text:
Talk:Book of Ruth

old talk
I also moved around a few lines and moved the section on Jewish and Christian views to the end of the article. This will hopefully make the article less focussed on a christian perspective.

RGW 01:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Monday, May 1, 2006

I believe that any concerns stated in regard to the article have been addressed.

Saturday, April 29, 2006,

Thank you for your comments regarding the significance of the book to Jews. I have added your note to my article. As the Hebrew Bible is most significant to Jews and Christians I have added the note to clarify that although important to both, each has their own perspective. The last paragraph makes it clear that the comment is directed towards a Christian perspective -- who also hold the book dear.

I agree about the last paragraph specifically, and much of the article is also biased towards Christian interpretation. In many ways, most of what Christians and Jews would draw from the text would be the same, but drawing lessons for the meaning of Jesus's life to Christians is irrelevant to Jews, so it must be made clear that the book of Ruth has a unique significance to Jews. In particular, Ruth is celebrated as a convert to Judaism who understood Jewish principles and took them to heart. This book is dear to the hearts of Jews who are Jews-by-choice. -- slb 4/27/06

The very last paragraph on this page has a distinct Christian bias. Dreadpiratetif 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thursday, April 27, 2006

The article was updated. The research with bibliography and article were completed for a course at Acadia Divinity College and includes material from previous article.

I removed:

The author of this book was thought to be Samuel according to Jewish tradition. However, modern Biblical scholars believe that this book was written to protest the ethnic cleansing policies prevalent during the restoration of the Kingdom of Judah under the domination of the Persian Empire. During that time, there was a strong movement to expel all peoples who were deemed not to have a sufficiently Jewish ancestry to prevent a reemergence of the perceived pollution of foreign faiths that brought God's wrath on the nation.

The book opposed that attitude by trying to illustrate that foreigners can be just as faithful as any Jew to the point where they must surely have God's favour if their descendants can include such chosen ones as David.

Because RK removed the same exact (or exceedingly similar) section from Ruth, and Danny agreed that the section should be rewritten (I think). In any case, whatever is the result at Talk:Ruth should apply here too, and these two articles should maybe be integrated? Tuf-Kat

I agree. These two articles should be merged. RK 14:43, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ruth's sister's name
Isn't Ruth's sister's name spelled "Orpah" in English? (I believe most English Christian Bibles since KJV use that spelling.) Or is that a Christian mistake? -- Mpolo 16:00, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Orpah was NOT Ruth's sister, as I can see from having checked Chapter 1, but sister-in-law. It refers to the women as daughters-in-law of Naomi and wives of their respective husbands.Cloptonson (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why the {} sign/s?
Why were one or more of these sign/s: signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Categories for deletion?) IZAK 07:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WP Saints?
Per the discussion at Talk:Book of Joshua, I will remove the "Saints" project template here, as The Book of Ruth is not really a saint topic. Instead, I'll add a WP Bible template. Information about Ruth the person should be its own article. Alekjds talk 20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should be it's own article, but at this point it isn't. As such, the only biographical information available on this historical personage and saint is to be found here. When the article on Ruth is created, though, the banner would clearly be more appropriate there. John Carter 23:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup required
The article jumps into discussions of controversy about authorship and themes before it tells what the text /story actually IS. There is only 1 inline citation making verifiability nearly impossible - as it stands, the article appears mostly Original Research.207.69.137.11 16:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Storyline
Isn't it the general standard for articles on books and other texts to have a synopsis of the text? I have been familiar with the book since young childhood, so I know what happens, but I'd be lost if I weren't familiar with it. For example: who are Elimelech and the son born to Naomi? If I didn't know the text, I'd have no clue that it was her late husband and her grandson whom she effectively adopted. Nyttend (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I've just added a synopsis. It should have links in it (e.g. for levirate marriage) but I've no idea how to do that. I hope the synopsis is clear to someone who doesn't know the story - feel free to make it better!

Well, better get back to work! KMcA (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Having done some research on levirate marriage, it isn't fair to call this unambiguously an example of levirate marriage. Many of the ceremonial aspects are completely wrong and on top of that the obligation only extended to immidiate brothers according to that law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.251.130 (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I've expanded the synopsis a little to note the use of the word "redeemer" (the Themes section rightly notes that redemption is a major theme of the book), and to note also the genealogy of David with which the book ends. Please feel free to change tis if you think it's not quite right. PiCo (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 * It seems a touch misleading to claim that Boaz was "therefore obliged" to marry Ruth - the principle of levirate marriage applies to brother-in-laws of the widow; Boaz is a "close relative" - but even then he is not the closest; the closer relative is keen to redeem the land until he realises that to do so he would have to marry Ruth - he is not treated as a breaker of the levirate marriage principle (for example not spat on); instead he transacts as many other middle-eastern transactions took place - with the exchange of a sandal. Epideme (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

 * The Analysis describes Naomi as receiving the payment for the redemption of the land; whilst the text does not explicitly say who was paid for the redemption of the land, it would be fair to assume that it was not Naomi - having been absent for over 10 years, the land was probably sold (or more accurately the harvests were sold) until the Jubilee year. Thus someone else "owned" the harvests - it was to them that the payment would be made to "redeem" the land and bring it back within the family - which then had to include Ruth. Epideme (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Chilion vs. Kilion
"Chilion" is the spelling used in the 18th-century edited version of the King James Version, which is pretty much the traditional standard for spelling names of Biblical figures in the English language, so that spelling should be used here, unless there's a very specific reason for using a different spelling. AnonMoos (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of the book of Ruth
I removed a final clause from the "Date" subsection which said that most scholars place the book before the Babylonian period. In fact most scholars put it in the Persian period (post-Exilic). PiCo (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

R.K. Phillips
There was a line in the authorship section putting forward the possibility that Ruth was an Israelite. This is quite a contention, since the text explicitly says she's a Moabite. The authority given was an R.K. Phillips - the only person by that name I can find on the WWW is the pastor of some small church somewhere in America - in other words, not a notable source. So I'm deleting this line. PiCo (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wajdi's Vandalism
Someone (presumably named Wajdi) at the IP 151.204.66.15 changed the text in four places, changing one instance each of the names Naomi, Ruth, Obed, and Jesse to Wajdi. It has been fixed, but it was recent so it might recur. Smw543 (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Her Page
How come she doesnt have a page of her own, Boaz has his and many languages have made a page for her except the english, I know majority of the info about her is kept here but she still deserves to have a small wikipedia page for herslef just like other minor charectors have and also her article could talk about presepectives and her importance in Judaism and Christianity88.201.1.30 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Somebody apparently created Ruth (biblical figure)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC

bias
As a professional biblical scholar, I find it incredible that this article about a Jewish, Old Testament, book can be so lopsidedly Evangelical Christian, especially in its notes and suggested reading. I've heard that Jewish scholarship knows a little bit about this book, too. Drlithoi (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)SER, May 1, 2012

