Misplaced Pages

Talk:Daniel (biblical figure): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:43, 5 February 2015 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,200 editsm EdJohnston moved page Talk:Daniel to Talk:Daniel (biblical figure) over a redirect without leaving a redirect: Per move discussion← Previous edit Revision as of 16:44, 5 February 2015 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,200 edits →Requested move 26 January 2015: Expand my closure to explain why Daniel (name) went to the base nameNext edit →
Line 213: Line 213:


The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' to ]. ] (]) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC) The result of the move request was: '''Moved''' to ]. ] (]) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:<small>Now expanding my closure, per a request. </small> I moved ] to ]. The alternative was to place the DAB page there. My impression was that more people in the discussion wanted ] at the base name. In any event, ] seemed to get more page views than the DAB page. ] (]) 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


---- ----



] → {{no redirect|Daniel (biblical figure)}} – better ] (]) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC) ] → {{no redirect|Daniel (biblical figure)}} – better ] (]) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:44, 5 February 2015

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIran
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconJudaism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBahá'í Faith
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBible Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconReligion Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Saints High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as High-importance).
Text and/or other creative content from Daniel in rabbinic literature#Ancestry was copied or moved into Daniel#Rabbinic literature on 02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 10:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar

Which one? I want to bypass the disambig. - RoyBoy 22:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous contributions

Someone using the IP address 129.24.94.219 has made quite a few alterations to this article. Since he/she probably isn't aware that at User talk:129.24.94.219 he/she has been invited to create an account and log in, I thought I would mention it here. At that page there are also a list of advantages in doing so.

Because more than one person may use this IP address, we don't know whether the person who is attempting to make serious contributions here is the same person using mild scatological expletives about the United Nations. A contributor can remain anonymous with a user name, but with a user name one has some way of judging the credibility of his/her contributions because one can be certain as to what else he/she has contributed. So, whoever you are, please join! --PeterR 17:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoever this guy/gal is...

I hope he/she doesn't screw this article up. I'm using it for my religion project! I trust Wiki that much.

Your faith is seriously, horribly misplaced. Do not trust a word you find on Misplaced Pages, unless you can confirm its veracity elsewhere. And if you can confirm its veracity elsewhere, you're no longer placing your faith in Misplaced Pages anyway. Above all things, in religious issues. I'm currently dealing with the shenanigans of a bunch of Jehovah's Witness zealots on their religion's pages and the administrators that reinforce their stupidity, so I speak

Ian Yorston on 23 Apr 2006 at 15:00 GMT writes: I wouldn't encourage anyone to take Misplaced Pages as their only source but I think you can put a fair amount of trust in most articles - and you can always check the History and/or Discussion if you think the subject matter may be contentious. You can also follow through any references quoted at the end of any article; vandals rarely offer reliable references...


Where is the source for the statement "The majority of Biblical scholars agree that the Book of Daniel (which see for references) dates from the second century BC..."etc.  ?? I see nothing in the references supporting this statement. I believe it could be a bias introduced without a source.

Date of Daniel's birth

The article presently says:

Daniel was descended from one of the noble families of Judah (Daniel 1:3), and was probably born in Jerusalem about B.C. 538, during the reign of Josiah.

Yet that doesn't make sense. Daniel would have been taken into captivity around 600 BC. I figured Daniel's birth closer to 620-ish BC. Comments?

Ian Yorston on 23 Apr 2006 at 15:00 GMT writes: I was equally confused and did the same Math. There is a link at the very bottom of the page to "Births 623BC", so I'm guessing that is what should be there. I ran through the page History but failed to identify any vandalism that might explain this error. I did a brief web search and found the date of B.C. 620 repeated on http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04620a.htm. Based on my rather poor research, I've taken the brave/foolish step of correcting the article to read "about B.C. 620". Apologies if I shouldn't have done this - at least it should force the issue...

