Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:03, 21 December 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Zenkai251, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ryan Vesey contribs 04:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Images

{{helpme}} Two images that I uploaded are going to be deleted. How can I save them? I think I might have used the wrong tag on them. Can someone please help me? Zenkai251 (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, not a hope. The possibility of using web photos as "fair use" will nearly always fail when the subject is alive - because there is the possibility of obtaining a replacement which can then be used "normally" (i.e you go and see a concert and take your own camera!). The only alternative is to contact the web site as ask them to donate the photographs, therby obtaining an OTRS ticket - see WP:DCM for details  Ronhjones  20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. there is nothing on either web site that would allow the pictures here. In fact one site puts up "© 2006 - 2011 BMA Designs. All rights reserved." - that is a definite "no go". Although such sites are put up as "promotional", they often don't want their photos here - remember all images on WP (that are not "non free") can be used for any purpose, including commercial uses - you could in theory take a set of 12 photos off WP, and make and sell calendars for next year, all that would be required would be some small print to say where the photo came from.  Ronhjones  20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know.

In several parts and in some communities of the US labeling someone an atheist is characterizing them as most vile, immoral, evil, unworthy of public office or protection under the law. I.e. Sub-human. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

When I call someone an "atheist" I definitely don't mean any offense. Zenkai251 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And adding adjectives like 'foolish' isn't offensive? And I note that you have no evidence for any of this labelling editors, only your interpretation of their edits. And you don't seem able to consider the possibility that an atheist or Christian might still edit from an NPOV perspective, which is worrying. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I know for a fact that several people on here don't edit with a NPOV. Zenkai251 (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Final Warning

Please stop editing against consensus, edit warring, and making pointy edits. Doing so is considered tendentious. I'd love for you to contribute positively to the encyclopedia, but your edits recently have not been constructive, and if this continues, I or another editor will have to escalate the matter, which is very likely to result in a block. Perhaps it would be good for you to contribute to a new topic that interests you for a while, like planes, or parks and towns near you, or politics. If you need help, please stop and ask for it before continuing to edit in this way. Thank you.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, consider this a warning for edit warring on Evolution. You are close to 3rr (see that last linked page for details). Please stop reverting, and contribute to the talk page with your concerns. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain yourself. Never have I edited against a consensus I was aware of. All I'm doing is trying to make some articles neutral. Zenkai251 (talk)

For instance, consensus on Genesis creation narrative was to link to creation myth, and you have recently taken to reverting editors to remove "creation myth" from the lead. Edit warring tends to be seen as editing against consensus (or without consensus) as well. Please take a breather, and ask questions if you have them. This recent editing is disruptive. As I mentioned above, it might be good for you to edit other articles for a little while, otherwise this new ANI case may result in a formal topic ban.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Read my proposal for Genesis creation narrative. I wanted to change creation myth to creation narrative, not remove anything. Zenkai251 (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I understand your proposal. However, the RfC held on the talk page unanimously supported linking creation myth, and so changing "creation myth" to "creation narrative" is against consensus. Consensus can change, so you could make a persuasive argument on the talk page after some time has passed and gain support, but until you have done that, editing against the current consensus is disruptive. I understand that you're trying to make the article more neutral, but please understand that the way you are going about it isn't helping. Would you consider taking a breather and editing a new topic for a little while? Perhaps you might also consider adoption, which might better acclimate you with our policies?   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC wasn't a part of my propsal; to tell the truth, I don't know what brought it about. Also, I agree to ease up my edits on the disputed articles as soon as we reach some kind of agreement. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The RfC was an independent question posed by another editor to the community concerning what term we should use to describe Genesis in the lead. The community broadly decided that creation myth was appropriate. As such, the community has reached an agreement on the creation myth issue. Please read WP:CON and WP:TE (particularly here and here). You do not have to agree with consensus for it to form, but abiding by consensus is a necessary part of collaboration on wikipedia. Again, I'd ask that you consider editing other topics or requesting adoption. Could you tell me if you'd be open to either of those ideas? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was to determine whether or not a link to "creation myth" belonged in the lead. It was decided that the link needed to be there. It had nothing to do with changing the phrase to "creation narrative". We have still not yet reached a consensus on my proposal. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Most editors commenting in the RfC noted that the text "creation myth" should appear in the lead. Further, the previous version of the page (which had consensus support) included the text "creation myth". Lastly, a proposal to change the wording to creation narrative has not received consensus support. These are three ways in which consensus could be viewed, and all three support keeping the current wording of "creation myth", at least until a new consensus forms that it should be changed. Can you see why editing the article unilaterally to change the text (and, BTW, also the link) could be seen as disruptive? Also, why did you change List of creation myths to include the Big Bang? I'd appreciate it if you could answer my questions about editing other topics and adoption. It would really help me in deciding how I wish to be involved in this dispute, and it would be a step towards demonstrating good faith on your part. If you have questions about either, I'd be happy to answer them. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I will take a break from editing Christian articles and will instead work on classical music articles. I have contributed constructively there in the past. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering Zenkai. If you need any help, or have any questions, don't hesitate to drop me a line. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Christianity, Bible, etc.