Re the phrase, "the Bible's main theme of redemptive history" and other similar expressions--this is biased interpretation, not description. That the collection of books comprising the Bible even has a "main theme" is a position with which many scholars would take issue. Fintushel (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Authorship and Date
The section on the authorship and date of Ruth is pathetically small. It only mentions in passing that it's traditionally ascribed to the prophet Samuel, but "it is now regarded by revisionist scholars as being a novella of probable hellenistic-era dating.". Is there any evidence to support the latter? Where does the traditional view come from? Are revisionist scholars trustworthy in these matters? Point is, it needs expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.122.179 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Not too much is known for certain, and there's a wide range of speculation. It's not necessarily Hellenistic, but it's not very early, either.  Many have speculated that it's a response to  post-Exilic tendencies to endogamy, which could place it in the Persian period (possibly based on some earlier tradition or genealogical listing)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything to back up the traditional view of authorship (written by the prophet Samuel)? Or do any findings utterly disprove the traditional view?--209.217.122.179 (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, there's the fact that the Book of Ruth seems to refer to David as a revered historical figure, but according to II Samuel 25, Samuel died before David became king. I don't think that serious scholars have taken the idea of Samuel's authorship of Ruth very seriously for more than century... AnonMoos (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Overtly Sexual Plan
The cited source is much more indecisive about the sexual nature of the plan than the article. The source states: "In Hebrew, "feet" is sometimes used as a euphemism for the sexual organs.  Is Ruth making a sexual advance?  This is possible, but unlike Ruth 4:12, the text is not explicit, so although we may want to know whether there was or was not a sexual encounter, the ambiguity suggests this is not an integral part of the story." I have updated the text of the article to reflect this ambiguity. The other two reasons this plan was considered overtly sexual was not mentioned in the source at all, although I found some blogs and whatnot that could be used as sources instead. If I find one that seems reputable and not just a random Internet opinion I will replace the citation neededs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.179.15 (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

 * You're misrepresenting what the source (West, in Eerdmans) says. It says Naomi's plan for Ruth and Boaz "is overtly sexual" (that's reflected in our article); and it says that Boaz's uncovered feet "is a euphemism for genitals." What you're quoting here is quite a different work, the IVP Woemn's Bible Commentary, which is not included in our bibliography - what led you to think it was our source? In any case, the IVP commentary isn't disagreeing with West - feet are quite often just feet, but in this particular passage from Ruth, they're not, and most scholars take a very different view of the integral nature of the sexual encounter between Ruth and Naomi (it led to the birth of the ancestor of David, and was therefore supremely important). PiCo (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality
This section of the article seems to keep coming and going. If it disappears again, I am going to request some level of protection on the page. It is merely one interpretation among several listed in the article, and should be treated as such. Sevey13 (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. These "contempory interpretations" would be more accurately described as "fringe interpretations" - and it seems to have been originally added by editors pushing a LGBT agenda. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems weird to delete it here when it's mentioned on The Bible and homosexuality and Homosexuality in the Hebrew Bible. However, it's not mentioned in the articles for Ruth (biblical figure) or Naomi (biblical figure), so maybe it's not essential here. Aristophanes 68   (talk)  03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic of homosexuality in the bible is an interesting one, and certainly homosexual activity seemed to have been prevalent in parts of the ancient world without the negative influence of social mores seen in the modern world. But it's vulnerable to POV-pushing LGBT WP:ACTIVIST editors gratuitously inserting fringe material in order to "rub Christian readers' noses in homosexuality". I did however have a quick look at those two articles, and there is more salient information and, I believe, a better rationale for a homosexual interpretation. Perhaps those articles would be a better place to discuss the issue, rather than taking up several paragraphs on this article and risk giving undue weight to the entire notion.
 * The material I objected to and removed specifically was based on a weasel term ("some contemporary interpretations") - with a single solitary example provided by Rebecca Alpert, who is, frankly, on the looney tunes end of scholarly opinion. I am unhappy with the inclusion of ideologically-motivated fringe interpretations without further analysis. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did a quick search via Google Books "Book of Ruth lesbian and quite a bit of results pertaining to the Book of Ruth'' and Homosexuality showed up. I think WP:ACTIVIST isn't the appropiate policy to denounce such information. I best believe that the info. should stay. Any attempt to try and remove I would consider an act of censorship per WP:NOTCENSORED unless proven otherwise. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't object to the information on the grounds of WP:ACTIVIST, I objected on the grounds of WP:FRINGE. But I did a bit of research and it seems there are indeed a few scholars who note the lesbian possibility. In fact there seems to be enough material to provide a more comprehensive analysis than "oh, by the way, some scholars e.g. Rebecca Alpert think Ruth and Naomi were lesbians" which is the effect of the current text.
 * I shall however restore the removed section for the time being, with a view to improving it in the fullness of time. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability of a fringe theory

The sources provided for the fringe theory are not notable. A fringe theory, if it is to be included into an existing Wikipedia article, must be notable, and to be notable, the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

Wikipedia's Content Guideline for fringe theories stipulates that "a fringe theory is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers".

It is intersting to observe that for several months the only source available for this fringe theory was 1 (one!) source which merely had one sentence on the fringe theory: "Among feminist authors, perceptions of the book's message and value have varied widely, with some seeeing the story as a model for lesbian relationships (Alpert) and others a a celebration of the relationship between two strong and resourceful women (Brenner 1983)". Those Wikipedia Editors who regularly restored the deleted fringe theory are in violation of Wikpedia's core policy of Verifiability for exceptional claims. Exceptional claims, which significantly depart from the prevailing views, require multiple high quality sources. A high quality source for a fringe theory, according to WP:FRIND must be independent of the subject. An independent reliable source is a source "that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective".

Editor JudeccaXIII in particular is guilty of violating against WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and point No 2d of WP:IUC in this article. On two occasions, JudeccaXIII added easy-to-spot unreliable sources and easy-to-spot irrelevant sources into the article while restoring the deleted fringe theory. With this edit, JudeccaXIII added an unreliable self-published source from the website of a religious organization to support his addition of the fringe theory. Some editors might wonder about this edit from JudeccaXIII, because it can be assumed that with this edit the editor is probably consciously trying to mislead other Wikipedia editors. This "source" which editor JudeccaXIII has provided in response to my kindly formulated request, has nothing to do with the fringe theory, and yet this editor even added a page number from that book, probably with the motive of hoping that he'll get away with it undetected. The source writes about this book, which is unrelated to the fringe theory.

Understand this, that I do not care if this fringe theory is added into this article or not. I simply don't care. What I do care about is that WP:V is adhered to at all times. So, if you want to re-add the fringe theory, please kindly take the requirements found in WP:FRINGE into consideration. Thank you. 93.135.2.182 (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right about Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. I didn't realize I added that one, sorry. However, The other sources are reliable via from scholarly thoughts. The only source that mentions Rebecca Albert again is Pui-lan Kwok's Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology. Yes, there is only one sentence using Rebecca Albert's interpretation. The whole thing needs to be rewritten, but sources I can say are abundant. You can look for yourself via Google Books: Book of Ruth lesbian Either way, this was discussed as keep with work to be done. The thought of lesbianism in the Book of Ruth isn't a minor view. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 * So far as I can see, the idea isn't fringe (it's mentioned in multiple mainstream works by well-respected scholars such as Axum). The references given are totally appropriate, too - these are important scholars with established reputations in the field. My only problem is that I doubt it's worth a whole section - maybe a para under a new section of reception history? PiCo (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Book of Ruth. 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/20070219150900/http://www.hopeofisrael.net:80/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=32 to http://www.hopeofisrael.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=32

