text:
Talk:Mania

Derivative words
I'm just a random person passing through, but this sections seems a bit, well, useless. It's unprofessional (all lower-case, no explanation. Even something as simple as "these are words that share an identical root meaning" would be good. I've never seen such things on other pages. I just think it doesn't really belong. --24.16.223.145 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

From http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sunrise/35-85-6/me-elo.htm : "The idea that the Pythia (priestess of the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi) was in a trance condition may have come from a misunderstanding of how the Greek words mania and pneuma were used in connection with oracles. While today the term mania refers to various forms of hysteria and insanity, to the ancient Greeks it meant ardor, rapture, enthusiasm, i.e., being infilled with a god. The word pneuma was used for "air," "vapor" and, philosophically, for "soul" and "spirit." When the Pythia mounted the tripod she received, according to Strabo, the pneuma, the divine "breath" or afflatus, a word defined as a divine imparting of knowledge and power and of inspiration, meaning in this case the divine wisdom or breath of Apollo." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usbusi2 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-bipolar
Note: We need examples of non-bipolar causes of mania in this article.

I don't know if this is a country thing but in Canada the term mixed states is used not dysphoric mania. If you use some of the references in the article they say this. Could it be added in? I find it easier to understand and i know that is how its refered to in Canada (by Doctors as well).

If you are looking for a non-bipolar cause of mania you can find a similar effect (i'm not sure if its officially mania) sometimes in people that do too many stimulant drugs (amphetamines used not as prescribed, cocaine etc.) From what i know if this is the problem the person usually returns to normal once they have had sufficient time to recover from the effects of what they have taken. Also there is currently debate on how to classify mania that is induced by psychiatric drugs. Most anti-depressants have a tendency to induce mania in 1-5% of the people that take them. In some cases its decided they are bipolar but other doctors argue against this. I'm sensitive this way but actually it would always look like some normal prescription was causing the problem. I was taking Paxil which uses a common enzyme chain to get out of the body (and too much paxil induced hypomania in me). If i was given another prescription that used the same enzyme chain i would experience hypomania although it took a while to figure out what the problem was (i eventually caught the likely problem by looking through the pharmacists guide and comming across the reference to the enzyme chain. When i brought it to the attention of my doctor she switched me to another anti-depressant and the interaction problem mostly went away.--Marcie 19:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Elevated
What does elevated mean? Hyacinth 02:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not depressed or down, not normal, but in the other direction towards euphoric, but euphoric is the wrong word when you consider the symptoms, thus they use "elevated". Jok2000 02:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Dysphoric then? I think using a metaphor in the definition is unclear, but I can't think of description that is not (speedy? cracked out?).
 * There is a premenstrual dysphoric disorder.
 * Apparently, "Dysphoria is the lack of ability to feel enjoyment at any activity." Hyacinth 03:18, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I couldn't see the pros calling it dysphoric. See if you can find a case description in a text book for a manic episode. This article seems to be a pretty good summary of the dozen or so I have read. Jok2000 04:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, dysphoria refers to a dysfunction of emotion, while ahedonia refers to the inability to enjoy things. Mjformica 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate hypomania?
Maybe we should separate hypomania. To imply that hypomaniacs are just mild maniacs may be somewhat taxonomically accurate, but it doesn't show that most hypomaniacs don't experience any visible level of these symptoms. They don't just beat their spouses less often; but are just people with an elevated mood for long periods of time with no side effects that the untrained professional can't see.

And there's a good article in today's NYTimes.

Violence
People with mania beat their spouses? That is not only untrue, but it is a hurtful stigma.

 * oh yeah, that's right, that's what people with personality disorders do, and should be denied clinical significance and treatment.

 * Some people are violent when in a manic state, but most people who experience mania are not violent. Violence is most prevalent in antisocial personality disorder, sadistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder.

 * please sign your comments on talk pages, you do not auto sign, one can do so by typing in 4 tildes in a row or clicking on the four tildes in the insert part of editing.Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Risky liaisons?
While reading this article I saw this phrase which I can't understand. Perhaps it's just my english beeing bad, but could there be a link to what it refers to? The Liaison page seems to be unrelated...? This is in the Symptoms section.

 * definition for Liaison Although to be honest, as someone who speaks French, I feel that liaison doesn't fit so well in English.

 * Liaison here is a euphemism for a sexual encounter; this is conventional usage in English despite meanings the word might have in other languages such as French. To be fair, this euphemism conveys a sense of secrecy and sophistication not necessarily appropriate to the article.  Besides, scientific treatment of behavior should not resort to euphemism.  I have therefore reworded the article. Ventifact 21:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Religiosity

 * MINOR EDIT: I changed hyperreligiosity to hyper-religiosity. Although both seem close in popularity based on a google serach, it reads better when seperated by a hyphen. --A Sunshade Lust 22:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandiosity
What does "grandiosity" mean?

 * It is the adjective form of grandiose. Wiktionary defines grandiose as "1. large and impressive, in size, scope or extent; 2. pompous or pretentious." Ventifact 21:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's the noun form. Grandiose is an adjective. Spandrawn 11:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The missing link:
Lead on original research...

The lack of focus on 'organic causes' ie undetected bacterial infections of the intestinal system, ie giardia, or lymes disease can cause symptoms that may be taken as being some type of labelled mental illness.

The illness is impacting the mind, it is a mental illness but caused by toxins created by the infection, and/or the infection that corrupts the needed biochemical reactions.

There should be a cross link to the reality that such labels while true, ignore a most likely cause. half-truths

Hopefully someone can google this lead to find other researchers who can provide the necessary links...

Former Chief of Psychiatric Assocation and views on bacterial infections --Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Many Lyme patients were firstly diagnosed with other illnesses such as Juvenile Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Reactive Arthritis, Infectious Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Fibromyalgia, Raynaud's Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Interstitial Cystis, Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Fifth Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, scleroderma, lupus, early ALS, early Alzheimers Disease, crohn's disease, ménières syndrome, reynaud's syndrome, sjogren's syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, colitis, prostatitis, psychiatric disorders (bipolar, depression, etc.), encephalitis, sleep disorders, thyroid disease and various other illnesses. see"

Source: Canadian Lymes Association

This material may apply to a variety of illnesses. Like my research has suggested the testing for this one possible cause is difficult, and if overlooked then the patient has very little chance of cure. --Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional reading section
What's the point of the "Additional reading" section? I think it should be deleted unless some book titles are added. Spandrawn 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mnemonics
Come on with these fucking mnemonics. If you need one of these to know what "mania" means, you shouldn't be learning about it in the first place. If a doctor ever explained to me what mania was by using a mnemonic, I'd punch him in the face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.88.4 (talk)
 * Not everyone who wants to learn about psychology is a doctor. Better that people learn through mnemonics than not learn at all. Regardless, let's stay on the topic of how we can improve this article. - AdelaMae (t - c - wpn) 23:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Lol and that sounds like a pretty manic response by the way!--KobaVanDerLubbe 00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
removed .. 'ed harrison luvs mainy calvert' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.243.215 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Herbal supplements section
I tagged this section over a month ago as being completely unreferenced, and it remains without any references whatsoever. Unless citations are found to support the material in this section, I plan to remove it in three days. Ashdog137 (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete away. Jok2000 (talk) 17:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes - well done. It needed removal. 88.97.15.184 (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Conniption redirect - why?
I don't understand why conniption redirects to this page. It doesn't have anything to do with mania as an illness.

