text:
User talk:TheGreatWhiteBuffalo

The Evolution of Religion
This is the next step for those that believe and don't believe. This is a bridge for Science and Religion, a compelling thought that removes the Devil from the Details. While the past is filled with religious wars and great sacrilege in the Administration of so many Organized religions a new Church is to be established.

This New Church that is inclusive and available for those that do believe and those that do not believe establishes and completes the final process for the Evolution of Religion.

For information on the Domestic, Social, and Political Bridge to All Religions search Evolution of ReligionTheGreatWhiteBuffalo 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in Wikipedia!
As I noted the first time I removed it, please see the page Talk:Icons of Evolution for dicussion of the edit you have made. Thanks! Jokestress 00:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This is not going to be easy is it? TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Also could you send me back the original article that I wrote, I'm rather tired and I need to get ready for work tomorrow, I'll check back in on this issue tomorrow, maybe the founder will be able to straighten out what seems to me to be a great addition to Wikipedia. As I said before, I am a quick study and have been saving some of my more recent contributions.

 * Actually, it is very easy. Wikipedia has a number of established protocols to which you will need to adhere in order to participate. They are very simple to follow. Once you have reviewed Wikipedia policies on No Original Research and the other policies linked on that page, I think you will understand why your edits are being revised. We hope you will participate, but you will need to follow established policies in order to have your edits accepted.

 * No revisions are ever lost. If you ever want to see an edit you made, they are kept in the history section for each article. Simply click the history tab at the top, and you can see all changes ever made to the artcle, and you can even compare the differences. Jokestress 03:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Not if the article was deleted, sorry I've spent some time looking and trying to retrieve what I wrote and to see if any changes or comments were made about my work. This although original certainly is old science just put into a new light.

Evolution of Religion
Sorry, but it's not an encyclopedia article; it's well into the category of original research/personal essay, neither of which wikipedia allows. Feel free to put forward your ideas in various forums, but not this one. -R. fiend 04:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I do believe that the article that I wrote was an encyclopedia article, the one that you deleted. It reffered to my works and therefore, establishes the proper crossover between the two ideas that have yet to be joined. The bridge between the function of Religion and the Physical Sciences the allow us to understand our world and universe. Most scientists discount the idea of something greater outside of nothing, while most people have an inate sense that there is more to life than just live up to 100 years and die. Some people see the Earth as a living Spirit, and maybe even the Universe is also. For all we know? That could be reality. If it is, we could be in for a long and bumpy ride, as we are the cancer to our host. I believe we should all get along together, if we can. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi! Wikipedia isn't really the place for personal essays ("my works") or new ideas ("that have yet to be joined"); they explicitly qualify as Original Research. Perhaps you should consider creating a website for this? When it reaches national or international attention, has a few books written about it, or appears in significant magazines or journals, it goes in Wikipedia; that's the measure of whether it's an encyclopedic article or not, and this is not. Z iggurat  01:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

IF RELIGION DOESN'T EVOLVE???
How would you fix the problems in our world? Shall we allow things to progress as they have for the past several thousands of years? We keep repeating the same cycles, bigotry and bias, have caused some to feel they are above others or more blessed. First consider the hypothesis, an infinite universe could never be created. All matter and energy that exists is also infinite, and is in constant flux. The universe is GOD, or the fabric of the universe, the 'ether' is GOD. All matter is composed of GOD and that puts GOD in everything. GOD is the dust of the universe as well as the universe it self. GOD is in ALL living.

Or for those that would rather believe that there is no god. Then for them GOD does not exist.

Do you need a Church building to worship GOD? What of all of the money spent on Church buildings could that money help the poor? Could the poor use large buildings for shelter? Could the Churches be put to a better use? The new Church would become the Earth, and as you have your being on this planet you would be responsible for your own actions. You should want to please GOD, or yourself. You become accountable to you and society. An innocent man should never be found guilty because of perjury, or false reports. Wrongs should be corrected.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Public Radio Talent Quest, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.10.60 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Right
I checked our your annonymous profile, there is no talk page, you just flexed your muscle to remove my entry like the bully you are. I'm just not smart enough to create a good entry for the intellectuals that wish to control and lord over us poor people trying to contribute to our growing world community. To read more follow this URL: http://communati.com/main/wikipedia of course I'm upset that my entry was deleted. Was I advertising? No I simply provided the information about the contest and a link for people to find out more. What more needed to be done?

Not providing a chance to put forth a rebuttle certainly takes away any chance for your offensive behavior to be defended against. Only cowards do things anonymously you're worse than a liar! TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 23:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Thanks Bfigura
The talk page that is in question is not the one to reinstate the article, I had no idea that there was a link to do that and after making the above comment found it and followed through, it was more of a hidden link and obscure. So here I am miffed and late, but hey, I'll still defend the article as an article and not spam. What really upset me was when I followed the link or address and if you try it you'll find that the last sentence requests me to go to their talk page which I'm assuming is located at their IP address, "Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.10.60 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)" where else would I find their talk page? The address doesn't exist, the person making the judgement might not even be a participant, who knows? That is real frustrating, and if you follow my http://communati.com/main/wikipedia link you'll see that I'm not alone in this observation. Knowing this brings down the participation at Wikipedia and prevents valuable information from being included in the site. The question to our community is do we want information or do we not?

It seems that only a certain type of person is permitted to make entries, and instead of helping to make the entries good they just get deleted and that is the easy way out. We need to work together.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting things. But what it sounds like to me is that someone flagged your page for speedy deletion, and since you didn't know any better, you didn't contest it on the talk page because it said the talk page didn't exist. (Which it didn't, because pages don't exist until someone types something onto them -- kinda counter-intuitive, but it's the way Wikipedia is set up). -- B figura (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope I didn't know about how to stop the speedy deletion but that obviously wasn't the real problem of why I am so frustrated. You Missed What I was trying to convey as the real source of my frustration. When I first found out that my entry was deleted and not knowing there was another link, I thought that the last line left for me; to contest, talk about, or talk out this problem was the link that I needed to follow. So once again allow me to post that last line and source of my frustration, ,"Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 172.131.10.60 23:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)" I went and clicked on the IP address to go to the person's talk page to see if the deletion could be stopped or how I could re-write the article in a better format to be more acceptable. But to my surprise, the IP address leads to a dead end, NO USER exists... How do you contact a non-existant user? Now that is really frustrating! How do you fix anything if you can't communicate? Get it now?TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

However, all of that said, the reason the page was deleted was because someone thought it was spam, as defined here. Yes, And who is the someone and how do I get in contact with a non-existant user? How can a non-existant user define anything as spam?TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * So how do you avoid getting something marked as spam? First, make sure the subject of the article meets the notability criteria. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, only notable articles are allowed. Second, make sure it's verifiable, as defined  here. If the article meets both criteria, and is written in a neutral tone that avoids conflicts of interest, it'll stay. All that said, it's a kind of a bad idea to write an article about something you're personally involved in. (Ie, if I write my own biography, I'll be biased, which makes for a bad article -- see WP:AUTOBIO. Hope all that helps, and isn't too discouraging. Best, -- B figura  (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned with people deleting material by marking it as spam just to remove entries created in order to punish or violate another person. I understand that trolls exist and it is a shame that good content can be excluded because of the bias or prejudice of an unknown user. Do you understand the problem and do you see the danger in allowing; non-existant, secret, or anonymous users the right to delete or change content tracking such changes might be possible for the administrators but it just isn't worth it to me, if you read through my post at my link that I provided you'll find that the entry wasn't all that important to me, but what is important to me is the fact that an anonymous user was allowed to remove that entry and then get away with out explaining their position. I feel like I've just had something stolen from me, as though I was violated. You wouldn't like to feel that way, and you could probably do something to stop it from happening. And don't tell me that if I don't like it I don't have to participate, I want to be a contributing member, not participating isn't the answer that gives the bullies exactly what they want. Let's work together on making a better world community... TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry that you don't like the idea of other users reviewing pages, but I should point out that this is the way Wikipedia works. Anyone can nominate any page for deletion, so long as they have a good reason for doing so (see deletion policy).  And none of this is actually secret or anonymous. If you click on the history of a page, you can see who made what changes, and when. And if a page has been deleted, you can check the  deletion logs to see who deleted it, and why. Now in your case, the page was flagged for deletion by an ip-editor, then deleted by an admin (see | this page]. That admin found it to be advertising, and removed the article. If you feel that this was unjust, you can take it to  deletion review, and ask that it be undeleted.
 * And as far as people making deletions for poor reasons, or out of hate: don't sweat it too much. There's enough people watching pages flagged for deletion that if someone does nominate pages in bad faith, they get caught and banned from wikipedia pretty quickly (ex. of watchers: these guys).  I hope that helps, if not let me know, or just reply below me (I'll keep an eye on this page for changes). Best, -- B figura  (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with others reviewing pages, but I do wish that the IP editor was accessible as they claimed they would be by leaving me the note to contact them about this issue. If 'you' (the IP editor) are honestly identifying an article for deletion 'you' don't just disappear into thin air, that is why I question the integrity of the IP editor, that person (the IP editor) became non-existant putting a cloud over the whole process. How can we trust the integrity of this community? What motivates participation and support to an organization that is so secretive and suspicious in their administration? If you want people to support Wikipedia you need to offer a service so that contributions can be made. Creating a user friendly environment is what all good growing service minded companies should be doing. I'm not trying to give away free advertising, I'm just putting forth the information.