Hiya. I have noticed your recent edits regarding Adam & Eve and such, and thought it probably a good idea to talk with you. Your position on the issue seems to be some variation on Biblical inerrancy. That is a topic about which we have comparatively few reliable sources produced to date - the lack of reliable sources, of course, makes it harder to build any particular articles reflecting that position.

Regarding your earlier comments that any Jew, Christian, or Muslim would say the Genesis creation myth is accurate, I think you should know that at least one very obvious Christian around here, me, favors the use of the term myth in the lead. Yes, I am a Christian. In college, I was even very seriously considering becoming a Dominican monk. (I hope you recognize Catholics as Christians, of course.) And, yes, as an individual, I do personally very much hold open the possibility that the Genesis creation myth is true. However, others do not. This includes members of other non-Abrahamic faiths, as well as at least some nominal Christians who do not believe in the factual accuracy of just about anything in the Bible, including among others liberal Anglicans who think of Jesus as a pure myth or legend. It is in part because of this lack of consensus on the topic that I favor the use of the word "myth". If we were to try to present the Genesis creation myth as factual, then we would face the same problem with many of the Greek myths (there are Greeks who still hold the stories true, as well as other Neopagans), Hindu mythology (having read some of them, I have to say some are factually laughable, but people still believe them), and, yes, even Scientology's Xenu. And there are right now similar discussions being had about the reputability of Astrology and other fringe science or pseudoscience. I cannot see that it makes sense for us to be forced to face the possibility that each and every myth which is current for any group would have to be presented here as factual.

For the most part, our particular audience is the English speaking world. As such, many, if not most, will already know most of the central myths/stories about Adam and Eve, other stories from Genesis, as well as stories about Jesus, Muhammad, and others. If they as individuals are already disbelieving those stories, we only damage our own credibility by trying to present stories which do not have broad-based scientific support regarding their accuracy as factual.

Also, there is the fact that the field of myth and legend is itself a very broad one, and, as per Mircea Eliade and Joseph Campbell and others, there is a great deal of scholarly material available on the development of myths. Even as a Christian, I think there is a decent chance that you as an individual find some of the later stories written about Jesus and others, like the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, for example, to be false. If that is true, then it definitely in your interests (and, in this case, mine as well) to present the new material as new, and, if possible, provide links to content elsewhere which indicates that the questionable material is in some way derived from some other sources of at best dubious reliability.

While I sympathize very much with your position, I do think that, maybe, the best way to go to present the belief that the Bible is absolutely true is to find information on some group which specifically believes that, or find sources published by reputable publishers, and develop that content. By doing so, you would be able to present the information here and in a way which is accessible to all. Whatever our personal beliefs are, I hope that you, like the rest of us, want to present the best neutral information possible.

If you want any help in maybe finding sources for such material, drop me a note on my talk page, or send me an e-mail with your address, indicating what sort of material and/or sources you're looking for, and I will be more than pleased to offer whatever help I can. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, John. The reason that I want the word "myth" removed is because it implies falseness, and there's no way that anyone can prove it to be false. Also, I know of several groups that hold Genesis to be factual; those include Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, and Institute for Creation Research. I'm not sure if such groups would be considered "reliable sources" on wikipedia. And I would appreciate some help in finding some that would be considered reliable. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your statement above seems to be placing the shoe on the wrong foot. I agree that no one can prove pretty much anything about the subject of Genesis, or Jesus, or Xenu, or Hinduism, or Buddha, or a lot of other things. What we are obliged to rely upon are independent sources which meet WP:RS, and that tends to very strongly favor scientific sources over religious sources. I accept that, myself, given cases like Xenu mentioned above. We can't prove he never existed either. But policy and guidelines demand that the burden of proof as per WP:BURDEN is on those who seek to add (or keep) information in an article, not on those who contest it. I egret that the groups you mentioned above are groups with which I am not myself particularly familiar. They probably are considered reliable sources for their own opinions, but in cases of argument we favor articles in peer reviewed academic journals, overviews by independent academics or others in encyclopedias, etc. In this case, that would place the greater reliability on sources like peer reviewed historical, archaeological, and other journals, as they do not have any sort of inherent "bias" beyond that of scientism. Also, books that have received favorable reviews in peer reviewed journals and the like are favored over those that don't have such reviews, in a head-to-head combat.

Regarding the point that myth implies falseness, I am not sure that belief is necessarily support in academic literature. In popular culture, yes, the relationship is obvious - people in general use the word only for things of dubious authenticity, like for instance some of the stories about Krishna in Hinduism. But even the Hindus who accept those stories as accurate tend to accept the use of the word "myth" around here, because the current academic usage of the word, which is less judgmental, is appropriate. They might say that the other similar, false, stories are all perversions of the original true story, I don't know, but they do accept the use of the term.

I do know that the Garden of Eden story is prominently included and discussed in a fairly highly regarded academic reference book whose title describes its contents as being "creation myths", so it would be hard to argue that the term "myth" is wholly inappropriate. And a lot of the scientific/scientist reference works indicate that the story does not have any particular independent evidence to support it. Personally, I think the best approach might be to accept the use of the term, but maybe add something in the lead section to the effect that while the story is not widely accepted in independent peer reviewed academic sources, it is still accepted as accurate in at least some Jewish, Christian, and (maybe, I don't know about this myself) Moslem groups.

I will go over the books of newspapers, journals, etc., I mentioned above, and see if there are any peer reviewed publications which could be brought forward to counter the mainstream academic press. It will probably take at least a few days to go through those books, but I will contact you with what I can find. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Genesis creation narrative

Hi Zenkai. I just read your conversation with Mann Jess on his/her user page and thought I'd say a little myself, without wanting to pile in on you.

I don't like to see anyone made uncomfortable by their experience on Misplaced Pages. This should be an enjoyable, collegial activity carried out in friendship. So I'm sorry that the current lead to the article upsets you.

That said, there seem to be two options open to you: walk away (and find an area where you won't be jumped on heavily, as is highly likely in religious articles - they attract people with strong views), or else come to terms with the way a controversial article and much-followed like this is edited.

The statement that upsets you is that Genesis 1-2 is based on Mesopotamian myths. You'd like to change this to "may be based". But as Mann Jess points out, the source leaves no room for that wording.

Given that, if you want to dispute the statement, you have to examine the source.

It's from Nahum Sarna. Sarna was (he died in 2005) a very eminent scholar, with professorships at places like Brandeis and Columbia, and his works are widely quoted. And he was a specialist in Genesis and the Pentateuch. So, he's a reliable source. That's the first thing: is the source a reliable one?

The next thing is, how widespread is this view? Is it shared by 100% of other experts, or by a significant majority, or a significant minority, or a small minority, or is it a new proposal? Sarna expresses it as if it's 100%. I don't know on this score, but in all my reading for the article, I never came across any other reliable source that said otherwise - and those reliable sources include some very conservative scholars (I think all the commentaries in the bibliography are by conservatives and evangelicals - at least one of them even says he thinks Moses wrote Genesis).

I'm not saying all this to convince you to change your mind, but to demonstrate how I wrote the entry: finding reliable sources and bouncing them off other reliable sources. That's why the list of books in the bibliography is so much longer than the list of sources quoted as references - they were all consulted, but only the ones who expressed a view most clearly were used. Nevertheless, the books are all there, and anyone who doubts anything in the article can check them out.

