The Creative Commons license for the image requires attribution (See Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0). I could not find on Flikr where the author specifies in the manner the attribution to be carried out. I don't know if attribution on the photos page is acceptable. The alternative is to remove the image. -- Micah 06:29, 22 August 2006 (MST)
The attribution already exists on the main page for the image...what appears in the article is a thumbnail with a link to that page and doesn't have to include the credit. -- Sans Deity 07:18, 22 August 2006 (MST)
I'll take that as executive policy and make future image submission only attribute on the image's main page. Thank you. -- Micah 08:47, 22 August 2006 (MST)
Thanks. If you take a look at wikipedia (which we're using as the 'gold standard'), that seems to be the way they're doing it. -- Sans Deity 08:56, 22 August 2006 (MST)
There is a very strong case that the second verse refers not to a literal sword but the sword of truth that divides - and causes problems to the believers themselves (see verse in context). Ironically seems a case of cherry picking verses that seem to fit your aim.
Re the US marines, whether they see this as a real sword or not is irrelevant and perhaps an appeal to authority.
(The above comment was left by User:Stig.)
- Of course it's not a literal sword. In context (see Matthew 10:32-38 ), it's obviously a metaphor for strife and civil war. I doubt even biblical literalists think verse 34 refers to an actual steel weapon like Excalibur.
- As for the "sword of truth" business, I have no idea where you're getting that. --Arensb 10:52, 4 October 2008 (CDT)