The only reference connecting conniption with mania as an illness is identical text from http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/conniption http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conniption and http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conniption all owned by Farlex, Inc. The reference for that sentence that it gives is http://www.thefreelibrary.com/What+government+can+do+to+you%3a+our+government+has+steadily%2c+and+...-a0149023245 a viewpoint essay referenced as from July 24, 2006 The New American referring to one specific incident ( http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+New+American/2006/July/24-p515 ).

That isn't more than an anecdotal reference and does not imply that people suffering from mania are more or less likely to have conniption fits in general or that they have any psychological or medical connection. Everywhere else that I looked for a connection between conniption and mania wasn't in the medical/psychiatric sense of mania. Looking for conniption and conniption fit, is much more related to hissy fit or tantrum.

I encourage that this redirection be removed and replaced with a redirect of conniption and conniption fit to tantrum. Bill Smith (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it that hard to find an expert?
The section at the top of the page indicates that the article is in need of an expert, and that it has been that way since November of 2008. I find this hard to believe: Aren't most people that read this article either A) All-knowing or B) Know someone who is? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorillamania (talk • contribs) 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I removed the tags. I hate it when articles are disfigured by tags like that anyway, and a poke like yours is all the justification I need.  :-).  Of course if any expert does happen to come along, all the better. Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Form of clinical psychosis?
Mania is a mood disorder, not psychosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.178.129 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being one doesn't mean it can't also be the other. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, my english is bad, so sorry for the write errors. Now, a Maniac state its a Mood disorder because only the moods or emotion are disrturbed, not the perception of reallity. Who a maniac person act agressive or irrational in some instances are because impulsives fellings. Is posible a maniac-psychotic disorder, but both are single diferents pathologies, similars in a basic aspect but still diferents. Mania in bipolar people in the most doesn't include hallucinations or delusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.100.178.129 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Usually, it is a mood disorder" is very confusing, because mania is always a mood disorder, and the sentence already says so in an earlier part. Because my policy is never to revert more than once, I have tried a different approach, by simply removing that part of the sentence.  Can you live with that?  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is already correct on this point; psychosis may become present with mania.  Jok2000 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, mania is always a mood disorder; psychosis sometimes occurs during mania. 188.29.90.254 (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DSM & ICD criteria
I came here looking for a summary of the DSM & ICD criteria for a manic episode, and didn't find one, so I've inserted it. Anthony (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mania & maniacal syndrome
Are these the same? --Krystofer (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as far as I can see. The term "maniacal syndrome" mainly shows up in translations of articles whose originals were not written in English. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms
I removed a block of text unsourced since 2008. Mostly redundant or dubious. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hospitalization
I removed the line in the intro about some cases not being bad enough to require "commitment" because most of the time bipolar is first treated on an outpatient basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.124.2 (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Causes - genetics?
The section on "cause" claims that the causes are more genetics than other things, but the article on bipolar disease says that genetical research has shown that there is no significant genomes "peaking" or something. This is not my field, so I don't know if this is true, but the articles don't seem to agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.200.58.179 (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Mania can be the result of using drugs
I removed the following: "Mania can be the result of using drugs. Quitting drugs can create situations in one's mind similar to the symptoms of mania, such as constant racing of the mind.[citation needed] A diagnosis of mania in these situations is often temporary." I frankly didn't think the info was needed, but others may disagree.

First, it didn't belong under Mixed States. Second, the article already says mania can be caused by drug use. Third, racing thoughts aren't the only symptom of mania brought on by withdrawal (including withdrawal from Rx drugs as well as illicit drugs and alcohol, btw). Fourth, if withdrawal causes genuine mania, we shouldn't say it's "similar" to mania. And finally, almost all mania diagnoses are temporary, even if some are of shorter duration than others; that's why they call them "episodes" (chronic mania is exceedingly rare, and mania that never remits to any degree is all but unheard of). If there's a desire to reinsert something about withdrawal, I suggest simply adding "or withdrawal" after the "drug intoxication" parenthetical in the second paragraph. Ctnelsen (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Oxidative stress
I reverted this edit on the basis that the idea is not well known and the references are primary sources per WP:MEDRS. The IP editor who made the edit reverted it back, with edit summary ''Undid revision 546618239 by Looie496 because it's widely accepted that antioxidant status, namely oxidative stress is strongly associated with mania. Saying as a neuroscientist...''. As far as I know this is not actually widely accepted, but if it is, it ought to be possible to provide a proper review paper as source. I am not going to revert again because my policy is never to revert an edit more than once. Input from other editors would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

"full blown"
Is the repeated use of the phrase "full blown mania" consistent with the literature?173.28.215.140 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Box Needs DSM Classifications
The box at the top only includes international classifications. Wikipedia is a U.S.-based encyclopedia, & the DSM is a near-universally recognized resource. We need to add the DSM here & anywhere else the ICD is referenced without mention of the DSM.Ctnelsen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Proposal
I think that it is not only interesting, but perhaps inspirational to note an influential person in history that has experienced manic symptoms. I would like to add the following information this page under the "Society and Culture" heading:

Winston Churchill had periods of manic symptoms that may have been both an asset and a liability.

Confusion
I came here, got a read on this article and left without any little clue about what the hell is "mania". There are only definitions involving another notions. For example's sake, please give here some symnpthoms (a.k.a. what the patient with mania is doing). Hell, this is wiki not a psycho mumbo jumbo academical course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.76.74 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Uhh read the first sentence?
 * Mania is a state of abnormally elevated arousal, affect, and energy level, or "a state of heightened overall activation with enhanced affective expression together with lability of affect."[1] Although mania is often conceived as a "mirror image" to depression, the heightened mood can be either euphoric or irritable; indeed, as the mania intensifies, irritability may become more pronounced and eventuate in violence.
 * Or signs and symptoms?

 * To be classed as a manic episode, while the disturbed mood and an increase in goal directed activity or energy is present at least three (or four if only irritability is present) of the following must have been consistently present:

 * 1) Inflated self-esteem or grandiosity
 * 2) Decreased need for sleep (e.g., feels rested after 3 hours of sleep.)
 * 3) More talkative than usual or pressure to keep talking.
 * 4) Flights of ideas or subjective experience that thoughts are racing.
 * 5) Increase in goal directed activity, or psychomotor acceleration.
 * 6) Distractibility (too easily drawn to unimportant or irrelevant external stimuli).
 * 7) Excessive involvement in activities that have a high degree for painful consequences.(e.g., extravagant shopping, sexual adventures or improbable commercial schemes).[14]

Petergstrom (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Representative Image Problems
Also, they are all of very stereotypically "crazy-looking" women: asymmetric eyes, disheveled hair, mouth ajar, etc. Why not have a picture of Robin Williams? or Carrie Fisher? Or Jim Carry? It would be a step toward normalizing the disease.

Right? I mean it's clearly not a piece of photography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.162.212 (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

How about the fact that all the imagery is of women, as if this diagnosis or any diagnosis disproportionately affects women as a population relative to men? Sexism much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.153.156 (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We use what we can find under an open license. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These are archaic images that are neither relevant nor representative of current medical science. Inability to find an acceptable image with an open license doesn't justify the inclusion of an inappropriate image in its place. Furrybeagle (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with user:Furrybeagle, and would like to add my support to the idea of removing these images. I came to this talk page after reading the article because these images don't seem useful or appropriate. A drawing of a diagnosis from the 1800s is problematic unless it's being used solely to shine a light on historical issues. Stevenarntson (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

^ grow up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:D21:4080:8DF7:D3CF:3807:C96C (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Since there's been no further discussion, I'm going to Be Bold and remove the images. If any editor decides to revert, please do expand the discussion here, too. Thank you! Stevenarntson (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mania. 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/20070912114318/http://allpsych.com/disorders/psychotic/index.html to http://allpsych.com/disorders/psychotic/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Cacoethes" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cacoethes. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 19 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102
— Assignment last updated by Mr.huey.freeman (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mania


text:
Strike zone

In baseball, the strike zone is the volume of space through which a pitch must pass in order to be called a strike even if the batter does not swing. The strike zone is defined as the volume of space above home plate and between the batter's knees and the midpoint of their torso. Whether a pitch passes through the zone is decided by an umpire, who is generally positioned behind the catcher.

Strikes are desirable for the pitcher and the fielding team, as three strikes result in a strikeout of that batter. A pitch that misses the strike zone is called a ball if the batter does not swing at it. Balls are desirable for the batter and the batting team, as four balls allow the batter to take a "walk" to first base as a base on balls.

Definition
The strike zone is a volume of space, a vertical right pentagonal prism. Its sides are vertical planes extending up from the edges of home plate. The official rules of Major League Baseball, define the top of the strike zone as the midpoint between the top of the batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the bottom of the strike zone is at the hollow beneath the kneecap, both determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at the pitched ball, although the de facto enforced strike zone can vary based on the umpire's perspective. The official rules define a pitch as a strike "if any part of the ball passes through any part of the strike zone", with the ball required to have not bounced. Thus, a pitch that touches the outer boundary of the zone is as much a strike as a pitch that is thrown right down the center. A pitch passing outside the front of the strike zone but curving so as to enter this volume farther back (without being hit) is sometimes called a "back-door strike". Various other rulebooks for baseball and softball define the strike zone slightly differently.

A pitch is also a strike if the batter swings or offers the bat in an attempt to hit the pitch. A pitch batted into foul territory—a foul ball—is also a strike, unless the batter already has two strikes. Any pitch not called a strike, swung on and missed, or fouled-off, is a "ball" (originally "no ball").

A batter who accumulates three strikes in a single batting appearance has struck out and is ruled out (with the exception of an uncaught third strike); a batter who accumulates four balls in a single appearance has drawn a base on balls (or walk) and is awarded advancement to first base. In very early iterations of the rules during the 19th century, it took up to nine balls for a batter to earn a walk; however, to make up for this, the batter could request the ball to be pitched high, low, or medium.

History
Originally, the word "strike" was used literally: the batter striking at the ball in an effort to hit it. For example, the 11th rule of the Knickerbocker Rules (1845) read "Three balls being struck at and missed and the last one caught, is a hand-out." There was no adverse consequence if the batter chose not to swing, i.e. the called strike did not exist, the result being batters prepared to wait all day for "their" pitch. It was not until the 1858 NABBP convention that a rule was adopted authorizing the umpire to impose a penalty strike for such conduct: "Should a striker stand at the bat without striking at good balls repeatedly pitched to him, for the purpose of delaying the game or of giving advantage to a player, the umpire, after warning him, shall call one strike, and if he persists in such action, two and three strikes. When three strikes are called, he shall be subject to the same rules as if he had struck at three balls." The called ball first appeared in the rules of 1863, similarly as a discretionary penalty imposed on the pitcher for persistently delivering "unfair" balls.

Whether or not a pitch was "unfair" or the batter was being unreasonably picky was left entirely to the umpire's judgment. Well into the 1870s, umpires were reluctant to make such calls, since they were viewed as penalties for unsportsmanlike play; but by the 1880s they had become routine, and the modern view took hold, that every pitch results in either a swing, a ball or a called strike. The first rule leading to the creation of a defined strike zone was enacted by the American Association before the 1886 season. As explained in The Sporting Life on March 17, 1886, "the ball must be delivered at the height called for by the batsman. If at such height it passes over any part of the plate then it is a strike. The idea is to give the pitcher a chance against some cranky umpires who compelled the twirlers to almost cut the plate in two before a strike would be called, even if the height was right." The following year, the National League created the full strike zone, eliminating the batter's right to call the height of the pitch, and instead requiring the umpire to call a strike on any pitch that "passes over home plate not lower than the batsman's knee, nor higher than his shoulders."

Major League Baseball has occasionally redefined the strike zone to control the balance of power between pitchers and hitters. After the record home run year by Roger Maris in 1961, the major leagues increased the size of the strike zone by raising the top of the zone from the batter's armpit to the top of his shoulder. In 1968, pitchers such as Denny McLain and Bob Gibson dominated hitters, producing 339 shutouts. Carl Yastrzemski was the only American League hitter to finish the season with a batting average higher than .300. In the National League, Gibson posted a 1.12 earned run average, the lowest in 54 years, while Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Don Drysdale threw a record 58⅔ consecutive scoreless innings during the 1968 season. As a result of the dropping offensive statistics, Major League Baseball reduced pitchers' advantage by lowering the height of the mound from 15 inches to 10 inches, and by reducing the size of the strike zone for the 1969 season to extend only from the batter's armpits to the top of the knees. In 1985, the top of the strike zone was lowered to the midpoint of the batter's torso, as viewed from a vertical angle by the umpire.

Enforcement

While baseball rules provide a precise definition for the strike zone, in practice, it is up to the judgment of the umpire to decide whether the pitch passed through the zone.

The Official Baseball Rules (Rule 8.02(a), including Comment) state that objections to judgment calls on the field, including balls and strikes, shall not be tolerated, and that any manager, coach, or player who leaves his dugout or field position to contest a judgment call will first be warned, and then ejected.

Many umpires, players and analysts, including the authors of a University of Nebraska study on the subject, believe that due to the QuesTec pitch-tracking system, the enforced strike zone in 2002–2006 was larger compared to the zone in 1996–2000 and thus closer to the rulebook definition. Some commentators believed that the zone had changed so much that some pitchers, such as Tom Glavine, had to radically adjust their approach to pitching for strikes. In 2003, a frustrated Curt Schilling took a baseball bat to a QuesTec camera and destroyed it after a loss, saying the umpires shouldn't be changing the strike zone to match the machines.

In 2009, a new system called Zone Evaluation was implemented in all 30 Major League ballparks, replacing the QuesTec system; the new system records the ball's position in flight more than 20 times before it reaches home plate. Much of the early resistance from Major League umpires to QuesTec had diminished and the implementation of the new Zone Evaluation system in all the parks went largely unmentioned to fans. Like the old system, the new system will be used to grade umpires on accuracy and used to determine which umpires receive postseason assignments, but games themselves are still subject to their error.

As of 2022, Minor League Baseball has been testing an automated-balls-and-strikes system on an experimental basis for several seasons. While the umpire continues to call balls and strikes, an automated system determines the strike zone and could be used when a team challenged the umpire's call. Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred said in October 2022 that this method would eventually be used in Major League games. ESPN reported that all AAA games would use the method in the 2023 season. For 2023, the system was used for half of all games, with the other half using umpires, with ABS used for up to three challenges per team for each game.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Strike zone


text:
Talk:Circus (disambiguation)

Latin in origin
While latin in origin, the word is common English, hence removed misleading "The latin term..."