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) 23:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Original research
The Bible is not a WP:Reliable source. Your own analysis of the Bible is prohibited by WP:OR, as being your own POV about a WP:PRIMARY religious source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not bring any original research into the article. As a matter of fact, I let the verse interpret itself. This is the opposite of original research. Whether you admit that or not if your choice. Primal Groudon (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not allowed to do that. The WP:RULES are against you. Stop before you get blocked for it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nowhere do the rules say anything against what I was doing. In fact, as I said a bunch of times, my edit did the opposite of what they were reverted for. Primal Groudon (talk) 00:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's WP:Wikilawyering. The WP:RULES are very clear WP:CITE a WP:RS or be gone. In case you doubt, it applies to all Wikipedia editors, you have not been singled out for special treatment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be many different actions that can be categorized as Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, none of them being what I was doing. Discussion concluded. Primal Groudon (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The opinion of the Wikipedia Community is that you're not allowed to analyze the Bible. No editor is allowed. And we don't believe that the Bible could analyze itself, see WP:NOTTHEOCRACY. Wikipedia does not endorse any religion, therefore it does not endorse Sola Scriptura. The Bible cannot interpret itself, but always has to be interpreted by WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And don't fool yourself: you were assigning the 11th century dating to it, not the Bible. The Bible itself does not claim that the book is dating to any century. You were performing the analysis, not the Bible: the Bible is not WP:SCHOLARSHIP, nor is it WP:RS. So don't play word games with us, or you'll get blocked before you know what happened. The only deal you could possibly get here is: WP:CITE WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP or be gone from this article. No experienced Wikipedia editor could offer you another deal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup, most germane comments seems to be:

This one is shorter:

The reason is that we report Bible scholarship, we don't do Bible scholarship.

I have restated it above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 * , you made this addition to the article:

 * Ruth 4:22, the last verse of the book, mentions David, his father Jesse, and grandfather Obed, but none of David's descendants, indicating that the book was written before any of David's children were born or well-known, which points to a late 11th or early 10th century BC date for the text being written.
 * The part in italics references the Book of Ruth, the part in bold gives your personal interpretation. As an interpretation, it's original research, and hence was reverted. Hope this clarifies matters. Achar Sva (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
 * By long-standing practice and consensus, the entry upon the Bible, Quran and every other holy book has been added to Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

has reverted disputed text, which is in violation of WP:OR and WP:RSP long-standing practice and consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Classic of world literature? I think so, could it be said?
I am not a religious person, but consider the Book of Ruth to be of fundamental importance in the history of ancient literature that champions human rights against prejudices in the prevailing culture. The Book of Esther is another text I revere, but I like Ruth more. I don't want to edit the page myself, but couldn't something be said about what a precious piece of writing this is, for all ages, and believers and non-believers (like me) alike? Surely this book has had a documented impact on more than just the Judeo-Christian world that justly claims it. In its King James translation, for example, I'm willing to bet that it's one of the most quoted passages in English, along with the contemporaneous Shakespeare. (This example only intended to draw respectful attention to the reach of the Book of Ruth). Alan Canon (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
WP:PROFRINGE edit war has been reported at WP:FTN. No sources are now given according to WP:CITELEAD.

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
See WP:CENSOR and WP:NOBIGOTS. About islamists: just research the issue of the pictures of Muhammad. Oh, by the way: many Christians are modernists. So why modernist Bible scholarship would be attacking Christians? In fact, seen the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, only a minority of Christians are fundamentalists. And the screed of evangelicals is we don't want to be modernists, but we don't want to be fundamentalists, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Another term for sexual intercourse is “uncovering the nakedness,” used repeatedly in a long list of persons with whom intercourse is prohibited: the mother, the sister, the aunt, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law, and so on.13 “Nakedness” means both male and female genitals, as do several parts of the lower extremities of the body in their vicinity, such as loins, thigh, heel, and especially feet, another frequent euphemism. For example, in the Bible as in other ancient literature we find vivid descriptions of the horrors of ancient siege warfare. One such description, anticipating the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment for the Israelites’ disobedience, warns that in those dire days a woman will eat her placenta, “the afterbirth that comes out from between her feet.”14 Using the same euphemism, the prophet Isaiah proclaims that Yahweh will punish the Israelites through the king of Assyria, who will shave off all their body hair—“the head, the hair of the feet, and even the beard”15—symbolically reducing them to weak prepubescent boys."

- Michael Coogan

"The Song of Songs, an ancient biblical love poem that speaks frankly of towering breasts, flowing black locks, kissable lips, and the joy of sexual fulfillment, offers a particularly striking example of this phenomenon, but other biblical passages are nearly as forthright. Ruth, King David’s grandmother, conspires with her mother-in-law, Naomi, to seduce Boaz, one of Naomi’s wealthy relatives. “Uncovering his feet,” a Hebrew euphemism for uncovering a man’s genitals, Ruth succeeds at gaining a home for herself and for Naomi, a woman she has promised to love until they are parted by death. By loving both her mother-in-law and her partner, Boaz, Ruth’s bold desire secures a future for herself and her family. The love between Naomi and Ruth is paralleled by the devotion of Jonathan to David, a friendship so strong that Jonathan comes to love David more than he loves women. After Jonathan’s death, when David spies the beautiful Bathsheba bathing, he invites her for a sexual rendezvous in the palace, though he already had many other wives to enjoy. The child of their adultery dies, but Bathsheba later becomes pregnant with Solomon, the famously wise king and the purported author of the Song. In these biblical passages, sexual longing refuses to be limited to the love between a husband and wife, or even between a man and a woman. In the case of the Song of Songs, desire’s heat can be applied not only to the love between a woman and a man, but also between humanity and God."

- Jennifer Wright Knust

To fill in the details: Coogan is a Catholic Bible scholar, Knust is a Baptist Bible scholar. None of them claimed to be atheist. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Regarding the edit, I think it should stay. It is sourced, and the statement is factual: that modern scholars have considered it to have sexual meaning. But on the other hand, I disagreed with the term "Many". While both are scholars, I don't think that the view is held by most of modern Bible scholars. In the spirit of WP:BRD I will remove the many, but I agreed with most of the edit. SunDawn talk  05:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Ok, further: Amy-Jill Levine is an Orthodox Jewish Bible scholar, while Gerald West is an Anglican Bible scholar. Not atheists, either.
 * Morals: whatever the truth might be in respect to this interpretation, what is certain is that the Bible isn't a prudish book. Pretending that it is prudish only makes matters worse.
 * Frankly, it is not even established as historical fact that Ruth was a real person, let alone what might have happened between her and a man when there was nobody else to witness it. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources for a possible rewrite of this article
Just a few that I quickly found. I did find a lot of self-published material, but these sources seem to meet WP:RS which I'd argue many of the ones used do not. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia standards allow for citations of people's online work to represent their own thought.
 * WP:ABOUTSELF All the sources you deleted began by citing the author who presented them. The quotes present them as the thoughts of that author and those who follow that author's ministry.

 * By your logic we can not quote the online catechism of the Catholic Church as authoritative for the Catholic Church because its published by the Catholic Church. That's not the Wikipedia standard.
 * --Wowaconia (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 * We do WP:CITE the Catholic Catechism as WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for the Catholic Church. gotquestions.org is nobody's catechism. We just don't WP:CITE WP:RANDY.

 * See Talk:Internal consistency of the Bible/Archive 1 and Talk:Jesus/Archive 127 and User talk:Dethbethlehem and Talk:Hillsong Church

 * He, himself, on his own, tell us that his own view is WP:Notable. But why would we believe him on his word of honor? According to WP:NOTFREESPEECH and other WP:RULES, we only render the views of scholars and of representatives of big social, cultural, political or religious groups. He is neither.

 * Your criterion of WP:N would be a random priest or pastor published that in WP:SPS. That's not gonna fly. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Copy/pasted from Talk:Rhema (doctrine).

That is now Talk:Hillsong Church/Archive 2.

Quoting myself. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hebrew scrolls
is moving the goalposts. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Not sure what you're trying to say, but there are no holograph manuscripts of any book of the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Book of Ruth was written by a woman
I find it surprising that in Chapter 3 the author go at length describing what Ruth need to do to lure Boaz especially verse 3. Women have been using those tactics since and who knows how much prior. As I read this Chapter I asked myself why are these words necessary to be included? For me, if I allow my sexist view that the author to be female, then such details would be expected. 206.251.72.199 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Shaye J. D. Cohen, here (I don't remember which lesson), considers unlikely that any woman was involved in writing the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Book of Ruth


text:
Elf Power

Elf Power is an American indie rock band that originated in Athens, Georgia, United States. The line-up consists of guitarist/vocalist Andrew Rieger, keyboardist Laura Carter, guitarist Dave Wrathgabar, bassist Bryan Poole, and drummer Peter Alvanos. They are part of the Elephant Six Collective.

History
The band began as a four-track recording project of Rieger, Carter, Raleigh Hatfield and Dave Wrathgabar, later of Fablefactory. These recording sessions eventually resulted in the first incarnation of their debut album Vainly Clutching at Phantom Limbs. The band's line-up expanded when Rieger and Carter recruited Elephant Six musician Bryan Poole, also known as The Late B.P. Helium. While the band occasionally played live shows and continued to record, Poole chiefly stayed in Athens to continue work with Of Montreal while Rieger and Carter moved to New York City.

Mid–late 1990s
After residing in New York for some time, the band released The Winter Hawk EP in 1995. Eventually, Rieger and Carter were convinced to move back to Athens, where the band's second album When the Red King Comes was ultimately recorded and released as a joint venture between the Arena Rock Recording Co. and the Elephant Six label. The album featured contributions by members of The Olivia Tremor Control, Kevin Barnes of Of Montreal, and Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk Hotel.

Shortly following the release of When the Red King Comes, Elf Power collaborated with Dave Fridmann, best known for his work with The Flaming Lips, to record the album A Dream in Sound. The album was again recorded with the help of Mangum and Barnes, as well as Scott Spillane of Neutral Milk Hotel and The Gerbils.

During the 1999 supporting tour for A Dream in Sound, Adrian Finch joined the band to play violin. Following the addition, the band recorded an EP focused chiefly on cover material entitled Come On. Around this time, Vainly Clutching at Phantom Limbs was reissued with material from early sessions.

Early–mid-2000s
The band regrouped in late 2000 to record The Winter is Coming, again with help from members of other Elephant Six bands. Notably, the band spent this time as a supporting act for fellow Athens band R.E.M., as well as Wilco. Bryan Poole would exit the band for good following the European tour for the album to focus on solo work.

2002 saw the release of two albums from the band: Creatures, an effort released by spinART, and Nothing's Going to Happen, an album released on Orange Twin Records that contained various cover songs and the Come On EP. During this time, Finch left the lineup and Ballard Lesemann stepped in to play bass.

In 2004, Elf Power released their seventh studio album Walking with the Beggar Boys. The album was released to notable media and critical praise and featured contributions from Vic Chesnutt.

The band released Back to the Web on Rykodisc in April 2006, an album which featured bassist Derek Almstead. A tour of the United States and Europe followed. They were also chosen to play in the United Kingdom 2006 All Tomorrow's Parties music festival curated by The Shins.

2008–present
The band's ninth album In A Cave was released in March 2008 on Rykodisc. Their MySpace page first described the project as "a lushly orchestrated mix of eclectic songwriting that is sure to conjure up memories of 1997's When the Red King Comes" and stressed its "more mature approach to arrangements, lyrics, and instrumentation."

Elf Power collaborated with the late Vic Chesnutt. They released Dark Developments on the record label Orange Twin in 2008, which was supported by U.S. and European tours.

Aaron Wegelin, who drummed on the first five Elf Power albums, died on February 2, 2021.

In July 2022, Elf Power released their twelfth album Artificial Countrysides on Yep Roc records.

Albums

 * Vainly Clutching at Phantom Limbs — Self-released / Drug Racer / Arena Rock Recording Co. (1995/1999)
 * When the Red King Comes — Arena Rock Recording Co. / Elephant 6 (1997)
 * A Dream in Sound — Arena Rock Recording Co. / Elephant 6 (1999)
 * The Winter Is Coming — Sugar Free Records / Elephant 6 (2000)
 * Creatures — spinART (2002)
 * Nothing's Going to Happen — Orange Twin (2002)
 * Walking with the Beggar Boys — Low Transit Industries / Orange Twin (2004)
 * Back to the Web — Rykodisc (2006)
 * Treasures from the Trash Heap — Self-Released (2006)
 * In a Cave — Rykodisc (2008)
 * Dark Developments (With Vic Chesnutt and the Amorphous Strums) — Orange Twin (2008)
 * Elf Power — Orange Twin (2010)
 * Sunlight on the Moon — Orange Twin (2013)
 * Twitching in Time — Orange Twin (May 12, 2017 )
 * Artificial Countrysides — Yep Roc Records (July 15, 2022 )

EPs

 * The Winter Hawk EP (Cassette/7") — Self-released / Kindercore Records (1995)
 * Come On — Drug Racer (1999)

Singles

 * Kindercore Singles Club: May split single with Great Lakes (7") — Kindercore Records (2000)
 * "Jane/Needles in the Camel's Eyes" — Shifty Disco (2000)
 * "High Atop the Silver Branches" — Shifty Disco (2001)
 * "The Naughty Villain" (7") — Shifty Disco (2002)
 * Split single with Velvet Monkeys "Honey" (Spacemen 3 cover) - Chunklet Industries (2018)
 * Cara Records Singles Club: "Dim Mazes/A Coin in Mid Air" - Cara Records (2020)

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

title: Elf Power


text:
Humanity Declaration

The Humanity Declaration (人間宣言) is an imperial rescript issued by Hirohito, the emperor of Japan, as part of a New Year's statement on 1 January 1946 at the request of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. In the rescript, which started with his citation of the Five Charter Oath of 1868, the Emperor denied the concept of his divinity, which would eventually lead to the promulgation of the new Constitution, under which the Emperor is "the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people".

