Talk:Evening/Archive 1

Source

I noticed today the oxford link says that evening starts at 6pm while the article says 5. Should this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:404:38EE:3DB7:8CD7:9515:5AEA (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a collins ref. For 5pm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.121.247 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even-ing

My understanding is that the word comes from the period describing a balance between light and dark (day and night) - so that the become for a period 'even'.

My understanding is that in Roman time-marking, the evening was from mid-afternoon (3 pm) till sunset (6 pm). Their hours varied in length throughout the year such that sunrise defined 6 am and sunset defined 6pm. Lucindy 19:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset varies depending on the time of year and location on earth - what is the basis for the times used in this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.50.47 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 16 June 2007

The Picture?!

Did anyone actually read what the picture was that's assigned to this page before associating it with "Evening"? It's a Canadian morning... not evening. 132.170.162.22 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.134.216 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now. PuerExMachina (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical definition

Wikepedia is a encylclopedia....

"en⋅cy⋅clo⋅pe⋅di⋅a /ɛnˌsaɪkləˈpidiə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [en-sahy-kluh-pee-dee-uh] Show IPA –noun 1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." Quoted from: Dictionary.reference.com/browse/encyclopedia

The persistent edits that keep removing parts of or in total the “biblical definition” are inconsistent with the very concept and definition of a Encyclopedia itself. As such, if you don’t know what you are talking about…..best not say anything and certainly not go around attempting to correct those who have “attained” to that “lofty station” to which you obviously have not. Allendaves (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content you persist in adding to the article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. This page is not a prepublication draft of an article. This page is the final, published article every time you press "Save page".

First, it contains no citations to sources. Content added to articles must be verifiable. See WP:V: this is official policy. Do not persist in adding unsourced content to this article.

Second, it bloats the content of the article with unnecessary detail. A reader coming to Wikipedia to learn about the parts of the day will want information about evening. The reader will not want several thousand haphazardly assembled words about the biblical definition of evening. A short discussion of the Judeo-Christian concept of evening is appropriate. Your long rambling addition does not even note the most relevant thing about the topic (the day begins at sunset), instead adding a whole lot of speculative and internally conflicted information.

Third, the content you persist in adding is very poorly written. It contains extreme grammatical and spelling errors, and is so badly organized that it is impossible to follow. It contains highly unprofessional formatting errors. It contains numerous uses of inappropriately informal shorthand. Develop the content somewhere else before continually pasting it into the article.

I have distilled your long, informal series of disorganized facts to a sentence capturing the most important information. —Burn Down Babylon 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not necessarily object to a short section of the article including a verifiable statement about the biblical meaning of evening. However, the section you keep adding is too long and seems to be original research, which is not allowed. PuerExMachina (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.It is a biblical Definition so where do you think the citations would come from???.....the bible perhaps? Where else?!...umm..& those are given.

2. It is not possible to have a article in support of or against a given subject without having a "argument" which by definition is according to the dictionary is: "a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point:" Thus, To have a biblical definition requires a argument based on the material in question. In this case biblical information about how the term day is used in said bible.?!?

3. Your hostility appears to be for the fact that a biblical definition itself exist. However, as noted in the beginning is inconsistent with the whole concept of what is on display here.

4. If you see spelling errors then by all means correct them, If you don’t even understand what the purpose for the article, much less the argument in the article, then how do you know it is poorly organized? What “enlightenment” led you to that bit of sunshine?!

Allendaves (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since your long discussion indicates that the definition is somewhat disputed, a citation to an expert source would be appropriate. Directly citing the primary source is a sign that you are engaging in original research. Please follow Wikipedia content policy rather than flippantly re-inserting your unsourced material. Please also take a few minutes to read WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:3RR as you are presently in broad violation of four project policies. —Burn Down Babylon 23:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A biblical definition is by definition how the bible uses the term...what other citation could you possibly use?!..The article is not a "burndownbabylon" definition of a day or a "Roman" or “American” definition of a day. If it were how the Mayans defined a day, then we might expect to have citations from the Mayans to make that particular argument for that article. However, the article in question here is the "biblical definition". Thus, the citations can only come from that which is in question, which is how the bible defines and uses the term day!?! Your objections are logical nonsense of the highest order!Allendaves (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of translated text should be cited to an expert source in the subject area. If you are a subject-area expert, perhaps you have made publications that we can cite to verify this material. Additionally, this information would be more appropriately expanded in Hebrew calendar, as the biblical definitions for temporal quantities cover more than merely the meaning of words we translate as "evening".

And please, for the last time, read through WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:3RR. —Burn Down Babylon 23:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about interpretation?!...You seem to be the only one confused about what is and is not interpretation verse a logical examination(s) of how words are used in various sources on any given subject......logic is not original nor is its application to arguments presented in various articles…....What is given is cited from the source itself in which the article is addressing. (bible) and presented out in logical presentation on how the word is used as cited…...This is how articles on any subject scientific or otherwise are presented ..If you want citations on logic suggest you reference Logic?

Again From the dictionary: “the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.”

