|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Mesopotamia
Mesopotamian mythology[edit]
Proxima added this section to the article, which is more about how Christianity is unoriginal than it is about Mesopotamia. I don't have time to fix it, so I'll just leave it here. -- Nx / talk 10:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Mesopotamian mythology
Mesopotamian mythology was written earlier than the Old Testament but has many similar stories, therefore it is likely that the Old Testament stories were developed from their Mesopotamian counterparts. Mesopotamian mythology was similar to the mythology of other Semitic peoples in the area and included “creation mythology, flood mythology, and a hero who successfully faced an obstacle. Just one example of similarity is rivalry between a farmer and a shepherd for the hand of a goddess in marriage in Sumerian mythology. This may foreshadow the rivalry between Cain and Abel for the favour of God in the Old Testament.
Mesopotamian mythology was polytheisic which can explain the use of the plural “Elohim” in the early parts of the Torah. The Mesopotamian god Enil was similar to Yahweh, Enil was righteous but harsh and showed opponents no mercy. Enil caused a flood corresponding to the Biblical Global flood when he decided mankind had failed. Enki, half-brother to Enil saved Atrahasis corresponding to Noah. [1] [2]
- Look, this is really bad "scholarship" in any form. It's like reading about "native american mythology". the Bible stories, by the way, are part of Meso mythology in the sense that they are not developed or derived from these stories, rather they share a similar ancestor.
GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 14:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Right, it's bad scholarship by university standards though I suspect the first draft of a university paper might not be much better. We're unpaid volunteers not university scholars and the final page should be better than the first attempt.
- For one thing yesterday I didn't know that any source that praises Zecharia Sitchin is suspect. Today I know this and if Godot hadn’t taken out all material from Mesopotamian Scriptures without outside confirmation I would have. Mesopotamian Scriptures can appear on the first page of Google so we need a warning not to rely on it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
About.com[edit]
Please give examples where about.com is unreliable. I hope the unreliability of about.com isn't just a myth that people believe because it keeps getting repeated. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- About.com's "atheist" views on religion are generally ill informed, and largely written from the point of view of someone trying to prove how bad religion is. They frequently rely on poor information gathered from any site online or someone's butt, and not any kind of academic reference, or original source. They have good recipies, though! --GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 13:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's the type of emotional reply unsupported by factual information I was fearing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Evil fascistoh noez 13:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)- Next time you write a term papaer feel free to cite it. Let me know how that goes. Evil fascistoh noez 13:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I looked up an article in a field which I have formal academic training. I "learned" about Walter Rodney and Frantz Fanon's writings between the world wars. Walter Rodney was born in 1942. He did not do much writing between the world wars. Fanon's first book came out in 1952. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right about Walter Rodney, still I think they get 95 facts right for every one they get wrong. We probably shouldn't use info from that site unless it's supported from other sources. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I know I'm right about Rodney because I am in the process of wading through hundreds of pages of archival sources related to him. I don't need Wikipedia on this one. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Every article i've seen linked to, at least in the religion section, has misrepresented the religion, gotten the facts botched, or made claims that were unsupported by any documentation. And I agree with TY. try writing 'about.com" in your research paper. you won't get far.GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 15:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Every article i've seen linked to, at least in the religion section, has misrepresented the religion, gotten the facts botched, or made claims that were unsupported by any documentation. And I agree with TY. try writing 'about.com" in your research paper. you won't get far.
- I know I'm right about Rodney because I am in the process of wading through hundreds of pages of archival sources related to him. I don't need Wikipedia on this one. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 15:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right about Walter Rodney, still I think they get 95 facts right for every one they get wrong. We probably shouldn't use info from that site unless it's supported from other sources. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I looked up an article in a field which I have formal academic training. I "learned" about Walter Rodney and Frantz Fanon's writings between the world wars. Walter Rodney was born in 1942. He did not do much writing between the world wars. Fanon's first book came out in 1952. Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 13:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's the type of emotional reply unsupported by factual information I was fearing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I added this to the Wikipedia article, I hope that will encourage those who run the site to tighten up their standards. About.com. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- ... Evil fascistoh noez 15:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- At least I now know it isn't just a case of someone condemning the whole site because a small part is strongly critical of religion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sighs. do you know how about.com works, vs. say, wikipedia? The trouble with about.com, and the reason it isn't accepted academically, is that one person writes each article. no one checks it, no one validates it. Though it's not always a perfect system, wikipedia is far more right than wrong, just because many people are editing any article, fixing dates, removing unsourced opinion, refining the perspective, or adding details to bring the article closer and closer to academic reality. About.com holds no such claim. Someone says "I'm an expert" and they write something, and that is the end of it.GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for your claim that "one person writes each article. no one checks it, no one validates it.". If you can source it I would like to put that into the Wikipedia article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sighs. do you know how about.com works, vs. say, wikipedia? The trouble with about.com, and the reason it isn't accepted academically, is that one person writes each article. no one checks it, no one validates it. Though it's not always a perfect system, wikipedia is far more right than wrong, just because many people are editing any article, fixing dates, removing unsourced opinion, refining the perspective, or adding details to bring the article closer and closer to academic reality. About.com holds no such claim. Someone says "I'm an expert" and they write something, and that is the end of it.
- At least I now know it isn't just a case of someone condemning the whole site because a small part is strongly critical of religion. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Quarreling[edit]
I started editing Mesopotamia and Sumer because I hoped that wouldn't be contentious and would lead to a break in the arguments. It didn't work. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)