The Declaration
Delivery of this rescript was to be one of the Emperor's last acts as the imperial Sovereign. The Supreme Commander Allied Powers and the Western world in general gave great attention to the following passage towards the end of the rescript:

"朕ト爾等國民トノ間ノ紐帶ハ、終始相互ノ信賴ト敬愛トニ依リテ結バレ、單ナル神話ト傳說トニ依リテ生ゼルモノニ非ズ. 天皇ヲ以テ現御神トシ、且日本國民ヲ以テ他ノ民族ニ優越セル民族ニシテ、延テ世界ヲ支配スベキ運命ヲ有ストノ架空ナル觀念ニ基クモノニモ非ズ"

- 『新日本建設に関する詔書』より抜粋

"The ties between Us and Our people have always stood upon mutual trust and affection. They do not depend upon mere legends and myths. They are not predicated on the false conception that the Emperor is divine, and that the Japanese people are superior to other races and fated to rule the world."

- Official translation of the Declaration

This first draft of this rescript is said to have been drafted by Japanese cultural scholars Reginald Horace Blyth and Harold Gould Henderson, who also contributed to the popularisation of Zen and the poetic form of haiku outside Japan.

Interpretation
The exact meaning of this text, which was published in archaic Japanese, has been the subject of considerable debate. In particular, in the passage of the declaration which was officially translated as "false conception according to which the emperor is divine", the unusual term akitsumikami (現御神) was used instead of the more common word "living god" (現人神) means "exist" or "appear",  means "person" and  means "god". The word was first mentioned in the  (c. 720), where the legendary Japanese prince Yamato Takeru said "I am the son of an ."

Western view
According to the popular Western view, promoted by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, the rescript challenged the centuries-old claim that the Japanese emperor and his predecessors were descendants of the sun goddess Amaterasu, and thus the Emperor had now publicly admitted that he was not a living god. Thus, the same day as the rescript was issued, General Douglas MacArthur announced that he was very much pleased with the Emperor's statement, which he saw as his commitment to lead his people in the democratisation of Japan.

Although is often translated as "divine" or "divinity", some Western scholars (including John W. Dower and Herbert P. Bix) have pointed out that its real meaning is "manifest " (or, more generally, "incarnation of a god"), and that therefore the emperor would still be, according to the declaration, an  ("living god"), although not an  ("manifest "). In fact, Jean Herbert explains that, according to the Japanese tradition, the figure of the emperor would be "the extension in time" of the goddess Amaterasu and the previous emperors, representing a privileged moment in eternity. Consequently, it would be inadmissible to deny its divine origin."

Japanese view
On 1 January 1946, the rescript was reported on the front page of each newspaper. The headline of the was "At the beginning of the year, the rescript of the promotion of national luck, Kanpatsu, devoted to peace, improvement of people's welfare, and confusion of ideas." The said, "Give me a rescript for the New Year. The ties are with trust and respect, my heart, and the people." The headlines of the newspaper did not mention the deity, but only reported that Japan's peace and the emperor were with the people. The emperor's denial of deity had no news value at all.

Critics of the Western interpretation, including Emperor Shōwa himself, argue that the repudiation of divinity was not the point of the rescript. Some argue that since this rescript starts with a full quote from the Five Charter Oath of 1868 by Emperor Meiji, the Emperor's true intention was that Japan had already been democratic since the Meiji Era and was not democratized by the occupiers. As was clarified in a press interview on 23 August 1977, the Emperor wanted the Japanese people not to forget pride in Japan. This interpretation is supported by the fact that the imperial rescript was published with a commentary by Prime Minister Kijūrō Shidehara that dwelt exclusively on the prior existence of democracy in the Meiji Era and did not make even passing reference to the emperor's "renunciation of divinity."

Emperor Shōwa was persistent in the idea that the emperor of Japan should be considered a descendant of the gods. In December 1945, he told his vice-grand chamberlain Michio Kinoshita: "It is permissible to say that the idea that the Japanese are descendants of the gods is a false conception; but it is absolutely impermissible to call chimerical the idea that the emperor is a descendant of the gods." Shinto officials and right-wing groups throughout Japan today do not recognize the declaration as admitting that the emperor and country are not divine.

The English rescript was discovered in 2005 and was published in the on 1 January 2006. Professor Osamu Watanabe sent the following comments to the newspaper:

"The material is very valuable because it allows you to compare and examine a series of steps from draft to rescript. In the rescript, the connection between phrases is poor and the subject is difficult to understand, but the draft is understood to focus on the denial of the emperor's deity. This is probably because the Japanese side swapped the front and back or added new ones to the draft."

- Osamu Watanabe (Professor, Hitotsubashi University Graduate School, Political History),, January 1, 2006

The Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Maeda Tamon, along with Gakushuin University director Katsunoshin Yamanashi and Prime Minister Kijuro Shidehara, are key figures in Japan who have read and examined the draft of the Humanity Declaration. He was also a Quaker and, like many Japanese Christians, revered the emperor. In December 1945, he answered in a question and answer session of the Imperial Diet that "the emperor is a god". "It is not a god of Western concept, but 'in the sense that it is the highest level in the world in the traditional Japanese concept' is a god", he replied.

title: Humanity Declaration


text:
Ronnie Lane

Ronald Frederick Lane (1 April 1946 – 4 June 1997) was an English musician and songwriter who was the bassist and co-founder of the rock bands Small Faces (1965–69) and Faces (1969–73).

Lane formed Small Faces in 1965 after meeting Steve Marriott, with whom he subsequently wrote many of their hit singles including "All or Nothing", "Itchycoo Park" and "Lazy Sunday". After Marriott left Small Faces in 1968, band members Lane, Ian McLagan and Kenny Jones were joined by Rod Stewart and Ronnie Wood to form Faces. Like Small Faces, the band achieved critical and commercial success. Lane quit the Faces in 1973 and subsequently collaborated with other musicians, leading his own bands and pursuing a solo career. In 1977, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. He was supported by charity projects and financial contributions from friends, former bandmates and fans. After living with the disease for 21 years, he died in June 1997, aged 51.

For his work in both Small Faces and Faces, Lane was inducted posthumously into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2012.

He had two children, and two stepchildren who took his name.

Early life
Lane was born in Plaistow Maternity Hospital, Plaistow, then a working-class area in East London, to Elsie Lane and Stanley Lane, a lorry driver. Lane later described his father as a "saint" who would work a long workday and then return home to nurse his wife and two sons, all of whom were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) at different points in their lives. Doctors assured Lane as a child that the destructive disease was not necessarily inherited, although he found out later in his life that he had indeed inherited it.

After leaving school at the age of 16, Lane met Kenney Jones at a local pub, and they formed a group they named The Outcasts. Initially playing lead guitar, Lane quickly switched to bass. When shopping for a Harmony bass guitar, Lane visited the J60 Music Bar in Manor Park, London, where he met employee Steve Marriott. Lane bought his bass, and went to Marriott's house after work, where Marriott introduced him to his Motown and Stax record collection. Lane and Marriott set out to form a band, recruiting friends Jimmy Winston, who switched from guitar to organ, and Jones. Marriott was chosen to be the frontman and singer.

Small Faces
The Small Faces consisted of Lane on bass guitar, Marriott as guitarist and lead vocalist, Jones as drummer, and Winston on keyboards. (The name "Small" was chosen as they were each no taller than 5' 6" in height.) They made their debut in 1965, with Ian McLagan replacing Winston in November 1965. They had a successful chart career; Lane and Marriott wrote hit singles consistently, including "Itchycoo Park" and "All or Nothing". He co-wrote all but one of the tracks on their 1968 concept album Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake. The album stayed at number one on the UK Albums Chart for six weeks. When Marriott left the group in 1969, they disbanded.