James B. Jordan (1995). "Daniel: Historical & Chronological Comments (II)". Biblical Chronology. 7 (1). puts the death of Josiah in 608 BC, and Daniel (and Jehoiakim) being taken to Babylon in 605 BC. This agrees with the source that you cite above. Jordan assumes that Daniel was about 20 at the time, which would put his birth in about 625 BC. The source that you cite above (explicitly) assumes that he was 14. The basic problem is that we're not told how old Daniel was when he went to Babylon, so his year of birth is necessarily speculative. "About 620 BC" seems like a pretty reasonable number. --Waitak 07:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of section Daniels life

This was deleted as the only edit by an anon some time ago looks like vandalizm to me. Agathoclea 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Daniel a Prophet?

The article mentions that Daniel never spoke to his own generation. However this is not necessarily true. Daniel spoke directly to the king of Babylon concerning his the "seven times" of insanity that would befall him in chapter 4. He also interpreted the writing on the wall in chapter 5 predicting the Cyrus' great victory that night over Babylon. —preceding unsigned comment by 151.202.45.156 (talk • contribs)

What's all this talk about a category of the Bible being known as the "great prophets"? I have heard of the Major and Minor Prophets. Is this just a matter of semantics? There is a page for the Great Prophets, but there is not one for Great Prophets. Will someone please clarify the use of the term Great Prophet in this page to me? Daniel J. Forman 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the terms "Great Prophets" and "Major Prophets" are interchangeable--the difference is only semantic. The "Major Prophets" (the more usual term) are not considered "Major" because they are somehow holier or more important than the others; they are referred to as "Major" because their recorded prophesies are longer--each one individually would fill an entire scroll--whereas the "Minor" prophesies are much shorter, and can alltogether fit on a single scroll. For this reason the twelve "Minor Prophets" are sometimes referred to as "the Twelve," because in referring to them, one would refer to the Scroll of the Twelve. MishaPan 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed a claim that Daniel was described as a "prophet" in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Tektonics is a notoriously unreliable source for the reference, and I cannot find the word "prophet" in the English translations of 4Q174 on Wikisource () or any other non-apologetic source I've seen. If a reliable source can be found for the occurrence of "prophet", it can go back in. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
...Oops, missed a bit. The same unreliable source is used to state that the classification of Daniel follows the "Septuagint Greek translation", and the linked reference tries to perform apologetics by arguing that Daniel must have been written before the Septuagint was translated: but the original Septuagint consisted only of the 5 books of the Pentateuch, not Daniel. I've snipped that, and the Tektonics link has now disappeared from the References section. --Robert Stevens (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally the role of a prophet is to be called by G-d to address the people, not necessarily his own (e.g. Jonah). Daniel was never called by G-d to address the people which is why his book is not in the book of prophets. He was given visions, some of those to answer the issues of the kings, but that is not what makes a prophet as such. Joseph in the bible who interpreted dreams of Pharoah and others is not considered a prophet either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.95.5 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed link

I have been instructed to post my website: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/daniel.html for review. Please, if any reader think it is worth to be posted, do so. Bernard Muller

NB: The link is to an 18,000 word (or so) article written by M. Muller putting forth the case that Daniel was not an historical person, but that the book of Daniel was written in 168 BC. This is presented as an explanation for the accuracy of the prophecies in the book, interpreted as refering to socio-political events between ~600 BC and 168 BC. --Waitak 03:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Daniel had to be written before 168 BC ... it was included in the Septuagint as well as another 2nd century BC translation, so it must have been written before then. BigDT 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are different opinions: "The book must therefore have been written during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before his death, even before the success of the Maccabaean revolt; that is to say between 167 and 164." (The New Jerusalem Bible, Introduction to Daniel). "The Book of Daniel presents a collection of popular stories about Daniel, a loyal Jew, and the record of visions granted to him, with the Babylonian Exile of the 6th century BCE as their background. The book, however, was written in a later time of national crisis—when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (reigned 175–164/163 BCE) ..." (Encyclopædia Britannica). "The Book of Daniel was written during the persecutions of Israel by the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes." (Jewish encyclopedia: DANIEL, BOOK OF). About the Septuagint: "Behind the legends lies the probability that at least the Torah (the five books of Moses) was translated into Greek c. 250 B.C. for the use of the Greek speaking Jews of Alexandria. The rest of the O.T. and some noncanonical books were also included in the LXX before the dawning of the Christian era, through it is difficult to be certain when." (The NIV Study Bible). I do not know about any other 2nd century BC translation. Bernard Muller 68.145.179.78 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Biblical prophet status

i noticed he was put in a category called biblical prophets yet nowhere does it say he is one and also jews do not consider him a prophet therefore i removed him from the category

