate your willingness to work with me on this, and I know how frustrating it can be to have your work critiqued and poured over like this. For what it's worth, addressing these (either by self-reverting, finding sources that support your text or showing clearly that the source actually does support your text) should be the end of this matter. Your responses over at WP:NORN have been very encouraging, and paint a picture of a thoughtful editor who surely knows a thing or two about the subject.

So without further ado;


 * Yahweh: 04:39, April 25, 2021
 * Text in question: "The debate has not yet been resolved, although recent archaelogical discoveries by Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel seem to support the existence of a united monarchy."
 * Result: . The given source presents this conclusion as contentious and not definitive, not as clear evidence of the United Monarchy. (See quote in source: "This throws into relief the problem of exactly how to tell whether the archaeological record reflects the existence of a state as it is usually understood by archaeologists." and following paragraph.)
 * Notes: This edit was functionally duplicated at another article:
 * Source: Debating the United Monarchy: Let’s See How Far We’ve Come


 * Yahweh: 09:20, April 26, 2021
 * Text in question: "However, this is highly disputed among scholars."
 * Result: . The existing source which was left in place doesn't address this. See previous revision which is supported by the source.
 * Source: Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible


 * Yahweh: 21:11, April 25, 2021
 * Text in question: Changed "during the Monarchy (the period of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah)" to "during the Monarchy (the period of the Kingdom of Israel and, later the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah)".
 * Result: . Nothing to do here, I just wanted to note that this was an edit that looked problematic, but wasn't. The source checks out. For any talk page stalkers who disagree: I've found that the term "Monarchy" (capitalized as such) in the literature almost always refers to the polity of the united monarchy (as opposed to the period of time preceding the two kingdoms), and the cited source does indeed use it this way, so it is proper for us to do so, as well.
 * Source: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version


 * 13:54, Yahweh: April 26, 2021
 * Text in question: Changed "kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah," to "Kingdom of Israel and later of the kingdoms of Israel (Samaria) and Judah"
 * Result: . Source provided appears to be a work of theology, not history (though author is a historian). It doesn't appear to even address this question. The original source (which was left in) supports the original text.
 * Source: The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts


 * Joshua: 09:05, May 12, 2021
 * Text in question: "[Stories about the conquest of Canaan] ...may be a legend created by the Israelites to explain the presence of ruined cities in the area"
 * Result: . Sources makes no such assertion, nor implies it.
 * Note: this edit was duplicated at another article:
 * Source:Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible


 * 08:37, May 18, 2021
 * Text in question: "Other scholars disagree and state that the empty tomb is a late development:"
 * Result: . Source discusses the subject of the empty tomb from a theological perspective, but doesn't ever seem to describe a split among scholars about dating of the empty tomb claim.
 * Source: The Ascension of the Messiah in Lukan Christology


 * Empty tomb: 06:57, May 18, 2021
 * Text in question: Changed "The empty tomb therefore seems to be a comparatively late development." which is supported by a source left in, to "According to some scholars, the empty tomb may be a late development." and added "Other disagree, stating that the empty tomb concept was already present in early Christianity."
 * Result: . The existing source doesn't support the wording change. For the added source, no page numbers are given, and the source is a work of theology, which does not appear to assert any position on the dating of the empty tomb claims itself, but rather to simply accept the current biblical account, which is to be expected of a theological work. It does acknoweldge a later dating is asserted by others in a footnote on page 692. which contradicts this claim. The book may assert dating elsewhere, but I cannot verify it.
 * Note: The claim that "the empty tomb concept was already present in early Christianity" does not actually dispute the claim that it was a later invention, as "early Christianity" covers a period of about 300 years, and the later invention claim is usually on the order of 50-200 years after the crucifixion.
 * Source: The Resurrection of the Son of God

I just want to reiterate that I don't see you as a problem editor after digging through your edits and discussing this with you at WP:NORN. I had doubts early on, but that was when I was only seeing a number of problematic edits and one questionable one (the one I included above, which was ultimately good). After digging through your edits, the vast majority seem to be ok, and more than a few are even quite good (I'm a big fan of the improvements you made to Jacobovici's article). So I apologize if I said anything earlier that you took offense to. At this point, I really just want to help resolve this dispute.