Faces
Lane formed Faces with McLagan, Jones, Ronnie Wood and Rod Stewart in 1969. He shared composing or co-composing duties with Stewart, Wood, and McLagan. By 1972, with the band's frontman Stewart focusing on his own solo career, Lane took a central role during the recording of their fourth and final album, Ooh La La. Unhappy due to poor reviews of the album and Stewart's lack of commitment, Lane quit in 1973, making his last appearance on 4 June at the Sundown Theatre in Edmonton, London. He was replaced by Tetsu Yamauchi but tellingly the group made no further studio albums following Lane's departure, and split in 1975. According to McLagan, Lane would later regret leaving Faces. "Debris" was one of his more famous vocalist songs.

Move to Wales
In 1973, Lane moved to Fishpool Farm in the village of Hyssington, Montgomeryshire, Wales, just over the border from England. In the late 1970s, already beginning to feel the effects of MS, he moved back to London.

Slim Chance and later career
After leaving the Faces, Lane formed his own band, Slim Chance, who recorded the singles "How Come" (UK No. 11) and "The Poacher" (UK No. 36) and the album Anymore for Anymore, showcasing a blend of British rock, folk and country music. The original line-up of this band included Scottish singer-songwriters Benny Gallagher and Graham Lyle, who provided harmony vocals and played a variety of instruments including keyboards, accordion, acoustic guitar, mandolin, banjo and harmonica. They left in May 1974 to continue their career as a duo, though they would appear on 1977's Rough Mix as guests.

After initial success he toured the UK with "The Passing Show", a circus-type carnival complete with tents and barkers. Viv Stanshall, from the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band, served briefly as ringmaster (of sorts). Gallagher & Lyle were replaced with Scottish duo Lucas & McCulloch who provided accordion, mandolin, guitars and banjo. They also acted as support act along with fiddle player Kenny Slaven who multi tracked all the string parts on "The Poacher". Lane moved to Island Records and issued Ronnie Lane's Slim Chance and One for the Road. In late 1976 he joined a short-lived reformation of Small Faces but quit after two rehearsals, to be replaced by Rick Wills (who later played alongside former Small Faces drummer Kenney Jones in the Jones Gang). However, Lane had signed a contract with Atlantic Records as part of the Small Faces and was informed that he owed the company an album. His ensuing album with Pete Townshend, Rough Mix, produced by Glyn Johns, which was released in 1977, was lauded as contender for best album of the year by many critics, but the label did not promote it and sales were lacklustre.

During the recording of Rough Mix, Lane's multiple sclerosis was diagnosed. Nonetheless, he toured, wrote and recorded (with Eric Clapton among others) and in 1979 released another album, See Me, which features several songs written by Lane and Clapton. Around this time Lane travelled the highways and byways of England and lived a 'passing show' modern nomadic life in full Gypsy traveller costume and accommodation.

In 1983, his girlfriend Boo Oldfield contacted Glyn Johns with a view to organising a concert to help fund Action for Research into Multiple Sclerosis. Johns was already arranging Clapton's Command Performance for Prince Charles so they decided to book the Royal Albert Hall for a further two nights and host a benefit concert. The resulting ARMS Charity Concerts. featured Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck, Bill Wyman, Charlie Watts, Ronnie Wood, Kenney Jones, Andy Fairweather Low, Steve Winwood, Ray Cooper, James Hooker, Fernando Saunders, Chris Stainton, Tony Hymas, Simon Phillips and others. With the addition of Joe Cocker and Paul Rodgers they toured the US.

Later life and death
Lane emigrated to Texas in 1984 first to Houston and then Austin, where the climate was more beneficial to his health, where he continued playing, writing, and recording. He formed an American version of Slim Chance, which continued to be a loose-knit conglomeration of available musicians. For much of the time Alejandro Escovedo was a constant member. For close to a decade Lane enjoyed rock royalty status in the Austin area. He toured Japan but his health continued to decline. His last performance was in 1992 with Ronnie Wood gig and also alongside Ian McLagan.

In 1994 Lane and his wife Susan moved to the small town of Trinidad, Colorado. Jimmy Page, Rod Stewart and Ronnie Wood funded his medical care as no royalties from the Small Faces work were forthcoming. Lane died from pneumonia during the final stages of multiple sclerosis. On 4 June 1997 he was buried in the Masonic Cemetery in Trinidad, Colorado. An album of live BBC recordings to raise money for his care was unreleased on his death.

Tributes
Ride recorded "A Trip Down Ronnie Lane" as a B-side to their single "Black Nite Crash" in 1996. The Ocean Colour Scene song "Travellers Tune" on their 1997 studio album Marchin' Already was inspired by and written in the memory of Lane, a strong influence on the group, which appeared at the tribute concert for Ronnie Lane. Likewise Lane had been such a source of inspiration to the members of Poi Dog Pondering that they created a tribute page for him and in 1995 band member Susan Voelz covered Lane's song, "Glad and Sorry" on her 1995 album, Summer Crashing, "out of her respect and affection for Ronnie Lane".

In 2000, Paul Weller recorded "He's the Keeper", a song dedicated to Lane's memory. An album of live and in-studio recordings from Lane's Austin days was later culled, and released as Live in Austin.

A street was named after him, "Ronnie Lane", in Manor Park in 2001. In January 2006 BBC Four broadcast an extensive documentary about Lane, The Passing Show that had been in preparation since 2000 and included footage of vintage concerts by the Faces and Slim Chance. In October 2006 the documentary was also shown on BBC Two. In 2012, former Small Faces bandmate Ian MacLagan interpreted some of Lane's best-known songs in a record entitled Spiritual Boy: In Appreciation of Ronnie Lane. McLagan died in 2014.

Longtime collaborator Charlie Hart compiled a six-CD set of Lane's composed, after his death, that included many unreleased songs.

Solo
Studio albums Live albums Compilations
 * Anymore for Anymore with Slim Chance (1974) UK No. 48
 * Ronnie Lane's Slim Chance with Slim Chance (1975)
 * One for the Road with Slim Chance (1976)
 * Mahoney's Last Stand with Ronnie Wood (1976) Atlantic
 * Rough Mix with Pete Townshend (1977) US No. 45 UK#44
 * See Me (1979)
 * The Legendary Majik Mijits with Steve Marriott (2000)
 * You Never Can Tell (The BBC Sessions) (1997)
 * Live in Austin (2000)
 * Rocket 69 (Live on German TV) (2001)
 * Ronnie Lane Memorial Concert (remastered edition) (2021)
 * Kuschty Rye (The Singles 1973–1980) (1997)
 * Tin and Tambourine (compilation) (1999)
 * April Fool (album) (1999)
 * How Come (2001)
 * Ain't No One Like (2003)
 * Just for a Moment (2006)
 * Ooh La La: An Island Harvest (2014)
 * Just for a Moment: Music 1973–1997 (6CD box set) (2019)

Other appearances
Single Various artist albums Participation
 * "How Come?"/"Done This One Before"
 * Happy Birthday (1970)
 * I Am (1972)
 * With Love (1976)
 * Never a Dull Moment by Rod Stewart – Lane bass on two songs (1972)
 * Victory Gardens by John & Mary – vocal on one song (1991)

with Small Faces
Studio albums
 * Small Faces (1966)
 * Small Faces (1967)
 * Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake (1968)

with Faces
Studio albums
 * First Step (1970)
 * Long Player (1971)
 * A Nod Is as Good as a Wink... to a Blind Horse (1971)
 * Ooh La La (1973)

title: Ronnie Lane


text:
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships

The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS) is the official reference work for the basic facts about ships used by the United States Navy.

