text:
Talk:Historical background of the New Testament/Archive 7

Discussion of Summary
This page, at the time of writing is pushing 131K

This is despite the fact that 5 sections of the page are simply summaries.

In order to reduce the page size, and improve readability, this section summarises the summaries themselves.

In addition it summarises a further summary of summaries and the disputes made of that, and the disputes about the disputes, together with an off-topic discussion.

The original text this summary replaces can be viewed at archive 6. Archive 6 contains the summaries that this replaces NOT the text that the summaries themselves replace, these can be viewed at archives 2-5.

It is not in chronological order, but instead ordered by topic for ease of viewing

This summary was made by CheeseDreams, who asserts that in their opinion it is NPOV. This undoubtably will be disputed.

Any disputed paragraphs or sentences, or locations where others demand additions into the summary are marked (0) where this marking corresponds to the section about the dispute which follows after the summary.

Terminology

 * The area should be called "Palestine" or something similar (4 votes against 2)
 * is it more important that Roman Palestine did not exist at the time in question
 * or is it more important that Palestine is the only term covering the whole area

 * The area should be referred to as "Roman Palestine" (7 votes against 1)

 * "pharisees were considered living saints" is either not accurate or inapropriate best wording (4 votes)

 * "at the time of Christ" is an inappropriate phrase (1 vote against 1)
 * "at this time" is an acceptable phrase to replace "at the time of Christ" (7 votes against none)

 * dispute on translation of "Jonathan" and "John"
 * "Yonatan" is "Jonathan"
 * "Yohanan" is "John"
 * "Yohanan" is "Jonathan"
 * King David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew
 * The New Testament is (koine) Greek

Methodology

 * dispute on the matter of prime sources
 * Mentioning the Gospels as prime historic source is NPOV
 * Biblical and western historians exclusively should be cited
 * Citing makes the text unapproachable to a general reader
 * The Gospels are not prime historic source for this perion
 * Citations should (if they are going to appear at all) not just be from Christians or the west.
 * Many people find the historiography of the gospels as highly dubious
 * There are only 3 points of view: Christians, skeptics, critical scholars
 * The Mishnah was not really edited until 200AD
 * There are Jews, Muslims, Talmud Scholars, historians, archaeologists, and many others
 * We must explain how historiography works.
 * There are too many citations
 * The Mishnah existed in oral form before 200AD

Jesus and the Article(s)

 * This article should not be merged with Jesus and textual evidence or Historicity of Jesus (general consensus vs. 1 objection)

 * The title should not be changed into The historical Jesus (4 votes against 1)

 * "the article, is neither about Christianity nor religion ...(it)... is about the culture and events..." (5 votes against 2)

Unopposed statement by Pedant
 * This article is about what its title says it is. ... It is only about the history and culture of the region as it bears on the (real or imaginary) person: Jesus, the central figure in Christian Theology. Anything that conflicts ... does not belong in THIS article.

 * This article should mention Jesus at least a non-zero amount (1st vote - 5 votes against 2) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 2)

 * This article is more background to 1st Century Roman Palestine than cross-referenced summary of Jesus' life (1st vote - 2 votes against 1) (2nd vote - 2 votes against 3)
 * Is this article the background to 1st Century Roman Palestine with asides if something is needed to understand Jesus' life
 * Is this article summarising Jesus' life, and cross referencing it to historical and cultural information about 1st Century Roman Palestine

 * Mild support for specific asides about things that happened to Jesus (vote-1:3 votes against 2) (vote-2:3 votes against 3) (vote-3: 4 votes against 1 (+1 both sides))
 * Should the article be split to make this a non-issue

 * The article should not be split into "background" and "Jesus in it" (general consensus against 1 vote)

 * is it better to have 2 articles
 * one mainly avoiding Jesus in 1st century Palestine and discussing background instead (keeping the title)
 * one predominantly about Jesus in 1st century Palestine and mildly the background (The historical Jesus )

 * or a single article including both

Structure of the article

 * This article should not just be a historical narrative (majority consensus, though with a large minority disputing it)
 * The article should be an historical narrative with asides
 * The article should be structured into topics such as Political situation (regional rulers, high priests, notable militaristic action), Religious organizations (major schools, prophets, messianic groups), Later developments (political control, emergence of more modern Judaism and Christianity)

 * discussion of historical narrative approach
 * 1 dimensional
 * written as if Christianity is the climax of historical events, which is POV
 * style reflects only Christian views of what is important to discuss about the background
 * history and culture are entwined, seperation is a fallacy
 * far too much history
 * it reads better
 * it lacks material

 * discussion of topical approach
 * standard encyclopedia style
 * different aspects highlighted and discussed seperately
 * not orientated around Christian views of what is important
 * mass redundancy by seperating history and culture
 * no-scholars use this approach
 * many scholars use this approach
 * journalists consider this approach more approachable for the general reader
 * organised in line with the article's title which contains the words "Cultural and"

 * dispute on structure within the topical approach
 * "political situation" should be the same section as "religious organizations", "major schools", and "prophets"
 * "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" should be the same section
 * "political situation" means who is in charge
 * putting "notable uprisings" and "messiahs" together only makes sense as an essay, not an encyclopedia
 * "uprisings" are politics not religion
 * Although seperating politics and religion is a modern thing, so are the audience of the encyclopedia

Introductary Paragraphs

 * "According to most Christians, Jesus lived in the first century in Judea" is POV not NPOV (3 votes against 1)

Should the article (as its starting point)
 * Introduction should comment that some dispute historicity (5 votes against 1)
 * The article should assume Jesus exists as its starting point
 * The article should not make assumption of historicity or non-historicity

 * Agreement that the basis for the first paragraph should be (5 votes to 2 (proposal A) to 1 (proposal B))
 * "Jesus is [traditionally/usually] held to have lived in the first century in Judea. Without addressing Jesus existence as an actual historic figure, this article discusses the cultural and political forces active at that time. see: Historicity of Jesus for information relating to the existence of Jesus as a historical figure."

 * The intro mentioned above makes clear that the existence of Jesus is not being asserted (8 votes against 1 digression)

 * The 1st and 2nd introductory sentences should be recast (input from 6 persons)
 * The main record of the life of Jesus are the Gospels, in the Christian New Testament. These sources place Jesus in what became Roman Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) during the early 1st century.

 * The 3rd sentence should become (2 votes against 1)
 * The article Historicity of Jesus covers debates regarding the existence of Jesus, but if so then it is agreed by most Christians and academics who hold this view that it is necessary to understand the cultural and historical background in which Jesus is thought to have lived.

 * The 4th sentence should become (general consensus)
 * This was a volatile period marked by cultural and political dilemmas. Out of the Roman occupation of Palestine sprang two of the modern world's religions: Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

 * subsequent discussion after User X, without being requested, produced a competing version
 * The non-User-X version is balanced, neutral, and appropriate
 * User X (and supporters) thinks their version is better
 * User X thinks their version should absorb the other

Prior History of Palestine

 * dispute over the existance of sacrifice
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is derogatory
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is POV
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is accurate
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is a lie
 * Stating that in most ancient near-eastern societies sacrifice was the only worship is offensive

 * dispute over the validity of the claim of a "dual core"
 * Having a Temple, Torah, Priests, and Scribes, together with having a King ruling by divine right implies a "dual core"
 * Current "scholarship" implies there was not a "dual core"

 * dispute over the 1st and 2nd temple periods
 * There could be a better transition between the 1st and 2nd temple periods,
 * in the 1st and 2nd temple period, both Temple and Law were important.
 * There is no known source for the 1st Temple period which is not suspect of having political spin
 * Excessive detail about the "First Temple" Era and the "Second Temple" Era is irrelevant
 * It is not even known from non-Biblical sources if there was a 1st Temple period
 * There was discontinuity which should be stressed between the 1st and 2nd temple period
 * There needs to be detailed background to the background of Saducees, Pharisees, Temple, Monarchy, and Torah

 * Discussion of the Hasmonians
 * The Hasmonaeans claiming first the high priesthood (under Jonathan) and then the kingship (under Aristobulus I) should be mentioned
 * It is a little confusing to me to call the Hasmonean kingdom the second kingdom.
 * We can be clearer that the Pharisees developed under the Hasmoneans.