Say, what about Circus Pizza?

Film industry 'circuses'
Is there a link to an article that describes use of the word 'circus' as it relates to the film industry? -- œ ™ 06:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Circus (disambiguation)


text:
Banawá

The Banawá (also Banawa, Banavá, Jafí, Kitiya, Banauá) are an indigenous group living along the Banawá River in the Amazonas State, Brazil. Their territory is between the Juruá and Purus Rivers. Approximately 158 Banawá people live in one major village and two smaller settlements containing a single extended family each. The Banawá, who call themselves Kitiya, speak Banawá, a dialect of the Madi language.

History
Their territory was invaded at the end of the 19th century, during the rubber boom. In the 1990s, Brazil formally recognized their land rights.

title: Banawá


text:
Balanjar

Balanjar (Baranjar, Belenjer, Belendzher, Bülünjar) was a medieval city located in the North Caucasus region, between the cities of Derbent and Samandar, probably on the lower Sulak River. It flourished between the seventh and tenth centuries. The legendary founder of Balanjar, according to the Persian and Kurdish chroniclers Ibn al-Faqih and Abu al-Fida, was named Balanjar ibn Yafith.

History
In the 630s Balanjar was a capital of the Baranjar state. Some scholars speculate that the name derives from the Turkic root "Bala" or "Great", and the clan-name "Endzhar". With the rest of the Baranjar domains the city became part of the Khazar Khaganate around 650; until the early 720s, Balanjar served as the capital of Khazaria. During the First Arab-Khazar War in the 650s, a Muslim army under Abd ar-Rahman ibn Rabiah was defeated outside the town (see Battle of Balanjar).

Around 722 or 723, Umayyad soldiers under Al-Jarrah ibn Abdallah crossed the Caucasus Mountains and attacked Balanjar. The inhabitants of Balanjar tried to defend their town by fastening 3,000 wagons together and circling them around the key fortress on high terrain, but were defeated in the attack. The Arabs massacred much of the town's population; survivors fled to other towns, including Samandar. The victorious Arab army stole much booty and the soldiers received large sums of money.

The city was rebuilt after the war, but the capital of Khazaria was thereafter moved to Samandar and later to Atil. Nevertheless, Balanjar continued to be a city of great importance within the Khaganate. After the fall of Khazaria, Balanjar lost much of its importance and declined steadily until it vanished from the record around 1100.

The exact location of Balanjar has not yet been established precisely. Soviet archeologist Mikhail Artamonov initially placed Balanjar on the site of the modern Daghestani city of Buynaksk, but when later the ruins of a town to the south of Makhachkala were found, he identified them as being those of Balanjar.

title: Balanjar


text:
TI-89 series

The TI-89 and the TI-89 Titanium are graphing calculators developed by Texas Instruments (TI). They are differentiated from most other TI graphing calculators by their computer algebra system, which allows symbolic manipulation of algebraic expressions—equations can be solved in terms of variables, whereas the TI-83/84 series can only give a numeric result.

TI-89
The TI-89 is a graphing calculator developed by Texas Instruments in 1998. The unit features a 160×100 pixel resolution LCD and a large amount of flash memory, and includes TI's Advanced Mathematics Software. The TI-89 is one of the highest model lines in TI's calculator products, along with the TI-Nspire. In the summer of 2004, the standard TI-89 was replaced by the TI-89 Titanium.

The TI-89 runs on a 32-bit microprocessor, the Motorola 68000, which nominally runs at 10 or 12 MHz, depending on the calculator's hardware version. The calculator has 256 kB of RAM, (190 kB of which are available to the user) and 2 MB of flash memory (700 kB of which is available to the user). The RAM and Flash ROM are used to store expressions, variables, programs, text files, and lists.

The TI-89 is essentially a TI-92 Plus with a limited keyboard and smaller screen. It was created partially in response to the fact that while calculators are allowed on many standardized tests, the TI-92 was not due to the QWERTY layout of its keyboard. Additionally, some people found the TI-92 unwieldy and overly large. The TI-89 is significantly smaller—about the same size as most other graphing calculators. It has a flash ROM, a feature present on the TI-92 Plus but not on the original TI-92.

User features
The major advantage of the TI-89 over other TI calculators is its built-in computer algebra system, or CAS. The calculator can evaluate and simplify algebraic expressions symbolically. For example, entering  returns $$x^2-4x+4$$. The answer is "prettyprinted" by default; that is, displayed as it would be written by hand (e.g. the aforementioned $$x^2-4x+4$$ rather than ). The TI-89's abilities include:
 * Algebraic factoring of expressions, including partial fraction decomposition.
 * Algebraic simplification; for example, the CAS can combine multiple terms into one fraction by finding a common denominator.
 * Evaluation of trigonometric expressions to exact values. For example, sin(60°) returns $$\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}$$ instead of 0.86603.
 * Solving equations for a certain variable. The CAS can solve for one variable in terms of others; it can also solve systems of equations.  For equations such as quadratics where there are multiple solutions, it returns all of them.  Equations with infinitely many solutions are solved by introducing arbitrary constants:   returns , with the   representing any integer.
 * Symbolic and numeric differentiation and integration. Derivatives and definite integrals are evaluated exactly when possible, and approximately otherwise.
 * Calculate greatest common divisor (gcd) and least common multiple (lcm)
 * Probability theory: factorial, combination, permutation, binomial distribution, normal distribution
 * PrettyPrint (like equation editor and LaTeX)
 * These mathematical constants are shown as symbols $$\pi$$ and $$e$$ and $$i$$ and $$\infty$$
 * Draw 2D and 3D graph
 * Calculate taylorpolynomial
 * Calculate limit of a function, including infinite limits and limits from one direction
 * Vector calculation
 * Matrix calculation
 * Calculate series (summation or infinite product)
 * Calculate chi squared test
 * Calculate complex numbers
 * Factoring polynomial: factor(polynomial) or cfactor(polynomial)
 * Solve equation: solve(equation,$$x$$) or csolve(equation,$$x$$)
 * Solve first or second order differential equation: deSolve(differential equation,$$x$$,$$y$$)
 * Multiply and divide SI Units: underscore _ "diamond" "MODE"
 * A number of regressions:
 * LinReg
 * QuadReg
 * CubicReg
 * QuartReg
 * ExpReg
 * LnReg
 * PowerReg
 * Logistic
 * SinReg

In addition to the standard two-dimensional function plots, it can also produce graphs of parametric equations, polar equations, sequence plots, differential equation fields, and three-dimensional (two independent variable) functions.

Programming
The TI-89 is directly programmable in a language called TI-BASIC 89, TI's derivative of BASIC for calculators. With the use of a PC, it is also possible to develop more complex programs in Motorola 68000 assembly language or C, translate them to machine language, and copy them to the calculator. Two software development kits for C programming are available; one is TI Flash Studio, the official TI SDK, and the other is TIGCC, a third-party SDK based on GCC.

In addition, there is a third party flash application called GTC that allows the writing and compilation of c programs directly on the calculator. It is built on TIGCC, with some modifications. Numerous BASIC extensions are also present, the most notable of which is NewProg.

Since the TI-89's release in 1998, thousands of programs for math, science, or entertainment have been developed. Many video games have also been developed. Many are generic clones of Tetris, Minesweeper, and other classic games, but some programs are more advanced: for example, a ZX Spectrum emulator, a chess-playing program, a symbolic circuit simulator, and a clone of Link's Awakening. Some of the most popular and well-known games are Phoenix, Drugwars, and Snake. Many calculator games and other useful programs can be found on TI-program sharing sites. Ticalc.org is a major one that offers thousands of calculator programs.

Hardware versions
There are four hardware versions of the TI-89. These versions are normally referred to as HW1, HW2, HW3, and HW4 (released in May 2006). Entering the key sequence [F1] [A] displays the hardware version. Older versions (before HW2) don't display anything about the hardware version in the about menu. The differences in the hardware versions are not well documented by Texas Instruments. HW1 and HW2 correspond to the original TI-89; HW3 and HW4 are only present in the TI-89 Titanium.

The most significant difference between HW1 and HW2 is in the way the calculator handles the display. In HW1 calculators there is a video buffer that stores all of the information that should be displayed on the screen, and every time the screen is refreshed the calculator accesses this buffer and flushes it to the display (direct memory access). In HW2 and later calculators, a region of memory is directly aliased to the display controller (memory-mapped I/O). This allows for slightly faster memory access, as the HW1's DMA controller used about 10% of the bus bandwidth. However, it interferes with a trick some programs use to implement grayscale graphics by rapidly switching between two or more displays (page-flipping). On the HW1, the DMA controller's base address can be changed (a single write into a memory-mapped hardware register) and the screen will automatically use a new section of memory at the beginning of the next frame. In HW2, the new page must be written to the screen by software. The effect of this is to cause increased flickering in grayscale mode, enough to make the 7-level grayscale supported on the HW1 unusable (although 4-level grayscale works on both calculators).

HW2 calculators are slightly faster because TI increased the nominal speed of the processor from 10 MHz to 12 MHz. It is believed that TI increased the speed of HW4 calculators to 16 MHz, though many users disagree about this finding. The measured statistics are closer to 14 MHz.

Another difference between HW1 and HW2 calculators is assembly program size limitations. The size limitation on HW2 calculators has varied with the AMS version of the calculator. As of AMS 2.09 the limit is 24k. Some earlier versions limited assembly programs to 8k, and the earliest AMS versions had no limit. The latest AMS version has a 64kb limit. HW1 calculators have no hardware to enforce the limits, so it is easy to bypass them in software. There are unofficial patches and kernels that can be installed on HW2 calculators to remove the limitations.

TI-89 Titanium
The TI-89 Titanium was released in the June 1st, 2004, and has largely replaced the popular classic TI-89. The TI-89 Titanium is referred to as HW3 and uses the corresponding AMS 3.x. In 2006, new calculators were upgraded to HW4 which was supposed to offer increases in RAM and speeds up to $256 KB$, but some benchmarks made by users reported speeds between 12.85 and $188 KB$.

The touted advantages of the TI-89 Titanium over the original TI-89 include two times the flash memory (with over four times as much available to the user). The TI-89 Titanium is essentially a Voyage 200, without an integrated keyboard. The TI-89 Titanium also has a USB On-The-Go port, for connectivity to other TI-89 Titanium calculators, or to a computer (to store programs or update the operating system). The TI-89 Titanium also features some pre-loaded applications, such as "CellSheet", a spreadsheet program also offered with other TI calculators. The Titanium has a slightly updated CAS, which adds a few more mathematical functions, most notably implicit differentiation. The Titanium also has a slightly differing case design from that of the TI-89 (the Titanium's case design is similar to that of the TI-84 Plus).

There are some minor compatibility issues with C and assembly programs developed for the original TI-89. Some have to be recompiled to work on the Titanium due to various small hardware changes, though in most cases the problems can be fixed by using a utility such as GhostBuster, by Olivier Armand and Kevin Kofler. This option is generally preferred as it requires no knowledge of the program, works without the need of the program's source code, is automated, and doesn't require additional computer software. In some cases, only one character needs to be changed (the ROM base on TI-89 is at 0x200000, whereas the TI-89 Titanium is at 0x800000) by hand or by patcher. Most, if not all, of these problems are caused by the mirror memory (ghost space) or lack thereof.

United Kingdom
The Joint Council for Qualifications publish examination instructions on behalf of the main examination boards in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These instructions state that a calculator used in an examination must not be designed to offer symbolic algebra manipulation, symbolic differentiation or integration. This precludes use of the TI-89 or TI-89 Titanium in examinations, but it may be used as part of classroom study. The SQA give the same instructions for examinations in Scotland.

United States
In the United States, the TI-89 is allowed by the College Board on all calculator-permitted tests, including the SAT, some SAT Subject Tests, and the AP Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, and Statistics exams. However, the calculator is banned from use on the ACT, the PLAN, and in some classrooms. The TI-92 series, with otherwise comparable features, has a QWERTY keyboard that results in it being classified as a computer device rather than as a calculator.

title: TI-89 series


text:
Talk:Child sacrifice

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

Miscellaneous 2002-2006 discussions
"Child sacrifice is the foundation of all great religions"

I don't think so.

(And I doubt it played any part in Buddhism and Confucianism)

I agree with the above remark. Child sacrifice is something that most certainly has happened, and there should be a good article on why. But it is absurd to use this article merely to trash "great religions." At the very least it oversimplifies an important question: was it the religions of these societies that led to child sacrifice, or did the societies already have child-murder, or have it for other reasons, and the religions of these societies reflects that fact or created new reasons? In any event, child sacrifice is not the foundation of Judaism (indeed, one of the foundational texts is a rebuke against child sacrifice; moreover, God's initial order to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac had nothing to do with Abraham's "sins"), nor is it the foundation of Islam. Christianity is arguably more complicated. God is not requiring the sacrifice of His son for His (the Father's) sins, but for the sins of all humanity. Moreover, I think it is perhaps more Jesus' sacrifice than God's. SR

You can't separate child sacrifice from religion and ask which caused the other. That's just not possible. Anyways, I concede the point since it's not possible to support it without going into psychology, which I'm sure is way too controversial for people who can't even agree on such trivial things as incest exists. -- ark

What's wrong with it is that it's still not supported: what great religions is, or was, child sacrifice central to? Not Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. Not, as far as I know, Taoism or Shinto. Vicki Rosenzweig

The Aztec's religion comes to mind. Judaism has child sacrifice in a number of places. And Christianity! In Christianity, the Virgin Mary is commonly worshipped. Who was she? She was the woman who gave birth to a boy who sacrificed himself. Jesus sacrifice is itself more evidence of the murderous dynamic. The Eucharist is ritual cannibalism. Geez, what more do you want?

 * I'm not a Christian, but as far as I can tell, Mary is not "commonly worshipped": even aside from the distinction between "venerate" and "worship", many Christian groups do *not* venerate/worship Mary.
 * Counting Jesus under "child sacrifice" makes this equivalent to "human sacrifice"--all humans, of any age, were once children. Nonetheless, I think you'd agree that there's a difference between selecting children to sacrifice, and sacrificing prisoners regardless of age, and again between that and sacrificing only adults. Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, June 15, 2002

all humans, of any age, were once children

That's an important insight you should keep in mind, though probably not relevant here.