When the writing project was developed the parameters for this series were designed to cover only commissioned US Navy ships with assigned names. If the ship was not assigned a name it was not included in the histories written for the series. In addition to the ship entries, DANFS and the online links have been expanded to include appendices on small craft, histories of Confederate Navy ships, and various essays related to naval ships.

Forewords and introductions
Foreword and introduction passages for many editions were written by big names from naval command history from Arleigh Albert Burke to Elmo Russell Zumwalt, Jr. and others.

Authors
• Richard P. Slaymaker (vol. I 1959)

• John P. Sullivan (USN) (vol. I 1959)

• Walter P. Smiley (vol. I 1959)

• Esther Handelman Vail (vol. II 1963)

• Alma R. Lawrence (vol. II 1963)

• Roberta L. Hazard (vol. II 1963)

• Jesse B. Thomas (vol. II 1963)

• Clayton F. Johnson (vol. III 1968)

• John C. Roberts (vol. III 1968)

• Raymond J. Iwanowski (vol. III 1968)

• James V. Stewart (vol. III 1968, vol. IV 1969)

• Joan A. Schrader (vol. III 1968)

• John C. Reilley, Jr. (vol. III 1968, vol. VI 1976, vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• James L. Mooney  (vol. IV 1969, vol. V 1976, vol. VI 1976, vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981, vol. I-A 1991)

• Mary F. Loughlin (vol. IV 1969, vol. V 1976, vol. VI 1976)

• Joan A. Schrader (vol. IV 1969)

• Samuel Loring Morison (vol. IV 1969, vol. V 1976, vol. VI 1976)

• Robert J. Devlin (vol. IV 1969, vol. V 1976)

• Frank Suran (vol. IV 1969)

• Priscilla Sorenson (vol. IV 1969)

• Everett Gordon Bowen-Hassell  (vol. V 1976)

• John M. Patton (vol. V 1976)

• Raymond A. Mann (vol. VI 1976, vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• Roland S. Kennerly (vol. VI 1976, vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• Christopher Townsend (vol. VI 1976)

• Robert J. Cressman (vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• Christopher N. Kennedy (vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• Suzanne MacFarlane (vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• Luann Parsons (vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• Barbara Ponsolle (vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

• Theresa M. Schuster (vol. VII 1981, vol. VIII 1981)

Publication data
DANFS was published in print by the Naval Historical Center (NHC) as bound hardcover volumes, ordered by ship name, from Volume I (A–B) in 1959 to Volume VIII (W–Z) in 1981. Several volumes subsequently went out of print. In 1991 a revised Volume I Part A, covering only ship names beginning with A, was released. Work continues on revisions of the remaining volumes.

Volunteers at the Hazegray website undertook to transcribe the DANFS and make it available on the World Wide Web. The project goal is a direct transcription of the DANFS, with changes limited to correcting typographical errors and editorial notes for incorrect facts in the original. In 2008 the NHC was re-designated as the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC). It has developed an online version of DANFS (see External links section below) through a combination of optical character recognition (OCR) and hand transcription. The NHHC is slowly updating its online DANFS to correct errors and take into account the gap in time between the print publication and the present date. NHHC prioritizes updates as follows: ships currently commissioned, ships commissioned after the original volume publication, ships decommissioned after original volume publication, and finally updates to older ships. The NHHC has begun a related project to place Ship History and Command Operations Reports online at their site.

Reference use
As the DANFS is a work of the U.S. government, its content is in the public domain, and the text is often quoted verbatim in other works. Many websites organized by former and active crew members of U.S. Navy vessels include a copy of their ships' DANFS entries.

The Dictionary limits itself largely to basic descriptions and brief operational notes, and includes almost no analysis or historical context.


text:
Talk:Retroreflector

Is retroreflection known to exist in any non-human artifacts, i.e. is it something that physical interactions and/or biological evolution could ever come up with? --Ryguasu 04:30 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * The eyes of, for example, a cat, I think. Not that this is an advantage for the cat, more a by-product of how the eye is built. - Patrick 10:05 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * Does this mean when the article says "Cat's eyes are retroreflectors in the road surface; although they stick out a bit you can drive over them", it's talking in a twisted way about feline eyes? I assumed "cat's eye" was maybe a britishism for those raised bumps they sometimes put on top of the middle line of a road. --Ryguasu 13:08 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

 * The ones in the road are named after the ones in the animal. - Patrick 13:14 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

However, retroreflective surfaces do not help pedestrians in the dark unless light is shining in the direction from which they are looking

This does not seem correct, I think this says light shining the pedestrian in the face, but it should be the opposite. - Patrick 18:26 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I rewrote that sentence. I hope it makes more sense. -- Heron

 * I believe that in general, transparent spheres act as retroreflectors, and that when retroreflective material is used to make vests etc., it's made by putting large numbers of tiny plastic transparent spheres into the material. (I'm not 100% sure, so .) For example, a rainbow is an example of retroreflection from many spherical droplets of water in the air.  Other shapes besides spheres can act as retroreflectors, I guess, but spheres may be more likely to occur in nature than a shape with flat sides that just happen to be at the correct angles.  --Coppertwig (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Invisibility and retroreflection
Is this "invisibility cloak" really worth counting as a retroreflector? All that thing is is a slide projector. I don't see how it involves retroreflection any more than watching a movie in a theater. If you look at the way a retroreflector works, you can't use a retroreflector for this purpose because the projected light would go right back into the projector. Projection systems like this often do use screens with directional scattering to enhance the image brightness in a particular range of directions (toward the audience), but that's certainly not necessary and it's not the same thing as retroreflection. Tarchon 23:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the invisibility cloak itself is made of retroreflective material. Nothing but a retroreflective material will work as the invisibility cloak. The projection system too is far more advanced than a simple slide projector. Please read the entire article starting at http://science.howstuffworks.com/invisibility-cloak.htm before making any changes -- Wikicheng 06:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, on the contrary, I did read it. The retroreflection just makes it more efficient. It's not an essential feature. All they use it for is a projection screen. And yes, it is just a projector. It's only an "invisibility" cloak in the minds of university PR hounds. It's really more like a virtual reality display system that operates though a "See-Through Head-mounted Display". It doesn't work unless the observer is cooperating. There's no reason to mention it separately from the conventional function in projection technology. Tarchon (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How well do they work at an angle?
I did some diagrams trying to figure out if retroreflectors really work at any angle. Short answer yes, long answer is they drop off to zero.