Yes,I found the link tonight by accident to re-instate my article, I hope that will be sufficient to get the deletion review to take another look at the entry and reconsider. Thank you for the conversation and the advice. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 00:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

 * No problem. Best of luck. (I should point out that you can create/leave a note on an ip-editor's talk page, there's just no guarantee the person will read it. But if they are a persistent vandal, then something will get done, sooner or later). -- B figura (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Public Radio Talent Quest
Per your request on my userpage, I've undeleted Talk:Public Radio Talent Quest and tagged it to delay for at least 5 days. The Criteria for speedy deletion recognizes that talk pages without associated articles are generally speedily deletable. My deletion was without any bearing related to the deletion of the article (that I did not delete). Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk  03:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. A discussion on a talk page of a deleted article is generally not an effective means of having it restored. Better methods would be to contact the deleting admin directly (perhaps asking if they would consider listing on WP:AFD instead) or bringing it up at Deletion Review.  Thanks, —  xaosflux  Talk  03:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You :) TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note, this page was deleted again, as a talk page without an article by . — xaosflux  Talk  16:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Arrrgggghhhhh! If it quacks like a duck it just might be a duck? How do I talk about something that doesn't exist, and if I missed my mark this deletion should be restored. Thanks Xaosflux TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 03:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Public Radio Talent Quest
Hello GWB. I did delete the page and yes I did feel that it read like spam, albeit not the worst I've seen around here. Nevertheless, you have to calm down. What's this nonsense about feeling violated by the deletion? It was a two-line article providing no content besides an external link, it was not categorized and it was orphaned which means that in all likelihood nobody ever even read the article before Alaibot tagged it as uncategorized. The article was not deleted because someone is trying to "punish you for participating in Wikipedia" and this is not part of some great conspiracy. I see you also took it extremely personally when the article Evolution of Religion was deleted a while back but that won't get you anywhere. You can take the whole thing to deletion review but the deletion was appropriate. Pascal.Tesson 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Pascal.Tesson Yes, the deletions of my entries are concerning to me as you have noticed, and this one was orphaned as I was hoping that of the 1,450+ participants in the contest at least one other or a few would take interest or enough interest in their contest to augment the article with the needed information to complete the entry. No I didn't create the article for advertising but as I've stated all along it is simply a statement of fact. The contest is currently running the contest exists and a number of people participated. My own reason for dropping participation has to do with the fact that I've seen some rather blatant abuses to interfere with participants. So my desire to nurture and watch this entry was lost as a result of what I viewed as corruption in their system. What I never expected was to see the entry deleted as I tried to be very careful in how I created the entry to keep it to just the facts, neutral and succinct. The entry was the beginning of a larger article that would follow when all of the results are finalized. Again, I was really hoping that others would join in adding content and I was watching for community participation. So yes, I was and am disappointed that the article has been speedily deleted and I am willing to defend the inclusion of the entry even though I feel personally attached to the entry as the creator of the entry, I certainly would welcome others to add and coach people in how to make a better and more complete entry. TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, you can take it to deletion review. But you're going to have to tone down the victimization act. You are not being persecuted: take it to deletion review, make a sound argument that the article should be restored and trust that the Wikipedia community can make the right decision on whether or not to undelete that entry. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really glad that you didn't see my tone as offensive when you went back to your talk page, and I thank you for your reply below... :) Sometimes the tone you apply is really a tone in your own mind, but you know that already don't you? ;) I meant to mention that before, I was certainly hoping you would consider the written material in a different light. Peace TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi again GWB. I understand that you're upset about the page being deleted, but having read the posts in question, Pascal is right: your tone isn't really appropriate. It won't help anything, and will only probably make this worse. It would be much more productive to take a sounds case to Deleteion Review. (Or, if you're interested, I'd be happy to help you put together a new article that would be more likely to not get deleted). Best,  -- B figura  (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Bfigura, :) I would like your help and would greatly appreciate a few pointers, my time is limited tonight and if the page is available and we can coroborate on this over the next couple of days I would love to try to fix the entry and make it right. Thank you for that offer, and any advice or direction that you can point me in would be greatly appreciated. :) TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Just leave a note on my talk page if you want help. But if you'd like to work on a draft, you can create a page in your userspace (which is generally safe from deletion unless you're being offensive or something), by adding a slash after your username, and typing a title. Like so: User:TheGreatWhiteBuffalo/Draft. -- B figura (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You Bfigura, Thank you very much :) That will be very helpful, and hopefully we will grow a global community together.TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your thoughts on philosophy. However, I don't quite understand what the value of the planet or the value of money has to do with the deletion of a two-line article about some obscure radio contest which you happen to participate in. As I have already told you twice and as Bfigura has also told you, you can submit the article to deletion review. Pascal.Tesson 04:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! Professor you are fast and you beat me to my reply here ;) Actually I'm not at all inspired to take it to the deletion team I would rather work with someone to tweak the bugs out of that entry and learn to make a better entry that I might do another that I have in mind. What I don't want is to have every entry I make, deleted. I'd rather learn how to do it right. :)
 * P.S. The value of the Earth is directly related to the number of poor that will sleep tonight hungry and with out a home. Some deservedly so and others are victims that need a hand up. From there we can work on the issue of war, but that would be a much longer discussion than I have time to type tonight. ;) TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS, Those questions are related to a discussion I was having with another person from Texas, he was posting stuff about the American GDP and according to the numbers that he offered the total GDP would be around $1,437(trillion) I doubt the entire globe has a GDP of that much in fact the worth of the world might not even reach that value, but I'm not really sure where to begin to make an accurate calculation. That would be nearly 1.5 Quadrillion dollars wouldn't it?TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 04:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've copied the contents here. What you need to do is make sure that
 * a) the content is properly sourced
 * b) the article is categorized appropriately
 * c) the article demonstrates sufficient notability.
 * If that can be done, then I'm certainly open to recreating the article. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank You Pascal.Tesson, Thank you very much :)TheGreatWhiteBuffalo 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheGreatWhiteBuffalo


text:
Tumsisiro

Tumsisiro is community located near Saratamata on east Ambae Island, Vanuatu and is the headquarters of the Southern Region of the Melanesian Brotherhood, an Anglican religious community.

History
As regional headquarters, Tumsisiro is home to the offices of the Regional Head Brother, the Section Elder Brother, and the Elder Brother. Tumsisro is also home to a Novitiate for the Melanesian Brotherhood, with novices from both Banks and Torres and the rest of Vanuatu coming here for training.

Tumsisiro is located near a coral beach, and facilities include novice classrooms, a small shop, and a bakery. It has a limited supply of running water, a telephone, and electricity during the first part of the evening.

The centre of the community's life is the Saint Mark's Chapel, and Saint Simon and Saint Jude Square. The Eucharist (Mass) and Offices from the Book of Common Prayer and the Brothers' Office book are offered daily.

Tumisiro is the site of one of the largest Sunday Schools in Vanuatu, with children of every denomination coming for instruction. Important days are Saint Mark's Day (25 April), Ini Kopuria Day (6 June), and Saint Simon and Saint Jude Day (28 October).

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

title: Tumsisiro


text:
William H. Stayton

William H. Stayton (1861-1953) was an attorney and former US Navy officer who founded the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment in 1918 and served as chairman of its board of directors.

Stayton and the Association played an important role in bringing about the repeal of prohibition in the U.S. (1933).

Stayton authored the Naval Militiaman's Handbook (1895).

title: William H. Stayton


text:
Pavillon Suisse

The Fondation Suisse or Pavillon Le Corbusier is a building designed by Le Corbusier between 1930–31 and is located at the Cité Internationale Universitaire, in Paris.

Description
The building was designed to house the Swiss students at the Cité Internationale Universitaire in Paris. It consists of a single story part and a four-story slab building on piloti. The pavilion summarises Corbusier's key ideas from the 1920s.

Construction
The construction of this Pavilion was entrusted, without a competition, by the Committee of Swiss Universities to Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret who at first refused to be charged with this commission. The manner in which their cause was handled by the Swiss federal authorities and the majority of Swiss public opinion at the time of the League of Nations Competition still lay heavy on their hearts. Nevertheless, at the insistence of the Swiss universities, they threw themselves into the work and built the pavilion with a budget reputed by the president of the Cité Universitaire to be only half-sufficient (3,000,000.00 fr.)

