Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rktect

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC).

Rktect (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome[edit]

I'm not sure what I want to see out of this. I suppose this is a pre-cursor to ArbCom, but I wonder if that is even necessary. I have never seen an editor whose edits have been so uniformly disruptive (other than in the case of deliberate vandals). Under the "Evidence of disputed behavior" section, I was tempted to simply link to his mainspace contribution history, as nearly every edit in it is problematic, introducing a disruptive level of original research and frivolous references. This may be a wonderful case of blocking indefinitely for exhausting the community's patience. I see no evidence that the user in question will stop this kind of disruption.

Description[edit]

Rktect (talk · contribs) introduces original research and a slew of frivolous references into articles to the point of disruption. Numerous calls for him to back up information he puts into articles with reliable sources have failed. Nearly every edit to the mainspace is this kind of disruption.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Disruptive formatting: [1] (from Aram-Naharaim, July 6)
Slew of frivolous references: [2], [3], [4] (from Aram-Naharaim, July 8-9); [5] (from Palestinian people, July 8); [6] (from Passage of the Red Sea, July 8); [7], [8] (from Moses)
Original research: [9], [10] (from Pi-hahiroth, July 8-9); [11], [12], [13] (from Palestinian people, July 1-8); [14] (from Passage of the Red Sea, July 8); [15] (from Isaac Newton's occult studies)
Original research, slew of frivolous references: [16], [17], [18] [19], [20] (from Jerusalem, June 25-July 9)

Ultimately, I don't have the time to list out every instance of this kind of disruption. However, you can pick out almost any edit from his mainspace contribution history and see this type of issue.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I respond as follows.

1.) The people doing the reverting aren't reading the diffs before reverting

2.) The people doing the reverting are not commenting on the talk pages.

3.) There is no effort to resolve a dispute, not even to state a dispute

4.) The claim or original research is false.

5.) I countercharge:

A. That I have not done what I am accused of

B. That my accusers have done what I accuse them of.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts

C The dispute in 2005 had nothing to do with any of these disputes.

D No two editors here have the same dispute

E No editors here have seriously tried to resolve a dispute,

F The editors accusing me have made false accusations and threats.

G The charge on the main site is different than the charges here which do not include disruption of articles but rather a charge of disruptive formating for putting speculations in quotes.

Evidence: Wikipedia Policy for Original Research

No original research: Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

This is what the Egyptians used to call a negative confession

My edits contain no unpublished theories

My edits contain no unpublished data

My edits contain no unpublished statements

My edits contain no unpublished concepts

My edits contain no unpublished arguments

My edits contain no unpublished or ideas

Cited Publications used as sources and references give the lie to charges of original research

My edits contain no new interpretations

My edits contain no new analysis

My edits contain no new synthesis of published data

My edits contain no new synthesis of theories

My edits contain no new synthesis of data

My edits contain no new synthesis of statements

My edits contain no new synthesis of concepts

My edits contain no new synthesis of arguments

My edits contain no new synthesis of ideas that would amount to a novel narritive or historical interpretation

Submissions of Fact

My contribution History mainspace contribution history

My Cites are substantive - Cited publication may contain a synthesis of interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas if its not new. An example might be the listing of a number of place names placed on a map to demonstrate where a region is. This might be a synthesis of for example "The Geography" by Ptolomy with cited Bible verses naming the places on the map and a later map based on the above all of which are old.

Map of Aram showing it is not in Mesopotamia but rather south of Damascus located by its cities which were cited and referenced in the reverted commentary.

An idea found in the Bible is not considered novel.

It would be a novel idea to include the speculations of Josephus or 19th century archaeologists whose ideas have been proven wrong by modern archaeologists and historians, as the articles I edited do in their current state

Wherefore the charges against me should be dismissed with predjudice Rktect 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues by user from talk pages[edit]

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with Rktect 11:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The topics are to be limited to those upon which there has been discussion and

two users required per issue

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tariqabjotu issue URU URU salaam KI[edit]

14:01, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (→URU URU salaam KI - your latest diffRktect 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

17:17, June 25, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (→URU URU salaam KI)

22:11, June 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (→URU URU salaam KI)

21:32, June 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (→URU URU salaam KI)

21:30, June 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (→URU URU salaam KI)

06:44, June 24, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tariqabjotu (→Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.)

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URU URU salaam KI[edit]

Following up on a discussion on the ANE 2 discussion list, Yitzhak Sapir at Hebrew Bible and ANE History Lists Commentary blog notes the way the place name [Jerusalem] is written in the Akkadian of Amarna tablet EA 287.

He even has a picture from The Encyclopedia of El Amarna Research Tool website. He correctly notes that the place name is written with the "City" determinative URU before urusalem. At least this is true in five of the seven instantiations of the place name in the Amarna tablets.

EA 287:25: URUú-ru-sa-lim (I believe this is the example illustrated in Yitzhak's post)

EA 287:46: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 287:61: ú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 287:63: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 289:14: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 289:29: URUú-ru-sa-limKI

EA 290:15: ú-ru-sa-limKI

The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places.

That suggests that it was at one time the northern border of the dijadi which was moved north in the Time of Thutmosis I to the city of Kadesh in the mountains. (This was originally a Phoenician city (Gades - Cadiz, Carthage, Kodesh) which was a city of refuge on the border of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Israel before any of those existed as countries.

Like Kadesh Jerusalem may have had the same function as a refuge city and also as a place where people would feel safe to meet for purposes of trade. In the 18th Dynasty the border between retnu (the watershed of the Orantes) and the dijadi (the watershed of the Jordan) was at the common headwaters of the Orantes, Litani and Jordan whose mountain watersheds people still fight over today.

The Akkadian name should go first since thats the name of the place in its earliest history, even after it becomes part of an Egyptian province in the 18th and 19th Dynasty as referenced in the Amarna letters.Rktect 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cite a blog post, which holds very little weight in supporting a statement. I'm not even sure the post backs up what you're saying. Ultimately, Akkadian is already addressed in the article, with a better source. Also, please remember to post comments at the bottom of talk pages, not the middle, and with second-level headers (==), not first-level headers (=). -- tariqabjotu 14:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The primary source is not the blog post, its ANE 2 discussion list, a monitored academic list server. If you aren't familiar with the server, the names, or the issue there is little left to say.Rktect 01:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of what you quoted appears to be an analysis from the poster on the blog. That's original research. This segment – The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places. – does not even make sense. "More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI..."? How does one come to that conclusion? -- tariqabjotu 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The archaeologists seem to think that Jerusalem was settled centuries earlier than 2000BCE. Anyways, I'm no expert, so if you provide text that cites a reliable secondary source (WP:RS) about the origins of the name, then we can insert it into the article. You can discuss this further if you wish on talk:Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking and Answering Questions about the URU___ KI det.[edit]

Much of what you quoted appears to be an analysis from the poster on the blog. That's original research. This segment – The above quote suggests that the place determinative is for uru-sa-lim. More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI meaning "peace" det. the place of places. – does not even make sense. "More likely its a reduplication URU URU ___ KI..."? How does one come to that conclusion? -- tariqabjotu 01:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The archaeologists seem to think that Jerusalem was settled centuries earlier than 2000BCE. Anyways, I'm no expert, so if you provide text that cites a reliable secondary source (WP:RS) about the origins of the name, then we can insert it into the article. You can discuss this further if you wish on talk:Jerusalem. nadav (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for the answerRktect

Origins of the place name Jerusalem with URU___KI det.

Please don't consider this answer to your question WP:SYN. I recognize its a little complicated. Its important to recognise the determinative is placed so as to surround the name so you want to strip the determinative to get the name. After the basics from John Halloran (Sumerian) and John Heise (Akkadian) the focus shifts to when Jerusalem is written in this form. The answer to that would be in the Amarna letters, from c 1450- c 1350 BC

A. Uru by itself means city or settlement in Sumerian

B. KI by itself means earth or land and is the determinative for the goddess of the land.

C. The compound form URU___KI is a Sumerian determinative for place borrowed into Akkadian

D. URU Uru means the place of the city or settlement

E. URU Uru KI means the place of the city or settlement in the land

F. sumvcv Is one of John Hallorans Sumerian pages

uru(2)(ki), iri, rí; iri11: city, town, village, district [URU archaic frequency: 101;

concatenation of 5 sign variants; UNUG archaic frequency: 206; concatenates 3 sign variants].

G. Heise's Akkadian page This page shows the cuneiform

signs used

39 URU

phonetic: iri, eri, ere

phonetic, Bab. new:: rí, ré, ir4, er4

determinative: URU in front of city names (see examples)

logograms: URU URU älu `city'

38 URU

(before) cities, often in combination with KI after city names.

Cities are often indicated with their Sumerian names (Akkadian logograms)

meaning: Sum. uru `city', Akk. alu(m) `city'

examples: uru nun ki, Eridu, the city Eridu, home of the water god Ea

uru e .unug ki, Ur, the city Ur,

important port in South Mesopotamia

home of the moon god Sîn

for phonetic values and logograms, see sign list 2

The following either discuss or demonstrate the proper usage for writing the name of a place in Akkadian which itself borrows from the even earlier Sumerian.

Origins of the name Jerusalem See the photo of the cuneiform name of Jersualem in the Amarna letters and read URU Uru šalim KI

bsw [Ninhursag]

KI Cuneiform KI (Borger 2003 nr. 737; U+121A0 𒆠) is the sign for "earth", but also "place location". It is also read as GI5, GUNNI (=KI.NE) "hearth", KARAŠ (=KI.KAL.BAD) "encampment, army", KISLAḪ (=KI.UD) "threshing place" and SUR7 (=KI.GAG). In Akkadian orthography, it functions as a determiner for toponyms and has the syllabic values gi, ge, qi and qe.

Urušalim

[Akkad]

Akkad (Sumerian Agade), (Biblical Accad), was a city and its surrounding region (Sumerian URI.KI or KIURI) [Names of Jerusalem] Urušalim

Salem Biblical Hebrew שלם š-l-m "whole", "complete" in the idiomatic sense of "at peace" Akkadian Urušalim Assyrian Uršalimmu (Uru and Ur are really cognates of the Hebrew Ir ("city of") and should not be confused with the syllables Jeru- in the name Jerusalem.)

URU__KI is Akkadian for place, the second Uru (Jeru) means city Urušalim URUUrušalim KI literally gives determinative URU = place - Uru= a city - šalim = peace - Ki of the earth (it refers to the Akkadian goddess Ninhursag

The City of URU Amurru EA Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garzo issue revert of a map of Aram[edit]

14:23, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Garzo (→your revert of a map of Aram from an article locating it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garzo&diff=next&oldid=143511761

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garzo&diff=prev&oldid=143511761

11:16, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Garzo (→your revert of a map of Aram from an article locating it - reply)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garzo&diff=next&oldid=143511012

11:12, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→More original research with bias - reply)

11:12, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Garzo (→your revert of a map of Aram from an article locating it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rktect&diff=prev&oldid=143511107

11:10, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Garzo (→your revert of a map of Aram from an article locating it)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garzo&diff=prev&oldid=143508876

Aram

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Garzo&diff=prev&oldid=143510807

11:02, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Rktect (→More original research with bias - sp)

10:57, July 9, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (More original research with bias)

Map link does not work, and is insufficient evidence to support sweeping claims made. — Gareth Hughes 12:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19:34, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wilderness of Sin (revert nonsense) (top)

19:33, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Marah (Bible) (revert nonsense) (top)

19:32, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Stations list (revert this is OR) (top)

19:32, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Red Sea - Exodus station (revert nonsense) (top)

19:31, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Dophkah (revert nonsense) (top)

19:31, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Alush (revert nonsense)

19:27, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Rephidim (rv spurious additions)

19:26, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→Medieval References - bibliography)

19:24, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Pi-hahiroth (Reverted edits by Rktect (talk) to last version by Irishguy) (top)

19:24, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Elim (Bible) (rv; that long list of refs doesn't impress anyone, it's still spurious: Undid revision 150069689 by Rktect (talk)) (top)

19:21, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (→Problems with original research from Rktect - blocked for continuing to add original research)

19:19, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→No original research - blocked)

13:01, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (Problems with original research from Rktect)

12:45, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (No original research)

12:34, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Elim (Bible) (filled out information from source)

12:17, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Elim (Bible) (added reasonable reference)

12:13, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) m Elim (Bible) (rv: WP:OR: www.goredsea.com (holiday website) is not a reasonable source for such clear-cut claims)

12:10, August 8, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Habiru (→Habiru disappear, Hebrews appear ? - bunk)

All or these reverts are reverts of references, without discussion.Rktect 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Claim of original research with bias and response[edit]

respectfully, I just left a map on your page that identifies where Aram is. The articles you restored say their authors don't know where it is but speculate its in Mesopotamia on the basis of cites from Josephus who was himself speculatingRktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"implying that the second river was understood to be the latter by those maintaining this tradition".Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the issue in a nutshell. Translated by some Greeks vs going to the geographic definitions and locating a region by its towns and their descriptions relative to one another with one or more bible verses for each and a map. Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider cites of Bible verses refering to its cities as located south of Damascus and otherwise defining its territory along with maps original research thats your problem, not mine. You should find there is adequate material on the talk pages to explain why its not. Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the page removes the references and leaves the speculation. Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. ARAM-NAHARAIM signifying 'Aram of two rivers,' Gen. 24: 10; Deut. 23: 4; Judges 3: 8; 1 Chr. 19: 6, translated by some Greeks as 'Mesopotamia.' The two rivers are assumed to be the Euphrates and the Tigris but going to the geographic defitions the territory would be the highlands from whence the Orantes and Jordan rivers issue to the plain, and the region between the two rivers without extending to the far south.Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to raise issues with individual articles, please do so on that article's talk page, and please do so in a manner that leads to discussion with other editors rather than by making sweeping statements and arbitrary revertsRktect 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map link does not work. Your statements tend to misinterpret the sources you use, when you use them. It is clear from your history that a number of other editors have felt the same way. You are requested to work with the community. There is no other option. — Gareth Hughes 15:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map link works for me. Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references below can be found on this map. Aram Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to claim that my statements misinterpert the sources I use, then go to the sources I use, the Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia by Michael Roaf and the Bible in this case, read them then tell me what your issue is. Since you keep reverting the article I have copied it here so that you may respond.Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My issues with what is left after your reversion are as follows:Rktect 16:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.)Aram is mentioned rather more than five times. Try locating Aram first then the two rivers.:::2.)The article speculates that haran is in Aram. Haran is not in Aram. Haran lies on the west bank of the Balikh, east of the Upper Euphrates