Pinging so that they can see this as well. Hopefully, your efforts and my research will satisfy their concerns, so we can all get back to happily poking away at the project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  17:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm happy I've passed the test :-P as for theology, I must stress that it is quite difficult to make a distinction between history and theology when we are studying the biblical text (most of biblical scholars are also theologian, after all) and the authors I quoted are widely recognized to be majestic scholars on the historical Jesus (Raymond E. Brown and James Dunn) and on early Israel (Mark S. Smith), while I haven't actually quoted Zwiep (whatever that name is spelled), I think it was already there. I must also underline that the empty tomb is a subject of great debate among scholars: while it is true that it is not mentioned in the Pauline Epistle, this doesn't necessarily mean that it was an invention, although some scholars claim so. In any case, I will provide you with more sources on the matter. As for Jacobovici, there's little to say: it's nonsense and should be treated as such :-D--Karma1998 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sound like I'm sitting in judgement of you, I'm not. I'm just expressing the impressions I've had over the course of this.
 * I'm aware of the overlap between theology and biblical history. It's definitely a fuzzy line at best, and a region of uncertainty between the two at worst. An author like Smith would certainly be qualified to speak to the subject of the history of Israel and the specifics of the iron age period, but it's just that he doesn't seem to do so in that book.
 * We're in lockstep agreement on Jacobovici. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter James.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Historicity of Jesus, you may be blocked from editing. Pipsally (talk) 10:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already explained to you why I am deleting those portions. You did not answer properly. Please stop inserting fringe theories in that page or I will report you to the administrators.--Karma1998 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Pipsally (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Pipsally (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, please refrain form further reverts on the Historicity of Jesus page. They already opened up a case and since you keep on exceeding 3 reverts (even though you have consensus), they may just block you without notice. I know you are getting some consensus in the talk page, but this is just a friendly reminder so that you do not get blocked. That page has good eyes, so people will revert as necessary since you already have consensus support to remove Thompson and keep some of your other wording. Do not mess it up for yourself. I think some of your edits were improvement and constructive and would hate to see you get blocked. 3RR is sacred here and it would benefit you to show restraint so admins can see you can see you follow good standing behaviors.Ramos1990 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I will not revert any further, but please help me with this. We can't let pseudo-scientific theories like the CMT come on Wikipedia because some crank believes in it.--Karma1998 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I was actually in the middle of reverting the last time, but you beat me to the last revert! I will revert per the consensus you have established. Keep up the good work! But please protect your reputation. Patience does pay off. Feel free to reach out if you need advice or have any questions.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy! It's good to feel appreciated.--Karma1998 (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You're at 5 (five) reverts within 24 hours now; time to stop for the moment. See WP:3RR. Take that as a warning, that is, one more revert within the next few hours, and you will very likely be blocked for edit-warring. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, already mentioned at the notice-board. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Did Jesus exist book reception
Let's try again and hopefully draw a line under yesterday's unpleasantness. I apologise if our interaction distressed you.

I have restored the salon.com quote you added at Did Jesus Exist? (Ehrman book) with the original source.

On the others please review the comments I have left on the talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Did_Jesus_Exist%3F_(Ehrman_book)

Essentially these quotes are all significantly earlier and refer to Ehrman himself or other books of his, so they're not suitable for the reception section of this books article. I've added the wikitext of those quotes alongside the original citations where they're available in case you want to use that info in the appropriate places.