Jesus Himself calls Daniel a prophet ... the Book of Daniel has a gracious plenty prophecy in it. The article discusses Daniel as a prophet ... there is no logical reason for him not to be in that category. BigDT 00:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox

I corrected a link at the end of the section entitled "Daniel the Prophet." The sentence referred to the "Greek Orthodox Church" and the link pointed to the article on "The Church of Greece." However, the worldwide Orthodox Church involves much more than merely the Church of Greece, and both the recognition of Daniel as a prophet, and the celebration of his feast day on December 17 is universal throughout the Orthodox Church. MishaPan 20:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Expand lions

The most important part of Daniel's story is the lions den. All it says in here is that he was delivered from the den of lions. How? Did he wrestle the lions? Did he kill them? Did they just hang out with him and then after several days he was released by the king? Did God snatch him out? It seems extremely odd to me that the single event that Daniel is most associated with is the least talked about. It is mentioned in one line. That was the reason I looked him up I forgot what happened in the den of lions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.159.143 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The preceding comment was moved from the top of the page. +A.0u 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The Bible does not explain why, only that David was saved by his trust in God. See verse 21. +A.0u 19:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, two verses later, it DOES say how - that God sent an angel to shut the lions' mouths. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
what makes you think this is the most important part of the story? What actually happened was that G-d closed their mouths so they could not eat, whilst Daniel sat there and prayed, probably questioning what sin he had committed in order to be placed into this predicament and asking for forgiveness. The sages have identified that his sin was to give advice to Nebuchadnezzar as to how to avert the decree of madness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.95.5 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

God is my judge

It seems like someone doesn't know his proper dikduk. While God is my judge isn't incorrect. The correct translation would be "my judgement is God's." For it to be "God is my judge" the yud would have to be after el. If you need a source for it being translated to "my judgement is God's" look at the introduction by Artscroll. 124.168.8.196 14:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The meaning is Judgement of God, there is nothing meaning "my" in it. The hiriq -i- is the Biblical Hebrew hiriq compaginis as grammarians call it, a hiriq that indicates that the first noun is possessed by the second, in other words the equivalent of the English "of", it is not the modern first person possessive suffix that would correspond to English "my". Also dan does not mean judge, the word for judge based on the root in question is dayan not dan. Dan as a verb means (he) judged and as a noun means something that is the result of the act of judging = judgement in English. ] (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Trained as Chaldean

I added "citation needed" to the statement "trained as Chaldean". I assume it comes from Easton's Bible Dictionary, but there is no direct reference. Moreover, what does that even mean? Chaldean has 5 meanings related to Babylonia, but none of the first four is something that you could be trained in. Does it mean he trained to become a soothsayer or astrologer? — Sebastian 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)    (I stopped watching this page. If you would like to continue the talk, please do so here and ping me.)

References

Why is the source for Daniel's Life section "partly derived from the 19th century Christian Easton's Bible Dictionary"? Are there no Jewish and indeed Hebrew sources?--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems your use of {{editprotected}} is for protection to be added to this page. These sorts of requests are usually done at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection; however, in this case, I see no reason for protection. Article content can be discussed here or you can just go ahead and make the changes yourself. If you disagree with changes made to this article, I suggest adding it to your watch list. --- RockMFR 05:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice RockMFR. However this is not the only article I work on, and edits happen with no discussion. I am not a full time Daniel watcher. So I want to be able to go away and come back to an article that has not changed but was discussed and then the fruits of the discussion can be added with a participation of the administrator.--Mrg3105 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Daniel a eunuch?