3.)Rabinical traditions that use phrases like "said to be", "implying", "understood to be the latter by those maintaining this tradition", are speculative. The more so when they don't agree with or contradict other sources such as maps.

4.)The article as you left it contradicts itself: "However the usage of the Hebrew name "Aram-Naharaim" does not match the general usage of "Mesopotamia", the former being used exclusively for a northern region. Moreover the translation of the name as "Mesopotamia" was not consistent - the Septuagint also uses a more precise translation "Mesopotamia of Syria" as well as "Rivers of Syria". " Syria is not a part of Mesopotamia Aram is a part of Syria.

5.)You talk about sources then you leave this behind: "Hebrew has a distinct name Ashur for the region of Assyria containing the Tigris. (Aram is nowhere near the Euphrates let alone the Tigris.) Aram Naharaim lay west of Ashur as it contained Haran. (That should read was speculated to contain Haran) Haran itself lies on the west bank of the Balikh, east of the Upper Euphrates. The traditional Jewish location of Ur Kasdim (at Edessa) and the Balikh itself lie west of the Khabur implying that the second river was understood to be the latter by those maintaining this tradition."

6.)The problem seems to be too much reliance on speculation.

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current articleAram-Naharaim or "Aram of Two Rivers is speculative[edit]

Aram-Naharaim or "Aram of Two Rivers," is a region that is mentioned five times in the Hebrew Bible. It is commonly identified with Nahrima mentioned in three tablets of the Amarna correspondence as a geographical description of the kingdom of Mitanni. It was the land in which the city of Haran lay. According to one rabbinical Jewish tradition, Ur Kasdim, said to be the birthplace of Abraham, was also situated in Aram-Naharaim.^[1]

The Current Identification of the two rivers is speculative[edit]

The actual rivers referred to are not explicitly named in the Bible, although it is generally agreed that the first was the Upper Euphrates (called N-h-r-n by the Egyptians). The name Nahrima in the Amarna letters denoted the region of the Upper Euphrates and its tributaries ^{[citation needed]} - the Balikh and Khabur.

Both Josephus and the Septuagint translate the name as Mesopotamia. Ancient writers elsewhere used the name "Mesopotamia" for the land between the Tigris and Euphrates. According to the Book of Jubilees, when the entire Earth was divided among the sixteen grandsons of Noah, Aram, the son of Shem received as an inheritance for his offspring, lands bordered by the Euphrates and the Tigris (Jubilees 9:5); it also associates the city of Ur Kesed not with the descendants of Aram, but rather with those of Arphaxad, his brother, who was Abram's ancestor.

However the usage of the Hebrew name "Aram-Naharaim" does not match the general usage of "Mesopotamia", the former being used exclusively for a northern region. Moreover the translation of the name as "Mesopotamia" was not consistent - the Septuagint also uses a more precise translation "Mesopotamia of Syria" as well as "Rivers of Syria". Josephus refers to the subjects of Chushan, king of Aram Naharaim,^[2] as "Assyrians".^[3]

Hebrew has a distinct name Ashur for the region of Assyria containing the Tigris. Aram Naharaim lay west of Ashur as it contained Haran. Haran itself lies on the west bank of the Balikh, east of the Upper Euphrates. The traditional Jewish location of Ur Kasdim (at Edessa) and the Balikh itself lie west of the Khabur implying that the second river was understood to be the latter by those maintaining this tradition.

Geographic References added to the Article[edit]

...I attempted to add this section to the article...

A Myth exists to the effect that Aram-Naharaim, land of the two rivers, is synonomous with Mesopotamia therefore the two rivers are the Tigris and Euphrates. Despite this we can observe that most references to Aram are to places located south of Damascus. This can be done using Bible Pages and references in them to Aram outside Mesopotamia which are consistently south of Damascus.

Most of the references below can be found on this map. Aram This illustrates the territory of Asher, Dan, Nephtali and Zebulon on the headwaters of the Jordan river connecting to the southern end of the territory of the Nahrin at Kadesh on the Orontes. The people the Egyptians called the Nah-araim or Nahrin are also known as the Mittani.

Tracking this down the two rivers are a watershed in the mountains, at a place still called the Golan Heights, serving Aram. Carchemish is north of Hamath, Hamath, is north of Damascus, Damascus is north of Aram, Aram, is east of Sidon, Tyre, and Hazor

The Bible passages refering to Aram show that the only way you could stretch Aram north toward the Euphrates would be to go through Damascus, Hamath, and Carchemish.

The headwaters of the Orontes river bordering Aram on the West does stretch that far north through the territory of the Nahrin. Their cities were originally Alalah on the Orontes east of Ugarit, east to Haran and Hama, Quatna and Kadesh moving south or upstream to the headwaters of the Orontes east of the Amurru whose city is Hazor. While this is not near the Tigris is does touch on the Euphrates. Biblical accounts are much more consistent in placing Aram south west of Damascus.

The location southwest of Damascus is referenced both in Biblical and Egyptian campaign accounts.

While the lands and kings of the Nahrin do occupy lands to the north; as given in "The Cambridge Atlas of Mesopotamia" (CAM) and their cities include Alalah on the Orontes east of Ugarit, and Hama, Quatna, and Kadesh moving upstream to the headwaters east of the Amurru, the best definition for this territory probably isn't Mesopotamia.