Here's a single trap in our retroreflector \/ taken from the whole retroreflector: \/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Now let's label the sides: L \/ R

Obviously when the light is coming straight down, side L's beams are reflected sideways into R and back out again. And R->L works the same way. Perfect. | | | | L \-/ R Now slightly shift the source of light beams to the left. Two things happen. First, L starts reflecting at a shallower angle and compresses into R's trough. Likewise, the tip of R starts radiating into space instead of hitting L. Both ways, the tip of R becomes less useful.

In the extreme example of just-shy 45 degrees, L becomes near-parallel to the light rays (effectively useless), and R is likewise reflecting nearly everything into space instead of back into the trap. (Then at 45 you hit a singularity, L becomes parallel and R becomes a perfect mirror.) Thus, I think you can say that Retroreflectors drop off to zero as you traverse 45 degrees in either direction from the normal. Since we are talking about limits I'm guessing it's logarithmic. More important, their effectiveness at steep angles is recovered by having deeper traps.

Basically my point is that retroreflectors are optimally used in straight-on situations. They offer a slight fudge factor over standard mirrors, but since this fudge-factor drops off rather quickly, a more proper term for these devices may be "diffuse mirrors." Broodlinger 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting analysis! For most applications, the observation angle (see the article for a picture if you're not sure which one that is) is very very small, on the order of 0.1 to 1.0 degrees.  Were you keeping your observation angle at 0 degrees or your entrance angle at 0 degrees?  I think the reflectivity drops off significantly faster as the observation angle increases, whereas the entrance angle can vary greatly with a smaller change in retroreflectivity.  For example, in specifying highway signs, the sheeting is measured for observation angles of 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 degrees.  The 0.1 and 1.0 are special cases for long distance (0.1) and trucks (1.0).  They also specify entrance angles of -4.0 and +30 degrees. This has to do with whether you are facing a sign head on, or if it is in a curve and at an angle to you.  Special:Contributions/167.7.17.3|167.7.17.3]] (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Slight fudge factor? Um, Yeah, the effective aperture of a corner cube array becomes smaller as the array is tilted off axis---it reflects less light back toward the source. But what happens with a flat mirror? The mirror will not reflect any light at all back to to source unless the source is exactly on the mirror's axis. When you want a retroreflector, a corner cube array is not slightly better than a flat mirror! It is infinitely better. Even a sheet of white copier paper reflects more off-axis light back to the source than a mirror will reflect. 173.75.33.51 (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends on the type. Cat's eyes can work equally well at any angle. Corner cubes are obviously more limited. Diffuse mirrors do not work the same way. They follow the law of reflection but with the scattering spread out around the ideal angle of reflection. For 45 degree incidence, the retroreflector and the diffuse mirror have peak reflectance angles 90 degrees apart. Tarchon (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Soft retroreflective material
"Retroreflective" redirects here. I didn't read every word of the article, but I got the impression that soft retroreflective material is not mentioned. I think it deserves a section of the article at least. For example, vests worn by construction crews; retroreflective tape stuck to bicycles; retroreflective strips on backpacks and other clothing and used by joggers etc. A picture of at least one of these things would also enhance the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those materials aren't necessarily "soft", just flexible. The sheeting used to make signs for example is relatively flexible, but will fail and crack after lots of bending.  They make a special type of sheeting just for that application, which is much more flexible.  It is similar to the tape you mention, and is used from signs that roll up to tape on traffic cones.  The material that reflects is always going to be either glass beads or prismatic material (either metal or non-metallic).  It is usually so small that it doesn't appear to be made of rigid materials (like glass).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Retroreflector?
Is this a retroreflector? --Una Smith (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * it could be. anything with a layer of spherical glass beads is retroreflective, but they do have to be spherical.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.7.17.3 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusive proof?
The article says: "They are considered to conclusively prove that man-made equipment is present on the moon[2] and thus disprove some Moon landing hoax accusations. Additionally the Soviet Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 rovers carried smaller arrays."

OK, I'm not going to claim that the moon landings were a hoax, but how is the presence of an Apollo retroreflector proof of the authenticity of the Apollo moon landings, given that the very next sentence describes a similar device brought to the moon by a vehicle which did *not* carry humans to the moon? :-)

(The page it links to is dead.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.40.113 (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Retroreflective tape
There is no mention in the article about retroreflective tape. It is commonly used on semis to make it clear to other drivers in the dark where the boundaries of the vehicle are. The Department of Transportation approves certain tapes suitable for use for this purpose.

Plcaine (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Natural Retroreflection
This article currently only pertains to manmade retroreflectors. What about natural retroreflection, such as animal's eyes, dewdrops (Heiligenschein), or Lunar regolith? 216.80.140.25 (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article does mention the tapetum lucidum which is the part of animals eyes that reflect light.--CMG (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The photo of the balloon's shadow is a good example. The early-morning dewdrops act as retroreflectors, and the halo is centred on the basket, and the photographer. At high resolution, the glow appears to come from individual blades of grass. A photo taken a minute earlier (not published on Commons), when the shadow was on bare ground, shows no halo. A similar halo may be observed around other aircraft, but the balloon is such a stable platform that a useful photograph can be taken hand-held with relatively modest equipment. Doug butler (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Observation angle
Concerning Figure 1 (Observation angle) is it possible with some sort of geometry to have the return beam be at a slight angle from the entrance beam? If so, this would be useful in automotive applications, where the eye is always higher than he headlights. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, otherwise retroreflectors used on roads would not be effective. However, the larger the observation angle, the less apparent brightness you will see. This is important for heavy vehicle drivers, since they sit so far above and behind their headlights compared to most passenger car drivers.

 * By the way, both Figures 1 and 2 could be improved. My favorite is Figure 2 from | this page. It's a US government website, but I'm not 100% sure it's public domain. It could belong to the researcher's employer, which I believe was Texas A&M University.
 * --Triskele Jim 18:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Metrics of reflectors
Going to add something about the metrics of various reflectors. The usage of "cross section" borrowed from radar terminology, =(π3 d4)/4λ2  gives very large numbers in units of area. For instance the 100-cube Apollo lunar array has a cross section of 5 x 108 m2, and the 300-cube arrray 1.4 x 109 m2, thats billion square meters. Can a reference be found explaining the physical meaning of those values, either in optics or radar?165.121.80.238 (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

BLITS collision
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a46eb8e83-a92e-49d4-96c4-22bc76cecdae

did it ever happen? --83.84.137.22 (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cat's eye beam divergence
In the acticle it's written in the cat's eye section "For one, it is sometimes preferable to have an imperfect, slightly divergent retroreflection". I am quite sure that we have always a slightly divergent retroreflection at the cat's eye retroreflector as long as the refractive index of the sphere is constant. The optimal refractive index of 2 mentioned in the text is probably minimizing the beam divergence but doesn't set it to 0 i.e. perfect retroreflection. A perfect retroreflection is obtained only for the approximation that the rays are paraxial, but in most cases this is not satisfied in reality (see Figure with the ball retroreflector). A literaure reference would be helpful to understand the optimality of the mentioned refractive index.

Lead is too technical
This lead needs to be rewritten for the lay person.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Somewhere Under the Rainbow
The sky inside a rainbow is brighter than the sky just outside. I've not seen the phenomenon mentioned in textbooks, but it's readily observable with any clear rainbow. Another example ? Doug butler (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Retroreflector


text:
Talk:Bel

bel is a very good person

title: Talk:Bel