 * Herod's reign should be mentioned
 * It should explain who Antipater the Idumaean was
 * It should explain how Herod was Idumaean and a Jew simultaneously

Governance

 * dispute over Jewish reaction to Hellenism
 * Greeks thought circumcision was an abomination
 * Implications of the idea of a universal God are important
 * The Jews thought nakedness was an abomination
 * An emotional quote from Pearlman indicates how jews felt at the the time about Hellenism
 * Implications of the idea of a universal God are irrelevant
 * There was a split between hellenized and "traditional" Jews
 * Implications of Greek interest in Judaism are irrelevant
 * An unemotional quote from Cohen indicates how jews felt at the the time about Hellenism
 * The view that there was a split between hellinized and "traditional" Jews is anachronistic and simplistic.
 * Implications of Greek interest in Judaism are important

 * dispute over the nature of the region
 * The middle east was a "powderkeg" with religious aggression contained by secularity just like today
 * The middle east has never not been a "powderkeg"
 * The middle east forms the bridge between persia, greece, and egypt
 * The middle east's position between major empires, throughout history, inevitably gave it "powderkeg" status
 * The middle east was not a "powderkeg"

 * a discussion of the status of sedition is important

 * dispute over reasons for Jewish antaganism toward rome
 * The desire by Jews not to integrate was seen as an affront by Romans
 * A modern historian claims it is not true that the lack of desire to integrate was seen as an affront
 * Romans were tolerant of beliefs
 * Rome (and Greece) was not secular
 * Jews were more offended by taxes than Roman opinions on belief
 * By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was somewhat more corrupt than it had been
 * There should be a section about economy and class inequality
 * It is necessary to understand the Macabees to comprehend how Jews react to Rome
 * religious and cultural differences escalated into conflicts with secular governance by Rome
 * It is not true that early emporers thrived but later ones were cruel and murdered
 * By 1 CE, the Roman Empire was no more corrupt than it had ever been
 * Rome (and Greece) had a religious and cultural agenda
 * Early emporers thrived, later ones were cruel and murdered, which demonstrates that there was more corruption

Religious Groups

 * dispute over whether judaism always had two sides
 * There were always 2 sides to Judaism - temple vs. halakhah/prayer
 * Prayer is a form of temple worship
 * Halakha contains ritual
 * Halakha contains specifically prayer-related ritual
 * Prayer is independant to temple worship (which had to occur 3 times a year)
 * Temple worship (but not the temple) goes back to 1500-1300BC
 * Halakha goes back orally before it was written down

 * dispute over nature of the priesthood and pharisees
 * In Judaism, the priesthood was more administrative than acting as intermediary between Jews and God
 * The nature of the Pharisees changed over time
 * In Judaism, the priesthood was more acting as intermediary between Jews and God than administrative
 * The nature of the Pharisees remained relatively stable and constant

 * dispute over nature of the essenes, zealots, and lesser groups
 * There was a multi-party system with at least 4 large "schools of thought"
 * Essenes and Zealots only developed later
 * There was a two-party system (Sadducees vs. Pharisees) with minor additional factions
 * Essenes developed at virtually the same time as, or only shortly after, the Pharisees

 * Dispute about Militant Fundamentalists
 * The Sicarii rejected Roman rule but also rejected Jewish government.
 * The Sicarii were a fanatical underground militant wing of the Zealots
 * The primary target of the Sicarii were Jewish elites, not Romans.
 * The Sicarii were independant of the Zealots
 * We need to add more information about the Sicarii.

Other Messiahs
One (and only one) speaker opposed detailed listing of the known movements in this section
 * Other groups who believed in different Messiah figures should be mentioned (8 votes)

 * Contemporary understanding of the meaning of messiah should be included (general uncontested consensus)
 * It is important to state that kings and priests were anointed
 * It is unacceptable (and meaningless) to use the terms annointed king and annointed priest

Uncontested statement
 * In Judaism, "Messiah" means "annointed". It was the symbol of high office. There were two officers routinely annointed this way - a priest messiah, and a king messiah. The hope of a "messiah" to save them would usually have meant simply, some king or priest who would stand up to the romans or whoever was felt oppressing them at the time. The meaning of "Messiah" in christianity, that of a godhead, a unique being who would save them in the sense of salvation, was not part of Judaism, though it may have formed part of the hopes or mystic beliefs of some cults or splinter groups.

Undisputed statement by User:FT2
 * The phrase "Son of Man" is not always apocalyptic (1 vote (+3 informal) no other votes)
 * Many historians claim that Jesus himself did not claim to be a "messiah" in any way unlike other messiahs.

 * dispute over the meaning of "saviour of Israel"
 * there is no evidence anyone thought that a messiah would be a saviour of Israel
 * many expected to be saved from the judgement of God
 * the expectation of a messiah was the expectation of a saviour of Israel
 * many considered the Romans to be the judgement of God
 * the articles Mosiach and Messiah explain the understanding of the term

 * discussion of the paragraph on other messiahs
 * A compromise text was developed
 * One user (user X) produced an alternative proposal
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account elements of User X's proposal
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text
 * User X proposes a 2nd alternative text
 * Some users dispute the willingness of User X to collaborate
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's 2nd proposal
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text and considers their own proposal superior
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
 * User X disputes elements of the compromise text
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account discussions around User X's comments
 * User X restates their intolerance of elements of the compromise text
 * User X restates their 2nd alternative text
 * A new compromise text is proposed taking into account suggestions from User X and others
 * The new text is voted on after "packing the house" has occurred.
 * The result of the vote is (2 supporting the compromise text, 5 against it)

 * dispute on Mandaeans and John the baptist
 * Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries BC
 * There is no evidence that Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
 * Mandaeans considered John the baptist a messiah
 * Mandaeans first came into existance in the 2nd/3rd centuries AD
 * Mandaeans were followers of John the baptist
 * John the baptist was Nazorean
 * Mandaean was a dialaect at this time
 * Mandaean is a modern synonym for Nazorean
 * Modern Mandaeans refer to themselves as Nazorean

 * dispute on divinity and the existance of other messiah's
 * first century messiahs and prophets never claimed they were divine
 * Josephus is not acceptable to cite
 * some first century messiahs and prophets claimed they were divine
 * Jesus did not claim he was divine
 * Josephus is acceptable to cite
 * Jesus did claim he was divine
 * Josephus states that the persons supposedly "messiah"s were actually thought to be prophets
 * the Jews had considerable law on false prophets
 * Josephus supports the idea that there were people claiming to be and thought to be "messiah"s

 * dispute over reaction of the jews to "other messiahs"
 * Sabbattai Lev (circa 1400) shows how Jews found "other messiahs" troublesome and offensive
 * Shabbatai Lev (circa 1600) does not shows how Jews found "other messiahs" troublesome and offensive
 * There is no evidence from the 1st century that Jews found non-mainstream beliefs troublesome
 * There is no evidence from the 1st century
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were conservative
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were sceptical of radical new interpretations
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were disinterested in afterlife/salvation stories
 * According to historic record, as a group, Jews at the time were making many original claims
 * There was no "mainstream"
 * It is necessary to understand the Macabees to comprehend how Jews react to other Messiahs

Miscellaneous contemporarial details

 * dispute over the nature of the law
 * Jewish religious law was the main law of the land
 * Jewish religious law was mostly lenient
 * Jewish religious law was mostly legislative

 * dispute over significance of Jesus conversing in the Temple on the law
 * It was fairly standard that young people were able to converse on the law in the Temple
 * The evidence that young people would be expected to be able to converse on the law is rubbish
 * Jesus was remarkably unusual in being able to converse on the law in the Temple
 * The evidence that young people would be expected to be able to converse on the law is 100 years after Jesus

 * dispute over general demography of Jews at the time
 * "X% lived in towns, Y% in villages" is too demographic
 * most Jews at the time were hard working
 * in the circumstances of the age, there are not many "slackers" in village life
 * most Jews at the time were God fearing
 * there is no evidence that most Jews were hard working
 * there is no evidence that most Jews were God fearing
 * most Jews at the time were in villages
 * village people are less likely to be hellenised than city people

Development of later religion

 * This article should describe who followed the Pharisees (4 votes against 1, 1 abstention)
 * "Later forms of Judaism" followed the Pharisees rather than "Rabbinic Judaism" (1st vote-unresolved) (2nd vote - 3 votes against 1)

 * Discussion of the subsequent development of Christianity and how it connected to the gentiles belongs elsewhere not here (4 votes against 1 (+1 for a brief mention))

 * FT2s version of the paragraph discussing how christianity emerged is preferred (general consensus)
 * Originally the intent was to preach to the Jews. Some but not all requirements were removed, as it was felt that the new emphasis was on faith and not detailed laws. Thus there were 'Jewish Christians', Jews who believed in Christ Messiah. When the Jews as a community rejected this, the Christian message was taken to the gentiles instead. To make it palatable, and draw a line separating them from the Jews (who were by now becoming politically dangerous associates) many more of the restrictive laws were removed and the emphasis was shifted. The message that reached the gentiles was therefore a more universal one, in the sense that it was easier to digest, its appeal was more emotional than legalistic, and it did not contain many of the practices beliefs and rituals by which the Jews kept themselves separate from others.

 * Anything later than bar Kochba is irrelevant
 * Is it important that the manner in which christianity emerged indicates the historiography of the Gospels

The non-Jewishness of Christianity

 * dispute over the reaction of Rome to Jews and vice versa
 * The Jewish revolt was about seeking political and religious freedom vs. Romans.
 * The Jewish revolt was about poverty in the peasentry vs. the elite.
 * Jews at the time were under intense pressure from Rome
 * The Macabbee revolt indicates that Jews violently do not like their sense of identity threatened
 * As a group, Jews at the time tended to polarise under pressure.
 * even after Bar Kochba, Romans treated Jews better than Christians.
 * As a group, Jews at the time tended to be protective of their national identity
 * The ideas of how Romans treated early Christians is predominantly later Christian propaganda

 * dispute over reasons for christianity's non-jewishness
 * The jews were becoming politically dangerous due to rebellion against Rome
 * Christians deliberately shifted away from Jewish law to make themselves disassociated with the Jews
 * Christianity is easier to digest
 * Christianity being easier to digest is POV

 * dispute over importance of restrictiveness of some Jewish practises
 * Judaism's restrictive practices prevented non-Jews from converting to it or similar religion
 * Jews never believed non-Jews should obey Jewish law
 * Many non-Jews turned to religions with restrictive practices
 * it is logical that dropping more Jewish traditions made Christian beliefs more palatable
 * it is not logical that dropping more Jewish traditions should make Christian beliefs more palatable
 * Replacing halakhah by pure faith instantly made Christianity more acceptable to non-Jews
 * a teacher observing halakhah does not mean students will reject lessons in algebra
 * a train going at 100 mph does not mean that the driver had sausages for breakfast

 * dispute over reasons for early christianity to be amongst the gentiles
 * Early Christians failed to convince the Jews thus tried elsewhere
 * Early Christians were never part of Judaism
 * Early Christians failed to convince the Jews thus felt rejected
 * The Ebionites are those whose Christianity descended from the apostles themselves in person
 * The Ebionites are a strange Jewish sect, happening to be in Jerusalem, who misinterpreted Christianity
 * The Ebionites are not similar to early Christians, but very similar to Jews

 * dispute over early christians and orthodoxy
 * The early Christians were often at odds with groups they considered heretical
 * Historians think there was no disputation
 * Historians think there was no orthodoxy
 * Historians think the situation was "Iranaeus and Co." vs. "Anyone who disagreed with Iranaeus and Co."

Consensus and inconsensuality

 * early discussions
 * Early discussions focused on achieving consensus, and included voting
 * A visible solution was reached on most of the issues
 * A version for discussion was drafted at a user talk page
 * Discussions were had
 * Submissions were made with regard to compromise
 * The article was unlocked
 * A draft of the changes was made on the article
 * A request for 48 hours non-editing to discuss the article was made
 * Most users respected the request

 * reversion war
 * User Y violated the request, rewriting the article substantially
 * User Y's version predominantly went against the consensus and the voting
 * User Z reverted user Y's version to the version about which a 48 hour non-edit was requested
 * User Y reverted it back to their version
 * User Z insisted on the concensus version being restored
 * User Y reverted it back
 * User Z reverted it once more
 * User Y's associates reverted it to User Y's version
 * User Z restored the discussion version
 * The revert war continued
 * The article was locked in the User Y state.

 * disputed behaviour
 * it is acceptable to make some changes
 * it is unacceptable to make large changes for this article in that state
 * it is fundamentally important to ask for a pause in editing to prevent edit wars
 * it is acceptable to make major changes to the article when it is so contested
 * Slrubenstein has the right to revert from FT2s version although the opposite is not true
 * if a page is not protected, editors have a right to work on it
 * the way forward is discussion on talk pages
 * it is inappropriate to ask for a pause in editing for the purpose of discussion
 * respect and decency demand that though one has rights, one should sometimes abstain from them
 * Saying one editor can revert, but the other editor cannot, is hypocrisy

 * the resulting 2 versions
 * The people User X invited to this page all support his version
 * 3 users (none of whom invited the other) do not support User X's version
 * The value of a split depends on the nature of the articles
 * User X sarcastically suggests splitting the article
 * Splitting the versions into two articles will solve this problem
 * User X's version is NPOV
 * User X refuses not to edit both articles to how they think it should be
 * User X admits User X will never tolerate the other version
 * User X's version is POV not NPOV
 * The not-User-X version is complicated
 * The not-User-X version complies more than satisfies journalistic standards for readability
 * User X's version is appallingly unreadable
 * User X's version is exquisite

Issues with users on this talk page

 * "Packing the house" occurred between the sets of voting
 * It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is unethical
 * It is a more important fact that Gerrymandering is currently allowed

 * Mediation was formally requested
 * It became apparant that Slrubenstein, Amgine, and CheeseDreams should formally request mediation between them (which has is now occurring)

 * FT2 as a mediator
 * At an early stage FT2 arrived and behaved in the manner of a mediator
 * Slrubenstein disputes that FT2 was ever treated as a mediator
 * Slrubenstein and JDG think that FT2 is agenda driven
 * Wesley, Amgine, CheeseDreams, think that FT2 is fair

 * Worth of scholarship
 * The lack of academic qualification does not mean one is unable to speak truth
 * Academic qualification does not mean one is always right
 * Amgine has secured access to ATLA.

User X thinks User X's opponents
 * Have done little or no research
 * Are mistaken and ignorant about many things
 * Write text riddled with the most ignorant of errors
 * Add material that has no basis in fact
 * Rely on votes about substance which is inappropriate
 * Do not rely on the historical record, unlike User X
 * Make things up
 * Use speculative arguments
 * Are ignorant of history
 * Have specious reasoning
 * Use inappropriate sources such as Google
 * Has innacurate and ignorant research unlike User X
 * Have no business working on this article as they do not trust User X's argument

User X's opponents think that User X(not all views held by all opponents)
 * Is committing hypocrisy
 * Has double standards - one for themselves, the other for opponents
 * Is unwilling to listen to criticism resulting from votes
 * Ignores valid arguments resorting to Ad Hominem such as "you are ignorant of history" and "your reasoning is specious and ignorant" and "that seems speculative" rather than producing a proper argument.
 * Thinks his view is fundamentally correct, and refuses to consider the possibility of inaccuracy
 * Resorts to criticising sources when they produce citable evidence against his case in an attempt to dismiss it
 * Have suspect accuracy of research based on User X's claim that "most historians do not think Hinduism existed before the 18th century"
 * Has admitted to only using 5/6 sources

 * Mud-slinging occurred

User X and User X's supporters stated to some of the people they see as opposed to them that
 * They are not acting in good faith
 * They are nuts
 * They are masturbating User X
 * They use silly argument
 * They are ignorant
 * They are all partisan and resent criticism
 * Their reasoning is specious and ignorant.
 * They are incompetent at using Wikipedia talk pages properly
 * Their stance is unreasonable
 * Their stance is obstructing User X
 * They are unscholarly and fringe (unlike User X)
 * Their reasoning is smelly poor quality fish
 * They are racist
 * They are rude
 * They start revert wars
 * They are gay atheists
 * They should be banned

Those who were not User X or User X's supporters stated of User X and of some of User X's supporters that
 * Some people think User X is not acting in good faith
 * User X is disrespectful
 * User X is uncivil
 * User X uses personal attacks
 * User X is a hypocrit
 * User X has no interest in consensus
 * User X is vain and arrogant
 * User X's case is so weak that he feels the need to round up supporters from elsewhere in order to win discussions
 * Some of User X's supporters threatened a revert war
 * Some of User X's supporters were referred to as Darling
 * Some of User X's supporters are neither neutral nor reasonable
 * Some of User X's supporters are crassly aggressive
 * Some of User X's supporters stated they would ignore the result of this discussion and revert the article to User X's version

Dispute of summary
CheeseDream's version of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

??????'s version of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

Original text (as per archive 6) of the disputed area of the summary
 * (1) -

This verges on too much
CheeseDreams summarized what I wrote above thusly:
 * Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John". Slrubenstein states that FT2 is a nut, and questions whether FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein.