Jesus counts as child sacrifice because his child-like characteristics (innocence, purity, et cetera) are emphasized. As well, he's sacrificed by his father. These are hardly insignificant details.

 * Huh? He is sacrificed, with his own consent, *to* his father by other humans. That is hardly an insignificant distinction.

 * Actually, he's sent by his father to be sacrificed by humans. He's effectively sacrificed by his father. And I've never heard anyone say that Jesus was sacrificed to his father. Consent or non-consent is irrelevant; children aren't capable of informed consent. Pedophiles make a big deal of children being "consenting" when being molested or raped. The same thing's happening with Jesus. Jesus didn't consent, he submitted.

 * Really? Logically, we have two options here: A) Jesus was really God as Christians claim. Then he was very well capable of making his own decision to be sacrifized. B) Jesus was not God. Then he was murdered by romans, because what could he have done to prevent his cruzification? Nothing. Supvia (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The distinction between venerate and worship is irrelevant in this discussion. And I believe you're wrong, the Virgin Mary is commonly worshipped in many Christian sects, just not American ones. Latin America, Italy, Spain, and Eastern Europe are just some of the places with Virgin Mary worship; in Mexico she's called the Virgin of Guadeloupe, in Poland the Black Madonna.

 * Those are all names within the Roman Catholic church, though. You're not going to find statues of Mary in Baptist churches, whether in New York, Texas, or Russia.

 * Is that important? I mean, we're talking about whether there's child sacrifice in Christianity. The RC Church has a fairly unbroken history lasting two millenia with millions of adherents in dozens of countries. How do Baptist churches compare?

These places all have something in common. They're all psycho-socially backwards. I can confirm at least some of it from personal experience. And if you have doubts about psychoanalysis, just listen to this. In Poland, depictions of Jesus are shown with a bloody heart over the chest. Not a heart shape but a depiction of an actual human heart. This is completely bizarre yet nobody bats an eyelash at it. They just worship this bloody human heart and they don't think there's anything wrong with it. There's really no possible way to explain it except psychoanalytically. And the fact that even outsiders rarely recognize how ludicrous such behaviours are only goes to show how powerful a hold psychoanalytic symbols have over everyone. Anyways, the point of this is that religious rituals can be pretty fucked outside of the nice sanitary American versions. And you'll need to accept some outrageous ideas in order to make sense of them. -- Ark

Something interesting I just read. The babylonians' religion was based on a reverse child sacrifice. The son, Marduk, killed his mother Tiamat. That little bit of reverse sacrifice also occurs in Aztec rituals.

And if you're still bitching about it then remove the qualifier "great" from the sentence. How hard could that have been?? -- ark

No problem:

"Child sacrifice is the foundation of all those religions of which child sacrifice is the foundation."

Sorry we questioned you on this.

Egad, this article needs help. it especially needs a citation or two. For instance, the line about drug-dealers has nothing to do with the rest of the allegations. There are allegations of modern child sacrifices, as per witchcraft uses in Africa; why not separate that out? A few uses of the word "alledged" would go a long way toward making this more NPOV. I'll make a start, but much more help will be needed. -- April

What the heck were female goddesses originally singled out for in this article? Child sacrifice has been dedicated to both male and female gods in plenty. I'd really like to see references for many of these, for example, to sacrifices to Hathor the fertility goddess. -- April

Could we discuss evidence for/against these examples? We want to include the best-proven examples, I'd think. My comments in italics:

 * Decapitated skeletons of early hominid children have been found, with evidence of cannibalism.
 * Is cannibalism necessarily child sacrifice?
 * Young children were buried with their skulls split by an ax at Woodhenge/Stonehenge.
 * I hadn't heard of this; I'd heard that adult war-captives were used. Anyone?
 * Decapitated infant sacrifices to the Great Goddess were found at Jericho.
 * Never heard of this, and how would they know it was to the "Great Goddess" when the existence of such a figure is arguable?
 * Early Arabians sacrificed their daughters to "the mothers".
 * Never heard of this. Anyone?
 * The serpent goddess of the Aztecs demanded skull and heart sacrifice of children, including the eating of the children's bodies and covering themselves with their blood.
 * I thought the feathered serpent, Quetzalcoatl, was male, and again, the sacrifices were primarily war prisoners. Counter-arguments?
 * The mummies of Incan children are still being discovered in the South American mountains. These are thought to be child sacrifices, probably from royal households, to mountain spirits.
 * This one I've read about recently and seems well confirmed; I re-worded it a bit.
 * Through medieval times, when people built new buildings, walls or bridges, little children were sealed in them alive as "foundation sacrifices" to ward off the angry, avenging spirits.
 * In what cultures? What evidence has been found?

On the whole, we might do better to put this in the style of, "Bodies have been found here, and are thought to be child sacrifices because..." and "reports of child sacrifices are found in the myths of..." -- April

---
 * I had attempted to modify this article before realizing it was being changed... Much of what was written was from a rather suspect looking web page. Given that the phrase "Child sacrifice was the foundation of all great religions" was lifted directly from the site, along with other highly suspect phrases, I'd say that most of what you call into question above should be discarded unless it comes up on a Google search.  The Incan stuff has lots of references at least, but I doubt the rest does. I'll check, if I can't find at least two seemingly independent references for the others, I'll remove them.

http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln08_childrearing.html

I'm going to attempt to integrate what I had with the new version. I also included alleged activities by Palestinians in this regard, I'd appreciate if anyone who knows corroborating evidence or disputing evidence to check for NPOV. Rgamble

Child soldiers, and the use of children by guerillas, are a large subject, but a different one from child sacrifice, I think. 162.83.145.181

 * I brought it up because it seems to appear fairly often on a search of child sacrifice, therefore it might be entering into public usage that way. At least with the alleged usage of children as martyrs by Palestinians, it still has the religious overtones.  Fine line yes, and I'd be perfectly happy to have it be removed if others agree that it should be.  rgamble

 * I'd opt for the traditional Wikipedia compromise - break it off to a separate page, and put a link on this one. :) -- April

-

As an anthropology student, I thought I could add my two cents in this topic:

"The serpent goddess of the Aztecs demanded skull and heart sacrifice of children, including the eating of the children's bodies and covering themselves with their blood." ''I thought the feathered serpent, Quetzalcoatl, was male, and again, the sacrifices were primarily war prisoners. Counter-arguments? ''

This might be useful. Aztec religion was quite complex, though certain main streams of thought can be discerned from it. In fact, overly simplified, it was a religion based on war and agriculture.

The part dealing with war is the best known part of Aztec religion: the sacrifices to the Sun to make it strong, the eternal debt of blood and hearts the Aztecs had towards the Sun for the privilege of being the rulers of their known world... but there is another, equally important part of Aztec religion, and that was the part dealing with agriculture. In fact, agriculture was so important to the Aztec, that the most representative of all agricultural gods - Tlaloc, god of rain and water - shared the most prominent temple in the city of Tenochtitlan - the so-called "Templo Mayor".

To this god is to whom child sacrifices were performed. It had an easy explanation. Fr. Bernardino de Sahagún, one of the first friars to come to Mexico after the conquest, as well as Fr. Diego Duran, Fr. Toribio de Benavente and others, wrote several traditions dealing with this. To not overload this thread with data - I might create a separate page instead - I'll translate Sahagún's account: children were sacrificed because they were associated to Tlaloc (or, more precisely, to Tlaloc's assistants) and were thought to become aides to the God.

