Template talk:Middle Eastern deities/Archive 1

message: What the heck is "Yahoel"?  As far as I can tell, it's the name of an angel in an obscure apocryphal work (the "Apocalypse of Abraham"), and is used far more often by New Age types than by mainstream Jews...  AnonMoos 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahoel 

message: I think not.  First, I did explain, briefly, in the edit summary and in a remark on this very page.  The edits I reverted were mainly done without the courtesy of even an edit summary.
Second, NO, Tydaj is not me.  Don't be ludicrous.
Third, the template as it stood was blatantly incorrect.  It had been retitled (although not renaimed) "Aramaen deities".  Not all Semites are (or were) Aramaens, and not all the deities in the template were even Semitic in origin. It included a number of originally Sumerian deities for example, and unless something enormous has happened recently in the world of philology that I have not yet heard about, Sumerians are not Semites. So as it is, the original retitling and your subsequent move were incorrect, unjustified, and of course undertaken without even an attempt at finding a consensus on anyone's part.  This is far closer to vandalism than what I did.  But don't worry, I'm not prepared to vandalize your user page in retaliation as someone did mine.  What we actually have here is a disagreement.  If you're going to label every disagreement as vandalism, we're going to get nowhere.
Fourth, from your edit summary on the template, you do not appear to understand what ad hominem means.  I did nothing of the sort.  Speculating that a set of IP addresses pointed to the same person, where there's no implication of sock puppetry, is hardly that even to the hypersensitive.  Asking for a discussion before  drastic changes isn't ad hominem either.
Fifth, you're quite correct about HaShem, but I simply adjusted the case of what I found. It's been in the template for quite a while.  But I suppose there's a reason there was no link for it, and I agree with its removal.
Sixth, the anon editor is no newbie since he knew to vandalize my user page in retribution for my edits.  That's the sign of a veteran Wikipedia warrior.  Also quite unjustified and done without any consensus whatsoever, but that seems par for the course lately.
Addendum: Seventh, not only is the move inaccurate as it stands, but potential additions to the template is it formerly stood are no longer possible.  Suppose we wanted to add the deities of Mitanni, which was certainly Middle Eastern but equally certainly not Semitic?  What about those of the Hittites? Yes, they were based mostly in Anatolia but they had considerable territory in the Levant and after the dissolution of their empire there were several neo-Hittite settlements between the Mediterannean and Mesopotamia.  It is now much less general than it was intended to be. I can't see that as an improvement. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person who made this template in the first place I can say that I gave it such a general title intentionally. In fact, this template is based on the earlier Template:Semitic gods. I gave it a new title for the very reason that I wanted to include Sumerian deities. --Tydaj 18:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: # Re-seperated Ba'al from Hadad. Hadad was not the only deity refered to as Ba'al.
# Added a section on Anatolian deities.
# Modified the Section about Names of God in Judaism to names of God in Hebrew Bible. Rabbinical names aren't really germane here.
# Changed the title to be more inclusive. The Sumerians and Anatolians were not Semitic peoples.
Hopefully this will fix the topical disputes. --Tydaj 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent edits