First, it is a compelte misrepresentation of my point; I do not claim that Jonathan is Yohanan. Second, the link seems obnoxious and uncalled for. Slrubenstein

I wondered about that as well, but you did write "Ar eyou yanking my chain?....what you are saying here is a charicature of a nut" User:Tigermoon 11:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Yanking my chain" means, toying with me in order to waste my time and make me angry; it does not mean that he his stoking my penis with the intention of bringing me to orgasm. If CD doesn't understand the idiomatic expression, surely it was clear from context.  Slrubenstein

And Ive just found this at the same place, also written by you "Yonatan is represented in English as Jonathan. Yohanan is represented in English as John." User:Tigermoon 12:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for bringing this up -- as you make clear, I had explained to FT2 what his mistake was, and corrected him, long before he (finally) did his research. Slrubenstein

 * My research is not as shoddy as SIrubenstein has at times freely claimed. Specifically:
 * dictionary.com: "John - Middle English, from Old French Jehan, from Late Latin Ioannes, Iohannes, from Greek Ioannes, from Hebrew yôhanan, 'Yahweh has been gracious'..."
 * Nomenology Project: "John - DERIVATION: English, from the Hebrew name, Johanan, meaning, 'God is gracious.'  Found in the New Testament as the name of John the Baptist."
 * Emtymology and History of Biblical 1st names: "JOHN - m English, Biblical English form of Johannes, which was the Latin form of the Greek name Ioannes, itself derived from the Hebrew name Yochanan meaning 'YAHWEH is gracious'..."

 * Thats the derivation of "John". Next time, a little trust and respectful talk beforehand would be in order.
 * Next time, a little research before you write in an article would be in order. Then, you may earn some trust. Slrubenstein
 * More to the point, not making a mountain over a single minor tiny item would also be in order. This is what has characterised the problem with this article all the way - no sense of proportion. The appropriate "fix" would have been to (a) check it yourself, or (b) just edit the one word you didnt think right.  Not make a huge deal of it. I think this happens to be a good example why this article is in dispute. FT2 07:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

FT2 I appreciate that you have finally done some research, and your willingness to accept that John is Yochanan. I wish you had done this research before writing your version of the article. You are right -- in general -- that rather than make a big deal out of such mistakes editors should simply fix them. But you are disingenuous. I explained why this was an error and you mocked me. I wish you did your research then. Be that as it may, you have finally odne reseach, it is not shoddy, and I applaud your effort. But to the reall matter at hand: I didn't think I was making a big deal about this one point. Rather, I was listing this one point along with a dozen or more points that showed sloppy research or writing in your revision of my revision. Rather than go through each of these thirteen or fourteen problems in your version, I though it would just save a whole lot of time to revert to the earlier version, which was not plagued by this and so many other errors. Here is what it comes down to: I have done a lot of research on this period, and wrote a version that is to the best of my knowledge neutral (and which took into account virtually every single previous "vote" and discussion). It was clear to me that you had not done a lot of research. You say "check it yourself" and I say, well, let's do this before writing, it will save a lot of trouble. I did check such things before writing, but you did not. Why start with a very weak, error-prone version and spend a lot of time fixing it, when we can start with a relatively strong version and just improve it from there? Slrubenstein

 * fair points all of these. I think there was a difference, I wasnt aiming for perfect content - I was after 75% ok content.  It had to be that way as so many people had added material.  But poor factual information can be discussed, cited and fixed.  I was after an approach and a broad view to get towards a consensus like "okay, so apart from these sloppy individual facts, and that occasional poor wording, basically we now have a direction to go forward from, and a version not written by either 'side'."  I didnt think it was factually perfect, I was more interested to get reactions in general first. I figured simply saying "please leave it stand a while" would be enough, without a heavily detailed explanation. Hope that explains? FT2 18:07, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

FT2, I really don't question your intentions and if (in this specific instance) I said anything that questioned your intentions I apologize. Your intentions aside, I just felt there were so many errors and distortions in your version that it would be easier to go back to mine (which I must add was -- in my mind at least! -- built on your earlier work!). I understand that you did your best and did not claim it to be perfect. I just thought the previous version was better and made for a more practical continuation. Although I know your intentions were good, I do admit that it bothers me that you expected people to wait two days before editing work that you had not really researched, when you had just completely rewritten a draft for which I had spent considerable time researching. If anything, the principle should be that the more researched an article, the more time people allow themselves to think about it before editing; the less researched an article, the less time people allow themselves to think about it before editing. Slrubenstein


text:
User talk:Dmitry1

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Dmitry1


text:
User talk:Mattkidd12

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Here are some links I thought useful:

 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Neutral point of view
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Brilliant prose
 * Featured pictures
 * Boilerplate text
 * Current polls
 * Mailing lists
 * IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mattkidd12


text:
Ide Hill

Ide Hill is a village within the civil parish of Sundridge with Ide Hill, in the Sevenoaks District of Kent, England. It stands on one of the highest points of the Greensand Ridge about three miles south-west of Sevenoaks. Its name first appears on record in 1250 as Edythehelle. It is an eponymic denoting 'Edith's hill', from the Old English hyll 'hill'. The village lies within the Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The church is relatively modern. The village had an Anglican chapel in 1806, built by Beilby Porteus, Bishop of London, who lived in nearby Sundridge; St Mary's church was built in 1865 and "has the distinction of being the highest church in Kent" at 216 m above sea level. There are several old buildings round the sloping village green, including the 18th-century Cock Inn and the Ide Hill Village School, built in 1856 it is the second home of the school which unusually for a church school predates the church building as the school was formed in 1809.

Ide Hill Football Club, who have teams in the Kent County League, the Sevenoaks & District League and the Crowborough & District Junior League, play their home games on the Ide Hill Recreation Ground (behind the Cock Inn). As per the church, the football pitch "has the distinction of being the highest in Kent".

Two of Kent's places of interest are near Ide Hill: Bough Beech Reservoir and Emmetts Garden.

Bough Beech Reservoir was completed in 1969. A large area round it is leased to the Kent Trust for Nature Conservation as a nature reserve.

Emmetts Garden is in the care of the National Trust. It was laid out in the late 19th century. There is a stone seat near the village church to commemorate Octavia Hill, one of the Trust's founders.

In his 1933 memoir Down and Out in Paris and London George Orwell reports that Ide Hill was notorious for being the worst “spike” (a casual ward or homeless shelter) in all of England. Although in a footnote he confesses to finding it 'not so bad'.

Goathurst Common
Goathurst Common is a hamlet within the civil parish of Sundridge with Ide Hill. It lies to the east of Ide Hill. Its road, Bessels Green Road, leads through Whitley Forest to the village of Bessels Green, near Sevenoaks to the south. There is no current chapel or church. The hamlet did have two but they have been converted into houses. It is a mainly residential area consisting of about sixty houses built since the early 1920s. Goathurst Common is separated from Ide Hill by Stubbs Wood.

The woodlands around Goathurst Common were devastated during the Great Storm of 1987, when many trees were brought down by very high winds.

title: Ide Hill


text: User talk:128.146.203.211

title: User talk:128.146.203.211


text: Category:Mande languages

title: Category:Mande languages


text: File:Succesion laws.JPG

title: File:Succesion laws.JPG


text:
Rudolph Goclenius

Rudolph Goclenius the Elder (Rudolphus Goclenius; born Rudolf Gockel or Göckel; 1 March 1547 – 8 June 1628) was a German scholastic philosopher. Gockel is often credited with coining the term psychology in 1590, though the term had been used by Marko Marulić at least 66 years earlier. Gockel had extensive backing, and made significant contributions to the field of ontology. He extended the development of many ideas from Aristotle. Several of Gockel's ideas were published and built upon by later philosophers.

Life
He was born in Korbach, Waldeck (now in Waldeck-Frankenberg, Hesse).

He attended the universities at the University of Erfurt, the University of Marburg and the University of Wittenberg, where he finished his studies with a M.A. in 1571. In the following years he directed the gymnasiums in his hometown Korbach (1573) and in Kassel (Michaelmas 1575). In 1581, Landgrave Wilhelm IV of Hesse-Kassel, who was a reputed astronomer, refused his wish to return to Korbach, but allowed him to be appointed professor at the Philipps University of Marburg, where he had the chairs of physics, logic, mathematics and ethics. He served as a counsellor to Wilhelm and his son Moritz. The latter sent him in 1618 to the Synod of Dort.

Although he popularized the term psychology, his major contribution was to the field of ontology. As a follower of Aristotle's work, Gockel gave the philosophy a name and continued in Aristotle's way of thinking. The philosophical discipline of Ontology is thought to have been developed in the 17th century by Goclenius.

Goclenius became the subject of a satirical text by Johann Balthasar Schupp. According to Schupp, Goclenius said in his old age that his Analecta [Lichae 1598] was the best book of all he has ever written.

Jeremias Nicolai, a student at Korbach Stadtschule from Autumn 1574 onwards, brother of Philipp Nicolai, reported that Goclenius "immediately" wrote a poem about "fiery air phenomena" (feurige Lufterscheinungen) that were seen in the city on November 14, 1574. It was published in Marburg the same year. City historian Wolfgang Medding has conjectured that the phenomena which provided the inspiration for Goclenius' poem might have been an aurora, an assumption which is supported by historical data. Later, he treated auroras ("chasmata") in a Physics textbook of 1604.

Goclenius died of a stroke in Marburg on June 8, 1628. In his funeral speech on June 10, Wolfgang Loriseca called Goclenius a "leader of today's philosophers, Marburgian Plato, European light, Hessian immortal glory".

Family
Goclenius married his first wife, Margarethe, in 1570. Abraham Saur, a jurist in Marburg, recorded in his chronicle for the 10th of April:

"M. Rudolphus Goclerius [sic] holds wedding. On this day / in the year of Christ 1570 as the Sun went into the Sign of Taurus / of which the Astrologers say / that it would be good to marry / M. Rudolphus Goclerius [sic] / a young learned Man and Poet / held his wedding in Korbach."

- Abraham Saur

From this marriage his oldest son, Rudolph Goclenius the Younger, or Rudolf Goclenius, Jr. was born who became a professor in Marburg and a celebrated mathematician. It is after Rudolph Goclenius, Jr., that the lunar crater is named. He also worked on cures against the plague. He became famous for his miraculous cure with the "weapon salve" or Powder of Sympathy. Other descendants were Theodor Christoph Goclenius (1602–1673, medicine), Eduard Franz Goclenius (1643–1721, law) and Reinhard Goclenius (1678–1726, law).

Philosophical attitude
From his dispute with Wilhelm Adolph Scribonius of Marburg on the legality of the ordeal by water in witch trials, one can deduce that Goclenius was convinced on the existence of witchcraft and adhered to the "Hexenhammer".

His views reflected those of Aristotle. His philosophies belonged to a group called “Semiramists,” which was a group of Aristotelians who believed in advocating dialectic interpretation of Aristotle's learning, but also advocating the exposition of Ramism. While he was still a rector at Korbach Stadtschule Goclenius composed a scholarly poem on Ramus' death. In a letter written by Friedrich Beurhusius to Johann Thomas Freigius in September 1575, Goclenius was mentioned as a devotee to Ramus alongside other schoolmen such as Johann Lambach and Bernhard Copius.

Goclenius is reported to have said that Aristotle, Scaliger (whose Exercitationes he called his Bible), Zabarella, Schegk are all that is needed to fill up the bookstand of philosophers.

Works
In his "Philosophical Inquiries", published in 1599, Goclenius provides a synoptic table that subdivides the philosophical doctrines, or liberal arts, into special domains of knowledge. It is useful for the classification of his works to a certain point. He used the term ontology in his Lexicon philosophicum (1613) which was coined by Jacob Lorhard in his Ogdoas Scholastica (1606).

Psychology
Goclenius’ major contributions also included publications which led to the term psychology. In two academic disputations presided by Goclenius at Marburg University in 1586 the word psychology appears as an adjective ("psychologicae"). His anthology Psychologia: hoc est, de hominis perfectione, animo, et in primis ortu hujus published in 1590 is the first book to contain the word "psychology" in the title. The Psychologia of 1590 (a second printing was issued in 1594) contains mostly excerpts from treatises written between 1579 and 1589. The book's full title translates to English as, "Psychology: that is, on the perfection of man, his mind, and especially its origin, the comments and discussions of certain theologians & philosophers of our time who are shown on the turned page." Here, the term psychology refers to both a subject of inquiry ("the perfection of man, his mind, and especially its origin") and the inquiry itself ("the comments and discussions of certain theologians & philosophers of our time"). In the 17th century, Goclenius' Psychologia was read and quoted by scholars like Robert Burton, Daniel Sennert and Jakob Thomasius. Goclenius himself returned to his Psychologia in a textbook on natural science of 1604 and in some philosophical disputations.

Logic
Goclenius' crowning achievement is his original contribution made to term logic, called the Goclenian Sorites. In the words of the British logician Carveth Read:

"It is the shining merit of Goclenius to have restored the Premises of the Sorites to the usual order of Fig. I.: whereby he has raised to himself a monument more durable than brass, and secured indeed the very cheapest immortality. How expensive, compared with this, was the method of the Ephesian incendiary!"

An example for the use of sorites in an argumentative context is presented by Goclenius in his "Dissertatio De Ortu Animi" which concludes the first edition of the Psychologia.

Contrary to Carveth Read's assessment, however, Dr. Rudolph Goclenius did not invent the Goclenian Sorites: St. Thomas Aquinas did:

"'[A] second demonstration takes as its starting point the conclusion of a first demonstration, whose terms are understood to contain the middle term which was the starting point of the first demonstration. Thus the second demonstration will proceed from four terms the first from three only, the third from five, and the fourth from six; so that each demonstration adds one term. Thus it is clear that first demonstrations are included in subsequent ones, as when this first demonstration—every B is A, every C is B, therefore every C is A—is included in this demonstration—every C is A, every D is C, therefore every D is A; and this again is included in the demonstration whose conclusion is that every E is A, so that for this final conclusion there seems to be one syllogism composed of several syllogisms having several middle terms. This may be expressed thus: every B is A, every C is B, every D is C, every E is D, therefore every E is A.'"

Publications
Bibliographies of Goclenius' writings were prepared by F. W. Strieder and by F. J. Schmidt (see below). His list of publications include a large number of academic disputations. This is due to the statutes of Landgrave Philip I of January 14, 1564 which required professors at the University of Marburg to carry out weekly examinations. Goclenius lectured three hours a day: one pro lectione publica, one pro magistrandis and one pro baccalaureandis.

 * Problemata logica, pars I 1589, pars II 1590; Pars I-V 1594 (reprint: Frankfurt: Minerva, 1967, in 5 voll.).
 * Psychologia: hoc est, de hominis perfectione, animo, et in primis ortu hujus, commentationes ac disputationes quorundam theologorum & philosophorum nostrae aetatis, Marburg 1590; Marburg 1594; Marburg 1597 (revised edition).
 * Oratio de natura sagarum in purgatione & examinatione per Frigidam aquis innatantium, Marburg 1584 (an oration held at a graduation ceremony on November 19, 1583; republished in Panegyrici Academiae Marpurgensis, Marburg 1590, pp. 190–203).
 * Partitio dialectica, Frankfurt 1595.
 * Isagoge in peripateticorum et scholasticorum primam philosopiam, quae dici consuevit metaphysica, 1598 (reprint: Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1976).
 * Institutionum logicarum de inventione liber unus, Marburg 1598.
 * Disquisitiones philosophicae, Marburg, 1599, online.
 * Oberursel 1600.
 * Appendix IIII. Dialogistica, Marburg 1602.
 * Physicae completae speculum, Frankfurt 1604.
 * Dilucidationes canonum philosophicorum, Lich 1604.
 * Controversia logicae et philosophiae, ad praxin logicam directae, quibus praemissa sunt theoremata seu praecepta logica, Marburg 1604.
 * Miscellaneorum Theologicorum Et Philosophicorum, Marburg 1607;  Marburg 1608.
 * Conciliator philosophicus, 1609 (reprint: Hildesheim, Georg Olms, 1980).
 * Lexicon philosophicum quo tanquam clave philosophiae fores aperiuntur, 1613 (reprint: Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1980).
 * Lexicon philosophicum Graecum, Marburg 1615 (reprint: Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1980).

