![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
From WP:RfD:
There's no there, there. Sam's "evidence" is uncompelling. The stats are that almost the only people landing on this redirect are EB, SS, and myself. This article redirect, is little used, adds nothing to wikipedia, and become a constant source of contention for Sam, it should be deleted. I'll adding the vfd template. FeloniousMonk 15:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you actually think 2:1 is consensus? Please read consensus. Sam Spade 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirecting "I am" to God does not make intuitive sense. As I mentioned on your talk page, "I am" is in fact a copula; it is not synonymous with God. As a reader, if I searched for a copula and ended up at God I'd be very confused and hardly "well served."
On the other hand, if there are valid reasons to provide a link to God from "I am" (and Google isn't gospel), then the page could be turned into a disambiguation page. I'm personally not convinced that there are good reasons to create a disambig page here. So the Bible says that God said "I am that I am." So what? By that logic, we could redirect to Popeye, who as well all know said (probably more famously) "I am what I am." The links you provided say really nothing and present no compelling argument in your favour.
On the other hand, "I am" is by definition what is called a copula, that is, the connecting link between subject and predicate of a proposition. "To be" is another copula; it would make little sense to redirect that to existence, but I think a more convincing argument could be made for that redirect than the one you propose.
Exploding Boy 16:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think a more convincing argument could be made for that redirect than the one you propose
Um. What? Exploding Boy 17:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of petty arguing going on here. Why not agree to disagree and turn it into a disambiguation page, pointing to several pages, most notably God and Copula?
Oh please Sam. Give it up. Seriously. There are plenty of reasons for me to be on your case; the gay bathhouse (note spelling) fiasco is long since dealt with. Exploding Boy 00:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The Anal sex article dispute is another example of your behaviour, yes, but it has nothing to do with the gay bathhouse dispute and has nothing to do with this. Deal with the issues at hand or keep quiet. Exploding Boy 23:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
This redirect turned up on RfD. Since I don't give a rap about this (i.e. I'm completely neutral), but have to deal with it, I am hereby turning it into a disambig. End of debate. Noel (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own article on Yahweh (which is a redirect to Tetragrammaton), the meaning of these four Hebrew letters is very much open to interpretation: there is no simple translation as "I am". See the section Tetragrammaton#Meaning.
Sam Spade's original redirect may have been his own interpretation or original research.
We can ask some of the fluent Hebrew speakers at Wikipedia:Babel for clarification if necessary. I have posted a message at User talk:OwenX, for instance.
We also have an article at I am that I am, which I have added to the disambiguation list. -- Curps 19:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Curps, I absolutely fail to understand why you are so intent on removing this reference to YHWH. (I see you completely deleted the entry "The English translation of Yahweh in Hebrew ('YHVH', יהוה)").
Look, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the theological arguments, on both sides. It's all meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. However, it does seem to be a fact that that interpretation of the meaning of "YHWH" is widely read to be "I am" in some circles - so it's not just SS's original research. E.g. I found the following in the first two pages of results from a Yahoo search:
The philological scholarship may point in a different direction as to the precise meaning of YHWH, but that doesn't stop many people from having another interpretation, as you can see above. I think the fact that a lot of people do think this is the meaning is noteworthy and encyclopaedic.
So, I'll try and reformulate that entry to more accurately reflect the situation, and put it back. Noel (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirecting I am to God is an idea that would only occur to Western, Judeo-Christian theists. Talk all you want about readership, but if a Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist were to search for I am, say an album title or a short English sentence, and be automatically redirected to God they would certainly be confused.
Also, I just wanted to point out that "I am." is not the shortest, gramatically correct, sentence in English. It is the shortest with an explicit subject, but the imperative "Go," is shorter, having an implied subject, which is gramatically correct for English imperatives. Socoljam 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
![]() | Disambiguation | |||
|
From WP:RfD:
There's no there, there. Sam's "evidence" is uncompelling. The stats are that almost the only people landing on this redirect are EB, SS, and myself. This article redirect, is little used, adds nothing to wikipedia, and become a constant source of contention for Sam, it should be deleted. I'll adding the vfd template. FeloniousMonk 15:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you actually think 2:1 is consensus? Please read consensus. Sam Spade 16:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirecting "I am" to God does not make intuitive sense. As I mentioned on your talk page, "I am" is in fact a copula; it is not synonymous with God. As a reader, if I searched for a copula and ended up at God I'd be very confused and hardly "well served."
On the other hand, if there are valid reasons to provide a link to God from "I am" (and Google isn't gospel), then the page could be turned into a disambiguation page. I'm personally not convinced that there are good reasons to create a disambig page here. So the Bible says that God said "I am that I am." So what? By that logic, we could redirect to Popeye, who as well all know said (probably more famously) "I am what I am." The links you provided say really nothing and present no compelling argument in your favour.
On the other hand, "I am" is by definition what is called a copula, that is, the connecting link between subject and predicate of a proposition. "To be" is another copula; it would make little sense to redirect that to existence, but I think a more convincing argument could be made for that redirect than the one you propose.
Exploding Boy 16:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think a more convincing argument could be made for that redirect than the one you propose
Um. What? Exploding Boy 17:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
There's a lot of petty arguing going on here. Why not agree to disagree and turn it into a disambiguation page, pointing to several pages, most notably God and Copula?
Oh please Sam. Give it up. Seriously. There are plenty of reasons for me to be on your case; the gay bathhouse (note spelling) fiasco is long since dealt with. Exploding Boy 00:53, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
The Anal sex article dispute is another example of your behaviour, yes, but it has nothing to do with the gay bathhouse dispute and has nothing to do with this. Deal with the issues at hand or keep quiet. Exploding Boy 23:35, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
This redirect turned up on RfD. Since I don't give a rap about this (i.e. I'm completely neutral), but have to deal with it, I am hereby turning it into a disambig. End of debate. Noel (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own article on Yahweh (which is a redirect to Tetragrammaton), the meaning of these four Hebrew letters is very much open to interpretation: there is no simple translation as "I am". See the section Tetragrammaton#Meaning.
Sam Spade's original redirect may have been his own interpretation or original research.
We can ask some of the fluent Hebrew speakers at Wikipedia:Babel for clarification if necessary. I have posted a message at User talk:OwenX, for instance.
We also have an article at I am that I am, which I have added to the disambiguation list. -- Curps 19:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Curps, I absolutely fail to understand why you are so intent on removing this reference to YHWH. (I see you completely deleted the entry "The English translation of Yahweh in Hebrew ('YHVH', יהוה)").
Look, I don't give a rat's ass one way or the other about the theological arguments, on both sides. It's all meaningless, as far as I'm concerned. However, it does seem to be a fact that that interpretation of the meaning of "YHWH" is widely read to be "I am" in some circles - so it's not just SS's original research. E.g. I found the following in the first two pages of results from a Yahoo search:
The philological scholarship may point in a different direction as to the precise meaning of YHWH, but that doesn't stop many people from having another interpretation, as you can see above. I think the fact that a lot of people do think this is the meaning is noteworthy and encyclopaedic.
So, I'll try and reformulate that entry to more accurately reflect the situation, and put it back. Noel (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirecting I am to God is an idea that would only occur to Western, Judeo-Christian theists. Talk all you want about readership, but if a Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist were to search for I am, say an album title or a short English sentence, and be automatically redirected to God they would certainly be confused.
Also, I just wanted to point out that "I am." is not the shortest, gramatically correct, sentence in English. It is the shortest with an explicit subject, but the imperative "Go," is shorter, having an implied subject, which is gramatically correct for English imperatives. Socoljam 18:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)