Talk:Child sacrifice

message: Why is this in the second paragraph? This should be moved further down. 209.137.144.70 (talk) 23:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood libel

message: I removed some phrases of the Aztec section that I relocated in the “physical evidence” section since they already appear in the linked article Child sacrifice in pre-Columbian cultures. Repetition is unnecessary. —Cesar Tort 08:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  subsection added 

message: Salam!
Does anyone have evidence that pagan Arabians practiced child sacrifice? I think it is what Qur'an  says, but User:Arrow740 removed this statement as original research. Aminullah 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pagans killed thier female infants, but I don't think they were sacrificing to a particular god or godess. Infact, I'm not sure what their motive was. And we don't need to use the Qur'an as a source for this, pre-Islamic Arab child sacrifice is a historical fact and should be found in history literature.Bless sins (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Child Sacrifice in pagan Arabia?

message: A considerable amount of material, all from academic sources was removed.  This was justified on the grounds that it gave undue prominence to a minority view.  The reason for giving so many references was in order to show that these quotes represent a viewpoint with considerable academic support.  I can produce more quotes if required.  This material should not be removed again without a discussion first.  It represents an academic viewpoint.  This can be added as a preamble, but it should not be removed on the grounds that it represents a minority view, when this is clearly not true on the basis of the number of quotes given.  I would welcome alternative views to this academic 'concensus' if that is desired. 
Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Over half the article was devoted to Child sacrifice in the Tanakh, despite the fact that the Tanakh condemns it, and there's very little evidence it actually happened. This is a classic case of WP:UNDUE, and your edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. Please re-think your focus and agenda here, per your talk page, or we will be looking at administrative action. Jayjg (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have again removed this material without discussion.  Why did you not take up my offer of discussion?  The article at present is a classic case of undue.  Where do my sources dispute that the Tanakh condemns child sacrifice?  The Tanakh is only one point of view on this topic.  You state that there is little evidence, in that case, restore my material, and produce academic evidence that counters the claim.  You cannot simply continue to remove sections of refrenced material that discusses this issue, just because you personally do not agree with it.  I am not putting my opinions here, I am giving reference academic sources.  Why not produce the same?  I am now going to look at taking administrative action against your clearly disruptive actions. As I have stated before the reason why there is so much material here is because this is not UNDUE, this is a viewpoint shared by many academics, that is why I quote so many of them.  Please stop the disruption, and produce some academic evidence alongside that which I will restore Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing it with you, despite the fact that your discussions typically contain little content relevant to policy. I've cleaned up your material, reformatted it properly, and re-added what came from reliable sources, taking into account WP:UNDUE. I've also removed a bunch of other unsourced junk in the section. Parroting back my warnings about disruption and administrative action is mildly amusing, I suppose, but won't end well for you. And, for what I hope is the last time, please learn how to format your comments properly - that includes putting your signature at the end of your comment, not dangling randomly at the beginning of a new line. Unless you have anything policy-based and relevant to add, I think we're done here.  Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now why didn't you just discuss this, as I asked, and we could have avoided all the wasted time?  I will no longer be pursuing my action against you, now that most of the material has been restored.  The rest may be added elsewhere, or I may restore some of it, I have not decided yet. Note however, that I will have further material to add on the Jephthah story.  Academic sources point to this as a story which explains the adoption of a Cannanite ritual, in which young women go away from the village. There is of course no explicit condemnation of Jephthah in the text. The present section only gives one viewpoint of the story, and that is undue, since academic studies differ so markedly from the traditional viewpoint.  Also note that none of the 'unsourced junk' came from me.  All of my sources are reliable.  I also note again that your advice about signing is a personal opinion, and is not backed up by any reference to any policy. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "advice" I gave about not leaving your signature dangling at the beginning of the next line, unattached to anything, is "a personal opinion, and is not backed up by any reference to any policy"? That's the best you can do? We are definitely done here. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that it?  Don't you have anything to say in defence of your accusations against me? I must conclude that you wrote them in anger, and consequently I will ignore them.  I shall return with the academic references on Jephthah, as at the moment the only opinion given on the story is from the Tanakh itself, and is therefore WP:UNDUE and certainly is not WP:NPOV. How can it be neutral to show a document is correct, by referencing itself?  Please though feel free to add any academic references when I have added mine.  I look forward to reading them.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not speculate on my emotional state; Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not speculate on the 'motives' of others.  Follow WP:EQ.  Examples to consider avoiding are referring to 'unsourced junk' without evidence, and talk page speculation as to an individual's motivation.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review WP:TALK and my previous comments. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please review WP:TALK where you will find 'When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs.'  Please review my previous comments on 'unsourced junk' and the lack of WP:NPOV in using the Tanakh as the sole source of evaluating itself.  Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanakh

message: Here are the endorsements for this book, and the authors academic credentials.   This book is endorsed by academic writers, and has also received good reviews as to its content.  The quote should not be removed without discussion.
http://humanfacesofgod.com/?page_id=8.   http://humanfacesofgod.com/?page_id=15.  Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi DLDD. Thom Stark does not appear to meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability; there's no Wikipedia article about him, and he's not an academic, though he does appear to have (in the past) been associated in some way with a small religious institution (Emmanuel Christian Seminary). The book itself, The Human Faces of God, appears to be a polemic against the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, which is all well and good for those who like that sort of thing, but not really academic either. It was published by Wipf and Stock Publishers, a fairly new (established 1995) and quite small publisher that publishes religious books and specializes in "short book runs" - i.e. books that don't sell very many copies. Regarding Stark's claim, you stated "it is a widely held academic view. I can provide more references if you wish", so please go ahead and find actually notable academics who support his views and provide those references. As it stands, the insertion is WP:UNDUE at best, WP:REDFLAG at worst. It's not going into the article until a consensus to insert it is reached here, so please work towards that, rather than trying to force it in. By the way, it looks fairly silly when someone edit-wars over material while admonishing others to "stop the edit warring". Jes' sayin'. Jayjg (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thom Stark. Removal of quote. 

message: What on earth has the photograph to do with the subject? - Please remove!
Nuremberg   - Ángel.García   ~ ~ ~ ~  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.188.3.21 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening photograph - ?? 

message: This page is pretty lacking in the section I list in the thread title. Half of the section goes into detail about Jewish practices - which may or may not include child sacrifice, all we have are opinions of researchers - while completely omitting the ACTUAL evidence of child sacrifice of all the other Middle Eastern Cultures (chiefly through the God Moloch, but also other gods). I've never seen this page before so I don't know how old it is, but I'm wondering if this a direct omission or just a topic that hasn't been explored. I'm happy to add text in here on the other near East gods that promoted child sacrifice, but I just wanted to ask the question first. Ckruschke (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really like to see more of the actual evidence for child sacrifice in Middle Eastern Cultures here. It'd be nice if somebody could add something. Supvia (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ancient Near East" doesn't tell the whole picture 

message: There is a very brief mention of widespread child sacrifice in pagan Europe. Even in Greece, the most adavanced country in Europe, child sacrifice was prevalent. The Greeks had a writing system, whereas the Anglo-Saxons and the Nordic tribes did not even have hieroglyphics; and that's why child sacrifice in western Europe is less documented. Even cannibalism was practised by Europeans as recent as the 17th century: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/jamestown-cannibalism/ AtheistIranian (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no practice of cannibalism in Europe until the 17th century. Cannibalism in Europe, except in cases of extremis, is unheard of since pre-Roman times.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Sacrifice In Pagan Europe 

message: I can understand that Romans might have denigrated Carthage for political reasons during the wars, but why afterwards? I recommend the deletion of the unreferenced and seemingly unlikely statement that "Some scholars think that after the Romans finally defeated Carthage and totally destroyed the city, they engaged in post-war propaganda to make their archenemies seem cruel and less civilized".Royalcourtier (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Post-war propaganda" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Child sacrifice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928130439/http://www.ugpulse.com/articles/daily/news.asp?about=Child%20survives%20sacrifice&ID=7046 to http://www.ugpulse.com/articles/daily/news.asp?about=Child%20survives%20sacrifice&ID=7046
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907102900/http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/15.html to http://projectsx.dartmouth.edu/classics/history/bronze_age/lessons/les/15.html#20
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The birth of Jesus on route with his parents rushing back to Galilee indicates they wished to avoid giving birth in Phoenicia where the newborn's life would be at risk." ...From where exactly were they "rushing back"? When were his parents in Phoenicia? They seem to be mentioned only in reference to Nazareth, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem; none of them Phoenician towns. Chapter and verse would be nice, thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Bchvz123 (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Composition II

message: "Barker also notes that wall paintings in the ancient Dura-Europos synagogue explicitly show Isaac being sacrificed, followed by his soul traveling to heaven"
The Dura-Europos contains multiple wall paintings, however there is only a single one depicting the Binding of Isaac (which begs the question of why the plural was used there), and its interpretation here is highly questionable and is presented without the most basic of counter-arguments.
Margaret Barker claims that the winged being on the top of the painting is Isaac's soul leaving his body, and not the angel telling Abraham to stop the sacrifice as per the Genesis' account.
Quoting from the New International Version, 
Genesis 22:10-13: "Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
“Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.”
Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son"
The view presented begs the basic question: Why is a ram depicted in the painting according to the Genesis account, if the painter wanted to depict Isaac's explicit sacrifice? If the view must remain in the article, then this question should be added afterwards, along with the image in question.
 PolyAlex (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly biased interpretation of wall painting contents in Dura-Europos synagogue is being presented