I hope this helps. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, no, biblical scholarship isn't a science, it doesn't lead to assured results (but does science?) but it does have its methods and they're useful ones. PiCo (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you PiCo, I hope we can find some reliable sources to support my proposal, or at least change it so it isn't stated as a 100% fact. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Mentor

Hey, Zenkai! Glad you decided to join Misplaced Pages. Don't mean to be rude, but you don't have to speak that way to them. Most significant edits here needs an explanation, and often the POV of the editors gets in the way of contributors who don't want Misplaced Pages's Creation pages to be so one-sided. (No offense to anyone who opposes my view of the way they view my views). Usually it is best to edit these kinds of articles with the intent of changing the one-sidedness not very often or you will be seen as a disruptive editor. Unless the majority of edits you make have the intent of improving the article's content itself from the view of the majority of editors, or minor edits (like grammar, link, and typo fixing). I personally don't believe WP can be Neutral Point of View, but it Low Point of View is possible in other domains. Note to other editors: I'm only trying to stop a fellow editor from making a mistake, so please don't comment on the views presented; they are given from his situation. I am well aware most of you don't think that way and I respect that. Thank you. Wekn reven i susej eht 14:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a Creationist, and have been editing Misplaced Pages for a while. How would you like if I mentored you a little until you are used to all the rules and policies. Most likely beginning with WP:FRINGE. Wekn reven i susej eht 14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The first thing you should do is remove any material that might be offensive to Atheists off your user page and make sure it conforms to this guideline. Wekn reven i susej eht 15:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, many of the "Atheists" editing Misplaced Pages are quite kind once you get to know them. User:Noformation, although not a Creationist was one of the editors who helped get me out of my block. Countless others mean well, too. User:PiCo has spoken up for you already. They're not out to ban you. Wekn reven i susej eht 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more useful policies: WP:CONSENSUS vs WP:TRUTH. Wekn reven i susej eht 15:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for being my mentor. I have removed the offensive material from my talk page and I am about to read the articles linked above. I look forward to working with you :) Zenkai251 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Zenkai. Enjoy! Kind of funny, some of these policies, aren't they? Like WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Wekn reven i susej eht 10:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Another one you may want to check out: WP:BATTLEGROUND. Meaning the improving the article according to consensus is pretty much valued above improving the consensus itself. This is similar to WP:NOTFORUM. Wekn reven i susej eht 11:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

With the next significant edit you want to make, please feel free to check with me on how to make it. Misplaced Pages has so many rules, guidelines, and policies I'm pretty sure not even User:Hrafn has read them all. Wekn reven i susej eht 11:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wekn! I checked out all of those links. Oh, and come to think of it, I could use some help at Genesis creation narrative. Please check it out if you have time, thanks. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I can understand it being included per WP:RSUW, but at least the conversation that started after yours has some semi-violations of WP:DUE and WP:VALID. As Misplaced Pages tends to present things from a secular point of view, they all too often give more weight to non-Christian views (i.e. Wiseman hypothesis) and less to Christian ones (i.e. Creationism). Funny, I just came across a dismissal of Discovery Institute's reasons why the motives of ID are not to promote Creationism because the organization was 'not a reliable source' for the topic. Wekn reven i susej eht 09:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more policies related to the article: WP:NOTE and WP:PROMINENCE. Wekn reven i susej eht 09:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. And the Creation Institute seems like a reliable source for Creationism, why can't it be used? Zenkai251 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason that we wouldn't use apologetic KKK WP:PRIMARY sources to justify racism. Nformation 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's quite different. I'm actually disgusted that you would even dare to compare the Creation Institute to the KKK. Zenkai251 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's really not different. It's a fringe group that wants to push an agenda that has been rejected by experts in the relevant field. For the KKK it's ethicists, for the DI it's scientists. Both groups would think their beliefs are rational and both groups write apologetically. For the KKK it's fake science that presents race as a biological as opposed to a societal construct; for the creationists it's fake science that presents a lot of BS that I don't need to go in to here. The form of analogy I used is called reductio ad absurdum ; very common and not offensive in the least if you can understand how analogies work. Nformation 04:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so you think Creationism is a fringe theory. That's your opinion. And for your information, the people at the Creation Institute are experts in their field, whether you agree with them or not. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Misplaced Pages policy; biologists are experts in the field, not creationists or scientologists or any other group of nutjobs who think they have an informed opinion on the matter.. And no, it's not just my opinion that it's fringe, it's the opinion of 99% of scientists in the relevant fields (as well as the supreme court of the US and every major scientific body in the world) which makes it a fringe theory by definition. Misplaced Pages does not treat fringe like it treats real science, Wekn pointed you to WP:FRINGE, I suggest you read it well. Nformation 06:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationism is not a fringe theory. Also, I think you're a bit confused about who's a nutjob. Zenkai251 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Creationism is more of a minority view, and definitely not on the fringe of religion. At least not Christianity. In the scientific world, Intelligent Design is a minority theory (though it does not fully fit the fringe criteria given by Misplaced Pages, which are on the fringe of fringe criteria). Let's not go calling people nuts now, shall we? That is what I call overstepping WP:BEHAVE. Much better to resolve our issues peacefully, right? Wekn reven i susej eht 13:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And remember, it is Misplaced Pages's definition of "fringe" (plus a number of other definitions) that makes it not 'real' science. That includes combining ID and Creationism. Nevertheless, unless the definition itself is changed, the amount of positive change in the direction of Creationism that can be made is limited, yet not altogether unachievable. So when editing WP (short for Misplaced Pages) we are to give a certain degree of subordination to these policies. Wekn reven i susej eht 13:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai, you're probably going to hear a lot about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It came up with this (esp. this) conclusion. Here is a link that gives a little insight on the topic. Note: this topic has already been tried on the talk pages; we'll just have to wait until the decision is brought up again in the court and enough Creationist lawyers are editing Misplaced Pages! =) P.S. Check this out! Wekn reven i susej eht 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some more stuff to look at: WP:BETTER, WP:LASTWORD, and WP:COMPETENCE. Wekn reven i susej eht 14:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And therefore WP:FIVE. If you ever become involved in an article deletion discussion and I'm sure you will, check out WP:ATA. Wekn reven i susej eht 14:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For a complete list of policies, try WP:LOP. Wekn reven i susej eht 17:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of these policies seem a little weird. I think there's some bias in a few of them too. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is bias in most of WP policies. The bias is towards reliable sources, assumptions of good faith, and collaboration.--Adam in MO Talk 10:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And in the case of scientific articles, towards a scientific view. We are, after all, an encyclopedia. Nformation 10:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