One of the facets of Daniel that Byzantine fathers could not agree was whether Daniel was a eunuch or not. His court duties were those that in Constantinople were done by eunuchs. What is the modern scholarship's opinion? Ikokki (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the sources to base such a claim on. Str1977 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes there is. In Babylon, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah are placed under the supervision of the master of the eunuchs. (Daniel 1:3-7) -- Bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.104.54 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Daniel being a eunuch is in Jewish tradition:
Text and/or other creative content from Daniel in rabbinic literature#Ancestry was copied or moved into Daniel#Rabbinic literature on 02:49, 4 October 2011. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
- Jasonasosa (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Gosh, there is a lot of vandalism being done on this page. I notice these words:

n that section up. Ogg (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nabonidus

I think people have looked for the identify of this guy without success and I don't want to confuse things. There is an article Nabonidus Chronicle. Unrelated right? Student7 (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vessel/vassal

In the first paragraph of the article is "along with some of the vessels of the temple.". Which is correct? Vessels or vassals? 204.210.242.157 (talk) 14:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe "vassal" is correct. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. JuJube (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No. It should be "vessels".
1.In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it. 2. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god. (KJV)--FimusTauri (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The style of the article

The article describes a mythological concept, and a section of Tanakh/Bible as if it were a biography of a person. There maybe was a person Daniel, but if this a biography of a person it lacks notability because of a lack of sources – it just has one source: the Bible. This article should be about the book "Daniel" in the bible, treating the myth Daniel (and associated mythological religious concepts), not an alleged factual Daniel. Now it does exactly what the bad articles on most of the reformers does: carefully avoid the theological interpretations and messages. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion as an article is notability, not historicity. As a major figure in several major religions, Daniel is more than notable enough for an article on him.--FimusTauri (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Unquestionably there are some sections of this article that are worded as if Daniel quite uncontroversially is a historical figure, even with speculations about his final days and his age when he died. Most non-fundamentalsit scholars would say that Daniel is a hagiographic figure -- perhaps with some historical prototype, perhaps not. There were legends about a sage called "Danel" or "Daniel" that may have inspired the Hebrew version where he becomes an exiled Jew. No non-fundamentalist scholar accepts his supposed "book" as genuine autobiography; it was written centuries after his supposed lifetime, as late as the 160s BCE.Fauskanger (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I would think that it'd be fair to present both arguments because at present the article reads as you say. In fact, I thought it had a significant section on what "scholars" believed about them, but find nothing in the history that points to major deletions. So please feel free to do so with some good references to back up your text. However, to rewrite the article to say that it is "incontrovertible" that he was just a figment of some author's imagination living 200-160 B.C. would clearly be POV-pushing. Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Do we even need a separate article about Daniel as a person? Everything "known" about him is based on the Book of Daniel, the contents of which are treated in its own article. (In that article the scholarly view is also presented -- though it is a constant struggle to keep religious zealots from rewriting the article to make it appear that only fanatical Bible-hating atheists would ever dream of questioning its "authenticity" as an autobiography from Babylonian times.)Fauskanger (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Clearly the "religeous zealots" aren't the only one who have issues with non-neutral POV...
IMO, the Daniel as a person page stands on its own. Any suggestion that deleting this page as being a dupe of the text on the Book of Daniel page would probably have to be taken (along with all the other Bible character page) as a group to Misplaced Pages because Daniel isn't the only one whose Bio is only found within the pages of the Bible. Of course the same thing could be said about 1000's of book/movie/television characters that populate Wiki. So where would you want to draw the line? Ckruschke (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Yes, Misplaced Pages also has articles on Sherlock Holmes, Mickey Mouse etc., but they are not presented as historical figures. There aren't speculations about the final days of Holmes, or his age when he died. The "Daniel" of the Bible is a hagiographic figure, who may or may not have some historical prototype (there was a legendary sage "Danel" or "Daniel", not necessarily Jewish to begin with, but the hagiographer of 160-something BCE decided to use this name for the hero of his book, and made his "Daniel" an exilied Jew in Babylonian times).Fauskanger (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree that there are many pages about fictional characters, your point (I thought) was that Daniel the historical person only comes from one source - the Bible. Thus my reply that if you want to kill this page, it should only be as a part of a number of Biblical figure pages whose source references are also ONLY the Bible as our POV whether Daniel is or is not a historical figure is immaterial. Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Daniel's life

I've restored this section. I came to the article interested in the life of the historical figure Daniel and was instead only given tidbits about who considers him a prophet, what Ezekial may have said about him, etc. I can't think of any compelling reason or WP policy for deleting this section, but it's obviously open for discussion. BHC (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

"Miraculously Saved?"