title: Rudolph Goclenius


text:
Talk:Eats, Shoots & Leaves

Untitled
Overly Critical For a book which has been widely acclaimed and been a big bestseller I find it strange that this article contains such heavy criticism, including one from a comedian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.14.247 (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Article title
Shouldn't this redirect to the more complete Eats, Shoots and Leaves article? The book's title actually does have the "&," though. --Waiting4beckett 16:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I searched for this phrase expecting a short history / analysis of the joke, perhaps also a list of all its variations. I might also have expected it to include links to book titles it has inspired! It doesn't seem right to me that the article should be about a book that post-dates the joke by (in my experience) 30 years. Shouldn't the article about the book includes its subtitle "A zero..."? SeanCollins (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * With Wikipedia article titles, shorter names are preferred. Until there is enough information to create an article about this joke, then this book is the article that will occupy this article-title. — Val42 (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Review link
The New Yorker review is no longer available online. Remove link?John2429 20:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is the reference list on this article protected? The review is still available at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/28/040628crbo_books1 but it seems I am unable to put it back in. --Roddie Digital 10:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been added. --195.137.68.138 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Grammar and syntax
I was amazed to find a plethora of grammatical errors in Eats, Shoots & Leaves. And I do not like ampersands in prose! LoopZilla 17:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I found some mistakes too, although I didn't have a notepad to hand when reading it. I think they should be included. I might re-read it and include them. Damiancorrigan 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag-line on the book's cover is missing a hyphen: it should be The Zero-Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. To refer to a "Tolerance Approach" doesn't make sense, nor does a "Zero Approach"! 62.56.104.146 19:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. Zero tolerance is spelled without a hyphen, and, as no commentators are named lambasting the title in the article, as well there being a [citation needed] in place, I have removed the sentence from the Criticism section.71.51.53.206 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, what is with the first sentence in the overview? Is the bad grammar a joke?... The "and" right before "quotation marks" doesn't make one bit of sense. In addition it's an incredibly ugly run-on sentence. Might I recommend a list of chapters to replace the run-on? I would fix it myself, but given the poor writing I can't tell if: "exclamation marks, question marks, and quotation marks, italic type, dashes, brackets, ellipses, and emoticons" is referring to one or two chapters (or something else?). Did the writer of this bibliography even read this book?...76.171.93.45 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand this conversation ‘ended’ years ago, but I’m here to revive it. As it appears in dictionary.com, “zero tolerance” is a policy (a noun), whereas “zero-tolerance” is a modifier (adjective). Look no further than the Wikipedia page Zero tolerance & you’ll see hyphenated & unhyphenated forms. However, I also understand that the point is that the criticism isn’t cited, so this was really just a belated point of order that doesn’t effect the decision. Dfcorrea00 (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ampersands
''The ampersand (&) is an often over-used abbreviation for the word and. Its use should be limited to a few situations.''

This is the first sentence of All about ampersands. The article then asserts:

Do not use an ampersand in general writing simply to abbreviate the word and.

LoopZilla 08:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

 * For what it's worth, I believe that ampersands in titling are acceptable. Dweller 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

 * And much more to the point it's how the title of the book is spelled. Flapdragon 02:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't say it's necessarily "how the title of the book is spelled" because, typically, decisions concerning abbreviations, casing, &c are made by the designer or editor, not the author. -- Ampersands are used in titling and headlines in order to save space, & because the book designer may want the added calligraphic flourish. Depending on different bibliographical conventions, book citations may preserve the ampersand or spell it out as "and". -- I can't see why anyone should get fussed about ampersands (outside of contexts where they're obligatory, like the names of law firms), but then I can't see why people get fussed about any other abbreviation or mark of punctuation either. --ND 03:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The joke
The "eats shoots and leaves" joke with which I'm familiar is much simpler. The book in question was a dictionary rather than a wildlife manual, and it was not badly punctuated; it was simply misinterpreted. The punctuation problem in that case is that some people leave out commas, and the sentence was interpreted as if a comma had been left out. Since apparently the joke doesn't appear anywhere in "Eats, Shoots & Leaves", shouldn't the simpler form of the joke be in this article? It almost seems as if the joke has been modified to more directly suit the purposes of this book. —Deadcode 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I have noticed several articles which include some tangential piece of information which requires the use of 'adult' (as in 'not appropriate for youngsters') language or themes. A recent example is the alternate version of the title joke recently added to this article. Is the benefit of adding such material worth the downside of making an article (and therefore, Wikipedia in general) unsuitable for young users? This is an area of policy with which I am not familiar; I would appreciate the input of admins and more experienced editors. Special-T 15:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT --Keolah 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think it should be noted somewhere that this is an older joke, which the writer adapted to sanitise it. The joke needn't be written out in full, it could just be mentioned that the same punchline is used as a reference to the Panda being a poor lover. It'd be good find a reference for this Alan Davies 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The writer didn't adapt it, though I believe she added the "badly-punctuated" bit. I had heard both versions of the joke long before the book came along. Damiancorrigan 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The joke is printed on the back cover of the dustjacket of my copy (UK edition) in almost exactly the form it appears in the article. Mhkay (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The joke in the article is very different from the version printed on the back cover. And main difference is not 'the "badly-punctuated" bit' ! The joke in the article is very cruel. the version printed on the back cover is just funny ! Look here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FdfTKVG0KfE/TyBpXVDHK6I/AAAAAAAACzE/Y4LwV5eTizc/s1600/Panda+BC+ESL.jpg and here: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-7khpQf8u5M8/Tbyx5eMdJoI/AAAAAAAACRU/JP9stWpCVHw/s1600/Eats%252C%2BShoots%2Band%2BLeaves%252C%2BBack.JPG Frankly, i've got no idea for the reason why this charming joke was crippled ("maiden virtue rudely strumpeted") ? i believe that original text should be restored. Arteau (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article's text has a punctuation error anyway ("the confused surviving waiter" is a surviving waiter who is confused, not a waiter who is both surviving and confused).  I am modifying the joke in the article according to your back covers.  Current article text preserved here for comparison:
 * A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
 * "Why?" asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
 * "Well, I'm a panda," he says. "Look it up."
 * The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. "Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
 * Zaslav (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Why on earth is the word 'joke' linked to an article on the meaning of the word 'joke'? At this rate every single word in every single Wikipedia article could be a link: 'the' on the meaning of definite articles, 'meaning' on the meaning of meaning, and on and on....213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Agree that it is excessive. Unlinked per WP:Overlinking. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Smileys (JFB)
What is the JFB there for?
 * No idea. I've removed it. Recury 18:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a chapter on smileys anyway??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.74.200 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. -Toptomcat (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wombat: Eats, roots and leaves
There is a common joke in Australia about how Australian males are like Wombats. Why? The Wombat eats roots and leaves. The Australian male eats, roots, and leaves. Whereas roots refers to has sexual intercourse (in Australian Slang) in the latter example. May be there is a connection between this analogy (or: example of the importance of punctuation)and the title of the book?

How abouta list of examples where punctuation affects the meaning? Example: Women without her man, is nothing. Or:Women. Without her, man is nothing.--Soylentyellow 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew
I read in the book that Hebrew did not have punctuation, and that leads to Bible translation problems. Masoretic Hebrew texts did have punctuation, its just that most people don't understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Frank McCourt's foreword
In my copy (American) of Eats, Shoots, & Leaves, the quote is "If Lynne Truss were Roman Catholic I'd nominate her for sainthood." So I will add "Roman" to the article; it seems too important to leave out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Istillcandream (talk • contribs) 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Error in the title
The title of this book really, really bothers me. Why? Because I hate when people don't use a serial comma. I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned. --Cleveland Rock (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Where do you think would be the appropriate place to mention your hatred of people who don't use a serial comma? Surely not in the title of this book.  I think she was looking to produce a more general overview of punctuation, rather than a discussion of one person's stylistic passion.  But I could be wrong.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 * See Roger Casement for an example of what can happen due to the presence of a comma.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Old page history
Some page history that used to be at the title "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" can now be found at Talk:Eats, Shoots & Leaves/Old history. Graham 87 14:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dead links
At least references 3 and 4 are now dead links.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 * Refs. 3 & 4 tagged for attention. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Eats, Shoots & Leaves. 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/20070930015620/http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED16%20Nov%202006%2008:51:54:233 to http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED16%20Nov%202006%2008%3A51%3A54%3A233