And if you want to get really technical, even articles that just pour out a bunch of facts are biased. Wekn reven i susej eht 12:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's a secular/atheistic/anti-religion bias. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Zenkai, as has been pointed out before, repeated comments about how certain editors are atheists, or have an "atheist bias" are not appropriate. Comments like that break the spirit (if not letter) of WP:AGF, which is a pillar of this site. Edit summaries like this and this are simply unacceptable. I don't know how to express this clearer than I have before: Your continued participation in these articles is causing an obvious degradation in your behavior, and if it continues, you will be blocked from editing. If you care to continue editing here, your behavior needs to see a drastic change. I would strongly recommend you stop editing, and speak with your mentor about these problems before you continue.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as they continue calling me a "fundamentalist", "nutjob", etc. I will continue calling them atheists. Fair is fair. Zenkai251 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No one called you a nutjob. You, however, have disparagingly characterized other editors as "atheists" when they have not publicly identified their religious views. We've been over this before, so I didn't expect you to have a change of heart and modify your behavior. My comment was only to inform you, so you aren't surprised later on, that if it continues, it will result in consequences you may not find favorable. Take my advice or leave it, but don't claim you didn't know.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Christianity Barnstar
		Thanks for all your contributions to WikiProject:Christianity related articles! Keep up the good work! With regards, Anupam 01:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Zenkai251 (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

edit comment on Adam

Hi. I don't want to get into a more general discussion on this topic, but I noticed that for this edit your commment was "he (Adam) is not only in the creation narrative, but referred to throughout the Bible". I looked in my copy of Jones' "Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names" and there it is clear that in the Old Testament, at least, Adam appears only in Genesis chapters 2 to 5. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure he's mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament and I'm just about positive he's mentioned in the New Testament also. My edit seemed pretty reasonable, but someone reverted it for no reason at all. Zenkai251 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam is mentioned in Romans and Luke but only in reference to family lineage (Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God"). Outside of that he is not mentioned in the New Testament. He is mentioned in Chronicles and Deuteronomy, as well as a couple more books - but only in passing (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:8: "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.)

