Talk:Tower of Babel: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:25, 23 July 2006

Lord

Ba'al or Bel is Babylonian for Lord, meaning, in this case, Dingir Marduk. There is no Sumerian God namend Bel. The interpretation Bab elum as Gate of God is most probably a Neo-Babylonian learned speculation. --Yak 15:15, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

No, its based on the word elum, which is "of God", el being a word meaning simply god, though when capitalised as El it can mean "THE god" or a specific Semitic deity - El (god). --User talk:FDuffy 14:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Joseph?

deleted this:

Others draw upon the Hamiltonian source sighting its reference to 'yosef', that is 'Joseph' in English.

sighting should probably read citing, but I still don't get it (what's "the Hamiltonian source"?) dab 07:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge

Should this be merged with Babel?

I think it should. They seem to contain duplicate information. thx1138 12:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged Babel here and disambiguated it. --User talk:FDuffy 14:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Babel" article has been reverted by Wiki alf, but you didn't use the Edit summary to explain your action. Retodon8 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Brothers 3

Arguably, the tower in Sky Land in Super Mario Brothers 3 for the NES is a reference to the Tower of Babel, as you have to climb it to reach the sky part of the level, and need to climb it each time you want to go back up there. --InsaneSonikkuFan

Bible Translation

Which Bible translation the example comes from needs to be cited. Hackwrench 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization

Move to include this in the Category:Abrahamic mythology 134.161.241.176 21:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Use of this ambiguous term seems like pov pushing; numerous alternative categories have been created to deal with Bible articles. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The story can be "mythological" according to scolars and still be true. KHM03 21:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from the Abrahamic mythology page :

Abrahamic mythology category covers objects and topics from a relatively cohesive set of ancient traditions and stories (eg., mythologies) in the Abrahamic religions.

NOTE: Categorising a story as a myth does not necessarily imply that it is untrue. Religion and mythology differ, but have overlapping aspects. Many English speakers understand the terms "myth" and "mythology" to mean fictitious, fictional, or imaginary. However, according to many dictionary definitions, these terms can also mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people, and this Wikipedia category should be understood in this sense only. The use of these terms in this category does not imply that any story so categorized is historically true or false or that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false. (Note: This description is itself the subject of an ongoing dispute concerning neutrality.)

Doens't seem to be too much of an issue... 134.161.241.176 21:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that since hindus and muslims and buddists et. al can live with a mythology category, so can christians. 129.186.203.5 22:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a huge debate on whether to include biblical stores in the mythology categories several months ago and the consensus was that they should not be there. Please do not bring up the subject again. DJ Clayworth 17:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, 3 or 4 voices does not make a concensus, it's way too small a sample. Ask for a RfC about whether to add it or not. -M^ask 18:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JESUS CHRIST! no matter WHAT you will insist on yet another poll, yet another excuse to not include the correct damn categorization. This is stomach turning! 134.161.241.176 18:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I havent insisted on one yet, so another is not the appropriate wording. I stumbled across here after seeing the rapid reverts on Recent Changes. Votes are generally frowned upon, as we try not to have votes, but rather get a feel for cencensus. That means more then simply a majority. One of the things it requires is an appropriatly sized sample. Thats why we changed Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion. -M^ask

18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With language like that, the guy is clearly seeking to cause a disruption... The categories this article is in are already subcategories, the MOS says not to add super categories so all of this foaming at the mouth is really academic, if mildly entertaining... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, the old moving goalpost strategy. Good job destroying wikipedia guys!

Just for the melodramatic anon:

Image:LiamLynchWhatever.jpg

-M^ask

23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Many cultures other than christianity, (read persian and arab) have abrahmic mythology. I don't know if the tower of babel counts as such, but it is a mythological meme that is present in many non-christian stories. Removing the category on the christian centric basises given above is just blatant POV pushing. As a christian who studied theses "myths" in a conservative christian university I can say that you are not doing the community any service by removing this category. The reuse of these elements in other myths is COMMON KNOWLEDGE to theologins and doesn't give them any nightmares, it just points to a common earlier basis for such stories. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your church may well consider them "myths" - but its still a pov, not something that can be stated as fact. You can certainly mention that many people consider it a myth. But wikipedia is not supposed to take sides when there are multiple widely-held pov's out there, and many churches state pointblank that this is categorically "not" a myth. Then you have Communist countries (and apparently your church with them) that state that it categorically "IS" a myth. Wikipedia is all about NPOV, that means it cannot take one side or the other in the dispute, it can only state what everyone's view is. That's hard to do with a category, and unnecessary too, since we have a compromise (please read carefully above) that allows subcategories (like Torah events) and supercategories, so the issue is on the subcategory page, not this page. Anyone who wants to look up events in the Torah can easily use the subcategory to do so. The purpose of Categories is not to subtly push pov by using disputed terminology, if this was allowed you'd see a whole lot of articles categorized with terms that one party or another found insulting or pov. That gripe from the anon above about "moving goalposts", if I understand it correctly, means the wikipedia standard policy about not having articles in both a subcategory and a supercategory at the same time, is not good enough for him, because after all, his "goalpost" is to somehow get a definitive statement that the Bible "IS" mythology with no question allowed, with that word appearing on the article one way or another. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did have a long post here about how with many different contradicting version of a story at least some of them have to be myth. And how it is pretty obvious to anyone with a bit of intelligence that the story has to be allegorical rather than literally true because the chinese were writing using a different language 500 years earlier. But, after re-reading your post I began to realize that you and reason are seperated my a monumental gulf that can never be crossed. You are standing up for something that noone ever attacked. Noone claimed the bible was myth, you are attacking a straw man. You seem to think you are standing up for your religious beliefs,(yes that is an accusation of pov pushing. However your illogical attack on me for what I never claimed is so far past that point that it is irrelevent.)

Picking this particular story to make a stand for complete biblical innerrancy without understanding the actual state of the debate is not bright. Before you attempt to jump into this debate again mentally unarmed please take a look at [[1]] for a bit of history and a somewhat conservatively biased (it is a bible study site) introduction to the current state of biblical inerrancy beliefs. Or read your own church's commentarys, you might be surprised. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a stand for neutrality, not biblical inerrancy. Calling this a myth is not neutral, its a pov. The article should not state that the Bible is inerrant, but it should not state that it is myth either. It should not take any stand. Why is "neutrality" so hard to fathom? You accuse me of being divorced from reality, but I can hardly even follow your arguments.... Where does "chinese" appear anywhere in this article??? "Tower of Babel" is the Biblical term, it is about the Biblical story primarily as found in the Bible, and similar accounts are only thrown in for comparative purposes. Finally, don't speak with such confidence about what "my church" teaches, since you obviously don't have any idea what that might be yourself... I can name several churches that state that the Tower of Babel was a historical fact and not a myth by any definition, but I didn't state anything about what I personally believe. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Just because you believe something yourself does not make it neutral. I believe the same as you, however I am attempting to put my personal beliefs aside and choose neutrality. Furthermore you simply don't understnad the meaning of the word myth.
Myth: a traditional story accepted as history from [2].
Myth: a common or shared historical experience from [3]
Myth: stories drawn from a society's history that have acquired through persistent usage the power of symbolizing that society's ideology and of dramatizing its moral consciousness from [4]

We've been through this to the tune of two or three megabytes already... It still doesn't change... As long as "myth" continues to also mean "fictional", it's ambiguous... (You know what ambiguous means - it's when words have more than one meaning)... There are plenty of more neutral words that could be chosen besides "myth" if you are trying to say it's a traditional story... for example "traditional", or "story"... Myth is a loaded word; it is, like "superstition", a word that has historically been used by those who are attacking these beliefs or attempting to tell people not to believe in them any more, or to believe in something else... It can't shake off its history... Again, in your response above you refer twice to "what I believe" and even state that you believe the same thing - but I'm just wondering where you got any indication of "what I believe" because I am acting as a neutral editor to assure that no loaded, historically-used-as-attack words get tagged on here like a label and pretend that it's "neutral" just because some people seem desperate to convince everyone that it now suddenly has no sinister meaning any more (the other meaning is still in the dictionary, and is still used not only by most speakers, but widely on wikipedia). ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth issue