Thanks

Pipsally (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Christ myth theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Dickson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Quotes your sources
I recommend you quote your sources if you want other editors to agree with you.CycoMa (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to quote an entire chapter. It's also difficult to stay calm, when someone refutes the ideas of a massive archaeologist like Dever just because he's old (seriously, WTF?).--Karma1998 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I mean you don’t have to quote an entire chapter. Just quite the most important parts of. Like quote one or two sentences that show why you think the United monarchy existed.CycoMa (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , when I dove into this issue some time back, I found reams of scholars using "united monarchy" to refer to a period of time during which the "United Monarchy" (note the capitalization on both) supposedly existed. This included scholars who follow the Low Chronology, as well as scholars following the Modified Conventional Chronology. This is best kept in mind when discussing this subject.
 * Another thing that bears pointing out is that Karma has denied believing in a United Monarchy multiple times, and instead has asserted that it's existence is contentious among scholars. I'd note that Karma is absolutely correct in that last. Also, they are correct about the prominence of Dever's views, and his contributions to the subject.
 * With that being said, your advice about quoting sources is good advice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

My view is that the United Monarchy was nothing more than a a kind of hill-country chiefdom, comprising current Israel, except for the South, which was controlled by the Philistines. And David was most probably a murderer, who arrived at power with a coup d'etat against Saul (I mean, the Bible itself acknowledges it).-Karma1998 (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * That's about where I sit on the matter, too. I doubt that there was a single, well-structured polity covering the entirety that then fractured in two. The capitalized United Monarchy as described in the biblical chronology seems highly unlikely, but it also seems equally (if not more) unlikely that the biblical account was created out of whole cloth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  18:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I do think that the Davidic polity comprised both Israel and Judah (from Dan to Bersheeba) and was organised, to some extent; the idea that the United Monarchy was invented by Josiah to claim sovereignity over Israel, as Finkelstein would have it, seems a bit far-fetched. I think it's probable that it split in two chiefdoms after Solomons's death due to an internal revolt, and that would explain why Shoshenq I attacked the area. Those two chiefdom probably later developed into the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and the Kingdom of Judah. But yeah, it's very difficult to know something, the stories we find in the Books of Samuel and the Books of Kings (the parts about Solomon, at least) are an unreliable mixture between history and legend and the Books of Chronicles were written using them as a source, so they aren't particularly useful.--Karma1998 (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And that is a perfectly good individual POV, if a somewhat sentimental one IMO. What it is not, is an evidence-based consensus view of history - which is currently how the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) article, for example, tends to read at present. I'm not saying this is your fault, just using it as an example. Newimpartial (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have some doubts about the nature of the Davidic polity. It seems more likely that the it was a chiefdom, as you said, which remained a tribe as it was split (such things are difficult with large, organized polities, but not so difficult with even the biggest tribal polities), and never controlled the entirety of what would become Samaria and Judea (though undoubtedly it controlled a large chunk of them). I think the archeological evidence is best explained by the supposition of city-states, some of which almost certainly belonged to the tribe which was the Davidic polity.
 * I'll admit that I'm splitting the difference between the Biblical, Modified Conventional and Low Chronologies, but I'm able to make sense of all the evidence that way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  19:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not archaeologists, so it's difficult to understand these kinds of things. That's why I prefer to study the New Testament: at least everybody's sure that Jesus existed and we actually know a lot about him from critically analyzing the texts. The Old Testament, on the other hand, is a mess.-Karma1998 (talk)
 * The point is,, that there's no consensus, despite the fact that every archaeologist claims the consensus is with his theory. We know that David existed from the Tel Dan Stele and, maybe, the Mesha Stele, and that he had some kind of kingdom in the 10th century BCE; but aside from that we know nothing. How big was this Kingdom? Only God knows. I think Dever's theory is plausible, but that's my point of view -Karma1998 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be annoyingly technical, what we actually know is that a House of David was known to exist. The relationship between the "House of David" and a historical David is one of the many questions archaeology has been unable to answer thus far. And as I've said elsewhere, I think Dever's interpretation ultimately amounts to "you can't prove it isn't true", which isn't criterion of validity that I choose to endorse, for myself. Newimpartial (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it's probable that the House of David was founded by David. I mean, the House of Omri was founded by Omri, after all. Still, everyone has its favourite archeologist :-D-Karma1998 (talk)
 * But was it really, though? Omri sounds pretty sketch, TBH.Newimpartial (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just gonna leave this here... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, there's archeological evidence for Omri, as there is for David. And wrt David, there's a broad (if loose) consensus that a King David did, in fact, rule around 1000BCE, and that the biblical character is modelled after this historical person. "King David existed" is pretty far from a controversial statement about biblical history. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And I've looked at all the 21st-century sources I can find, and just don't see the loose consensus...that the biblical (David) is modelled after this historical person. In the cases of both Omri and David, I am unaware of any extrabiblical evidence that goes beyond "this house ruled here". There are plenty of rulers in this era - mostly in Egypt and Mesopotamia - that come with mutually-reinforcing documentation from multiple sources. But not for these guys. As I say, sketch, when it comes to actual history. As a compare and contrast with Agamemnon or Achilles - that would be another story. Newimpartial (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote from Biblical History and Israel's Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History which was published in 2011:
 * (emphasis added)
 * I'd note that the Tel Dan Stele is extrabiblical evidence for a House of David, which itself is extrabiblical (and biblical) evidence for David. No-one's arguing that anything's incontrovertible here, but History works on probabilities, and the consensus among historians is that there's a high probability that a historical figure named David is at the root of the mythical figure. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