Their lands are bounded to the west by the Amurru and Mukish, to the North by Kizzuwatna with Tarsus and Charchemish, and to the east by Nuhase which touches on the Euphrates but borders the Mitanni with the cities of Ebla and Allepo. To the south they eventually extended their territory down the Jordan as far as Meggido during the Egyptian 18th Dynasty which may have caused them to snap up Aram and its territory. The above referenced lands southwest of Damascus are mentioned in the Amarna letters and in the Biblical Conquest as shown in CAM p135 as Aram. Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical References to Aram[edit]

This is the name of a small district lying north of Arabia, north-east of Palestine, east of Phoenicia, south of the Taurus range, and west of the Tigris. It is generally supposed that the name points to the district as the 'Highlands,' though it may be from Aram the son of Shem, as above. The word occurs once untranslated in Num. 23: 7, as 'Aram' simply, from whence Balaam was brought, 'out of the mountains of the east;' but it is mostly translated Syria or Syrian. Thus we have -

1. ARAM-DAMMESEK, 2 Sam. 8: 5, translated 'Syrians of Damascus,' embracing the highlands of Damascus including the city. (Mount Hermon)

2. ARAM-MAACHAH, 1 Chr. 19: 6, translated 'Syria-maachah,' a district on the east of Argob and Bashan.

Maacah (Codex Alexandrinus: Maacha, KJV: Maachah) is a biblical name with many references:

Small Aramean kingdom east of the Sea of Galilee (I Chronicles 19:6). Its territory was in the region assigned to the half-tribe of Manasseh east of the Jordan. Maacah, its king, became a mercenary of the Ammonites in their war against David (II Samuel 10:6). It is probable that the city Abel of Beth-maachah in Naphtali (ib. xx. 15) derived its name from its relation to this kingdom and people.

Bashan (Hebrew הבשן ha-Bashan, meaning "the light soil") is a biblical place first mentioned in Genesis 14:5, where it is said that Chedorlaomer and his confederates "smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth," where Og the king of Bashan had his residence. At the time of Israel's entrance into the Promised Land, Og came out against them, but was utterly routed

(Numbers 21:33-35; Deuteronomy 3:1-7). This country extended from Gilead in the south to Hermon in the north, and from the Jordan river on the west to Salcah on the east. Along with the half of Gilead it was given to the half-tribe of Manasseh (Joshua 13:29-31). Golan, one of its cities, became a city of refuge (Joshua 21:27).

Bashan just northeast of Chinnereth, the Golan heights.

Argob, in Bashan, was one of Solomon's commissariat districts (1 Kings 4:13). The cities of Bashan were taken by Hazael (2 Kings 10:33), but were soon after reconquered by Jehoash (2 Kings 13:25), who overcame the Syrians in three battles, according to the prediction of Elisha (19). From this time Bashan almost disappears from history, although we read of the wild cattle of its rich pastures (Ezekiel 39:18; Psalms 22:12), the oaks of its forests (Isaiah 2:13; Ezekiel 27:6; Zechariah 11:2), and the beauty of its extensive plains (Amos 4:1; Jeremiah 50:19). Soon after the conquest, the name "Gilead" was given to the whole country beyond Jordan. After the Exile, Bashan was divided into four districts

3. ARAM-BETH-REHOB, 2 Sam. 10: 6, translated 'Syrians of Beth-rehob: cf. Judges 18: 28, a district in the north, near Dan.

4. ARAM-ZOBAH, 2 Sam. 10: 6, 8, translated 'Syrians of Zoba,' a district between and Damascus, but not definitely recognised.

5. ARAM-NAHARAIM signifying 'Aram of two rivers,' Gen. 24: 10; Deut. 23: 4; Judges 3: 8; 1 Chr. 19: 6, translated by some Greeks as 'Mesopotamia.' The two rivers are assumed to be the Euphrates and the Tigris but going to the geographic defitions the territory would be the highlands from whence the Orantes and Jordan rivers issue to the plain, and the region between the two rivers without extending to the far south.

4 out of 5 ARAM usages are generally south west of Damascus in and around Bashan.

Genesis 24:10 refers to Nahor

Deut. 23:4 refers to Pethor in Aram of the two rivers (between the Orontes and Euphrates

Judges 3:8 Cushhan-rishatham king of Edom

1 Chr. 19: 6 refers to Maccah and Zobah

Aram a region mentioned in the Bible containing Damascus.

Aram-Naharaim (Aram of two Rivers) a region mentioned in the Bible as containing the town of Haran

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical References to towns in ARAM[edit]

1 Chr. 2:22 And Segub begat Jair, who had three and twenty cities in the land of Gilead.

1 Chr. 2:23 And he took Geshur, and Aram, with the towns of Jair, from them, with Kenath, and the towns thereof, even threescore cities. All these belonged to the sons of Machir the father of Gilead.

Num. 32:41 And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them Havoth-jair. Deut. 3:14 Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called cthem after his own name, Bashan-havoth-jair, unto this day. Josh. 13:30 And their coast was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan, and all the towns of Jair, which are in Bashan, threescore cities: 1 Kgs. 4:13 The son of Geber, in Ramoth-gilead; to him pertained the towns of Jair the son of Manasseh, which are in Gilead; to him also pertained the region of Argob, which is in Bashan, threescore great cities with walls and brasen bars:

Numbers 32:34 And the children of Gad abuilt Dibon, and Ataroth, and Aroer,

Numbers 32:35 And Atroth, Shophan, and Jaazer, and Jogbehah,

Numbers 32:36 And Beth-nimrah, and Beth-haran, afenced cities: and folds for sheep.

Numbers 32:37 And the children of Reuben built Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Kirjathaim,

Numbers 32:38 And Nebo, and Baal-meon, and Shibmah: and gave other names unto the cities which they builded.

Numbers 32:39 And the children of Machir the son of Manasseh went to Gilead, and took it, and dispossessed the Amorite which was in it.

Numbers 32:40 And Moses gave Gilead unto Machir the son of Manasseh; and he dwelt therein.

Numbers 32:41 And Jair the son of Manasseh went and took the small towns thereof, and called them Havoth-jair.

Numbers 32:42 And Nobah went and took Kenath, and the villages thereof, and called it Nobah, after his own name.

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical References to towns north of Aram and Damascus south of Haran[edit]

Hamath bordering Damascus and Hazor

Ezek. 47:16 Hamath, Berothah, Sibraim, which is between the border of Damascus and the border of Hamath; Hazar-hatticon, which is by the coast of Hauran.

Ezek. 47:17 And the border from the sea shall be Hazar-enan, the border of Damascus, and the north northward, and the border of Hamath. And this is the north side.

Ezek. 47:20 The west side also shall be the great sea from the border, till a man come over against Hamath. This is the west side.

2 Kgs.14:25 He restored the coast of Israel from the entering of Hamath unto the sea of the plain, according to the word of the LORD God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah, the son of Amittai, the prophet, which was of Gath-hepher.

2 Kgs.28 Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he warred, and how he recovered Damascus, and Hamath, which belonged to Judah, for Israel, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel?

2 Kgs.17:24 And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel: and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.

2 Kgs.17:30 And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima,

1 Chr. 18:3 And David smote Hadarezer king of Zobah unto Hamath, as he went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates.

1 Chr. 18:9 Now when Tou king of Hamath heard how David had smitten all the host of Hadarezer king of Zobah;

Jer. 52:9 Then they took the king, and carried him up unto the king of Babylon to Riblah in the land of Hamath; where he gave judgment upon him.

Jer. 52:27 And the king of Babylon smote them, and put them to death in Riblah in the land of Hamath. Thus Judah was carried away captive out of his own land.

Ezek. 48: 1 Now these are the names of the tribes. From the north end to the coast of the way of Hethlon, as one goeth to Hamath, Hazar-enan, the border of Damascus northward, to the coast of Hamath; for these are his sides east and west; a portion for Dan.

Num. 13: 21 So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath.

Num. 34: 8 From mount Hor ye shall point out your border unto the entrance of Hamath; and the goings forth of the border shall be to Zedad:

Josh. 13:5 And the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad under mount Hermon unto the entering into Hamath.

Judg. 3: Namely, afive lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon, from mount Baal-hermon unto the entering in of Hamath.

2 Sam. 8:9 When Toi king of Hamath heard that David had smitten all the host of Hadadezer,

1 Kgs. 8:65 And at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt, before the LORD our God, seven days and seven days, even fourteen days.

2 Kgs. 18:34 Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand?

2 Kgs. 19:13 Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivah?

2 Kgs. 23:33 And Pharaoh-necho put him in bands at Riblah in the land of Hamath, that he might not reign in Jerusalem; and put the land to a tribute of an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold.

2 Kgs. 25:21 And the king of Babylon smote them, and slew them at Riblah in the land of Hamath. So Judah was carried away out of their land.

2 Chr. 7:8 Also at the same time Solomon kept the feast seven days, and all Israel with him, a very great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt.

2 Chr. 8:4 And he built Tadmor in the wilderness, and all the store cities, which he built in Hamath.

Isa. 10:9 Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?

Isa. 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the cremnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and fromCush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

Isa. 36:19 Where are the gods of Hamath and Arphad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim? and have they delivered Samaria out of my hand?

Isa. 37:13 Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arphad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah?

Jer. 39:5 But the Chaldeans’ army pursued after them, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho: and when they had taken him, they brought him up to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to Riblah in the land of Hamath, where he gave judgment upon him.

Jer. 49:23 Concerning Damascus. Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea; it cannot be quiet.

Amos 6:2 Pass ye unto Calneh, and see; and from thence go ye to Hamath the great: then go down to Gath of the Philistines: be they better than these kingdoms? or their border greater than your border?

Zech. 9:2 And Hamath also shall border thereby; Tyrus, and Zidon, though it be very wise.

2 Ne. 20:9 Is not Calno as Carchemish? Is not Hamath as Arpad? Is not Samaria as Damascus?

2 Ne. 21:11 And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall set his hand again the asecond time to recover the remnant of his people which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Hughes AKA Garzo diffs a revert that removed only references[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=next&oldid=143482768

removed the following references

Whereas, if one looks at article history, this is the first of four consecutive edits I make trying to make Rktect's edits work. These edits corrected numerous typos and grammatical errors made by the user, and linked book references to statements made rather than listing an inordinately large, and not too specific, library at the bottom of the article. The entire effect can be seen in this diff. I tried to make Rktect's edits look good, but still wasn't impressed with the sweeping statements that weren't referenced. Subsequent editors felt it better to remove our combined work, and I agreed that they were better out than in, even after spending time reworking this nonsense. — Gareth Hughes 12:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the difference in edits made by Hertz who follows Wikipedia Protocol and improves the encyclopedia by fixing typos and making small changes rather than large sweeping reverts without discussion. Most of the material removed were cites, book and page supporting the discussion of trade with Egypt through Elat and with the Typrians which was very important to Jerusalems spurt of growth in the time of Solomon. The cites were placed in a reference section and in the article.Rktect 14:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garzo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=143489627&oldid=143482768

edits once only, removes content and references needlessly, does no clean up

Gilabrand http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=next&oldid=143489627

makes a good structural edit but leaves Zacharia Sitchen as a source at the end. An Encyclopedia should care as much about what it says as how it says it. As it stands now you have a serious problem with fact checking.

Herts http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=next&oldid=143494935

makes a model edit

Tariqabjotu http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=next&oldid=143503138

removes the references but leaves the now unreferenced content

Tariqabjotu http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerusalem&diff=next&oldid=143504111

removes the reference to the well documented Akkadian name for Jerusalem found in the Amarna letters and discussed above. Some sensible discussion, maybe a little asking and answering on the discussion page, would have made all this unnecessary.Rktect 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Garzo reverted diffs[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aram_%28Biblical_region%29&diff=prev&oldid=143506981

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aram-Naharaim&diff=next&oldid=143506866

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baal-zephon&diff=prev&oldid=143493368

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pi-hahiroth&diff=next&oldid=143487123

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passage_of_the_Red_Sea&diff=next&oldid=143378987

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Definitions_of_Palestine_and_Palestinian&diff=prev&oldid=143094785

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Or issue stalking and unwarranted reverts by Beit Or[edit]

13:34, July 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Tewfik (→Rktect)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tewfik&diff=prev&oldid=142494204

20:12, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→stalking and unwarranted reverts by beit)

20:11, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→stalking and unwarranted reverts by beit)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beit_Or&diff=next&oldid=142073584

20:11, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→re:)

15:07, July 2, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→reverts)

21:21, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→reverts)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beit_Or&diff=prev&oldid=142067576

21:21, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→reverts)

21:04, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→Warning)

17:56, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Beit Or (→re:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beit_Or&diff=next&oldid=141691052

17:07, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (→Warning) 17:06, July 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Rktect (Warning)

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Or: Assumptions, false charges in warnings and threats with response[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war.

Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period.

Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule.

If you continue, you may be blocked from editing.

Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Beit Or 21:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have violated WP:3RR on Deborah, I invite you to do a self-revert. Beit Or 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted anything, let alone 3 times. Actually I have just been editing and adding material. if you don't mind telling me, why don't you use the discussion page where I have been explaining what I'm doing and adding cites to discuss this. Rktect 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other Editors false asumptions, comments and resolution by discussion[edit]

The assumption and charge of original research often turn out to be false due to failure to fact check. Many articles need to be fact checked. Articles which contain words like "pretty sure", "seems to be", "appears to be" "implies", "suggests", "may be inferred from", are speculative, unproven and false like the charges of original research. The problem stems from beliefs taking precedence over facts and should be corrected.