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) 08:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Tone
I added the editorial template here in view of the editorializing tone of statements such as "Truss bemoans the state of...", "Her goal is to remind..." "In keeping with the general lighthearted tone...", etc. Any help rewriting the article with more factual language or providing better in-text attribution for subjective statements would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And I removed it.
 * If, after more than one year, neither you nor anyone else knows how to "fix" it according to your standards I think it's safe to remove this template.
 * Truss does "bemoan". That's an objective statement about her subjective language style.
 * Her goal is to remind - again that's an objective assessment of the critical consensus about her purpose. --BushelCandle (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Grammar within the article
I’ll start by mentioning that I’m not familiar with British or Australian or really any other form of English other than American English. Therefore, I don’t know the different grammatical rules & whatnot. However, from what I can tell, the 2nd section (beginning with “There is one chapter”) has a confused use of serial commas & semicolons. Rather than explain each (mis)use, I’ll offer a revised version: “There is one chapter each on apostrophes, commas, semicolons, and colons; exclamation marks, question marks, and quotation marks; italic type, dashes, brackets, ellipses, and emoticons; and the last one on hyphens.” I’m not sold on “...and the last one on hyphens [sic]” because to me, the final semicolon acts as an introduction to a new complete phrase rather than a continuation of the list. Since the sentence begins, “There is one chapter each on...”, one would expect all the parts of the list to agree with the introduction. To say “there is one chapter each on bluh & bluh & the last one on hyphens” sounds awkward. Adding something as simple as the word “is” renders the final phrase as not a fragment of a larger sentence, but a complete phrase. This is OK if you instead think of the final semicolon as a separation between 2 sentences. E.g.: “There is one chapter each on bluh & bluh. The last one is on hyphens.” But since the 2 phrases are simlar enough, they can be joined with a semicolon in between. In summary, add ‘is’ between “one” & “on” to make things that much easier to read. Dfcorrea00 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd adapt your revision to the following. "There are four chapters: apostrophes, commas, semicolons, and colons; exclamation marks, question marks, and quotation marks; italic type, dashes, brackets, ellipses, and emoticons; and finally on hyphens alone." Cross Reference (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Comma disagreement in Reception section
Hello all- An anonymous editor at 72.130.75.27 has been repeatedly adding what I view as an inappropriate and distracting comma after the word book in the sentence In her 2005 book Talk to the Hand, Truss acknowledges some of the criticism, obliquely admitting that much of it is warranted. The editor invokes a guide on appositives as justification, but my read of that guide runs counter to the editor's; I see the title of the book (in the sentence in question) to be what the guide calls "restrictive", as it adds essential information to the noun book. If the section were discussing a series of books, each published in a different year, I would use such a comma, as it would place stress on the year. But that is not called for in the sentence as it appears here. Despite not wanting to engage in an edit war over this, I have reverted the IP edits. Given the topic of the article, I thought it worth the effort to keep our punctuation in good order. Eric talk 12:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 * The test is whether the sentence works without the title of the book. It does. Therefore, the title of the book is an appositive. For example, if I have only one brother, his name is an appositive. (My brother, Bob, is sick.) His name is not necessary for the sentence to make sense. If I have two brothers, the name is not an appositive. (My brother Bob is sick.) As Truss wrote only one book in 2005, the book title is an appositive. The sentence makes perfect sense if you leave out the book title. It has nothing to do with Valspeak, as you suggested in your edit summary. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I disagree, as I think I make clear above. I get the "brother Bob" point, but I don't find it applies here. Not that I think it matters in this case, but the reader does not necessarily know this was the only book of hers from 2005, and that knowledge should not be a prerequisite for reading the sentence. Eric talk 19:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 * That's at least part of the point. By using the removing the comma, you are sending the message (through the grammatical structure) that Truss had more than one book that year. By leaving the comma in place, you signal to the reader the reader it was Truss's only book of 2005. Look at the example here on Natasha's son: . The comma provides essential clarity. For someone who doesn't think this comma matters, you've sure invested a lot into it. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Re my investment: You are forcing me to think about something I would not normally spend this much time analyzing—which I at first mildly resented and now grudgingly appreciate. It seems we read commas differently. I do not interpret the presence and absence of this comma the way you do. My default is to omit commas when they provoke a pause that would not be spoken aloud. The way I read that sentence, the presence of the comma would cause the reader to "hear" emphasis on 2005, which might almost provoke an expectation of a subsequent sentence that discusses another book from another year. But since the topic of the sentence is Truss' acceptance of the criticism, and not what book came out in what year, I would not pause between book and Truss. Maybe someone else will weigh in here? Eric talk 13:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Truss explicitly says that commas are about grammar, not pauses. You keep making them about pauses. You must not have read her book. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 * The whole "it works without the phrase" is a matter of style. Whether one wants to make the title an appositive is a matter of editorial choice: there is nothing wrong with the phrase "in her 2005 book Talk to the Hand", and inserting the comma means an emphasis on the year, which IMO is unnecessary and distracting. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 * You must not have read Truss's book. That's not what she says at all. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 * I don't think I implied that I was citing Truss or that I subscribe to her views. Eric talk 14:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 * Not at all. But I do find it ironic that an article on a grammar guide should be ungrammatical. I'm the only one here citing grammar experts. 72.130.75.27 (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eats, Shoots & Leaves


text:
Honduran lempira

The lempira (, sign: L, ISO 4217 code: HNL;) is the currency of Honduras. It is subdivided into 100 centavos.

Etymology
The lempira was named after the 16th-century cacique Lempira, a ruler of the indigenous Lenca people, who is renowned in Honduran folklore for leading the local native resistance against the Spanish conquistador forces. He is a national hero and is honored on both the 1 lempira note and the 20 and 50 centavos coins.

History
The lempira was introduced in 1931, replacing the peso at par. In the late 1980s, the exchange rate was two lempiras to the United States dollar (the 20-centavos coin is called a daime as it was worth the same as a U.S. dime). As of April 4, 2022, the lempira was quoted at 24.40 HNL to US$1.

Coins
In 1931, coins were introduced in denominations of 5, 20 & 50 centavos, and 1 lempira. One, 2 and 10 centavos coins were added in 1935, 1939 and 1932, respectively. The silver 1 lempira coins ceased production in 1937, with the other silver coins (20 & 50 centavos) replaced by cupro-nickel in 1967. The 1 and 2 centavos coins were last minted in 1998 and 1974, respectively.

Coins of the following denominations are currently legal tender. However as of 2024 coins are only very rarely used for payments. In practice only banknotes are used.

 * 1 centavo
 * 2 centavos
 * 5 centavos
 * 10 centavos
 * 20 centavos
 * 50 centavos

Banknotes
The Bank of Honduras and the Banco Atlantida issued the first lempira banknotes in 1932. They were in denominations of 1, 2, 5, 10 and 20 lempiras. The Central Bank of Honduras took over production of paper money in 1950, introducing 50 and 100 lempiras notes in 1950, followed by the 500-lempiras note in 1995.

In January, 2010, a new 20-lempira note was introduced to market made by a polymer base, 60 million notes were issued.

In celebration of the Bicentennial anniversary of Honduras's independence, a new 200 lempira bill was issued. It features 2 scarlet macaws, the national bird of Honduras.

Banknotes in circulation are

title: Honduran lempira


text:
Pirenópolis

Pirenópolis, also known as Piri, is a historic municipality located in the Brazilian state of Goiás. It is known for its waterfalls and Portuguese colonial architecture, and a popular festival involving mounted horses called Festa do Divino Espírito Santo which takes place 45 days after Easter. Pirenópolis is located 120 km from Goiânia, the state capital, and 150 km from Brasília, the federal capital.

History
The history of Pirenópolis begins in 1727 when it was founded with the name of Minas de Nossa Senhora do Rosário de Meia Ponte, Meia Ponte (half a bridge) because half of the bridge over the Almas River was swept away in a flood. The first colonizers were Portuguese who came for the gold easily found in the Rio das Almas. From 1750 to 1800 there was a golden age when four churches were built and Pirenópolis competed with Vila Boa (present day Cidade de Goiás) as the richest town in the province. After 1800 a downturn over gold mining was set and the part of the population emigrated. With the change of commercial routes to Anápolis, the city became economically isolated. The first newspaper in the province, the Matutina Meiapontense, was published in Meia Ponte in 1830 by Joaquim Alves de Oliveira. In 1890 the city changed its name from Meia Ponte to Pirenópolis, the city of the Pireneus, the mountains located nearby. In 1960 with the construction of Brasília there was an intensive exploitation of the famous Pedra de Pirenópolis (quartzite-micáceo). In the 1980s the hippies arrived with their alternative communities and production of handicrafts. Pirenópolis was born again with a huge influx of tourists, especially from Brasília. Churches were restored and all the electrical wiring was put underground.

Etymology
 Pyrenópolis  (archaic orthography), later  Pirenópolis , means in Greek “the City of the Pireneus”. Its name comes from the mountain range that surrounds the city, that is  Mountain range of the Pireneus . According to local tradition, the mountain range received this name for having in the region immigrant Spaniards, probably Catalans. Because of some similarity with their native Pyrenees of Europe, a mountain chain situated between Spain and France, they had then given this mountain range the Latin name of Pireneus.