The construction of the building, under exceptionally difficult circumstances, provided the occasion for constituting a veritable laboratory of modern architecture: the most urgent were tackled, in particular, dry-wall construction and acoustic separation.

title: Pavillon Suisse


text:
User talk:Xozdude

Yo! It xozdude here!!! So cool! I want us to have one of those father-son moments, you know on TV, where we hug and the music goes "la-la-la" (La la la) Thanks boys just like that. -Peter Griffin

title: User talk:Xozdude


text:
Novye Cheryomushki (Moscow Metro)

Novye Cheryomushki (Новые Черёмушки. English: New Cheryomushki) is a train station on the Kaluzhsko-Rizhskaya Line of the Moscow Metro. It was opened as the final segment of the Kaluzhskiy radius on 13 October 1962, and served as a terminus for two years.

Design
Novye Cheryomushki was built to the standard column tri-span design and features pillars faced with pinkish marble and tiled walls accented with two horizontal stripes of reddish-brown tile. The architects were M. Markovskiy and A. Ryzhkov.

The entrances to the station are located on Profsoyuznaya Street at its intersection with Garibaldi Street.

Traffic
The station has a daily passenger traffic of 52,800 people.

title: Novye Cheryomushki (Moscow Metro)


text:
Neural binding

Neural binding is the neuroscientific aspect of what is commonly known as the binding problem: the interdisciplinary difficulty of creating a comprehensive and verifiable model for the unity of consciousness. "Binding" refers to the integration of highly diverse neural information in the forming of one's cohesive experience. The neural binding hypothesis states that neural signals are paired through synchronized oscillations of neuronal activity that combine and recombine to allow for a wide variety of responses to context-dependent stimuli. These dynamic neural networks are thought to account for the flexibility and nuanced response of the brain to various situations. The coupling of these networks is transient, on the order of milliseconds, and allows for rapid activity.

A viable mechanism for this phenomenon must address (1) the difficulties of reconciling the global nature of the participating (exogenous) signals and their relevant (endogenous) associations, (2) the interface between lower perceptual processes and higher cognitive processes, (3) the identification of signals (sometimes referred to as “tagging”) as they are processed and routed throughout the brain, and (4) the emergence of a unity of consciousness.

Proposed adaptive functions of neural binding have included the avoidance of hallucinatory phenomena generated by endogenous patterns alone as well as the avoidance of behavior driven by involuntary action alone.

There are several difficulties that must be addressed in this model. First, it must provide a mechanism for the integration of signals across different brain regions (both cortical and subcortical). It must also be able to explain the simultaneous processing of unrelated signals that are held separate from one another and integrated signals that must be viewed as a whole.

Interdisciplinary correlates
The study of the binding problem in neuroscience stems from the much older psychological study of the binding phenomenon, which has its roots in the ancient philosophical study of the same problems. Today, there is a close interplay between neuroscience and psychology, which is especially relevant to neural binding.

Gestalt psychology and correlating critiques
Gestalt psychology is a field that has been intertwined with neural binding due to its advances in conceptualizing how the brain views objects, reacts to stimuli, and then reacts on a global level. Since Gestalt Psychology has become so involved, “grouping” has become an important part of understanding neural binding. The scientists that supported this theory were solely focused on the idea that mechanisms in the brain operated preattentively.

"Grouping" has become especially important for neural binding due to studies in gamma wave activity in the brain. From single-unit recording scientists have been able to measure the oscillatory neuronal activity and have been able to better their understanding of the grouping or pairing of neurons. Thus, these pairings connect with Gestalt psychology and its theory that objects are seen independently of their separate pieces, in a more global manner. A study done by Gray, Konig, Engel and Singer in 1989 reported that when studying visual cortex cells, light moving in opposite directions had low relation to one another. Yet when the light rays were then pointed in the same direction, the correlative relationship was stronger. A paper addressing this idea states, "Thus, correlated activity was only obtained when cells responded to different aspects of the same 'Gestalt'". Other studies using EEGs from the human scalp also examined gamma wave activity, showing how stimuli seemed to be in accordance with preattentive binding.

To contrast this, another group of scientists (Treisman & Gelade) believed that the mechanisms did not work preattentively. They postulated that in order to make correct bindings there had to be attention. Hence, they called their theory "attentional binding." The idea of attentional binding is that, as someone places their attention on an object with multiple features, they develop over time a coherent representation of that object and the characteristics that it holds. These characteristics, after being processed through attention, can be stored in short-term memory or as episodic memories.

One more contrast to Gestalt psychological emphasis in neural binding was brought up by L. Chen. Chen asserts that the local-global idea of Gestalt does not suffice in explaining neural processing. Instead, Chen uses the idea that perception depends on "topological invariants that describe the geometrical potentiality of the entire stimulus configuration". The idea here is that looking at a certain object creates a stimulus which in turn fires a constellation of that object, and then the object becomes recognized.

The rebuttal to Chen's idea is that since each object has its own constellation, as well as its own particular set of neurons, there would not be enough space in the brain for all the appropriate neuronal pathways. This ratio of 1:1 simply could not support the many complex mechanisms of the human brain.

Later, more writings were produced regarding preattentive binding. Although they did not focus as much on Gestalt psychology, they were important to the idea of the preattentiveness of the brain. One such addition onto this theory was put out by Duncan and Humphreys. They said that some types of features, when trying to form the image, compete against one another for "the limited capacity object recognition stage". This means that certain parts of an object have multiple ways of being featured by the brain. Each different type of feature then competes with the others, trying to become the feature that is displayed to the individual. This can then account for the understanding of how each person views a whole object differently than another person. They also then see its global function on a very different scale.

This idea of differential grouping is also brought up by Aksentijevic, Elliott, and Barber. Their theory is based on different perceptions of geometrical space that can then supply a "starting point for a systematic exploration of the subjective properties of certain classes of visual and auditory grouping phenomena, such as apparent motion, grouping within static two-dimensional displays and auditory streaming." This idea shows how different people perceive geometrical space, which can lead to different auditory and visual streams.

Temporal
The Temporal Binding Hypothesis has a history in neuroscience which spans back to at least the early 1980s. Christoph Von der Malsburg proposed that neurons carry two distinct signals, one of conventional rate code in relation to the ‘effectiveness’ of the feature it is encoding and another which is conveyed in terms of spike coordination between assemblies of neurons. A decade later Francis Crick & Christof Koch developed the model further by explaining the synchronization of distant neurons by transient gamma wave oscillations being guided by attention. By 1995, Francisco Varela had established the importance of the role of the oscillatory phase in the pairing of neuron assemblies.

The Temporal Binding Hypothesis was first proposed as a way of addressing the combinatorial problem of neural binding, which emphasizes the impossibly large number of connections that would have to be made between neurons of overlapping function and association in order to achieve the degree of observable complexity in neural binding. Modern models that are currently being developed often retain the structure of temporal synchrony due to this significant advantage as well as the strong experimental support for the existence of global brain oscillations.

Gamma band activity
It has been widely observed that distributed collections of neurons oscillate within the gamma band of frequencies (typically between 30–80 Hz)..

Phasic pairing mechanisms
Varela’s model describes the selection of cellular assemblies, sometimes referred to as resonant or reverberating (Lorente de Nó) circuits, as being integrated into a larger ensemble by transient spike phase locking. This addresses the explanatory difficulty of the simultaneous nature of binding because it allows many signals to be in transit in parallel within an overlapping frequency range without interference.

Criticism
The temporal binding models have been criticized by some for being unwarranted in their far-reaching speculative nature. This claim is usually made in favor of a more classical model of neural function.

Quantum models
Some more recent models have incorporated quantum theory as a component of the underlying neural dynamics behind binding due to the strong explanatory power of quantum mechanics and their claim of the insufficiency of current models for explaining the complexity of the binding mechanism.

In 2001, da Rocha developed a model which utilized the basic structure of the Temporal Binding Hypothesis, with global phase synchronization being a primary mechanism of distributing information, but emphasized the importance of a quantum computation performed on a local level. His model depicts the NMDA receptor as the coincidence detector proposed in other theories. This is a physiological mechanism which has been criticized for being absent from a full theory of temporal binding previously.

Catecholaminergic Neuron Electron Transport (CNET)
A neural signaling mechanism in certain catecholaminergic neurons has been hypothesized that uses quantum mechanical electron transport (Catecholaminergic Neuron Electron Transport, or CNET). The hypothesis is based in part on the observation by many independent researchers that electron tunneling occurs in ferritin (an iron storage protein that is prevalent in those neurons) at room temperature and ambient conditions. The function of this mechanism would be to assist in action selection, but the mechanism itself would be capable of integrating millions of cognitive and sensory neural signals, using a physical mechanism associated with strong electron-electron interactions. The hypothesis predicted a number of physical properties of these neurons that have been subsequently observed experimentally, such as electron tunneling in substantia nigra pars compacta (SNc) tissue and the presence of disordered arrays of ferritin in SNc tissue. The hypothesis also predicted that disordered ferritin arrays like those found in SNc tissue should be capable of supporting long-range electron transport and providing a switching or routing function, both of which have been subsequently observed.

CNET also predicted that the largest SNc neurons should mediate action selection. This prediction was contrary to earlier proposals about the function of those neurons that were based on predictive reward dopamine signaling. However, a team led by Dr. Pascal Kaiser of Harvard Medical School subsequently demonstrated that those neurons code movement, consistent with the earlier predictions of CNET. While the CNET mechanism has not yet been directly observed, it may be possible to do so using quantum dot fluorophores tagged to ferritin or other analytical techniques for detecting electron tunneling.

Non-synchronous models
Many non-temporal theories attempt to retain a more classical conception of neuron signaling based on hierarchical structures. This relies on the convergence of signals upon specific neural circuits as well as the dynamic routing of signaling pathways through specialized computational sub-assemblies.

These models can be vulnerable to the combinatorial and connectivity problems, which come as a natural consequence of depending solely on one-to-one communication of conventional information via spike rate coding. These models also require the seamless directing and combining of signals, which either assumes a controller (proposed to be the pulvinar nuclei ) or a mechanism for the spontaneous self-assembly of neural ensembles.

Sensory
Much of the experimental evidence for neural binding has traditionally revolved around sensory awareness. Sensory awareness is accomplished by integrating things together by cognitively perceiving them and then segmenting them so that, in total, there is an image created. Since there can be an infinite number of possibilities in the perception of an object, this has been a unique area of study. The way the brain then collectively pieces certain things together via networking is important not only in the global way of perceiving but also in segmentation. Much of sensory awareness has to do with the taking of a single piece of an object's makeup and then binding its total characteristics so that the brain perceives the object in its final form. Much of the research for the understanding of segmentation and how the brain perceives an object has been done by studying cats. A major finding of this research has to do with the understanding of gamma waves oscillating at 40 Hz. The information was extracted from a study using the cat visual cortex. It was shown that the cortical neurons responded differently to spatially different objects. These firings of neurons ranged from 40–60 Hz in measure and when observed showed that they fired synchronously when observing different parts of the object. Such coherent responses point to the fact that the brain is doing a kind of coding where it is piecing certain neurons together in the works of making the form of an object. Since the brain is putting these segmented pieces together unsupervised, a significant consonance is found with many philosophers (like Sigmund Freud) who theorize an underlying subconscious that helps to form every aspect of our conscious thought processes.

In order for these multiple firings from multiple areas to be combined into a specific extrinsic event, there must be help from the dorsal thalamus. It is not proven whether the dorsal thalamus is the primary organizer, but it does fit the specific profile for collecting neuronal activity and rapidly coordinating between what is happening in the brain and outside of it. The space in and around the dorsal thalamus, the thalomocortical area, is able to generate fast voltage-dependent membrane potential oscillations which allow it to react quickly to received messages. The types of channels that cover this area are presumed to be GABAergic. Since sensory awareness needs to be quick, the threshold for sodium and potassium in this area is quite low.

Cognitive
Francis Crick and Christof Koch proposed that specific neural activity can stimulate short-term memory, forming a continuous and dynamic consciousness.

Cognitive binding is associated with the different states of human consciousness. Two of the most studied states of consciousness are the wakefulness and REM sleep. There have been multiple studies showing, electrophysiologically, that these two states are quite similar in nature. This has led some neural binding theorists to study the modes of cognitive awareness in each state. Certain observations have even led these scientists to hypothesize that since there is little cognition going on during REM sleep, the increased thalamocortical responses show the action of processing in the waking preconscious. The thalamus and cortex are important anatomical features in cognitive and sensory awareness. The understanding of how these neurons fire and relate to one other in each of these states (REM and Waking) is paramount to understanding awareness and its relation to neural binding. In the waking state, neuronal activity in animals is subject to changes based on the current environment. Changes in environment act as a form of stress on the brain so that when sensory neurons are then fired synchronously, they acclimate to the new state. This new state can then be moved to the hippocampus where it can be stored for later use. In the words of James Newman and Anthony A. Grace in their article, "Binding Across Time" this idea is put forth: "The hippocampus is the primary recipient of inferotemporal outputs and is known to be the substrate for the consolidation of working memories to long term, episodic memories." The logging of "episodes" is then used for "streaming", which can mediate by the selective gating of certain information reentering sensory awareness. Streaming and building of episodic memories would not be possible if neural binding did not unconsciously connect the two synchronous oscillations. The pairing of these oscillations can then help input the correct sensory material. If these paired oscillations are not new, then cognitively these firings will be easily understood. If there are new firings, the brain will have to acclimate to the new understanding. In REM sleep, the only extreme difference from the waking state is that the brain does not have the actual waking amount of sensory firings, so cognitively, there is not as much awareness here, although the activity of the "brain’s eye" is still quite significant and very similar to the waking state. Studies have shown that during sleep there are still 40 Hz Oscillation firings. These firings are due to the perceived stimuli happening in dreams. "

Learning/memory
Opitz argues that the binding of different brain areas is mediated by the hippocampus. Relational bindings, or relationships between separate objects, concepts, and memories, are very flexible because the targets can be combined in so many different ways to deal with the present situation, and the hippocampus ensures that these parts are arranged into a coherent whole. Particularly, the hippocampus has been implicated in binding that is involved with episodic memory, working memory, and language acquisition. According to Opitz, this is viable because the hippocampus meets all criteria to be suitable for the regulation relational binding and, based on its patterns of activity, it is likely that it is involved.

Autism
Several researchers have suggested a clinical link between difficulties in neural binding and autism spectrum disorders. It has been postulated that there is a level of underconnectivity between certain areas of the autistic brain, specifically those areas that involve social cognition. They also hypothesize that there may be overconnectivity within certain neuronal cell assemblies. Researchers have suggested that these issues with coherence of neural networks give rise to the hallmark autistic symptoms, namely, impaired social cognition/interactions and repetitive behaviors.

There is one major piece of evidence suggesting that abnormal connectivity occurs in autism. Autistic brains are known to develop very rapidly early in life, and this could cause problems in the development of cortical connections. It has been suggested that this early overdevelopment may be a cause for the impaired connectivity in autism. Diffusion tensor imaging studies of autistic brains are consistent with this idea, as they show reduced myelination (see:Myelin) in the areas of the brain that deal with social cognition and theory of mind, or one’s ability to comprehend what another person may be thinking. This provides further evidence for underconnectivity of the autistic brain.

Schizophrenia
It is also possible that problems with binding give way to the fractured mental state that is characteristic of schizophrenia. Schizophrenic patients experience a “disintegration of consciousness” which involves hallucinations, delusions, and generally disordered thinking. It is hypothesized that this mental disorganization is caused by underlying neural disorganization due to disordered binding, which is then further complicated by the occurrence of complex mental processes in this disordered state. This can essentially be viewed as a pathological rise in the neural complexity of the brain. The dissociative symptoms and disorganized speech associated with schizophrenia are consistent with this idea. It is also possible that disordered binding between the regulatory mechanisms of the brain gives rise to a lack of synchronized activation of its neural networks.

Anesthesia
A deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying consciousness on the biochemical level has practical implications which extend to the development of more effective and reliable anesthetics. This method is especially useful for the study of consciousness because of anesthetic's well-known ability to elicit unconsciousness. This often happens in a single moment, giving the impression of a collapse of conscious coherence. Stuart Hameroff is a notable anesthesiologist who promotes this method in the development of a science of consciousness.

title: Neural binding


text:
Talk:Red-shouldered macaw

Untitled
I skimmed the wikification guide, and still don't know what I need to do to wikify this page. I'd appreciate it if someone could point me to the appropriate information. Thanks. Evenprime 00:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks pretty good to me, but I just found Wiki and started my first bird page. Psittacini (I used to have a Jardine's) I put the links and pic up first, and now will start writing. I will add to your fine page, as I now have a Noble. You can see him here. Emmy You might post to the parrot or bird talk page, where you'll get a lot more input than here. You have a cute Hahn's too. TheBirdMan 11:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The only difference that is not mentioned is that a Noble Macaw and a Hahn's Macaw are not the same bird. Noble Macaws are diopsittica nobilis cumanesis, and Hahn's are dopsittica nobilis nobilis. They come from slightly different regions.

Noble Macaws have slightly longer bodies, wings and heads. Their beaks are horn coloured. The Hahn's have a smaller facial patch too and dark grey beaks. Otherwise, it's really nice to see an article about these guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babetteq (talk • contribs) 15:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Red-shouldered macaw


text:
Talk:List of minor Hebrew Bible figures, A–K

AfD results
An article regarding a minor Biblical figure from which this was moved was nominated for deletion. The result was no consensus, but a significant number of voters approved of preserving this information as part of a list. For details, please see Articles for deletion/Uel. BD2412 talk 00:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Note also, this article contains content originally from Adina (Biblical name), contributed by User:FurciferRNB, (which was deleted per Articles for deletion/Adina (Biblical name). bd2412  T 22:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why this article should be kept
I just de-prodded this article, which had been listed with the note, "list short, incomplete, and will never be complete or useful. all four entrants are profoundly nn". I'm going to state my case right now as to why this assessment is incorrect. First, the names on this page were directed here largely through other deletion processes, where they were deemed insufficient to stand on their own as articles (with which I agree). However, it is incorrect to say that the entrants are completely lacking in notability, for the sole reason that they are named in the Bible. Furthermore, for exactly this reason it is incorrect to say that the list will never be complete - there are a finite number of persons named in the Bible for whom individual articles would be inappropriate. Some are more notable than the four listed at this point. But there is a distinct and definitive endpoint to this article. Furthermore, when it is completed, it will be useful to persons interested in knowing what the Bible has to say about persons named therein who do not get there own article. What else to do with them? bd2412 T 22:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent bit of Reasoning. I intend to help now that I have come across this list and noticed how much work it needs. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good idea. I'll be helping too (though I can't guarantee how much time I can devote).Mitchell Powell (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - all the help we can get is appreciated, and there is definitely an end in sight to this labor. bd2412  T 20:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eastons
If people want to fill out this list, they can go check out Easton's Dictionary topics. Most of the characters left that have not been moved into wikipedia are non-notable and shouldn't get articles, but can be put on this list. They are usually 1-3 sentences in length and contain 1-4 biblical references. I merged in all of the people left in the "M" section, and you can see how big it is now. This should give a rough idea of how large this page might be once the merging from Easton's is complete. I will be updating the Easton's page and recommending that name with 1-3 sentences be moved here as a general rule, and redirects created. Danski14 03:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that eventually we'll have to split this into 3-4 pages each covering a different chunk of the alphabet. bd2412  T 04:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Separate page for peoples
Given the length of this page, I'd like to propose keeping this article limited to individual persons, and having a separate article on minor Biblical peoples (that is, groups of people such as the Apharsachites and Apharsites and Girgashites). Does anyone disagree? bd2412 T 18:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objection, I have split out List of minor Biblical tribes. Perhaps not the best name for the page, but I think it should do (but if anyone wants to change it, have at it!). bd2412  T 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a little caution here. I haven't checked but I would still like to state that there isn't much redundancy in tribe and person, as most tribes take the name of a person. Please be sure to keep those on both lists. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * At least the high priest should have an article of their own. I removed Jehoiarib. Mismeret (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unnamed figures
Thoughts on creating a heading for unnamed figures (Noah's wife, Pharaoah's butler and baker for example). Would it be considered non-notable and unnecessary? Donnie Love (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a very good idea. I have made the argument before (and continue to hew to it) that any person who appears in the Bible is inherently notable because they appear in the Bible, one of the foundational books of western civilization. Noah's wife is a classic example of a figure who is actually notable (would possibly even qualify for an independant article on notability grounds) but goes unnamed. A section here would be fine, but I'd even be inclined to say there should be an article on unnamed figures in the Bible, with some discourse on efforts by historians to put a name to some of them based on who they were and other historical evidence. Cheers! bd2412  T 18:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There exists the List of names for the Biblical nameless which uses extra-biblical and non-canonical sources, but of course it doesn't list every unnamed person (such as the baker and butler) and conversely lists people not in the Bible (such as Nimrod's wife). Donnie Love (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblical or Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Tanakh only?
Biblical or Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Old Testament only?

If this is a list of minor figures only from Hebrew Bible (only) it should be reflected in the article name somehow. Even if it is all Hebrew Bible people now it should be more clear to readers and editors. --Carlaude (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be best to keep this only for the Hebrew Bible (with an appropriate page move). The Hebrew Bible content is usually kept separate in any case, and this page will probably eventually be split even with this smaller scope. A new article for the New Testament article (and Apocrypha?) could be useful. --Eliyak T · C 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Bump! moved this article and its companion to the current name. Was it settled that we would only include OT figures here? Because I found quite a few NT figures listed. Is there a companion list of minor NT figures, or are they out in the cold now? Elizium23 (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not recall, but my edit summary says "per actual content". Apparently there were only OT figures in the list. I do not have any objections against splitting or broadening the scope of this list. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Boom, created List of minor New Testament figures so they have a place to live. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I love this Beracah Mudawapi (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Deliaiah or Deliah
Under the heading Deliaiah, the spelling changes to Deliah. Wakablogger (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They are both nice names Beracah Mudawapi (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

time to make articles
Every one of these people probably would merit an article. All names mentioned in the Bible, even the most trivial, have been discussed somewhere in the subsequent commentaries over the approximately 20 to 25 centuries since the text was written. I think the 2005 deletion mentioned a the reason for starting this would not be sustained today. Only question is where to start. Possible with the ancestors of Jesus? DGG (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"All names mentioned in the Bible, even the most trivial, have been discussed somewhere in the subsequent commentaries over the approximately 20 to 25 centuries since the text was written." Show me somewhere where Helev ben Baanah is discussed (Samuel 2 23:29). There are many who aren't significant at all, and many more who could never progress beyond 1 paragraph.68.197.235.178 (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sortable table?
A useful list. Can I suggest that it be presented as a sortable table, or series of tables? This would make it quicker to use.PiCo (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split the list
As this list is growing unwieldy in length, I'd like to propose splitting it into: Objections? bd2412 T 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * List of minor Biblical figures, A-H
 * List of minor Biblical figures, I-N
 * List of minor Biblical figures, O-Z
 * Wouldn't it be wiser on several counts to split into Torah, Neviim, Kethuvim, and New Testament, if I understand correctly? If they are listed in more than one of the above then they're not minor, I would think (with some exception for 1 Chronicles 1-9, I suppose, much of which can be counted with Torah). Can we hold off on merging for at least a couple weeks? I just found this article and would like to look further. JJB 02:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may very well make more sense to split by work, but some people may be looking for a name without knowing which work it is from. Also, in some instances the same name has been used for different characters, some in the older books and some in the newer. bd2412  T 02:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I strongly believe we slit the list between Old and New testaments. LutherVinci (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are a great many OT characters mentioned in the NT; if the OT and NT are split, would the entries be duplicated? A Georgian (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That was my concern also; however, I don't think it is a problem unless there are different biblical figures having the same name across the OT and the NT. If someone appears in the OT and is mentioned in the NT, they didn't really "appear" in the NT, and the OT listing should suffice. bd2412  T 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But if I go to the lists, not knowing if the figure appears first in the NT or the OT, then I might have to check two separate lists. Some of the OT figures do appear in the NT stories, e.g. Moses and Elijah at the ascension A Georgian (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would note, however, that this list is for biblical figures too minor to merit an article of their own. I suspect that most figures significant enough to be mentioned in both the OT and the NT are independently notable enough to have an article, and would therefore not appear here at all. bd2412  T 03:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposals
Hmm, this is a good resource now, but it would be nice to get to Featured List, yes? The first ideas to come to mind are: IMHO these steps really need consideration prior to splitting the article due to a length consideration. (PS I just looked at the length, and it's only 72K! There's really no reason to sweat article length at any stage, and certainly not before 100K. See WP:SIZE passim, particularly "Technical issues" and "No need for haste".) JJB 06:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete every time it appears the line that "X is the name of N individuals in the Bible:". That's really a Strong's holdover and has no need here.
 * Make every name a bullet point, even if only one person holds it.
 * Formalize certain details like relatives, such as cutting each minor person back to one key relative and leaving the rest of the family to that link. Exception would be sourced discussion on why more than one relationship is significant. Also formalize linking of verses, and perhaps Strong's number?
 * Delete all names that have their own article, even if pseudo-disambigs. Make a names-only list of all "major" Biblical figures (if it doesn't exist), meaning, all that have articles; append it to this article in lieu of in-list references. Also use a category as a backup for the list of majors.
 * Use one authority as the standard. Seems to me that the KJV, having been the first exhaustively text-searched, would rise above, and thus that the enumeration of this list would be regarded as complete when it is identical with a list of every capitalized personal name in Strong's. When KJV has two spellings as often, bold them both. Why not Strong's?
 * There is the issue that whether names are identical is really determined better by Hebrew than by English; that may be resolved by making Hebrew the silent criterion, which would be nice; or it may require explicitly stating when the two are different, or it might just go English-only.
 * Other variant spellings, such as Douay, because these are minor characters, would be best IMHO as redirects to the (primary) KJV spelling, or hatnotes if already taken. It is possible that these can also be exhaustively handled via a category that can combine both redirects and disambigs that allows them to be exhaustively compared regularly against this article, and lists of other spellings.
 * Let me address these proposals point by point.
 * I really have no problem with the "X is the name of N individuals in the Bible" lines.
 * No objection to bullet points for names.
 * No objection to trimming back to one or two key relatives, so long as there's some sense of context (i.e., Joe was the eighth of eleven sons of Jim, rather than just Joe was a son of Jim). Totally agree with formalizing links to verses, and including Strong's number.
 * Agree completely with deleting names that have their own article; I also think any name with ten or more people attached to it should be moved out to its own "pseudo-disambig" page.
 * Agree completely with using KJV only as the standard.
 * Better to explicitly state where Hebrew and English differ.
 * No objection to other spellings redirecting to the most common (KJV is fine for that), so long as this is noted in the line for the most common definition.
 * The article is growing, and will keep growing. Splitting now (especially the proposed three-way split) would be proactive, in my opinion.
 * Cheers! bd2412  T 22:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Commentary on Heber
User:Ymsperfect posted the following on the page:

 * (Correction) Heber and Noahs' decendant Eber are, the same person. From one race to another people talked differently. Today we say that person talks with and accent, it is how we can tell that person is from another place other than our own. So therefore, people will spell the name the way it sounds when they sat it-Hebew-Eber-English-Heber-They are one of the same.

I'd like to see some source to back this claim up. It is certainly not clear from the text itself. bd2412 T 05:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
List of minor Biblical figures → List of minor biblical figures — Per Manual of Style (capital letters): "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized." (These pages have redirects that prevented a standard move.) Jeffro 77  (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Enos (Biblical figure) → Enos (biblical figure)
 * Samuel (Biblical figure) → Samuel (biblical figure)
 * Note: the word Biblical should also be changed to biblical in any other article title or body text where it does not occur at the beginning of a sentence or as part of a quotation.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Support per WP:MOSCAPS and WP:TITLE. Move them all. StAnselm (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-minor characters
I hate to sound picky, but I was scrolling through the list when I saw some characters listed under minor biblical figures which I do not feel belong.

Gideon is a long way from being a minor character, seeing as how 3 entire chapters are dedicated to his exploits and he has his own Wikipedia page.

Merib-baal is just an alternate name for Mephibosheth. While many would not consider him a major character, he has his own Wikipedia page and much more is known about him than just genealogy and name.

Mishael is also an alternate spelling, this time of Meshach. These three youths also have their own Wikipedia page and chapter in the biblical text.

It seems like these names need to be removed from this list since they are found elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.173.223.180 (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the following entries, also including the New Testament people such as Joseph, Joshua, Narcissus, Simon Iscariot, Azor, and others Jehoiakimin (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Agee
I got redirected here when I typed in "Agee". I had forgotten the first name of the writer I was looking for, so I was hoping to get to a last name list with James Agee, Joel Agee (the one I was looking for), and any other Agees. Instead I got redirected here, but the name Agee isn't even to be found on this page. It makes no sense to be redirected to some bible list, when the name doesn't even appear on it as biblical figure.--87.174.218.124 (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the situation, both by adding the biblical Agee to this page, and by moving the short surname listing to the existing redirect. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hobab
From the article:

Hobab was Moses' brother-in-law (Numbers 10:29) or father-in-law (Judges 4:11). The relevant part of Numbers 10:29 reads: "And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses' father-in-law". That of Judges 4:11 reads: "Now Heber the Kenite had severed himself from the Kenites, even from the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses".

Is it commonly acknowledged that the quotation from Judges leads to the conclusion hat Hobab is the father-in-law of Moses? In my humble opinion, the qualification 'Moses' father-in-law' could well refer to Hobab. Nijdam (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of some of the Hebrew names
IDangerMouse deleted a bout 20 entries which included Hebrew spelling, but did not explain why. I am leaving it as is pending his explanation. A Georgian (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Compact ToC boxes
When the original page was split, the remaining ToC boxes were not edited to suit. DFH (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitchcock is not a reliable source
Here and there on Wikipedia, people cite Roswell Dwight Hitchcock on the etymologies of biblical names. Hitchcock is completely unreliable. Most of the etymologies he offered aren't found in reference works from his time, nor do they exist later. Outside of the internet, you won't find a serious biblical scholar anywhere in the world who would cite Hitchcock on etymology. He shouldn't be used as a source on Wikipedia.Alephb (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

FactGrid Identifiers
This project (of minor biblical characters) has been extremely helpful over the last two weeks in an attempt to identify biblical personnel in the FactGrid:The Bible & Quran Project.

I was wondering whether the FactGrid project could not be of help in return as it might be the ideal solution to create identifiers for all the people mentioned in the biblical books. Identifies would make it easy to refer to people with various mentionings in the Bible; they can be matched with identifiers of other databases and so on.

FactGrid is a sister project of Wikidata using the Wikidata software as a research tool. I would give accounts to anyone of those who are working on these lists - accounts you could use to set precise and searchable triple statements on the characters you are trying to keep separate. FactGRid data are CCO, that is, you could import the list to Wikidata, whenever you feel it is perfect (we are more of a research incubator for data that allow experiments with properties and statements). --Olaf Simons (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"Old Testament" is not neutral
This page (and the equivalent one for the second half of the alphabet) should be renamed. "Old Testament" is a theological Christian statement about a sacred text used by other religions. This is why it has fallen into disuse in academic Bible studies. (See the SBL Handbook of Style.) The previous term ("Bible" or "biblical") was neutral. To differentiate between minor figures in different parts of Christian scriptures, the list for the New Testament (which is solely a Christian text) could read, e.g., "List of minor figures of the New Testament." Tamar Marvin (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree, I use Hebrew Bible instead. A Georgian (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. The terms are hugely popular, billions of people use and recognise them, and Wiki goes by recognisability - as long as they are not blatantly wrong or completely outdated. Arminden (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To preempt any misunderstanding: I am fully aware of replacement theology, and am on the same page with those trying to combat it, but I'm not at all in agreement with "political correctness" where it overshoots the target and tries to change language and destroy its fiber, its character as an organically evolved tool of communication. A cigar is sometimes just a cigar, and old & new can just mean: A came before B. In religion, btw, being older usually carries more weight. So the arguments can go both ways. As a matter of fact, I only hesitated when I changed the title from OT to HB because of the lesser recognisability of the term, but there I'm firmly convinced that popularisation of a basic fact (OT is a variant of the older HB), known by every half-educated person, but of which millions are still kept unaware by either cultural illiteracy or Church fundamentalism, deserves breaking a lance for. 09:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Arminden (talk)

Hebrew Bible, rather than Old Testament
The HB came looong before the OT; the OT is nothing but one translation of the HB. Fact. Read up if you don't accept: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Septuagint, Biblical canon, etc. With a redirect from the title contatining "OT", all bases are covered, nobody needs to get wound up or upset, and I see little need of rediscussing it. Arminden (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support keeping this at "Hebrew Bible" rather than "Old Testament", for the simple reason that the term "Old Testament" is not NPOV, but rather privileges particular supersessionist Christian claims about Judaism. However, in the interests of strict accuracy, this needs to be understood: the term "Old Testament" is not one translation, but in fact an entire family of translations, with two different sets of source texts - both ultimately rooted in the Tanakh, but one of which goes first into Koine Greek, with the addition of several additional elements not found in the Hebrew. And I know that you, Arminden, know that, because the links you provide lead to important pieces of context. But I feel it's worth being accurate and explicit here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you Genevieve. Sure, but for the sake of brevity I pointed out to the fact that it's based on the LXX. I'm usually accused of lack of conciseness, of going into detail; here I tried the other way, but you can never please everyone :) Arminden (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

My work here is done
My work on this page is enough. I shall wait for another individual to continue and complete this list. Jehoiakimin (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Jobab was Job
Job 42:17 Job predated Moses 2601:194:381:7C0:4C5D:D7EF:A193:5F3C (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"List of minor Nameless Biblical figures
Any such thing in preparation, or removed in the past? If removed: why?

I removed it from the "other uses" tag at the top, no use for a red link (and a misspelled one) up there. Arminden (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You got the name wrong. That list is called List of names for the biblical nameless. Dimadick (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if pride
If I check this wiki Zalahedrin (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Dubious Information Under Abiezer
I believe that some information under Abiezer should be removed.

Firstly, “The prince of the tribe of Dan at the time of the Exodus (Numbers 1:12).”

In the original Hebrew text the name in this verse is Ahiezer (Hebrew אֲחִיעֶ֖זֶר, “my brother is help”) https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.1.12?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+1:12&version=nkjv

Additionally, “The second of the three sons of Hammoleketh, the sister of Gilead, also called Jeezer (Numbers 26:30).” Hebrew text has אִיעֶ֕זֶר, “No help." https://www.sefaria.org/Numbers.26.30?lang=bi&lookup=א%D6%B4יעֶ֕זֶר&with=Lexicon&lang2=en

While Brown Driver Briggs draws the connection between the two names, but literal read of text reflects E'Ezer https://www.sefaria.org/BDB%2C_%D7%90%D6%B2%D7%91%D6%B4%D7%99%D7%A2%D6%B6%D6%AB%D7%96%D6%B6%D7%A8.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

Note that Jewish commentary does not conflate the two names. At the least, the section of Abiezer should reflect the plain reading of the original text. ChappellRoanFan (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Dispute over style in Star Wars articles

Dispute over style in Star Wars articles
Users involved:
 * User:A Link to the Past
 * User:clawson
 * User:Copperchair
 * User:Philwelch
 * User:The Wookieepedian (formerly User:Adamwankenobi)

Involved articles:
 * Star Wars
 * The Phantom Menace
 * Attack of the Clones
 * Revenge of the Sith
 * A New Hope
 * The Empire Strikes Back
 * Return of the Jedi
 * Template:Starwars
 * Template:Expanded Universe

These articles (and possibly others I'm not aware of) are in a near-continuous state of reversion, over a handful of stylistic arguments. There may be more arguments going on I'm not aware of, but the primary ones seem to be a dispute over who should be credited in the cast section (and how it should be ordered and how Denis Lawson should be credited), and which navbox template should be used. (Other revert wars I've spotted include the inclusion/removal of a Wikibooks link and whether or not certain fansite links should be included.)

As part of the disputes, there has been quite a bit of harsh language exchanged (e.g. the entirety of Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back), as well as several users omitting or falsifying edit summaries and numerous 3RR violations.

The RFC currently ongoing against User:Copperchair is also related to this dispute.

(I apologize for any omissions; I'm an outsider to this dispute, and may have missed out on some salient points.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh crap, huge dispute. I'll give this to Uncle Ed, awaiting his acceptance. As an injunction may I suggest you guys refrain from editing those pages over stylistic things?. R  e  dwolf24  (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, Philwelch and I are in dispute over the content of the two templates I added to the list. The Wookieepedian 02:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There's also a silly revert war over whether the line "also known as TPM" should be included in the lead section of The Phantom Menace (and similar lines in other film articles). I would be more involved in these articles but the constant bickering and revert wars have discouraged me from participating, so I've stepped back and been merely observing for the most part over the past month. Star Wars fans can be so fickle... Coffee 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Acceptance by members involved

 * The Wookieepedian 00:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Copperchair 00:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC

Decline
I respectfully decline to be involved in this mediation. As the RfC against Copperchair demonstrates, Copperchair is a continual problem editor and a serious user conduct problem. Put simply, I do not negotiate with trolls. It is useless to mediate with Copperchair when he continually ignores consensus, lies, fabricates edit summaries, and refuses to follow agreements that he makes. I do not have the patience to deal with that kind of user, nor do I have the capacity of self-deception required to pretend that he is a good-faith contributor who I can go into mediation with. Until the user conduct issue is settled, there is no point even discussing content disputes that involve him.

As a show of good faith I will remove myself from the editing disputes under question here for the duration of the mediation—that is, so long as Wookie, Clawson, and Link refrain from participating in these editing disputes as well. Copperchair has already broken the injunction, but that is normal behavior for him and I will not bother to revert it.

— Phil Welch 05:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Addendum: If you want to contact me about this, save me the time and post it on my latest talk archive instead of my talk page, because I'm just going to move it over there without responding anyway. — Phil Welch 05:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Since signing this RfM, Copperchair has done nothing but continue with his old behaviour. I'm therefore withdrawing my support for it. I assumed good faith on his part, but it appears that faith was misplaced. Until Copperchair demonstrates good faith and a little more maturity, I will not be involved in a mediation with him.--chris.lawson 23:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Abandonment
I declare this case dropped. All those involved have pulled out (cept for the wookieepedian and copperchair, but this won't go anywhere with the other three involved not interested) and this is basically just harboring attacks and complaints against Copperchair. If its this serious and you're this passionately against him, file an RfAr. Complaining about him without being willing to enter mediation won't go anywhere otherwise, as the goal of mediation is to get you all happy with eachother. But since you're unwilling, this case is now dropped. R e  dwolf24  (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rollings middle school

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —RaD Man (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Rollings Middle School
This article looks POV and, anyhow, does not meet minimum requirements for an article, I`m all for school articles (look at my vote record) but this doesn`t add much. (imho) therefore delete--Isolani 00:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  Keep schools; regardless of their individual merits, trying to delete them isn't worth the acrimony.  This one's verifiable, in any case. —Cryptic (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, good stub, and per Schools/Arguments. I nonetheless note that there is no consensus that all schools should be kept or deleted. Kappa 19:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Truly not noteworthy. Ifnord 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As to keeping all schools, thus begins the slippery slope of keeping anything that exists. What about every business? What about every church? I'm not a deletionist, I simply believe that only if something is noteworthy do they belong here.
 * When AfD is revised such that keeping anything that exists is the norm, I promise to donate enough money to cover all of the extra disk-space, processing power and bandwidth that having a couple thousand stubs that are rarely accessed without any dynamic content will take up, as long as all of the wasted disk space, processing power and bandwidth of AfD (accessed all the time, with a massive amount of dynamic content) is sent to a charity of my choice. I have made my check out to the Wikipedia Foundation in the amount of $100, covering the cost of those stubs for ever. You can write your $5,000,000 check to the ACLU, please. Hipocrite - « Talk » 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already a 85%-90% year long precedent to keep all schools. I am sure some deletionist will now come along and point out "oh, but there was no concensus". It doesn't change the fact that there is an overwhelming precedent within the structures of WP policy and VfD/AfD. It is time to accept the existence of school articles and move on to focusing deletionism against Pokemons or something.--Nicodemus75 21:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And yet I vote to Delete.Gateman1997 21:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per schools argument keep. chowells 21:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep useful school article. As for the usual fear that keeping schools leads to keeping "useless" trivial articles, that's false.  If you're worried about useless articles, ask those making them to please stop.  But don't blame school supporters, who are also opposed to useless articles.   --rob 22:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Um last time I checked rob I'm not the one creating useless school articles, just articles on other subjects such as grocery stores that by the school "keep" crowds reasoning also have as much right to exist as school articles.Gateman1997 23:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Um, did you forget about your pre-school or the fake Clovis Oceanview (which seemed rather useless to me). Also, I was specifically referring to the comment "What about every business?" which applies to the grocery store.    --rob 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I made the preschool to prove a point and to set some form of reasonable preceedent. And lo and behold I succeeded. We now delete preschool articles as an unwritten rule. Until my WP:POINT even those were on the verge of all being kept because they "existed". As for Clovis, well I admit that was a fake, but I did it just to annoy the school keep crowd. Dumb I know, but I got a good laugh out of it.Gateman1997 00:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Deliberately putting misinformation into an article is a form of vandalim, It is against policy.  It is a blockable offense.  --rob 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. Gateman1997 01:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So, why did you create the Clovis Oceanview article entirely with misinformation. Then, when you switched it to a real school in Albany, you kept misinformation about the school's construction.  That's vandalism.  --rob 01:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, and it also made you obsessed with me for weeks. Mission accomplished I aquired a fan who highlighted the obsessive elements of the school debate. See you around.Gateman1997 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, now that you've decided to confess to being a vandal, will you also admit you used sockpuppets with the pre-school and Clovis Oceanview hoax (for nominations). I actually find checking into hoaxes interesting.  I took a similiar (but smaler) task with Talk:Katherine Beck.  It's quite interesting.  Also, I enjoyed creating two valid articles about real "Ocean Vew Elementary Schools" (editing the Albany one to be correct, and another one in Virginia).  Nobody gets paid, so we all do this because we enjoy it.  Some enjoy making contributions.  While others enjoy vandalism.  --rob 01:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually I never got around to VFDing the article. Someone else beat me to it. And like you I enjoy contributing as I have all but that one article... I've just gotten tired of this endless debate on schools. It's never going to have a resolution.Gateman1997 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, at the properly capitalized name of course. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Schools/Arguments. All real and verifiable schools are notable enough for a truly great encyclopaedia.  Silensor 23:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per ranking/rating. School articles must be considered on an individual basis. Denni ☯ 03:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea, let's abandon NPOV and build in systemic bias instead. Kappa 04:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, Kappa, sounds good to me. And while we're at it, why don't we create stubs for every grocery store, streetcar, daycare, and garage band in the world, and then decree them all inherently notable so we never need to vote on anything ever again, no matter how patently ridiculous. Denni ☯ 00:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keeping them all without any sort of editorial control is bias too. But reasonable guidelines like the ones at WP:MUSIC, while possibly biased against non-released bands and albums, are providing perfectly valid deletions. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How is keeping all established schools biased? In the case of a band, its imporantance is directly dependent on its popularity, this is not at all the case with a school. Kappa 15:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. "It has been ranked the top five creative schools in the United States and has been rated "excellent" every year by the South Carolina Department of Education." is enough of an notability assertion for me. Stubby, but perfectly valid. I'd like to ask anyone who knows about the school to start expanding as soon as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominating schools is a waste of our time. Hipocrite - « Talk » 15:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "our". It may be a waste of your time, but you make a big assumption in speaking for others. I do not consider it a waste of time at all. Denni ☯ 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, you seem to enjoy punishing us for trying to do the right thing. Kappa 00:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An interesting statement. I do not nominate schools, so how could I be "punishing" you? I, like you, merely come here to vote. And "right thing" is a matter of perspective. I do not feel it is right at all for school afficionados to keep foisting these essentially empty articles on nameless, faceless schools onto Wikipedia. Would you care to rephrase your statement? Denni ☯ 23:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You encourage nominations, and vote to delete when you know there is no consensus to do so. Nominating schools doesn't get them deleted, and takes us further away from any chance of consensus. All it does it force us to come back and repeat the same old arguments for the nth time. Kappa 23:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I encourage nomination of any article which does not meet certain minimum standards of notability and craftsmanship. I do not restrict my attention to school articles. As I have already said, I have not nominated school articles in the past, but the situation is getting quite out of hand. Please see your talk page. Denni ☯ 03:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep please kappa is right it is possible for a school to not be popular but still be notable that actually makes sense Yuckfoo 17:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain show notabliy but barely not enough to keep or delete. --JAranda | watz sup 00:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Marginal keep, article gives some indication of "notability" (shudder) and is hence verifiable; however, it needs cleanup and references. Alphax τεχ 18:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Ramūnas Šiškauskas

Ramūnas Šiškauskas (, born September 10, 1978) is a former Lithuanian professional basketball player and basketball coach. Listed at 1.98m tall, he could play at both the shooting guard and small forward positions. His individual accolades as a player include a EuroLeague MVP award, four All-EuroLeague Team selections, as well as an All-EuroBasket Team designation. On May 16, 2014, Šiškauskas was named a EuroLeague Basketball Legend.

During his playing career, Šiškauskas won two EuroLeague titles, one each with Panathinaikos Athens and CSKA Moscow, in 2007 and 2008, and reached two more EuroLeague Finals with CSKA, in 2009 and 2012. He was a member of the senior Lithuanian national team that won the gold medal at the EuroBasket 2003. As a member of Lithuania's national team, he also won the bronze medal at the 2000 Summer Olympics, and the bronze medal at the EuroBasket 2007.

Lithuania
Šiškauskas made his pro debut with Sakalai in 1996. He played two seasons with the club, averaging 11.3 points, on 60 percent shooting.

In 1998, Šiškauskas signed with Lietuvos Rytas of Vilnius. He played there until the 2003–04 season, and led the team to Lithuanian League titles in 2000 and 2002, and a Northern Europe League title in 2002. In 2002–03, he had his most successful season, averaging 16.4 points, on 68 percent shooting, and 3.4 rebounds.

Italy
Šiškauskas joined Benetton Treviso in 2004. He led them to an Italian League title in 2006, where he was named the Finals MVP, and to an Italian Cup title in 2005. He played in 32 EuroLeague games over two seasons with Benetton, and averaged 12.3 points, on 60 percent shooting.

Greece
In 2006, Šiškauskas signed with Panathinaikos, and he helped them win the EuroLeague in 2007. He averaged 11 points, on 51 percent shooting for the championship team. With Panathinaikos, he also won a Greek League title, and the Greek Cup, in 2007.

Russia
Šiškauskas joined CSKA Moscow in 2007. He helped to lead them to a EuroLeague title in 2008, and helped them reach the EuroLeague Final in 2009. Which, however, CSKA lost to Šiškauskas' former team, Panathinaikos. On May 1, 2009, he scored a career-high 29 points against Barcelona. Šiškauskas also won five Russian Championship titles (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012).

On May 13, 2012, Šiškauskas missed two vital free-throws, with 10 seconds remaining in CSKA's EuroLeague Finals game against Olympiacos Piraeus, which proved crucial in CSKA's 62 to 61 loss. He also missed the last second three-point shot in CSKA's EuroLeague Finals game against Panathinaikos, on May 3, 2009, which meant that CSKA lost that final, by a score of 73 to 71.

Only one week after the 2012 EuroLeague Finals game, on May 21, 2012, Šiškauskas announced his retirement from playing professional basketball. On May 16, 2014, Šiškauskas was named a EuroLeague Basketball Legend.

Lithuanian junior national team
Šiškauskas played with the junior national teams of Lithuania. With Lithuania's junior national team, he played at the 1998 FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship.

Lithuanian senior national team
Šiškauskas was a member of the senior men's Lithuanian national basketball teams that won the bronze medal at the 2000 Summer Olympics, and the bronze medal at the EuroBasket 2007. He was also a member of the Lithuanian team that won the gold medal at the EuroBasket 2003. He also played at the EuroBasket 2001, at the 2004 Summer Olympics, at the EuroBasket 2005, and at the 2008 Summer Olympics.

After the 2008 Summer Olympics, he officially announced that he was stepping down from the Lithuanian national team as a player.

Player profile
Šiškauskas was a physical small forward, who could also easily play, both on offense and defense, in either the point guard or shooting guard positions, on the wing, and also in the paint. His excellent leaping ability, and his quickness, made him a surprising shot blocker, and one of the best one-on-one players and swingmen in Europe. He was considered the best defensive player of the senior Lithuanian national basketball team. He led the 2003–04 season of the Lithuanian League, in free throw percentage (90.6%).

Coaching career
Šiškauskas began his basketball coaching career in 2017, when he became an assistant coach of the senior men's Lithuanian national basketball team.

EuroLeague

 * style="text-align:left;"| 2004–05
 * style="text-align:left;"| Treviso
 * 17 || 10 || 25.8 || .487 || .286 || .700 || 2.4 || 1.5 || 1.4 || .1 || 12.5 || 11.8
 * style="text-align:left;"| 2005–06
 * style="text-align:left;"| Benetton
 * 15 || 13 || 29.2 || .516 || .419 || .711 || 2.8 || 1.9 || 1.4 || .1 || 12.0 || 13.5
 * style="text-align:left; background:#AFE6BA;"| 2006–07†
 * style="text-align:left;"| Panathinaikos
 * 20 || 19 || 26.2 || .489 || .471 || .706 || 2.5 || 1.1 || 1.1 || .3 || 10.9 || 11.6
 * style="text-align:left; background:#AFE6BA;"| 2007–08†
 * style="text-align:left;" rowspan="5"| CSKA Moscow
 * 24 || 23 || 27.3 || .510 || .442 || .846 || 3.2 || 1.4 || 1.1 || .4 || 14.0 || 16.0
 * style="text-align:left;"| 2008–09
 * 18 || 14 || 28.4 || .446 || .348 || .863 || 3.0 || 1.7 || .8 || .3 || 12.1 || 13.9
 * style="text-align:left;"| 2009–10
 * 21 || 21 || 30.9 || .557 || style="background:#CFECEC;"|.550* || .765 || 4.0 || 3.0 || 1.2 || .3 || 13.4 || 17.0
 * style="text-align:left;"| 2010–11
 * 7 || 6 || 24.9 || .422 || .348 || .500 || 4.0 || .9 || 1.3 || .1 || 7.0 || 8.9
 * style="text-align:left;"| 2011–12
 * 21 || style="background:#CFECEC;"|21* || 22.9 || .449 || .393 || .690 || 2.2 || 1.0 || .6 || .0 || 7.5 || 6.7
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * style="text-align:center;" colspan="2"|Career
 * 143 || 127 || 27.1 || .493 || .419 || .767 || 3.0 || 1.6 || 1.1 || .2 || 11.6 || 12.8
 * style="text-align:left;"| 2010–11
 * 7 || 6 || 24.9 || .422 || .348 || .500 || 4.0 || .9 || 1.3 || .1 || 7.0 || 8.9
 * style="text-align:left;"| 2011–12
 * 21 || style="background:#CFECEC;"|21* || 22.9 || .449 || .393 || .690 || 2.2 || 1.0 || .6 || .0 || 7.5 || 6.7
 * - class="sortbottom"
 * style="text-align:center;" colspan="2"|Career
 * 143 || 127 || 27.1 || .493 || .419 || .767 || 3.0 || 1.6 || 1.1 || .2 || 11.6 || 12.8
 * 143 || 127 || 27.1 || .493 || .419 || .767 || 3.0 || 1.6 || 1.1 || .2 || 11.6 || 12.8

Pro playing career

 * 2× Lithuanian League Champion: (2000, 2002)
 * 2× Lithuanian League MVP: (2001, 2002)
 * Lithuanian League Finals MVP: (2001)
 * 4× Lithuanian League All-Star: (2001, 2002, 2003, 2004)
 * North European League: Champion (2002)
 * Italian Cup Winner: (2005)
 * Italian League Champion: (2006)
 * Italian League Finals MVP: (2006)
 * Greek Cup Winner: (2007)
 * 4× All-EuroLeague Team:
 * 3× All-EuroLeague Second Team: (2007, 2009, 2010)
 * All-EuroLeague First Team: (2008)
 * 2× EuroLeague Champion: (2007, 2008)
 * Greek League Champion: (2007)
 * Triple Crown Champion: (2007)
 * Greek League Best Five: (2007)
 * Lithuanian Sportsman of the Year: (2007)
 * EuroLeague MVP: (2008)
 * 5× Russian League Champion: (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
 * Russian League Player of the Year: (2009)
 * VTB United League Final Four MVP: (2008)
 * All-Europe Player of the Year: (2008)
 * EuroLeague 2000–10 All-Decade Team: (2010)
 * Russian Cup: Winner (2010)
 * Russian League All-Star: (2011)
 * Russian League All-Symbolic Second Team: (2011)
 * 3× VTB United League Champion: (2008, 2010, 2012)
 * EuroLeague Basketball Legend: (2014)

Lithuanian senior national team as a player

 * 2000 Summer Olympics:
 * EuroBasket 2003:
 * EuroBasket 2007:
 * EuroBasket 2007: All-Tournament Team

title: Ramūnas Šiškauskas