, no-one completely denies the existance of King David, except for some extremists like Thomas L. Thompson, Philip R. Davies and Niels Peter Lemche, who are known for denying the existance for basically everything. Thompson, Davies and Lemche believe that Israel didn't exist before the Persian Period, a view so extreme that no scholars has agreed, not even minimalists like Finkelstein and Herzog; Thompson, Davies and Lemche even tried to support the fringe Christ myth theory, a view for which they were harshly criticized by Bart D. Ehrman, Maurice Casey and Dever himself. Of course, the existance of David doesn't prove his kingdom: Finkelstein states that he was simply a small chieftain, who had some territory near to Jerusalem. But that seems highly unlikely: how could such a small chieftain found a dinasty that would be remembered for decades? He clearly was more then that, in my point of view, though he obviously didn't have an empire that stretched "from Egypt to the Euphrates".--Karma1998 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Looking into things right now, I'm seeing more and more support for the "David was a historical figure, and that's all we know", and it's making my careful language above (about the "loose consensus") look a little too careful. Suffice it to say, I don't disagree with your statement about the scholarly consensus.
 * I figure him as a rather big chieftain; probably originating as a peon as it were, who gathered up a small band of malcontents and turned them into a minor insurgency that wrested control of a tribe that had just recently absorbed (or conquered) several of it's peers. That would explain his enduring popularity. As tribes turned into kingdoms later on, it became somewhat impolitic to refer to such a revered figure as a chief, and so he became a king.
 * Of course, that's all speculation, and I'm hardly an RS for speculation like that. Nor would I edit an article to reflect my speculation; it's just what I use to "fill in the gaps" where the RSes don't have anything to say. But sharing notions like this help us all understand each other's POV, which facilitates collaborative work in the articles by cutting down possible avenues for miscommunication. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe he was some kind of chieftain, who managed to overthrow a preceding chieftain (Saul) and later was able to conquer some ample portions of territory in Israel and Judah thanks to the decline of Egypt and Babylonia and turn it into a more or less organized chiefdom. His son Solomon probably also built a Temple for the national deity Yaweh, though I doubt Israel and Judah were monotheistic back then. I don't know, however, wether Solomon actually married the daughter of Pharaoh Siamun, as Dever believes.
 * After Solomon's death, some of his satraps in the North rebelled against Rehoboam and formed their own polity in the North led by Jeroboam. That Jeroboam may have allied with Shoshenq I doesn't seem improbable to me either: the Pharaoh would surely not have missed an occasion to regain to turn the area into vassallage.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Despite this, the archaeological discoveries have dramatically changed our views about Ancient Israel. Levantine archaeology (I no longer call it biblical archaeology) and biblical criticism have demonstrated that: That's a big blow, to be sure. As a Christian, I obviously feel sorry for that, but that's the way it is.--Karma1998 (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Patriarchal narratives of the Book of Genesis, though they may have some historical kernels, are largely legendary;
 * There was no mass Exodus, such as recounted in the omonimous Book. A small group of people probably escaped from the New Kingdom of Egypt joined the early Israelites, but that's it;
 * There was no conquest of Caanan as described in the Book of Joshua.
 * The great king David did indeed exist, but was not that great. He controlled, at best, Israel and Judah from Dan to Bersheeba and the other mirabolous conquests are legendary (though I think he probably defeated the Philistines);
 * The great king Solomon was also not so great: he probably built the First Temple, but his lavishness is legendary.


 * I'm an atheist, but I feel compelled to point out that the fact that the biblical authors were producing their historical material using the same "the story matters more than the facts" standards that historians would employ until the modern era doesn't actually undermine the cosmology or existence of God, nor the divinity of Jesus.
 * The problem of evil does, though.
 * (I'm joking: just teasing you in what is hopefully very clearly a friendly manner. I'm aware that there are highly-regarded theological answers to that.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the critical study of the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles has actually allowed us to know much more about Jesus than we did before, expecially after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So the study of the New Testament has actually proved more fruitful than the Old Testament one.--Karma1998 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While this is far from our original topic, I actually agree with this last statement, but in a probably unintended sense. Not that Levantine archaeology wasn't fruitful, but careful examination of apocryphal and apocalyptic Jewish, Jewish-Christian and early Christian texts has, I think, radically undermined the assumptions underpinning the account of the emergence of Christianity given even 50 years ago, in a most fruitful way for the understanding of second-century Judaism, Christianity and everything in-between. Newimpartial (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?--Karma1998 (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For one thing, "Christianity" took longer to emerge than the mid-twentieth century assumed, and so did Rabbinic Judaism. There was much more "in-between". Newimpartial (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with more accurate studies of the Gospels and the Epistles has allowed us to place Jesus into his Jewish eschatological context, eliminating once and for all the Christ myth theory and the bizarre theories of the Jesus Seminar (a cynical philosopher? In 1st century Palestine? Please). The study of Josephus and Philo also improved (50 years ago, the Testimonium Flavianum was widely believed to be a later forgery, now it is widely agreed that it is partially autenthic, though it has Christian addictions) and this is allowing to understand more how the split between Christianity and Judaism happened. I don't know what you mean by saying that "Christianity took longer to emerge", but I suggest you the excellent book "The triumph of Christianity" by Bart D. Ehrman (that's the second book of Ehrman I like, I may actually start to like him).--Karma1998 (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PS Well, no, I'm not starting to like him. But I definitely have a better impression of him than when I was a fundamentalist.
 * For my part, "The Triumph of Christianity" isn't the way I would tell the story, but he does nail the ending. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * once again, I don't know what you're referring to. That Jesus existed and that his death was the offspring of Christianity is something no scholar denies.-Karma1998 (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The question I regard as outstanding - and where my suspected answer suffers from Ehrman's - is at what point "Christians" situated themselves as exterior to Judaism. Until that point they were Jewish Messianists. Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , well, of course. The separation of Christianity from Judaism was a long process that culminated in the First Jewish-Roman War, when Jewish Christians refused to endorse the insurrection.-Karma1998 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I don't think so. That's far too early to say it "culminated", particularly for Jews who were already in the diaspora before 67 CE. I would rather say that the separation started there. So you can now see where we differ. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

that's a point we could discuss for hours :-) and that's not the adequate place.-Karma1998 (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Afghanistan for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The first edit was indeed unorthodox. However, the second one was indeed an objection to the way the current page has been edited.Karma1998 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't complain after writing what you did. That was extremely inappropriate. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it was, and so was the chauvinistic rants the other editor.-Karma1998 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:KETTLE. Don't do it again. ― Tartan357  Talk 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't.-Karma1998 (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)