Historic site
Listed as an architectural, urbanistic, landscape and historical heritage for IPHAN - the Institute of National Historic and Artistic Heritage, in 1989, the city has a Historical Center with large, ornate houses and churches of the 18th century, such as: First Church of Our Lady of the Rosary (1728–1732), Churches of Our Lady of the Carmo (1750–1754) and the Church of Our Lord of the Bonfim (Pirenópolis) (1750–1754), and buildings such as the Theater of Pirenópolis, a hybrid style between colonial and neo-classic, of 1899, and the Cine-Pireneus, built in the art-deco style, of 1919 and the House of Chamber and Jail constructed in 1919 as an identical restoration of the 1733 original.

Climate
The climate is humid sub-tropical with two well-defined seasons: the rainy season, which goes from October to March, and the dry season, which goes from April to September. Parts of the municipality are mountainous and maintain some climatic variations due to altitude.

Economic information
The economy is based on agriculture (coffee, citrus fruits, soybeans, and corn), cattle raising (130,000 head in 2006), services, public administration, and small transformation industries. There are several small food, clothing, and furniture industries.

Agricultural data 2006
 * Farms: 1,765
 * Total area: 191,778 ha.
 * Area of permanent crops: 1,920 ha.
 * Area of perennial crops: 4,185 ha.
 * Area of natural pasture: 125,908 ha.
 * Area of woodland and forests: 52,775 ha.
 * Persons dependent on farming: 4,300
 * Number of tractors: 177
 * Cattle herd: 144,700 IBGE

Education and Health

 * Higher education: Campus of the State University of Goiás
 * Adult literacy rate: 84.4% (2000) (national average was 86.4%)
 * Hospitals: 2 with 66 beds
 * Infant mortality rate: 27.52 (2000) (national average was 33.0).
 * Human Development Index: 0.713
 * State ranking: 191 (out of 242 municipalities)
 * National ranking: 2,748 (out of 5,507 municipalities) Frigoletto

Tourism
Major attractions include Igreja Nossa Senhora do Rosário de Meia Ponte, the oldest church in Goiás, and the church Igreja Nosso Senhor do Bonfim. It also has a hippie-like colony which markets clothing and silverwork. Today Pirenópolis is known all over Brazil for its popular festivals, especially the "Cavalhadas", introduced in 1826, in which horsemen representing Moors and Christians recreate a battle fought by Charlemagne. This tradition, part of the Festival for the Holy Spirit (Festa do Espírito Santo), was brought to the town by Portuguese settlers. The Festas de Cavalhadas feature a parade beginning with a bugle fanfare announcing the knight's pages, then the mounted knights displaying their colors. Wearing papier-maché helmets, the Christian knights wear blue, the Moors wear red. The battle lasts three days and attracts thousands of visitors to the town. The Cavalhadas take place in medieval costume, with the highlight being the mock battle, performed in the city's bullring. The Moors invariably are defeated and convert to Christianity. Cavalhadas

The town has been restored artistically with its stone paved streets and colonial houses (casarões). The Almas River, a tributary of the Tocantins River which flows north to form the Serra da Mesa artificial lake, passes near the town and is crossed by a restored wooden bridge. There are an old theater, cinema, and a museum of the cavalhadas. The municipality contains part of the 2833 ha Pirineus State Park, created in 1987. Waterfalls are the primary tourist attraction for Pirenopolis and Corumbá. Around the town, in a distance of 15 km., there are more than twenty spectacular waterfalls with pristine water. Some of them are enormous such as the Salto de Corumba (which disappeared for decades when prospectors diverted the waters for dredging). Other waterfalls are formed by a series of cascades. Many are on private property and are operated as a business. Other falls can be found on hiking trails. One of the longest rivers in the state of Goiás, the Corumbá River has its source near Pirenópolis.

A new attraction to Pirenopolis is the small ecovillage and permaculture design institute located a few kilometers outside of town called the IPEC or The Institute of Permaculture and Ecovillage of the Cerrado. Bringing in foreign students through study abroad programs such as Living Routes, visitors get a first-hand account of the possibilities of sustainable living.

title: Pirenópolis


text:
Benvolio

Benvolio Montague (Benvolio Montecchi) is a fictional character in William Shakespeare's tragedy Romeo and Juliet. He is Lord Montague's nephew and Romeo's cousin. Benvolio serves as an unsuccessful peacemaker in the play, attempting to prevent violence between the Capulet and Montague families.

Etymology
The name Benvolio means "good-will" or "well-wisher" or "peacemaker" which is a role he fills, to some degree, as a peacemaker and Romeo's cousin. He also wants peace so civil brawls between him and Tybalt can stop but will do anything for his family even if that means war against the Capulets. (For comparison, see the derivation of Malvolio – ill-will – in Twelfth Night.)

Role in the play
Benvolio is Lord Montague's nephew and Romeo's cousin. He is usually portrayed by Shakespeare as a kind and thoughtful person who attempts to look out for his cousin.

Benvolio spends most of Act I attempting to distract his cousin from his infatuation with Rosaline but following the first appearance of Mercutio in I.iv, he and Mercutio become more closely aligned until III.i. In that scene, he drags the fatally wounded Mercutio offstage, before returning to inform Romeo of Mercutio's death and the Prince of the course of Tybalt and Mercutio's deaths. Benvolio then disappears from the play (though, as a Montague, he may implicitly be included in the stage direction in the final scene "Enter Lord Montague and others" and he is sometimes doubled with Balthasar).

Part of Benvolio's role is encouraging Romeo to go to the party, where he falls in love with Juliet.

Performances
A mock-Victorian revisionist version of Romeo and Juliet's final scene (with a happy ending, Romeo, Juliet, Mercutio and Paris restored to life and Benvolio revealing that he is Paris's love, Benvolia, in disguise) forms part of the 1980 stage-play The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby. He also attempts to romance Rosaline in Sharman Macdonald's After Juliet.

In the 2019 British musical & Juliet Benvolio is portrayed by actress Kirstie Skivington.

Portrayals
In 1968 the part of Benvolio was played by Bruce Robinson in Romeo and Juliet.

In the 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet, the actor who played Benvolio was Dash Mihok.

In the 2001 French musical Roméo et Juliette: de la Haine à l'Amour, the role was originated by Grégori Baquet.

In the 2013 version of Romeo and Juliet, the actor who played Benvolio was Kodi Smit-McPhee.

title: Benvolio


text:
.mm

.mm is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Myanmar. It was assigned in 1997. Before 1989, the ISO 3166 alpha-2 code for Burma was BU, but no .bu ccTLD was assigned.

On 12 June 2011, the ISO 3166-1 code for Myanmar changed to reflect the MM used for the ccTLD.

Description
A company run by two Australian immigrants in Myanmar, Eagle Group, set up the first Internet access to Myanmar in 1997. They contracted with British company called Digiserve based in High Wycombe, to provide DNS services for .mm. All .mm DNS queries were handled by Digiserve's two name servers acting as root name servers for .mm, ns1.digiserve.com and ns2.digiserve.com respectively. In 1999, Eagle Group's service was shut down by the Burmese government.

Afterwards, these two servers then delegated the SOA authority of .com.mm, .net.mm, .edu.mm and org.mm TLDs to the two name servers managed by Myanmar Posts and Telecommunications, ns0.mpt.net.mm and ns1.mpt.net.mm, both servers were located in Yangon.

In February 2002, the DigiServe DNS servers were hacked by pro-democracy activists, which resulted in the traffic to all .mm domain names including www.gov.mm being redirected to a website demanding the release of famous student leader Min Ko Naing for a period of three days.

In the beginning of 2005, MPT finally retook management control of .mm name space and replaced Digiserve nameservers with their own.

Businesses in Myanmar could register for domain names within the .net.mm and .com.mm zones through Myanmar Teleport (formerly Bagan Cybertech) or from Myanmar Post & Telecoms directly. .edu.mm, .org.mm, .gov.mm domain names are reserved for official and government use. There is no whois service provided.

Myanmar Teleport's service was later shut down by the Burmese government as well, leaving government-owned Myanmar Post & Telecoms as the sole controller for all the services for internet and email.

title: .mm


text:
Hamsaladeevi

Hamsaladeevi (హంసలదీవి) is a village in Diviseema, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District of the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

It is about 88 km from Vijayawada and 40 km from Machilipatnam. The nearest city is Avanigadda.

Hamsaladeevi hosts an old temple of Lord Krishna (Venugopalaswamy), constructed during the rule of Chola kings. It is one of the 108 Vishnu temples.

The Krishna River converges into the Bay of Bengal right outside the village. The confluence is known as Sagara Sangamam; three colours of water can be seen there.

title: Hamsaladeevi