Please review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you do agree there is a difference between an edit which adds material and a revert which deletes it. User Jayjg has been stalking and reverting edits of everything I have added in the last week. I have not reverted in reciprocation but rather asked why on the discussion portion of the pages and on his user page. So far he has not been very responsive. I note from other comments that he does this to others rather often. In the case of the page on Deborah I think the comparison of historical references to the biblical account adds some depth to the page. If you disagree why not explain rather than repeatedly attempt revert me in the middle of an edit? Rktect 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many times must this be said? You can't invent your own theories about things; instead you have to report what reliable sources say on the matter. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not consider cites from Bartelby's on semitic roots reliable? How about self refrencing Biblical cites? Cites on the ANE from ANET?...You replace cites from Gardiner book and page with Budge by revert? ...Where are your cites in rebuttal? With all due respect you come across as not knowing the first thing about the topics you are reverting. You don't seem to recognize that semitic Akkadian is a precursor to semitic Hebrew by several millenia, You are unfamiliar with the languages of the ANE and their literature, You apparently are unaware that Palestinians have a history in Canaan that goes back to the Peleset, you don't know the history, you don't know the archaeology or the sites, the laws, the campaigns, the kings or the religions. When sites from reputable sources are provided you don't recognize them because you haven't read them. Rktect 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must review review WP:NOR, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect/Proposed_decision#Proposed_findings_of_fact. You have invented your theories, or put them together from a bunch of sources in a novel way. You have a habit of doing this. If you don't stop, I'm going to propose re-opening your case to expand it to these topics as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your stalking, groundlessly reverting well sourced pages without comment and threatening don't speak well of you as an administrator. From now on, before you revert a page, try commenting on what you don't like about the source and otherwise following Wikipedia protocol. Rktect 10:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure you should just take J's advice, he is pretty much correct. Until(1 == 2) 20:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked Rktekt for 48 hours to give everyone a much needed break. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A claim of Original Research and a response to it regarding reference vs inference[edit]

As frustrating as it sometimes can be, the policy on no original research specifically prohibits such inferable information.

The point is highlighted especially in controversial subject matter like biblical studies, where there are many opinions involved.

OR is one of the most important policies, and unfortunately it is also among the hardest to understand. I suggest you review it carefully, and if you have any questions, feel free to approach myself or the helpdesk. Tewfik^Talk 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sometimes okay to cite a verse, however you can't make any inferences. I guarantee your Wikipedia experience will run far smoother if you try to thoroughly understand that policy. Tewfik^Talk 18:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted this which is simply Exodus 2:2 and 1:10

Also according to the book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time of dynastic change in Egypt when the Sons of Israel had become numerous enough to raise concerns lest in a time of war they might take arms against Egypt

and this which is Exodus 2:15

According to the book of Exodus after this incident Moses made his way to Midian which lies directly across the Red Sea from Thebes which was Egypts capital at the time.

and this which is just a summary of Exodus 4-7

According to the book of Exodus, as a shepherd, Moses spends most of his life tending his Jethro's flocks while his brother Aaron is educated as a scribe and becomes a priest in Egypt with standing to speak in the royal court at Thebes.

All of this was just added reference from the Bible story which isn't in the story as it stands Rktect 19:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious charges, false charges and assumptions lead to being Blocked[edit]

I have blocked you for 48 hours to give everyone a rest from your behaviour. Original research, argumentation, spurious complaints about those who oppose you, and frankly we don't need any of it. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A competent administrator does not act predjudicially. An action must mention and show deliberation upon both claim and counterclaim. Deliberation must evaluates the evidence for one relative to the other and then act only where there are grounds for action.

Rktect 12:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The charge of Original Research first, then the question can you prove this[edit]

You have to stop inventing theories loosely based on a whole bunch of different sources; instead, you must cite someone who exactly states that theory. In your case, I recommend quoting what people say directly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:OR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position would clear up exactly what the issue is here. Until(1 == 2) 18:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed him to that before. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When ignorance is no longer a viable explaination of a persons behavior, it becomes more and more likely that the person is intentionally ignoring policy. Until(1 == 2) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't jump to that conclusion but it does seem odd to remove references and then claim OR or SYN

I added a reference from Gardiner Egyptian Grammar, to the Ten Commandments page re: the meaning of the name Moses in Egyptian. I then went down to the bottom of the page to place the ISBN's went back up to the top and found the reference gone. For what its worth there was no Hebrew language in existence when the events of Exodus took place so what sense does it make to cite a Jewish Encyclopedia as to the meaning of the name in Hebrew? Lets exercise a little common sense and it will be a better encyclopedia. The following are kind of throwaway references just to show its common knowledge. The source I cited was Gardiners Egyptian Grammar.

ahmose thutmose Rameses

Calender mesra

Mesori also known as Mesra is the twelfth month of the Coptic calendar. It lies between August 7 and September 5 of the Gregorian calendar. The month of Mesori is also the fourth month of the Season of 'Shemu' (Harvest) in Ancient Egypt, where the Egyptians harvest their crops throughout the land of Egypt. The name of the month of Mesori comes from Mes-o-ri, an Ancient Egyptian word that mean Birth of Sun.

I expect you realize that archaeology, history and linguistics are useful tools to understanding the events of the past so why the insistence on pretending they don't exist?Rktect 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of the sources mention the name "Moses"? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

2 [10] When the child grew: probably when he was weaned or a little later. Moses: in Hebrew, Mosheh; the Hebrew word for "draw out" is mashah. This explanation of the name is not intended as a scientific etymology but as a play on words. The name is probably derived from an Egyptian word for "has been born," referring the birth to a god thought to be its sponsor.

In Egyptian, "Moses" means "Son of," as in the pharaohs Rameses, "Son of the god Ra," and Thutmose, "Son of the god Thoth." Thus Moses is simply "Son of - -- and a blank." "Son of - who knows?"
Appropriate enough for this boy who is reborn from the Nile, who has two or three mothers and perhaps three fathers (his biological father Amram, his protector Pharaoh, and his father-in-law Yitro, the only one who really guides and fathers him), who lives between two worlds, and whose Egyptian rescuer is said to tweak his name in mistaken Hebrew: She who drew him forth from the water says "Moses" means "the one who is drawn forth," but it actually means "the one who will draw forth" -- as he does draw forth the people from slavery.

Most Afroasiatic and Semitic words are written as roots without vowels. English readers tend to add them and this has become convention, but in the original form Moses (Mss) is mes ses (mss) written as msi because three consonants taken together is the plural form. see Gardiner p 570

The name Moses (mes ses) is particularly common in the 18th Dynasty founded by Ahmosis or iah mes. Its present in Thutmoses, which anglicized is Thomas.

The essential point that all the sources touch on is the midwiferey of drawing something forth. In this case we have an alegory between the birth of a man in difficult times and the birth of a new religion. In a way Moses is the midwife, the person responsible for guarding its birth. Exodus isn't about the Sons of Israel escaping slavery, its about their new religion being drawn forth or born anew out of EgyptRktect 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian[edit]

Hi. You are welcome. It is easy for me to correct the spelling errors when using the Firefox browser.

From looking at your edits, the discussions, and the article... I suggest you ask for help and other opinions at

Wikipedia:Notice board for Palestine-related topics

It usually helps to get some additional WP:NPOV eyes looking at a situation. --Timeshifter 19:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used word to spell check my last edit Dating of the Exodus Thanks again Rktect 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological References removed by revert[edit]

Renfrew, Colin & Bahn, Paul (2004). Archaeology. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0500-284415. Page 515 discusses conflicts between archaeology and Judaism in Jeruselem

Near Eastern References removed by revert[edit]

Nelson Glueck (1959). Rivers in the Desert. HUC.Discusses Jerusalem pp,15,41,63,95,102,106,118,119,122,123,138,143,150-151,162,167,170,171,172,186,187,194,243,246,250,258,276
William H McNeil & Jean W Sedlar (1962). The Ancient Near East. OUP.
Andrew George (2000). The Epic of Gillgamesh. Penguin. ISBN 014-044721-0.
James B. Pritchard (1968). The Ancient Near East. OUP. Jerusalim, siege and fall
Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice (1986). Bahrain through the Ages. KPI. ISBN 071030112-X.
Muhammed Abdul Nayeem (1990). Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Hyderabad.
Michael Roaf (1990). Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Equinox. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6.
Nicholas Awde & Putros Samano (1986). The Arabic Alphabet. Billing & Sons Ltd. ISBN 0863560350.
Gerard Herm (1975). The Phoenicians. William Morrow^ Co.Inc. ISBN 0-688-02908-6.Jerusalim pp 33,84-106 passim, 123,125,126,145,149,150,154

Marine References removed by revert[edit]

Lionel Casson (1991). The Ancient Mariners. PUP. ISBN 9780691068367.
George Bass (2004). A History of Seafaring. Walker and Company. ISBN 08027-0-3909.

Egyptological References removed by revert[edit]

Gardiner (1990). Egyptian Grammar. Griffith Institute. ISBN 0900416351.
Antonio Loprieno (1995). Ancient Egyptian. CUP. ISBN 0-521-44849-2.
Michael Rice (1990). Egypt's Making. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06454-6.
Gillings (1972). Mathematics in the time of the Pharoahs. MIT Press. ISBN 0262070456.
Somers Clarke & R. Englebach (1990). Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture. Dover. ISBN 0486264858.

Linguistic References removed by revert[edit]

Marie-Loise Thomsen (1984). Mesopotamia 10 The Sumerian Language. Academic Press. ISBN 87-500-3654-8.
Silvia Luraghi (1990). Old Hittite Sentence Structure. Routledge. ISBN 0415047358.
J. P. Mallory (1989). In Search of the Indo Europeans. Thames and Hudson. ISBN 050027616-1.
Anne H. Groton (1995). From Alpha to Omega. Focus Information group. ISBN 0941051382.
Hines (1981). Our Latin Heritage. Harcourt Brace. ISBN 0153894687.

Classical References removed by revert[edit]

Vitruvius (1960). The Ten Books on Architecture. Dover.
Claudias Ptolemy (1991). The Geography. Dover. ISBN 9780486268965.
Herodotus (1952). The History. William Brown. War with Judah, Sennacherib, siege of 701 BC

Historical References removed by revert[edit]

Michael Grant (1987). The Rise of the Greeks. Charles Scribners Sons.

Mathematical References removed by revert[edit]

Lucas N. H. Bunt; Phillip S.Jones; Jack D. Bedient (1976). The Historical Roots of Elementary Mathematics. Dover. ISBN 0486255638.

Mensurational References removed by revert[edit]

H Arthur Klein (1976). The World of Measurements. Simon and Schuster.
Francis H. Moffitt (1987). Surveying. Harper & Row. ISBN 0060445548.

Architectural References removed by revert[edit]

R. A. Cordingley (1951). Norman's Parrallel of the Orders of Architecture. Alex Trianti Ltd.

Medieval References removed by revert[edit]

H Johnathan Riley Smith (1990). The Atlas of the Crusades. Swanston. ISBN 0723003610.
H.W. Koch (1978). Medieval Warfare. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0135736005.

In Conclusion Wikipedia Policies were ignored by reverting editors[edit]

Civility: Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikipedia from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Mediation is available if needed.

Editing policy: Improve pages wherever you can, and don't worry about leaving them imperfect. Avoid making large deletions without discussing on the talk page first.

Neutral point of view: Articles, including reader-facing templates, categories and portals, should be written from a Neutral Point of View.

Neutral point of view FAQ: This gives an objection-rebuttal style explanation of NPOV, and was split off from the main page (listed above this).

The editors reverting the pages have created exactly those kinds of pages and when I added or put something in quotes to indicate it was a speculative allegation remaining to be proved, those notes were reverted also.

Verifiability: We cannot check the accuracy of claims, but we can check whether the claims have been published by a reputable publication. Articles should therefore cite sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The people who reverted the pages may not be familiar with what has been published

or how archaeologists and historians have worked together to improve their knowledge of this area since the time of Josephus, but after reading a citation of a publication book and page where the theory, data, statement, concept, argument or idea comes from the editor reverting should WP:AGF.

An editor who reverts a comment before I have finished writing it cannot have read it and thus should not revert it automatically just because they see it on my contributions page

[[21]]

A lot of the revertin editors comments are uncivil and don't assume good faith. "slew of frivolous references" A lot of the reverts involve stalking, going to my contributions page and reverting everything that I contribute without bothering to read it first.

No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse.

When I add something to an article its generally of an historical nature which does lend itself to using a lot of sources. A well know source given with book and page, chapter and verse should not be considered original research. I don't think a source like "Archaeology" should be accused of bias, it says what it says, and I don't see how it hurts an enclclopedia to point out that there is more information from other sources that have not been included in the article to date.

I prefer to avoid citing commentators like Josephus, or Zacharia Sitchen, and dislike seeing an encyclopedia use speculation that isn't even internally consistent.

The claim that something was written in Hebrew before Hebrew existed as a language makes me wonder where the editors expertise lies, but generally I try to put up sources and references and not tamper too much with what others have written unless its just blatent speculation that happens to be wrong.

I havn't contributed much since 2005 but what I have contributed is generally placed on the talk pages with a lot of sources and references, and added to the article with references to the references.

I guess I don't really understand why sources and references would be reverted and why people would be checking my contributions page so they can be reverting it before its actually up. That would indicate they aren't spending much time reading it and they certainly aren't spending much time commenting.

The reverting editors generally don't have much to say about the sources or the references other than to claim they are original research. If they ask for more information I don't have much trouble providing it.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Disruptive formatting: [22] (from Aram-Naharaim, July 6)

I put this in quotes because its speculative. I have tried to correct it but that seems not to be allowed. When it gets mirrored and diffused sooner or later someone else will cite it. When Wikipedia is good its really really good. When editors protect the wrong information for the wrong reasons thats not so good.

Slew of frivolous references: [23], [24], [25] (from Aram-Naharaim, July 8-9); [26] (from Palestinian people, July 8); [27] (from Passage of the Red Sea, July 8); [28], [29] (from Moses)

Frivolous references? See the discussion page where I put some typical diffs.

showing that what is being reverted are mostly references. Gardiner, Halloran, Heise, Falkner... That isn't exactly original research...