Please do not say that I did not give a reason for reverting as this is obviously not true, I very clearly did: "Adam is just barely mentioned out of genesis and usually in passing. His main role is in the creation myth so it makes more sense to refer to it." One of the key pillars of[REDACTED] is WP:V, so next time you make an edit please don't be "pretty sure," be 100% sure that it's sourced. If it is not, or if it contradicts sources, it will be reverted. I have the sneaking suspicion that your edit was more about your problem referring to Christian creation as a myth, but if you are going to be a contributor to Misplaced Pages this is something you have to accept - we are a secular encyclopedia, and to the outside world, there is literally no difference between Genesis and any other creation myth. The adherents of a religion always believe that theirs is different and true, but to impartial observers there is difference only in the details, not the overall picture. Nformation

Talk 00:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

When I say that you don't have a reason, I mean that you don't have a good reason. And when you say "to the outside world, there is no difference between Genesis and other creation stories" you are quite mistaken. Did you know that over half of the world's population believes in the Genesis creation?

You have demonstrated that you are not in the mainstream here when it comes to your positions on what are good and bad reasons for edits so keep that in mind. Secondly, you didn't say that I didn't give a good reason, you said I didn't give a reason, so please be more specific in the future.

I noticed that you did not bother presenting an argument against my reasoning, rather you just didn't like it, which I imagine is because what you said regarding Adam is wrong, at least according to the Bible. Lastly, when I said "outside world," I clearly mean people who are "outside" of the Christian and/or religious world (though to be fair, being Christian does not mean that you believe in the Genesis account of creation; most educated Christians absolutely do not; it's generally uneducated people who take it literally, according to many sources).

There is a quote, I don't remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of "when you understand why you dismiss the gods of other religions, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This illustrates perfectly the point I was trying to make: that a person not partial to religion X will see that religion as equally invalid as all others, except possibly their own. To you: Zeus, Krishna and Shiva are all invalid. To a Muslim: Zeus, Krishna, Shiva and Jesus are invalid. To a practitioner of ancient Mayan religion, all those gods are invalid. A wholly impartial observer recognizes that all religions have exactly one source of evidence: a book written by cavemen. None the less, it doesn't matter how many people believe it; at one point most of the world followed something akin to Hinduism, but that didn't make it true. Nformation 04:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You say only the uneducated believe in Genesis? That's a typical BS statement from biased individuals. BTW, what I said about Adam was correct and you even proved my point for me. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You are quite ignorant when it comes to the Bible. It was not written by cavemen; it was written by prophets, apostles, etc. Zenkai251 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I said most. I would take my time posting the sources for you if I thought it would make a difference but we both know that you would find a way to rationalize it away. What you said about Adam is so obviously not correct it makes me wonder if we're reading the same talk page. Adam is barely mentioned outside of Genesis, and when he is it's not about him, it's about other people who were related to him - what more do I need to say to get you to understand this?

Sorry I meant to say goat-herders (I really did, cavemen must have an association with goat herders in my mind). Apostles, prophets? Sure, to you; just like Krishna was a prophet to the Hindus.

Regarding my ignorance of the Bible: I have read it cover to cover more than once. The irony of your statement was that it was me, a non-Christian, who knew that Adam was barely mentioned outside of Genesis, while you were "pretty sure" about Adam's role later on. Nformation 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My point about Adam was correct. You even provided examples of it. Of course I know he didn't serve much of a role outside of Genesis(he was dead after all). And when I say "I'm pretty sure", it means I'm 99.99999% sure, but there's a tiny, miniscule chance that I'm mistaken. Zenkai251 (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In Deuteronomy 32:8, for example, the phrase is Template:Lang-he, which in many translations does not appear as "sons of Adam" but more often "children of men" or some such. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This is also a good point. I used the NKJ version because it is more liberal than others in its use of "Adam," but even then there is not much. Nformation 12:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note, Noformation that calling Jesus invalid to a Muslim would probably make them want to defend him. Most Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, but not God. Wekn reven i susej eht 14:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I almost put that in parenthesis but didn't think it would be relevant. While they do view him as a prophet, they definitely don't consider him the son of god. Incidentally, if more Muslims and Christians in certain parts of the world were aware that Islam and Christianity have a great deal in common and a large scriptural mutual respect, the world might not be such a violent place. Nformation 21:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Without adding violence to either, it could be w/out that. Wekn reven i susej eht 12:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your question...

...here ... nobody "changed question". I simply concatenated your thread onto my own earlier one on the same issue. As my initial comment was not-after and not-in-reply-to your own, it made no sense (and was a borderline violation of WP:TALK) to refactor it to make it appear that it was. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought mine was first and then you changed it. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just looked at the times. I guess I was still typing mine when yours was posted. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Zenkai251 (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's probably what happened, and it happens all the time. Wekn reven i susej eht 13:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)