User talk:Philosopher81sp/Archive1

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10 October 2020 14:55:39 (UTC)

References

@Tgeorgescu:, I will read again, but basically I just knew and observed them carefully. I haven't nothing to promote, maybe -with the same WP:good faith and "presumption of innocence"- other users are payed or take personal advantages from defending some point ov view and censoring their opposite. Just to gave a context of this non-standard and personalized message, this is the questioned issue. And it was a talk and not an edit to the article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a simplification, nevertheless true: what they teach for a fact at Ivy Plus is the neutral point of view for Wikipedia.

@Til Eulenspiegel: First of all, popular opinion or the opinion of non-scholars on scholarly topics is of no encyclopedic significance whatsoever. Second of all, WP is very much biased toward real qualified academic scholars from real universities writing in real academically reviewed journals and books. If you have a problem with that, you're in the wrong place. Third of all, we cover only significant views, not extreme minority or fringe views. Last of all, and most important, you have not explained why you failed to provide any reliable independent secondary SCHOLARLY sources when asked to do so to support your contention that other significant views exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. So I do not defend a mere POV, which could be Christian or anti-Christian, I render inside Wikipedia the mainstream academic view. Tgeorgescu (talk)

@Dominus Vobisdu:, @Tgeorgescu:, I don't need to have a process because I've used a talk page which usually contains any kind of affirmations, without any single source supporting them. I've used it to ask someone who will want to help the improvement of th article if he/she had some WP:reliable source to add. It was a request and not an affirmation. To be authorized to write in the discussion page we don't need personal CVs, academic references, expecial petimissions nor to give personal informations related to them (apart the fact the those data could have been stored without the approval of the interested users). I think referenced authors can't be passively accepted as an authority of the Holy Bible and that if a claim -even atuhoritatively sourced- doesn't match or contraddicts the tradition, then it can be discussed. Furthermore, a single source can't be enough to say the opposite than what it has been believed the truth untill the day before. In the questiuned topic, the tradition was that the biblical account of the Arch of Noah was more referenced than other biblical pssages due to the existence of multiple extrabiblical sources closely similar to its content. The WP article states the opposite on the basis of a couple of sources which dosdn't cite anything else, so as to be considered the "new Bible" nor a sort of systematic metareview of the existing literature on the subject matter.

as a general rule, I think the rationality of a topic and pertinece to the Wp article can be considered a set of criteria which is sufficient for its publishability in the discussion pages. The request of external sources can be considered another legittimate use of the talk page. A more legittimate and pertinent use than many other. Thanks for your courtesy replies.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

The academic consensus is for a long time that the global flood is a myth. No WP:RS could change that. See WP:SNOW. So, it's pointless to ask for more sources, when even citing 100 sources won't change anything. In mainstream science, mainstream history and mainstream theology the global flood is a myth. At a certain point you have to accept the obvious. This isn't censorship or saying you have done something wrong. It is simply a message that our article isn't going to change. Not upon calling the global flood a myth. So it is wise to employ your energies for stuff that you may change and improve. You won't change the mythical character of the global flood, and there is no controversy about it in mainstream academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

my knowledge wasn't so updated and the article doesn't state so. I am just niw starting a new path of studies in which I will have mode to verify if effectively there exist some trully Christian scientist trying to conciliate faith and reason. If they claim to be Christian and passively accept the global flood was a myth, there is something wrong and of internally incoherent. I think any Christian shall have serious doubts on seeing even the historicity of the Bible is believed to be totally unreliable and not scientific. That woul be equivalent to deny the Bible at all. But this is not the topic and time to argument such a theory.Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

See Liberal theology and Liberal Christianity (in essence you are not in a position to decide who is a Christian and who's not) and:

44:54

by about the mid to late 19th century 44:56 the idea of a very young earth shaped by 45:00 no Noah's Flood had been completely 45:02 abandoned by geologists and had 45:04 pretty much abandoned by mainstream 45:05 Christian theologians who had basically 45:08 bought into the arguments that well 45:14 Augustine and Aquinas as arguments about 45:16 the the God the the gods two books being 45:21 in agreement with one another and by 45:25 that by the end of the 19th century 45:26 geologists well by the mid to late 19th 45:28 century geologists had really moved on 45:30 from the idea of studying Noah's Flood 45:32 there were arguments about was it a 45:34 regional flood nichette Caspian Sea 45:36 Charles Lyell guy who wrote a very 45:38 famous book that sort of kicked off 45:40 modern geology wrote about Noah's Flood 45:42 being from the flooding of the Caspian 45:43 Sea it's kind of right and Pitons 45:45 hypothesis one big sea over and there 45:50 were lots arguments about sort of what 45:51 may have been the other thing but the 45:53 idea of a global flood was pretty much 45:54 put to bed and geologists really started 45:58 to essentially not look at evidence for 46:00 really big floods they weren't looking 46:01

for

Quoted from David Montgomery Noah’s Flood and the Development of Geology Radcliffe Institute on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:CHOPSY is clear even if we have WP:NO censorship and to delegate to five universities the monopoly of the whole truth would be very dangerous and not so scientific, regardless the fat that they are among the top and most renowned unversities in the world. But this is not the topic to discuss it. Generally speaking, I haven't judged single researchers, but if someone would like to affirm the biblical account of the Arch of Noah is pure mythology, then there are many relevant issues on his possibility to profess himself as being Christian or at least a Roman Catholic believer. It is to be verified if the questioned biblical passage is so important not be denied, namely to be te object of a specific canon so as to consider out of the Roman Catholic Church anyone who denies the biblical account of the saint patriarch Noah. The same has to be verified with regard to the other Christian Churches. I will try to find WP:reliable sources to be cited in the article. Thanks for your explanatory details.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

finally, just to have a quote.

If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

— Canons of the Council of Trent, fifth session

The Arch of Noah was the first the first reinstatement of an alliance between men and God after the original sin. Strangely, it is not explicitly mentioned in the webversion of the canons, but it is linked to the citation. I will try to discover if a specific canon exists and, in the affermative case, it would be interesting to have a concern in Arch of Noah article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The "arch of Noah" is a name given to a Roman arch in the forum of Nerva. Probably a bad reading of the original name. And what do all those numbers mean in the paragraph under 44:54? They make what you wrote almost unreadable. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, 44:54 was a quote of @Tgeorgescu: whoi seems to be very active on deleting my profile, just for a talk. At the current time, there are no other questioned topics.

evidently, it was referred to the Ark of Noah. It was a tppo depending from the connection and not by me.Philosopher81sp (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It's an automatic transcript from YouTube, it includes the time of those sentences from the video. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't nothing else to discuss nor to apologize, with the unique exception of what was just said before. Concerning the senternce " If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor", it doesn't seem to be true. We have WP:NO censorship and we shall consider science can't be made by a selection of five leading universities whose contents are almost undisclosed for consultation and which were choosen by some "WP directors" on the basis of unknown selection criteria.Philosopher81sp (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You don't have a say in this: obey WP:ARBPS or you're out. These are the WP:RULES of the game. If you want to edit here, you have to obey our rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I obey the rules and not your personal opinions. I am going to have WP sanctions just for a talk message and mainly for a series of opinions on the socalled flood myth. I learn now other users have tried to make it more WP:NPOV, even if the related discussions had been removed/archived form the talk. Otherwise, I would have avoid the matter at all. But it is a so obvious point of view that global flood wasn't mere mythology that was very high the likelihood to repeat the same mistakes just made by other users. Probably, you can add an explanatory note suggesting to read the discussion page's chronology before entering into a so contentious matter. Otherwise, you can keep online the questionaed topic so as to prevent other users form doing the same. Users haven't to be aligned with personal opinions of other experienced leading editors of WP not to what is considered to be the mainstream science. Sometimes, namely in this case, it can be a mere opinion too. I cited a source which came from a publishing outlet blacklisted on WP and then I ased some suggestions on how to eventually cite it.Have a good continuation on WP.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding of WP:NPOV does not coincide with the understanding of the Wikipedia Community. For us, mainstream science and mainstream history beat pseudoscience and pseudohistory zillion times over. The Wikipedia Community does not follow your own definition of pseudoscience, but what has been intersubjectively made clear by policies and guidelines and arbitration decisions such as WP:ARBPS. This is not discrimination: every Wikipedia editor has to obey WP:ARBPS, including me and Doug Weller. Those who choose not to obey it are regularly imposed topic bans or outright booted out of this website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Tread Lightly

Hi - I am a long time editor/lurker- on many of the Christian-themed pages. I have seen MANY editors come and go who have tried to insert Christian thought/doctrine into pages like Flood Myth and all of them come in hot, argue with the established editors, and either end up blocked or lose their interest in the topic after being beaten into submission. I am not telling you to not write things that you believe, but I would just kindly suggest that you 1) Tread Lightly, 2) Work within the system, 3) ensure what you write is sourced, and 4) Make friends within the established editors in order to have people on your side. Editors such as Tgeorgescu are very experience editors, entrenched, and knowledgeable about Wiki, academia, and mainstream Christian thought - railing against him and others like him will get you nowhere as they have precedence and good standing on their side. People you might reach out to/learn from are Doug Weller who is a no-nonsense guy and he doesn't put up with any crap, but he is fair and will work to make things "right". Walter Görlitz ‎is another good one who I have gone to with big-rock questions in the past. Both of them frequent the Christian pages and thus are conversant of what goes on. You will however have to win them over.

You are well spoken and appear to know your stuff - don't undercut your message by being antagonistic - this will just feed the beast. Regards - Ckruschke (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi. I agree with what Ckruschke says. I think you are probably a good Christian - a good Christian doesn't need to believe in a global flood or to argue on Wikipedia, he needs to go out in the world and live according to the Sermon on the Mount. That's very. very difficult. In my life I've met maybe three people who could do that. Anyway, good luck. Achar Sva (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, and before Philosopher81sp starts shouting something about the Antichrist or persecution: the science of geology was invented (discovered) by theologians and was basically under the control of theologians while the global flood was dismissed as unreal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Breaching our core values

Perhaps you have been left still wondering why all this serious, if not irritated, talk about the flood myth? Because one of core values is love of science, and therefore we hate pseudoscience. I don't think that you could find two universities to assert that the global flood was historical, from the top 100 universities in the world, at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-world . So, by pushing pseudoscience you were breaching one of the core values of this encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

there milions pof Christians and Roman Catholics believing it is false. anyone who claims to be Christian and denies the historicity of the global flood, shal have some open issues between its personal faith and professional pattern. But it is not my matter to judge nor to sponsorize myself. It just happened that I -among the many other editors who had read the page and previously contributed to the discussion- had been acknowledged by WP on the fact that nobody in the academia still believe the Bible is a relieble historical source. As other editors have said before, this is a "result" of the academia which is still mainly unknown to the general public. And if this is the case, it has to be argumented more accurately than providing a couple of sources.

I don't think to have violated the core of WP consisting in the five pillars. On the contrary, I've tried to discuss a more neutral WP article and more compliant with one of the fundamental pillars, the WP neautrality.Philosopher81sp (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I dispute that it would be unknown:

A black pastor who’d earned his Master of Divinity (M. Div.) told me, “I wouldn’t suggest you go to seminary. There’s a reason they call them cemeteries. People go there to die [spiritually].”

— John Richards, Confessions of a Black Seminarian

I remember Tami coming into the meeting and sharing her sense of call to minister to women, to those struggling in marriages, and I remember her saying something about becoming a speaker for women’s events. She then said that she would begin by entering into seminary. Of course, as soon as she mentioned seminary, I immediately began to imagine how this mom with three small kids at home would be devoured by liberal seminary professors like the ones I had at Princeton. I imagined her crisis of faith like the crisis I endured in Princeton. I imagined her intellectual meltdown like the meltdown that led me to lose my faith all together for a season. And of course, the very first words that came out of my mouth were, “Tami, I don’t think you need to go to seminary to pursue this particular call. I think there are many opportunities to do this kind of ministry without having to go through seminary.” Pastor Drew, who was seated close by and had a very similar experience to mine while he attended the Divinity School at Vanderbilt, chimed in with almost the same exact sentiment. Now please understand, Drew and I loved Tami and we wanted what was best for our church member her family…which for us meant trying to talk her out of going to seminary!

— Colonial Presbyterian Church, EPC, On Knowing God’s Will and Doing God’s Will

Have you ever heard someone say that seminaries are cemeteries? The idea in that sentence is that you go to seminary with a living faith, but your faith dies while you get lost in a stack of scholarship, theology, and philosophy. One friend told me that in his entrance interview to a certain seminary he was asked the following question. “Every student comes to a point in seminary where they lose their faith; how will you handle that?” My friend decided that was not a seminary he wanted to attend, so he joined Ashland Theological Seminary instead, where I met him in class.

— Preston Yoder, Seminary: A Near Death Experience?

When I made the decision to go to seminary, people in the church I was in at the time said, “They’ll teach you not to believe the Bible.” Again, true, but misleading. What they did was teach me how to read the Bible in context. As a result, I started to believe the Bible again but not in the way they taught it.

— David Anderson, The Suffering Servant and Recovery from Depression

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"I've tried to discuss a more neutral WP article and more compliant with one of the fundamental pillars, the WP neautrality." You might be a bit rusty in your use of English, with your text including minor typos such as "arch" instead of "ark" and "neautrality" instead of "neutrality". I am not a native speaker myself, but Wikipedia helps with keeping my memories of the language fresh. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."
• "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."
• "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ."
  • In this case, your view seems to reflect Flood geology, a minority view since c. 1830. "Scientific analysis has refuted the key tenets of flood geology. Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology, stratigraphy, geophysics, physics, paleontology, biology, anthropology, and archaeology." Representing it as the majority view would not be "neutral". What sources are you planning to use in its support? Dimadick (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

As a non-specialist, I didn't knew anything about flood geology, mentioned by the WP article just at note 21. The source can have the same WP:reliability than the flood geology's theologians. While anyone would like to see all the history of the scientific debate starting from its origin in flood geology's theologians to arrive to its purpoted and universally accepted renfutation, one of the most used academic search engines lists solely 28 results, the main of which comes form a couple of websites. Substantially, the flood geology's theologians have disappeared from the web and this is not an indicator of neutrality, genuine research of the truth and scientific reliability. It concerns with WP:NPOV.

At the moment, I didn't have enough sources to reply to the latter statement. For this reason, I avoided to wrote on it the main namespace. No single scientist nor student nor university professor is able to reply alone -without the collaboration of a community of Christian believers- of a so high and stratified amount of pieces of paper affirming a lot of fabrications attempting to remove the truth. But this is solely my ending opinion, not relevant for WP. And infact I've read the topic and left it at the end of my personal agenda. I apologize for some typos, which sometimes seem to be due to the Internet conection (not to say to other SWs or exogenous problems). And even for some possible mistakes thay may arise from this discussion. Philosopher81sp (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Book of Exodus

Since you are interested in defending the historicity of the Bible, you might be interested in the article on the Exodus and the debate on its historicity. The talk page includes lengthy debates on the topic, with User:IZAK expressing views against the "misinformed and anti-Biblical secular scholarship." See if you want to support his/her argument. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks for the invitation. I think not to be abel to take part to the ArbCom at the moment.

Philosopher81sp (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please can you review ..

.. your edit here [1]? The final sentence you added: "In 1857, it started .." reads like a direct translation from idiomatic Italian into bad English. I'm not sure I know what it means. It would be better English to write "there began" rather than "it started" - in grammatical terms, very few English verbs (e.g. to happen, to rain) take "it" as the impersonal subject rather than as the pronoun for a clearly stated noun. Beyond that point the sentence is borderline nonsense. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, I've shortened the section which was an edit of a lot of time ago. The identity of the people involved in her relations is not specified univocally. But the cited source says she had a relation with a banker of the Rothschild family and with the then directon of the Louvre Museum. The descending "parable" is not justified in the source, so I've removed it directly. In effect, the word "start" could be referred to a physical trajectory of a flying object (like a personal parable or the analogue case of a rainfall) much more appropriately than to a half life in the temporal horizon. I apologize for the unperfect double sense of the text. Thanks for your revision. Best regards,Philosopher81sp (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)