The idea that there were Canaanites in Palestine is not exactly original research either.

To demonstate where Aram is I put up a map plus a lot of references relating the settlements of Aram to their locations on the map, and then cited another map book and page. The reverts left nothing but speculations by Josephus, the Zacharia Sitchin of his day.

The archaeological evidence of Egyptian settlement at the ports of Elim and Elat and the evidence of Red Sea trade has been around and widely discussed in academic circles on the level of potshards and artifacts like faience and amulets for over a quarter of a century. Whats the point here? WP:AGF doesn't mean my faith has to be your faith, and if it isn't that can't be good.

Moses is a character in a story which may have some historical corroberation, but you can't assume the story is written in Hebrew. c 1500 - 1350 BC. Thats just ludicrous. Hebrew hasn't become a language yet. To understand the story you have to set it in the right geopolitical context and know that the capital of Egypt in the 18th Dynasty is at Thebes.

The History of Egypt as cited from Baines and Malek and backed up with the cambridhe Atlas of mesopotamia is really basic knowledge, but there is a subculture of bad 19th century speculation being preserved all over these pages. The excavations at Pithom and Pi Rameses uncovered a canal and its administrative infrastructure dating to the 12th dynasty. I cited Baines and Malek to that Effect. They don't prove Ramesses is the Pharoah of the Exodus. There is some evidence for an Exodus across the Red Sea c 1350 BC but if you have never heard of Timna I cited Nayeem the Pre and Proto history of the Arabian penninsula. (all books cited are on the discusion page with full reference info. A lot of the time I try to link to Wikipedia if I'm mentioning a person place or thing but the same bad 19th century speculations "Rabinical tradition implies" Josephus, etc; replaces a couple of centuries of what people have found fidding in the ground. I cited Trudy Dothan on the Phillistines. that got reverted, WTFRktect 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research: [30], [31] (from Pi-hahiroth, July 8-9);

Gardiner is original research? Pi-hahiroth and Baal Zephon are Hebrew? The Red Sea is Yam Suph? There was no Hebrew language c 1350 BC. There was an Egyptian language c 1350 BC. According to the story the people involved were Egyptians. Is it speculative to look the words up in a standard Egyptian Grammar and cite it book and page? is that what you mean by Original Research? Looking it up in a standard reference work?

The only way you can turn them into Hebrew or Greek is to bring them in when the story is being glossed by its editors a millenia later.

The Greeks gave the Erythrian or Red Sea its name. Zepyrus is not Hebrew its a Greek equivalent to Baal. Baal Zephon has the meaning "the power" of "the west wind". The Greeks and Hebrews would have had to add those meaning when they edited the story a millenia later because the Egyptian word or ocean or sea is w3d wr meaning the Great Green. Migdol is Semitc for high place but if Pi Ha hroth is Hebrew for the mouth of the hroth what does hroth mean? Is it original research to say Rktect 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[32], [33], [34] (from Palestinian people, July 1-8); [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

My original research here consists of reminding people that Palestine actually has a history, actually had Canaanites, that everybody didn't go away and leave their homes behind for a couple of thousand years, that people stayed on the land and were conquered by every empire that passed through from genis 14 to the present day.Rktect 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

title=Passage_of_the_Red_Sea&diff=143364272&oldid=143359912] (from Passage of the Red Sea, July 8); [35] (from Isaac Newton's occult studies)

Original research, slew of frivolous references: [36], [37], [38] [39], [40] (from Jerusalem, June 25-July 9)

Adding references to Jerusalems name in Akkadian is frivolous? Adding book and page cites is frivolous? pointing out why Jerusalem became a city is frivolous?

Ultimately, I don't have the time to list out every instance of this kind of disruption. However, you can pick out almost any edit from his mainspace contribution history and see this type of issue.

This user didn't even have time to read the material he reverted. Check the timesRktect 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting editors have not used the discussion pages when requested to do so

Resolving disputes: The first step to resolving any dispute is to talk to those who disagree with you. If that fails, there are more structured forms of discussion available.

When it comes to rules an unproven charge of original research resulting in the repeated revert of every edit a large block of material including references from different articles several times a day without comment on the discussion page is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia

Ignore all rules: Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

Rktect 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Wikimachine[edit]

I think that Rktect actually has good intentions. It's not an NPOV issue or anything. Yes there are WP:OR violations in which Rktect cites multiple sources to formulate his own thesis. However, the real issue is his obsession. Like, he loves how the citation templates etc. work & how Wikipedia sounds like an encyclopedia except that you can actually edit it yourself. Rktect's obsession with these technicalities and his attempts to play with them to make them his or shape them into forms that fit his taste are hurting everything he edits. He may be disruptive, but there are bunch of other editors who are like him & haven't gotten into trouble. Maybe it's part of growing up. A much closer violation is WP:OWN.

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But if this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you are overdoing it. (Wikimachine 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

←Ben^B4 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

^ Ramban on Lech Lecha [41]
^ Judges 3:8
^ Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 3:2. [42]

[1] Ramban on Lech Lecha [41]

[2] Judges 3:8

[3] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 3:2. [42]

[1]

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Desired outcome[edit]

Description[edit]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

Response[edit]

Issues by user from talk pages[edit]

tariqabjotu issue URU URU salaam KI[edit]

URU URU salaam KI[edit]

Asking and Answering Questions about the URU___ KI det.[edit]

Garzo issue revert of a map of Aram[edit]

False Claim of original research with bias and response[edit]

Current articleAram-Naharaim or "Aram of Two Rivers is speculative[edit]

The Current Identification of the two rivers is speculative[edit]

Geographic References added to the Article[edit]

Biblical References to Aram[edit]

Biblical References to towns in ARAM[edit]

Biblical References to towns north of Aram and Damascus south of Haran[edit]

Gareth Hughes AKA Garzo diffs a revert that removed only references[edit]

Other Garzo reverted diffs[edit]

Beit Or issue stalking and unwarranted reverts by Beit Or[edit]

Beit Or: Assumptions, false charges in warnings and threats with response[edit]

Other Editors false asumptions, comments and resolution by discussion[edit]

A claim of Original Research and a response to it regarding reference vs inference[edit]

Spurious charges, false charges and assumptions lead to being Blocked[edit]

The charge of Original Research first, then the question can you prove this[edit]

Definitions of Palestine and Palestinian[edit]

Archaeological References removed by revert[edit]

Near Eastern References removed by revert[edit]

Marine References removed by revert[edit]

Egyptological References removed by revert[edit]

Linguistic References removed by revert[edit]

Classical References removed by revert[edit]

Historical References removed by revert[edit]

Mathematical References removed by revert[edit]

Mensurational References removed by revert[edit]

Architectural References removed by revert[edit]

Medieval References removed by revert[edit]

In Conclusion Wikipedia Policies were ignored by reverting editors[edit]

Outside view[edit]

Wikimachine[edit]

Discussion[edit]