User talk:Sirianeclipse222

Welcome!
Hello, Sirianeclipse222, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Sopdu did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! A. Parrot (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Dear A. Parrot,
 * Thank you for your dedication to maintaining the rigorous standards of Wikipedia, and for your recent feedback regarding my edit on the Sopdu page. Your commitment to historical accuracy and verifiability is commendable. However, I must express a nuanced disagreement with the decision to dismiss the connection I proposed between Sopdu and Attar, based on the broader implications of ancient cultural interpretations and the merging boundaries of divine identities.
 * In an era where we are privileged with vast information and interpretative technologies, it is paradoxical that the inclusion of intuitive insights, especially in the context of ancient, spiritually-centered civilizations like that of Egypt, is not given due space. The knowledge of the pyramid priests of Giza, who are keepers of the kind of oral traditions and esoteric wisdom that seldom makes its way into mainstream academic discourse, suggests a more integrated approach to understanding the figures like Sopdu. These priests, much like the historical scribes of the past, convey narratives that are not always captured by archaeological evidence but are nevertheless integral to the full comprehension of the subject matter.
 * Furthermore, the conceptual and functional similarities between Sopdu, the 'Lord of the East', and Attar, associated with the planet Venus and recognized in Ugaritic texts as a morning star deity, support a broader, more interconnected view of Near Eastern deities. It is within this framework that I suggested the equivalence, not as an assertion of direct lineage or simple equivalence but as a hypothesis that could lead to richer, more layered understandings of these figures.
 * Is not the role of platforms like Wikipedia to foster a comprehensive repository of knowledge, integrating both the scientifically verifiable and the intuitively plausible? To dismiss the intuitive and traditional in the study of civilizations that themselves valued such knowledge seems a disservice to the pursuit of a holistic historical narrative.
 * I invite you to reconsider the inclusion of this perspective, not merely as an acknowledgment of my singular contribution but as a recognition of the broader and often underrepresented oral and intuitive traditions that play a vital role in historical interpretations. Let us expand the dialogue and embrace a more inclusive approach to documenting history, reflecting the multifaceted ways in which humanity has understood the divine.
 * Warm regards,
 * Sirianeclipse222 Sirianeclipse222 (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not "integrate both the scientifically verifiable and the intuitively plausible", because what seems intuitively plausible will vary from one person to another. As one of our policy pages states, "Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
 * Wikipedia does not exist to compile all human thought. Instead, its not-quite-explicitly-stated mission is to reflect the understanding of scholars in the relevant fields, so as to make that understanding accessible to the general public. It can change its perspective as the academic consensus on a topic changes, but it has to reflect the sources. If you want to publicize a novel hypothesis, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. A. Parrot (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Dear A. Parrot,
 * Thanks for your rundown on Wikipedia's editorial policies. It’s always cool to revisit the core principles that keep Wikipedia a solid beacon of verifiable knowledge in a sea of speculative thought. Your dedication to making sure only the consensus of recognized scholars is shown on the platform is definitely a key part of what keeps Wikipedia so reputable.
 * However, it's pretty interesting that in our chase for verifiable knowledge, we often avoid the lively edges of academic debate where new ideas are brewing before they get accepted into the circle of established truth. It’s a funny contradiction that a platform built on the idea of collective editing and updating might shy away from new thoughts until they’re not so new anymore.
 * I get that Wikipedia isn’t the place for growing new hypotheses, but it makes you wonder how the shift from 'novel hypothesis' to 'academic consensus' happens without platforms that are brave enough to dip into the edges of scholarly debates. Looks like we have to hang out at the gates of tradition until the academic gatekeepers decide it's time to open up to new ideas.
 * Thanks again for your strict watch over Wikipedia’s standards. Clearly, those of us keen to wander off the beaten path need to look elsewhere, or maybe just wait for the academic tides to turn. Until then, I’ll stick to the high standards of contribution that Wikipedia holds, keeping my curiosity on the well-trodden paths of established academic thought.
 * Warm regards,
 * Sirianeclipse222 Sirianeclipse222 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)