In Daniel's Life, it says Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego (not sure if I spelled their names right!!!) were "Miraculously saved." However, the Bible says that God protected them from the fire, because the Son of Man was with them. Am I just being too maniacal about specifics, or does anybody else have this problem? ~Monk ( Harrass) 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Protected from the fire r saved from it. What's the diference? ~~ Dan Waggoner Danwaggoner (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel's name in other languages

Can't that mess of translations be moved away from the opening sentence? It looks untidy and unprofessional, but worst of all, it makes the introduction a burden to read. (Huey45 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

Danel in the Ugaritic Text

I realize that even the NIV cites that the "Daniel" of Ezekiel is the "Danel" of the Aqhat text, but the Ugaritic story of Danel refers neither to his righteousness nor to his wisdom. Furthermore, Ezekiel was no fan of idolatry (Ez 5:9) nor were post-exilic Israelites, so citing a Baal worshiper as wise and righteous would have been unlikely penned by the original author and all but impossible for later redactors to miss.DefiningEternity (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New layout

I have edited a new layout for the Daniel page on 03:13, 4 October 2011. I broke out some of the sections for easier reading and potentially adding more content. Pictures were realigned for a better lay. Thanks, Jasonasosa (talk)

Bahai connection

I have reverted the addition of a section on the relevance of Daniel to the Bahai faith. It referred to the 1260-day prophecy (see Day-year principle#Baha'i Application) but this from the Book of Daniel rather than Daniel the person, so it's not appropriate for this article. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Daniel (biblical figure). EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Now expanding my closure, per a request. I moved Daniel (name) to Daniel. The alternative was to place the DAB page there. My impression was that more people in the discussion wanted Daniel (name) at the base name. In any event, Daniel (name) seemed to get more page views than the DAB page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Daniel → Daniel (biblical figure) – better 76.120.164.90 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Incoming links to Daniel can be fixed en masse using a batch tool such as AWB. If Daniel (name) is moved to Daniel, then incoming links to the name article can be subsequently fixed in the same manner.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Two things, then - the general consensus/practice here is to privilege the biblical person over the book - e.g. Isaiah/Book of Isaiah. Secondly, we are driven by what people search for - and nobody is going to type in "Daniel" looking for "some guy named Daniel". StAnselm (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's entirely possible that people might search for the name itself, either for etymological reasons or even because they can't remember the surname of a particular 'Daniel' they're looking for.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, i don't support that move 76.120.164.90 (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Redirect to Daniel (name) — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be better not to create a redirect when the page is moved. Instead, move Daniel (name) to Daniel.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose @Steel1943: Now that you've mentioned redirecting Daniel, perhaps moving this article to Daniel (biblical figure) would not be such a good ideal as Daniel is a popular searched name for the biblical Daniel, and he doesn't have a last name. If this article were to move, articles such as Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah etc. would also have the same issue, and not much people are going to type in (biblical figure). I think its best if Daniel weren't moved per WP:COMMONNAME and redirect Daniel (biblical figure) to Daniel. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Daniel is in much broader common usage than the other names you've suggested. Moving the article is consistent with articles for very common names that are also shared by biblical figures.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Jeffro77 Yes, Daniel is a popular first name but Daniel by itself is popularly searched for the biblical name, and I think the article is already set per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISION. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The common name for the common name Daniel is Daniel, and it is more precise than Daniel (name). One could argue that the name of any biblical figure could be 'more precise' by having it as the main subject, but it doesn't automatically trump a very common name. What's your source for stating that "Daniel by itself is popularly searched for the biblical name"?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories: