Humanities desk
< June 2	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 3

Where specifically are pterodactyls mentioned in the Bible?

Question as topic. The thread I started about cryptids on the science desk reminded me about this.

As far as I remember, that the Bible refers to something that could possibly be pterodacyls started some sort of minor 'movement' to locate living specimens in Africa. I think that the logic is something like 'they are clearly mentioned in the Bible, so they could have been alive back then - and there have been reports of pterosaurs in remote parts of Africa over the years, so maybe there is something to it...'. It's not specifically a religious thing, they just use the Bible as a potential lead, more than anything else. Who started this, anyway? I think that some group was raising money to send an expedition somewhere or other to look for pterodactyls. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the expedition you were thinking of was this it's a hoax made up by a satire site. I don't know if there's ever been a similar actual expedition, but attempts have been made to track down an alleged living pterosaur in New Guinea (the Ropen). 75.4.17.61 (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been it. Can't remember now, but it looks sorta familiar. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where specifically are pterodactyls mentioned in the Bible? Nowhere (and no, I can't cite a source for that - for the same reason that I can't cite a source for Bill Gates not being mentioned in the Rigveda) Though sadly, Googling 'pterodactyls in the bible' [1] reveals that people have made the claim (see e.g. [2]) As to who started it, creationists have been arguing against extinction more or less ever since the fossil record began to unearth creatures no longer apparently in existence - since this would appear to contradict the Biblical version of the Flood, and Noah saving the animals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fiery flying serpent? 184.147.134.128 (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, if you ignore the fact that a pterodacyl resembles a serpent in the same way that an umbrella resembles an alarm clock... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked everywhere I could, to be true I'm completely unable to find the icon for marking it 'Liked', in Fiery flying serpent--Askedonty (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other animals that I'd compare pterodactyls to before I thought of 'serpent', to be honest. Anyway, I found this - pterodactyls in the Torah (maybe). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting post, but I doubt the validity of its facts-- I'm pretty sure that all bats, not just the vampire ones, are quadrupedal. The verse is usually interpreted as referring to insects anyway. Then there's that "legs above the feet" thing; I really don't know what's going on there. 75.4.17.61 (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking further, the 'plesiosaur' in question supposedly being sought was the 'Ropen', a supposed cryptid for which I'm glad to say we no longer have an article (AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ropen). Feel free to Google it if you have spare brain cells you no longer require... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, I should have checked the Ropen wikilink before posting it. 75.4.17.61 (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilibel

What does the law say about naming the alleged rapist in cases like the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)? The name is already public information obtaining from an official record. Besides that, in the notes, anyone can read the name of the alleged perpetrator. The name is also all over the mainstream media, so, there is little novelty value here. He's is even giving interviews defending his point of view.--Llaanngg (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question would be better asked at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, where this particular case has already been discussed. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what the law says, not what wikipolicy says. Nyttend (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, why entitle the thread 'Wikilibel'? I think the OP needs to clarify what exactly is being asked - and in particular, if this is a question about libel laws, clarify which jurisdiction the question relates to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wiki part. I only want the libel law in the US, UK. So, if everybody knows something and has access to public records corroborating it, or any other reliable source, does it become fair ground to talk about it? --Llaanngg (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the name of an individual is repeated "all over the mainstream media", it would seem a safe bet that doing so isn't libellous. As regards to 'talking about it', that would clearly depend on what was being said - defamation (which includes libel) generally consists of making false statements about a person, rather than merely naming them - though the latter may well be contempt of court in some circumstances and jurisdictions. I suggest that you read United States defamation law and English defamation law (Scottish law is slightly different) if you want further information - and look at the sources cited by the articles if you need to know more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can give you examples of cases and their results (for example, "in Doe v. Bloggs, the court found that Doe had libelled Bloggs by saying that he was a bloodthirsty lying crook"), but interpreting those results and extrapolating them to other situations is something we can't do here, because it would functionally amount to giving legal advice. Nyttend (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Nyttend, we cannot tell you how any particular law applies to any particular case. There are people who are allowed to do that; they are called lawyers. If you need to find the answer to your question, seek an answer from them. We cannot provide you with any answer which may lead you to believe that a particular course of action is or is not allowed under the law, for if we are wrong, you could get yourself into deep shit. --Jayron 32 00:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may find the article United States defamation law of interest. A key statement there is that the laws vary from state to state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English-Scottish peace, 1641

A peace-offering to God a sermon preached to the honourable House of Commons assembled in Parliament at their publique thanksgiving, September 7, 1641 : for the peace concluded between England and Scotland

What's the peace in question? Had the two kingdoms been at war immediately up to this point? The second of the Bishops' Wars had been over for a year by this point, it looks like they were allies against the Irish Rebellion of 1641, and the Wars of the Three Kingdoms wouldn't break out yet for a few years. Nyttend (talk) 19:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The second Bishops' War had ended with a ceasefire but not with a final resolution. According to this source, that resolution came with the Treaty of London in August 1641. According to this source, the treaty was signed August 10, less than a month before the sermon cited in your source. Marco polo (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]