Child sacrifices were made in very much the same way as adult sacrifices, although there seem to be regional variants. So, Sahagún says that they were sacrificed by taking off their hearts, while Duran and others say they were sacrificed by slashing their throats or by drowning. Either way, the importance children had for Aztec religion was through magical association: when they were taken to their sacrifice, if they cried, it was considered to be a good omen, because their tears were considered as indicators of the upcoming rains. The more the children cried, the more abundant the rains would be that year; likewise, if the children didn't cry, that meant the rains would not come that year.

Just another comment. It is not fair to judge an ancient religion like this using modern day parameters and prejudices. Remember that what they did (including child sacrifice) was not considered "evil" in those days; the idea that child sacrifice is wrong is something that developed fairly recently. There are many in-dept studies on this topic, that show how the way children were considered has evolved during time.

- Miguel Chavez

A little comment on the sacrifice to Tlaloc. The recent excavation of the "templo Mayor" in Mexico, has shown that almost all the children sacrificed to Tlaloc wer sick male children about 6 years. Problably it was a way to ensure they were crying. http://www.conaculta.gob.mx/saladeprensa/2002/25mar/tlaloc.htm :( Nanahuatzin 08:42, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

-

I'm sure this is not intended to be serious? Where's the connection to the topic? Isn't this like calling human sacrifice to be related to drafting men and women into the milatery?

In modern times, child sacrifice is a term that has also been applied to the military use of children. It has also be applied to embryonic stem cell research, where the embryo, thought by many to be a living human child, is destroyed in order to obtain promised health benefits and scientific progress. Further similarities have been be drawn with abortion.

195.188.241.124 11:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph; if nothing else it is off topic, since the opening definition is about placating/pleasing supernatural entities, and none of these are. Trishm 07:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

subsection added
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)

Holocaust denial
The opposite seems to be the truth regarding this sentence in opening paragraph. Consensus seems to be just the opposite:

"In many cases, archaeologists have found evidence that suggests that the prevalence of child sacrifice in a culture (Carthaginian for instance) was probably far less than commonly believed, perhaps only as part of myths from some cultures. In other cases, archaeological evidence has confirmed the written sources, and even added new information that keeps the debate open."

The above claim should be removed unless it can be demonstrated (sources!, sources!) that it's indeed the majority view among scholars (which I very much doubt

—see the references provided at the bottom of the article). If fact, the erroneus claim strikes me as Holocaust denial. —Cesar Tort 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No, it is hyperbole to claim that this is akin to Holocaust denial. In many cases, the evidence of child sacrifice is thin and could be blood libel instead of truth.  (e.g. Carthage)

 * This is why I was concerned when I first read about child sacrifice being central to Aztec religion. It wasn't given much attention in any of the Aztec-related articles and so I was concerned that it was scurrilous nonsense or blood libel.  Since then, I have been convinced that it is true and that the problem is the failure of the Aztec articles to discuss this topic.

 * This is a controversial issue and we might weaken the statement (e.g. what is meant by "in many cases"?) but the assertion has some validity.

 * If you look on Talk:Aztec, User:Nanahuatzin (a Mexican Wikipedian) argues that the physical evidence of human and child sacrifice supports a number that is far less than is generally reported. I have worked with and trust User:Nanahuatzin as well as User:Maunus and User:Madman2001.  I suggest that you ask them what their opinions are.

 * Similarly, the truth is that there is no direct documentary or unambiguous physical evidence that proves that Carthaginians practiced child sacrifice. Read Religion in Carthage for some evidence of this.  The debate about this issue on Talk:Carthage was far more heated and, while it does seem that the consensus opinion among historians and scholars seems to be that child sacrifice was practiced in Carthage, it's not clear that this is more than speculation.  I personally am willing to believe that child sacrifice was practiced.  However, I have worked with and respect User:Vedexent and he believes that the evidence for child sacrifice is thin. --Richard 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re this opening sentence —:

"Similar in concept but different in meaning is the blood libel, in which groups (such as the Jews or Roma) are untruly accused of killing children and drinking their blood. The blood libel was then used as an excuse to attack these groups (pogrom being one term for this kind of attack)."

—it isn't really germane to the article. It confuses a horrendous libel against the Jews with actual, historical child sacrifice. The reader might be confused since the beginning of the article. —Cesar Tort 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I would move the sentence into a section at the end titled "Blood libel". If the charge is that Jews and Roma sacrificed their children, then the claim belongs here but not in the intro and we must make sure to properly characterize it as blood libel. --Richard 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If no objections I'll remove both sentences.

—Cesar Tort 18:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Blood libel or being on denial?
OK, please do the moving. But if child sacrifice was performed in Carthage —and there are thousands of charred bones of children— it's no hyperbole to compare it with the Holocaust deniers. I'll take a look at the articles you called my attention to, and compare them with my sources.

Re User:Nanahuatzin, it's true that both the Aztecs (for propagandistic purposes: they wanted to scare their neighbors) and the Spanish (due to the shock and gross miscounting of the heads and skulls at the tzompantlis), exaggerated the numbers. For instance, during the consecration of the Great Pyramid at Tenochtitlan the Aztecs claimed 20,000 victims. But when the friars arrived and interviewed the old Mexicas, the Aztecs stated that “only” 4,000 were sacrificed in the consecration. —Cesar Tort 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Somewhere on one of the Talk Pages, Nanahuatzin does a calculation that shows that there is no way the Aztec priests could have sacrificed the high number of victims that they claimed to have. Drop him a message on his talk page and ask him for the details. --Richard 22:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Nanahuatzin is right. But the 4,000 figure of adult victims in the consecration rite seems accurate. —Cesar Tort 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The actual number will be unknown... All we can say is that the figure of 4,000 is posible and is more acepted by schollars. Although still a bit high if the acounts are to be taken literray. Since it still represents about one sacrifice by minute... and the archeological evidence is still several zeroes lower than those accounts.  Not that i tried to deny the aztec sacrify a lot of people... is just i am a bit skeptical of those high numbers, even a few hundred of sacrifices were a too much and a very bloddy thing.  Just rememberd that most of the spaniards and most of the meshica were illiterate... For an illiterate people even one thousand IS a very big number.