Reliable inference is what the article indeed any article written on how anyone or any source would or does use the term…..Again your objections are logical nonsense! Allendaves (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely uncontroversial to suggest that a discussion of the biblical definitions of temporal quantities requires interpretation of the text. —Burn Down Babylon 23:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what we are and have been discussing. Where have you been?! Your objections, for the reasons given and cited, are shown to be invalid. Either come up with a better article that address all the issues addressed and are in question or quit engaging in hostile “artificial objectivity”. Your edits are what is controversial here not the article itself. Just because you don’t care much for a "biblical definition" does not constitute substantive reasons for its exclusion, particularly since it is a source for many “in fact”.

This is a encyclopedia, not your privet "black list" of knowledge, popular or otherwise. Allendaves (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any Article on any subject of any examination requires either internal or external evaluation...internal is not a interpretation unless it can be shown to have logical equivalence for various possibilities...external examinations are by definition "interpretations" internal examinations are evaluated internally not dependent on external interpretation. logic defines one “personal opinion” defines the other... ..learn the difference If you have better more logical arguments then by all means address them ..do not delete all evaluations simply because you don t know the difference between an “opinion” and a “logical evaluation” of issues under considerationAllendaves (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This article is currently facing a NPOV problem. The biblical content is not neutral --Frozen4322 ^Talk ^Stalk 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it gives undue weight to the biblical definitions of evening. —Burn Down Babylon 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you are engaging in original research, which is prohibited by Wikipedia content policy. Please read over WP:NOR and be sure you understand the requirements of the policy. After that I recommend you revise the edits you have made to the article. —Burn Down Babylon 23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you do not understand what is “original research” . I suggest you learn the difference between "interpretation" (aka “original research” ) and any evaluation of source material. No article on any subject in the Wikipedia exemplar is prevented from evaluations of source material as long as they do not “interpret” go beyond external information applied logically. T hat does not constitute “original research” .That is examining the source of the article in question….You are Grossly in error and or misinformed. Suggest you reread the policy and reference examples in such areas as physics and well any other article in Wikipedia. Logical evaluations are not original research because logic is not original and as long as there are no other logical equivalences to be argued and or ignored then there is no research only information applied within a logical construct. You are engaging in a edit war based on your confused and uniformed understanding of logical evaluations ( which are not prohibited) verse opinions that have no source material to back them up other then “interpretations” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allendaves (talk • contribs) 00:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every paragraph I've seen from you so far has been a chore to read and follow. You talk about logical constructs, interpretations, blablabla etc. etc. in a jumble of run-on incoherent sentences. I've struggled to follow your dis-jointed comments, and quite frankly your off-topic rantings aren't making any sense and in fact I doubt you yourself know what it is you're talking about. If you want to get your point across at least be clear about it and keep it simple, not feed us this drivel. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was directed at Allendaves based on his comments posted here and not on his edits to the article. It was angry, hostile and off-topic itself and I apologize. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have offered a synthesis from primary sources without citing a reliable source. This is the definition of original research on Wikipedia. —Burn Down Babylon 00:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a synthesis is pre-existing elements resulting in the formation of something new. Hey wake up you…that is your assertion not mine….there is nothing new in the article the fact that you did not know how the term was used in the source yesterday does not constitute something new…..that was the whole point to the article itself ….to show how it is used not how it could be or has been used….that would be something new…the article dose not claim any new thing…you in your ignorance, you do that.Allendaves (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Burn Down Babylon 00:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plead guilty. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The {{uw-npa2}} templates are for User Talk pages. Not for article talk pages. Frozen4322 ^Talk ^Stalk 12:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner?

The article states that evening is, 'around the time when dinner is taken.' However, for some of us (including northerners and other groups, as defined in dinner), dinner is the meal eaten around noon/early afternoon ("dinner time" or, to some, "lunch time"). Therefore this statement can only lead to confusion and should be removed. 89.242.23.64 (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be clearer to say 'around the time when the 3rd meal of the day is generally taken'? Shanata (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teatime? Dbfirs 18:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about Weekends?

This article states that evening is defined as: "during the close of the standard business day (about 6 pm)." How's it defined on Saturday and Sunday? Jmdeur (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

globalise

End of the standard business day = 5pm? Hmm. Not necessarily so, I think. This article seems to be about the USA. PamD (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive

I'm from the south and consider the section regarding how all people from rural south america pronounce and use the term. This geographical profiling isn't necessarily useful and no sources are cited. Please cite sources, and be specific about this usage and pronunciation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamel (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing experimentation or vandalism

I'm going to roll this back to what I think is the last version consistent with the cited source. Doesn't solve the basic problem that "evening" is not necessarily tied to particular clock times and may vary with seasons or regions; the source that's currently cited doesn't support this notion very well. Would be good to have another source, but I didn't find anything useful today. I'd like to find one that covers the various words used for time-of-day and the relationships between them: morning, noon, afternoon, evening, night, midday, midnight, dawn, dusk, daybreak, twilight, sunrise, sundown, nightfall.

MARTIN P. NILSSON - Primitive Time Reckoning

—jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]