User talk:71.174.131.163

June 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Battle of Boykin's Mill has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Battle of Boykin's Mill was changed by 71.174.131.163 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.960467 on 2013-06-08T22:37:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

April 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Scripture is a primary source and should be used sparingly in an article as a source. Any analysis, such as your claim that the events took place in the past because bows are no longer used, must be backed up by reliable secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

When was the last time any significant conquests included the use of bows? maybe when the ZULU conquered a good chunk of South Africa - but that is the most recent I can think of?

What does that have to do with a Biblical story? —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Prophecy is not a story - it is a prediction of something that will happen in the future. You had objection to the comment about the bow no longer being used. So let me ask you - when was the last time the bow played any significant part in ANY war? What would happen to a army using bows in this day and age? IMO Even your average Third world nation of today can wipe out the equivalent of the Mongol Horde. The prophecy sates that the conqueror represented by the first First Horseman will use the bow. It's right there in the text.

I do not dispute that the bow is mentioned in the text. However, I do dispute your unattributed interpretation that the bow represents a literal bow. Frankly, any such discussion about how scholars interpret the prophecy does not belong in the introduction. —C.Fred (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

If disease means disease, and famine means famine, why should't a bow mean a bow? Should it mean a gun instead? or a missile? or a nuke?

All reasonably valid interpretations of the prophecy. Or it could mean a literal bow—I mean, there was an attempted murder with a crossbow the other day. However, it's not Wikipedia's place to go reading into the prophecy like that. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Bows are no longer used as a significant weapon by armies. The passage refers to conquest - not to murder. I have no problem with changing my wording to something like - If the bow used by the First Horseman is a literal bow and not a symbol of something else, then the period of the horseman should be in out past. ---- and I say in our past barring we don't somehow revert back to a pre-industrial level and forget how to make gunpowder.

The underlying issue is that the decision to read the prophecy literally instead of figuratively is a matter of interpretation, which should not be done in Wikipedia's voice. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that the prophecy refers to a time of widespread war, famine and disease - so that should not be an issue. The only issue is whether the bow is a literal bow or a symbol of something else. If it is a literal bow then the event MUST have happened hundreds of years ago - unless we somehow devolve back to pre-industrial times. And if we do devolve then that can only happen due to something like Armageddon - which is supposed to be an event after the Four Horsemen - so again it has to be in the past. If it makes you happier you can put it in a section titled something like- "A literal interpretation of the Four Horsemen" instead of at the top. I have no problem with that.

It does better belong in a section about interpretation than at the top. And it must cite independent, reliable source. You cannot make your own interpretations, but you can cite scholars who have. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No clue as to whether it is an official opinion of anyone of consequence, but stating that "If the bow is a description of the weapon used by the conquering people represented by the First Horseman then the events described must have happened in our past, since the bow is no longer a weapon of any significance in warfare." should not be an issue. Let me make some changes and see what you think.

Edits done for now. I can add citations for much of the stuff but as I said i don't know what would be unacceptable per wikipedia policies. Please advise on what needs citations and I will see what I can do.

---