Guys, I take no paticular stand on this, I only got involved because I spied some edit warring and a poll, which per m:Polls are evil I don't want to see votes or really anything close to it here. It would be helpful if everyone would just write out their opinion on the Abrahamic Myths categorization, just a paragraph or two, and see if you can all work together. Try for a compromise iff possible, see if theres something that can be included in the article to clear up any misgivings about the myth label. If Codex is the only one disagreeing and 5 or 6 people want it in, yeah, you'll get it in, but try to come to a compromise instead. Alternately, if theres only 2 or 3 of you trying to force something in there, thats hardly a consensus. Civil debate is something that's missing in a lot of the world today, and wild accusations aren't to be flung around (The 'ruining wikipedia' comment is a pretty good example of that. Debate, not yelling or forcing. -M^ask 05:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth is a loaded word. Currently in wikipedia we are portraying the religions of Celts, Greeks, Mesopotamian, and Meso Americans as Myth. As the article on myth explains. It is not an exact word. However an exact word could not be used to describe this symbol, because it is true to some and false to others we cannot choose a more precise word from either conotation. If we label some stories with supersition and some with history we are imposing a far stronger POV. That said Abrahmic myth is a terrible name for a category, especially on a page which is entirely peripheral to this story cycle. But everyone seemed to be arguing about it here. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An after note: anyone who is worried about a label which questions the authenticity should really read the article, the article does a pretty good job of questioning authenticity even without a label. :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dont forget the fact that muslims, buddhists and hindus are all major, modern religions, and all have mythology categories.... To say that it is unacceptable to use the very same term for christianity is VERY POV and biased... 134.161.241.176 21:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and even Christianity has a mythology category... But please note, none of those categories include sacred texts, like the Quran, Lotus Sutra, Bhagavad Gita, so why should Christianity and Judaism be forced to include sacred texts as "mythology"? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I call BS. Shaitan Qareen Iblis Genie Ifrit Marid in fact, all but 3 of the Islamic ones ARE from the Quran... Might want to fact check a little bit.... That is only ONE of the categories.... Try again. 134.161.241.176 22:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there can be no question whatsoever that the Bhagavad Gita is part of Hindu mythology, and Genesis is part of Hebrew/Jewish/Abrahamic mythology. Literalism is a matter of faith and faith alone, viz. the faith in the historical occurrence of a particular set of myths (see also Mere Christianity). Even such belief does not prevent them from being myths. It is very unreasonable to even have to discuss this. Once again, Codex, like on Talk:Assyria and elsewhere, you are trying to twist equal treatment of the world's mythologies and religions to look like anti-Jewish or anti-Christian bias. It only looks that way from a faith-based "Abrahamic literalism" point of view. Of course, if you happen to believe that the stories of Genesis are more true than that of the Mahabharata, equal treatment will look to you like lumping together "true" and "mythic" stories. WP can assume no such preconceptions about biblical or any other mythemes. Every myth can be, and was, taken as "true", in a mythic mindset. dab (ᛏ) 08:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the ad hominem and the characterisation that I am twisting anything, I have not twisted anything nor am I asking for any special treatment for the sacred scriptures of one widely practised faith over another. All I have been consistently saying is that no Encyclopedia I have ever seen before now has ever mentioned the Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or Buddhist Holy Books as "mythology", and for very good reason - it's because vast numbers of millions of people still consider each of them true. Every encyclopedia I have ever seen has reserved polemic words like "mythology" for beliefs that are no longer widely practised. The only reason we are suddenly seeing these polemic kinds of words applied to various living religions now, is because wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can write. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Hominem? Pointing out that you are arguing from a christian centric viewpoint is hardly ad hominem when you have been doing it on this very page for the past 2 weeks. The topics you pick to argue are christan, the viewpoint you choose is fundamentalist? What more can be said? You are the one making misleading arguments, you don't care about Hindu, muslim and Buddhist works being called mythology or you would be over Hindu mythology curing the world of this terrible bias. No you are acting like POV defender for christianity, therefore it is hardly ad hominem to point this out. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if maybe you have some kind of reading comprehensuion difficulty or what, but one more time, once again, nowhere at any time have I ever made such arguments. I looked at Category:Hindu mythology once and not being an expert in Hinduism, I did not recognise one single article listed there well enough to say whether or not it belongs. That is best left to people who are expert in that religion. I have been repeatedly called to task for not being an expert in Hinduism, but the fact remains, it is wrong to use historically polemic language like "mythology" to describe the sacred texts of ANY religion that is widely practised today, be it Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, all of which are official in some countries, and to pretend that this polemic language is "neutral". Other encyclopedias do not do this, and this is all I have stated from the very beginning. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean other encyclopedias like Brittanica Online [5]? Lets list just a few of the religious mythology articles from just this one source! I will only list some that deal with "contemporary religions" (a somewhat pov designation itself):

Gods and mythology worldview (syria and palestine) [6] ( ohh my that includes christianity and judaism and look at that article title)
Varuna [7] (Every one of the hindu Gods is refered to as Mythic, yes they are still worshipped in modern times)
Biblical Leviathon [8] (and I quote "in Jewish mythology, a primordial sea serpent. Its source is in prebiblical Mesopotamian myth, especially that of the sea monster in the Ugaritic myth of Baal (see Yamm). In the Old Testament, Leviathan appears in Psalms 74:14...)
I can't do any more there are just too many. Brittanica has a great search feature try it yourself.

Brittanica online has huge article trees dedicated just to exploring the interconnection of some of these myth systems. They are similar to our categories but better anotized. Anyway, you can stop making stuff up to support your argument now. I have covered each one of your objections in detail. There is nothing else to say, every one of your arguments has proven false. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to every printed (non-online) Encyclopedia I have ever seen from the 20th Century. But I didn't see any problem with the examples you gave from Brittanica. I wouldn't know anything about Varuna, or if this is a sacred text or what, so I don't feel qualified to speak of the appropriateness of that. But 'Leviathan' most definitely qualifies as 'mythology'; it may be referenced in a couple of poetic Bible verses, but by and large, the vast majority of it is an extra-Biblical story, not a Biblical one, and most of the subject fits well in the "mythology" category. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are trying to imply that the Encyclopedia_Brittanica is not a print publication? Perhaps you are making this statement so that you can rule out any further links I might provide disproving you. The encylopedia is a modern, 20th century (18th edition 1985) well respected encyclopedia. In fact it is considered something of a yardstick by which we measure how professional wikipedia is written. Please see the above linked wikipedia article.

Your second argument, that Leviation qualifies as mythology because it is not mentioned in the bible often and has many extra biblical sources is disengenious as well. The first reason is that the same criteria would make Tower of Babel a myth as well, since a lot of extra-biblical and non-canon stories exist which mention the tower. For example see: Koran (sura ii. 96), Lane's "Arabian Nights," chap. iii., note 14, and Al-Tha'labi's "Ḳiṣaṣ al-Anbiyya," pp. 43 et seq. I can provide more if you would like. By your own logic this would make babel eligable for a myth category. Unless you believe Arabian Nights to be literal history.

As for the leviathon. The leviathon also plays a prominent role in the story of Jonah, which is not just "a couple of poetic verses" it is clear that the Leviathon is a literal beast in this story and that the poetry is refering to the same beast. see [9] (Jewish encyclopedia). --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that wikipedia should categorize this article as "mythology", because your source is that Encyclopedia Britannica categorizes "Leviathan" as mythology. The multiple logical fallacies here should be apparent. Getting back on topic, there are numerous religious organizations with hundreds of millions of followers that teach the Tower of Babel was a historical event, and you are also arguing that their point of view should not be respected, beause apparently you think you have found some kind of superior knowledge to them to be able to state that it was not a historical event. But wikipedia should be neutral, and should not use such biased and non-neutral language to take sides and declare any one scripture to be "mythology", your own pov notwithstanding. It must not take any stand whatsoever on whether it is historical or mythological, but should just present all the evidence and let readers make up their own mind instead of trying to make it up for them. Your attempts to use wikipedia as a platform for pushing one pov against another are going to be resisted. By the way, it might be more to the point if you can find an Encyclopedia that calls "Tower of Babel" mythology, not Leviathan. Tower of Babel is primarily a Biblical story (note the word primarily). Leviathan is not. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply to my arguments rather than attacking me personally. Notice that I have never changed the contested area myself. You have! I have been attempting to convince you using logic, so that we can reach a consensus. You don't know what my POV is, in fact you missed the mark by miles.

Both the leviathan and Babel have archeological evidence to support them, yet are refered to in various "mythologys", even though you can find toothed "whales" roaming the sea in modern times. Mythology is simply a classification method for old stories. A way to group them together by region, culture and yes even religion. It is difficult for me to understand what or why you are attacking here. My religion, christianity, is not going to be labeled MYTH anytime soon, and it doesn't need you to protect it from this.

You say that the bible is the primary source of the story. So it is obvious that you have not been reading my links or citations. Let my synopsize, The Tower of Babel in the bible is only a part of a larger story cycle that of Nimrod (king). Parts of it appear in the bible but the story is much larger. see The Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg (1909)., You can read the entire thing from Project Gutenberg, here is a link [10]. The story cycle of Nimrod is refered to in my own inline reference bible as a "Legend". The writings pertaining to Nimrod, and his building of the tower of babel, along with assorted other adventures first appeared in written form in the jewish traditions known as Midrash. The Midrash themselves are not part of the bible rather they are a compilation of even earlier local oral traditions that is story telling from pre-literate times. This is one of the reasons that the story reoccurs so frequently and with so many different forms, legend and mythology of the region as a whole. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note; You have forced me to get the citations for many of my earlier statements, I should really put some of this information into the article itself. Especially since we have a very large article on Nimrod already. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anything here. I am merely defending neutrality, and will continue to do so as long as I am able. As long as there is demonstrably one sizable body of opinion that says "This is historical and not mythology", and there is another sizable body of opinion that says "This is mythology and not historical", and it cannot be proven one way or another, usage of a category to push one pov or the other is not going to be acceptable or neutral, regardless of what anyone's personal feelings are. If someone added this article to the category "History of Iraq", no doubt you would object. And so would I, because I stand for strict neutrality, and such a category would be pushing one pov over another, since we can't say for sure it is or isn't History. I feel exactly the same way about labeling this as "mythology" as about labeling this "History of Iraq". If you want to thoroughly discuss the issue of who considers this story to be history or mythology, and why, there is plenty of room to address that in the article. A category is a lot harder to npov, beause it's either there, or it isn't; enshrining a disputed, controversial word as a category that major schools of thought concerned with the subject have explicitly rejected, and other schools in turn have used to attack them, just isn't going to pass as "neutral". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical and mythological are not mutually exclusive. Babylon is both historical and mythological. The god Marduk is both historical and mythological. Noone has ever claimed babylon did not exist (well not since the 1800s). What are you talking about? I really don't understand your POV. In your world do schools teach mythology and history in seperate segregated classes? As far as I know you are the only person who is offended. Most of pre-modern history is mythology and all of mythology is history. Societies passed on information through the generations with heroic tales and legends, myth. Babel is as much a part of History of Iraq as anything!

Take Johnny Appleseed for instance, he is categorized in American Folklore AND listed in births for 1774. History and myth coexisting! Does this overwhelm your mind? Cause the rest of us can handle it. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now you're going for that old ad hominem again, because it is most certainly not just me. You probably haven't been to many countries around the world, and probably live in a country where Christianity is not official. I just heard a deacon giving a sermon in my Church only yesterday where he most vehemently stated that the Tower of Babel was a historical fact and definitely not a myth. This is an Orthodox Church, where 95% of the community attends, not one of your western Churches where there only a few old ladies in the pews. There are about 13 countries in the world where the majority are Orthodox. Now let's look at Catholics, didn't the current Pope just write a book where he said people were wrong to call the Bible mythology? Ok, I've already covered hundreds of millions of adherents, haven't even addressed the Protestants who believe in the Bible yet.... But then we have those who despite all this try to use the same attack words that have been used for centuries against the Bible, like "mythology", and try to argue that I am the only person in the world who disagrees. People have been debating for centuries whether the Tower of Babel could have happened or not -- for centuries. I am not aware of any new information that has come out lately, the only new thing is that one side of the debate has told the other side "Well, we've decided it really IS mythology, because that's what we think, so you're not allowed to disagree anymore." Yeah, right. Like I said, there's plenty of room to address all this in the article from all possible sides, but pov pushing with non-neutral categories is not negotiable. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was myth, I am merely trying to keep you from censoring encyclopedic information. Babel is already included in History of Mesopotamia. You just said you would fight to protect this article from being labeled as history either! Please reply after my other messages. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop accusing me of POV, I would include it in both history and myth categorys. Each one presents a valid thread for future investigation. I do not want to segregate information, I am not afraid that people will accidently click too far and learn too much about a subject. (hmm maybe i have found out why you crusade?) :) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact: History of Mesopotamia already includes a link to Babel. You couldn't be more wrong about this. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 22:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHat in the world are you talking about? History of Mesopotamia is a redirect to Mesopotamia, and yes, Mesopotamia has a link to the article Babel, which is a historical name for Babil, and at times has redirected here, but currently does not. What is that supposed to prove? Is that the only way you could get "History" and "Babel" to link? That's quite ingenuous! I'm usually not too overawed by arguments relying on refering to other wikipedia articles as a source or a precedent. But at any rate, I said I would oppose this article being added to a "History category". Noone has tried to do so, so that's a moot point, and a red herring. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring my main argument and attackin straw men, I am done arguing with you. I have been reading your other posts and it is pretty obvious that you are a christian POV crusader. But, you do seem somewhat out of your element arguing with someone who knows the material better than you and who won't put up with fabrications. I have provided you with rebuttle of every argument, I have cited references. You have made up facts, attacked straw men and seem to disagree only with the English Language. You are avoiding the main points of my arguments and focusing on pointless minor details. *sigh* this doesn't help wikipedia get better. Just wasting my time when I could have been contributing. Ciao --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 61: / Line 61: @@
 ah, the old moving goalpost strategy. Good job destroying wikipedia guys!
 :Just for the melodramatic anon:
-:[[Image:LiamLynchWhatever.jpg]]
+:[[:Image:LiamLynchWhatever.jpg]]
 :-'''[[User:AKMask|<font color="#990011">M]]</font>'''<sup>[[User_talk:AKMask|<font color="#990011">ask]]</font></sup> [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)