 * Now just an excercise.. fast, how many skull are here?: http://pekingduck.org/archives/skulls.jpg
 * and how many can fit here?: http://www.delange.org/TemMayor3/Dsc00028a.jpg

 * The first fotograph seem to be an osuary from China, and there is about 900 skulls, the second is the "great tzompantli" of Tenochtitlan (it had wood poles, adn the skull were separated about 80 -110 cms from each other)... where it was claimed there were 100,000 skulls... Think about it.. Nanahuatzin 04:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes: I had already seen that photo in a book by Eduardo Matos Moctezuma (but it's not a real tzompantli, only a stone representation of it). Many scholars know that the numbers were highly inflated. I have to check out how many days the consecration of the temple lasted and if they have made reliable calculations. —Cesar Tort 04:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes it is actually the basement of the tzompamtli, the antropologist W Arens calculated that to have so many skulls the tzompantli would have measure about 100 Km long...
 * If you have the "Codex Mendoza", please comment it, i think it is the original source for the hight numbers of the sacrifice at the main temple. By the way. You may find interesting this article: http://www.eiu.edu/~historia/2005/AztecChildren.pdf Nanahuatzin 09:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I’ll read the article. Wasn’t Arens the guy who believed that tzompantlis were lineal and hence his erroneous “100 Km” calculation? Presently, the actual numbers of rotten heads and skulls in tzompantlis have been fairly calculated. Take a look at Chapter V of López-Moctezuma’s Muerte al filo de obsidiana (FCE, 1975 and still in print). He is one of the main Mexican archeologists that has discovered, unearthed and studied many monuments and pre-Hispanic sites. —Cesar Tort 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * exactly !!! (LOL)  I re - did his calculation based on the modern recontruction.. but still it was too large. But do not be too harsh on Arens.. His book  make a lot of antropologist rethink the differecne on what was told versus what was knonw...  Nanahuatzin 10:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Child Sacrifice in pagan Arabia?
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)
 * 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)

Tanakh
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)

Again the material that I added on early Israelite child sacrifice has been removed with no reason given. This material will be added back in, as it is backed by numerous academic references. If anyone wishes to remove this well attested material, then please discuss it first, or provide contrary academic references. The present material relies on the Tanakh only, and is therefore only giving a single point of view. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Do not speculate on my emotional state; Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Please review WP:TALK and my previous comments. Jayjg (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

Thom Stark. Removal of quote.
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)
 * 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)

Tanakh
Here is the next batch of academic quotes. Please advise if anyone does not consider these authors to be reputable academics before I add them to this section. Thank you.

Jon D. Levenson states that "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous." The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, p 5,(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993)

Susan Niditch, in War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, p 47) says, “While there is considerable controversy about the matter, the consensus over the last decade concludes that child sacrifice was a part of ancient Israelite religion to large segments of Israelite communities of various periods.”

Susan Ackerman states that within the ancient Israelite community, “the cult of child sacrifice was felt in some circles to be a legitimate expression of Yawistic faith.” Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah, p 137 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * And here is another. Moshe Greenberg, in a commentary on Ezikiel writes that

'The polemic against child sacrifice (to YHWH) in Deut. 12:29ff.; Jer 7:31; 19:5, 32:35 indicates that at least from the time of the last kings of Judah it was popularly believed that YHWH accepted, perhaps even commanded, it.' Moshe Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), pg 369 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talk • contribs) 23:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are good academic sources. How do you wish to use this material? Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I will add all these in tomorrow, once the 24 hours revert time period is up. I can add a note stating that this is an accepted academic viewpoint, with much support, or I can simply let the quotes speak for themselves. I will await suggestions as to a suitable preamble, if indeed one is required. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We certainly aren't going to fill up the article with quotations. Please propose the text you will use here, then I'll be able to fix it so it accurately reflects the sources. It will be easier than having to do it in the article itself. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is not your decision as to what goes in the article, and you should not presume that anything will need 'fixing'. The final wording will be open to all editors to discuss.  As I have already pointed out, the article originally  lacked balance, as it relied too heavily on Tanakh being used to suppport itself, and not enough on interpretation. Since however you wish to add further evidence of these interpretations, I will come up with a suggested wording.  I did not of course state that the quotes will go in directly.  Good point though. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to short-cut the process here; usually you a) create some wording, then b) I have to make it comply with NPOV, NOR, and what the sources actually say, then c) you reflexively revert me a few times until you finally come around. It would be easier to avoid all of that. Jayjg (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So let me see your efforts at entering this new material then, and I will then review.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You know the sources and what you want to add, and it would probably make more sense to have the more experienced editor do the reviewing. Jayjg (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the suggested addition, which should be placed below the para that starts In Leviticus 18:21, 20:3 and Deuteronomy ..........

Jon D. Levenson, Susan Nidditch and Susan Ackerman have stated that at least in some part child sacrifice was part of ancient Israelite Yahwistic cultic practice.

Add in the quotes below in the references.

Levensen "only at a particular stage rather late in the history of Israel was child sacrifice branded as counter to the will of YHWH and thus ipso facto idolatrous." The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son, p 5,(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993)

Susan Niditch, in War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, p 47) says, “While there is considerable controversy about the matter, the consensus over the last decade concludes that child sacrifice was a part of ancient Israelite religion to large segments of Israelite communities of various periods.”

Susan Ackerman states that within the ancient Israelite community, “the cult of child sacrifice was felt in some circles to be a legitimate expression of Yawistic faith.” Under Every Green Tree: Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah, p 137 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992) Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A more accurate and neutral presentation would be as follows:
 * "Jon D. Levenson, Susan Nidditch and Susan Ackerman have stated that at least some Israelites believed child sacrifice was a legitimate part of the ancient Israelite religion."
 * Please use that instead, and please make sure to format the citations correctly. Jayjg (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 * I expect you to actually input the text. The suggestion does not accurately reflect what the quotes convey, and is not entirely neutral.  It does not reflect what Susan Nidditch states which is a claim that the academic consensus is that child sacrifice was part of ancient Israelite religion (she does not just say that it was believed that it could be a legitimate part.)  Nor is the phrase 'the ancient Israelite religion' entirely neutral as it suggests that there was one such religion, rather than a series of cultic practices which slowly changed from polytheism to monolatory to monotheism.  If you are familiar with the phrase 'yahweh alone' you will know what I am referring to.  I therefore suggest this slight revision.    "Jon D. Levenson, Susan Nidditch and Susan Ackerman have stated that at least some Israelites believed that the practice of child sacrifice was a legitimate part of ancient Israelite religion." Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Susan Nidditch uses the very phrase "part of ancient Israelite religion", so I can't see how that doesn't "accurately reflect what the quotes say" or "is not entirely neutral". Furthermore, of the other sources, Ackerman states child sacrifice was "felt in some circles to be a legitimate expression etc." and Levensen doesn't directly address the issue. From what I can tell, the difference between your proposal and mine is the addition of the four bolded words in the following:
 * "Jon D. Levenson, Susan Nidditch and Susan Ackerman have stated that at least some Israelites believed that the practice of child sacrifice was a legitimate part of the ancient Israelite religion."
 * Is that correct? Jayjg (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Susan Nidditch states that the academic consensus is that child sacrifice was part of ancient Israelite religion (she does not just say that it was believed that it could be a legitimate part.) The four words I have proposed to add would make that clearer. I have suggested removing the word the before the word Israelite, as the idea that there was a single Israelite religion is POV, and not really relevant here anyway.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The four words add verbiage but no semantic content - the sentence has the identical meaning with or without them, so it's not a good idea to add them. On the other hand, I'm fine with leaving out the word "the" before "ancient". Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i do not agree, but please go ahead and make the change.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
 * OK, I cleaned up the formatting of the references and added it for you. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening photograph - ??
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)

"Ancient Near East" doesn't tell the whole picture
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)Ckruschke

 * 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)

Child Sacrifice In Pagan Europe
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: AtheistIranian (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

"Post-war propaganda"
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links 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)

Hello?
"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)

Rm "(Salome demanding the head of John the Baptist is another indication.) The subject is Child sacrifice; John the Baptist was not a child. Mannanan51 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Highly biased interpretation of wall painting contents in Dura-Europos synagogue is being presented
"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)

title: Talk:Child sacrifice