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)
The article assumed the second verse implied that it advocated violence while the first did not, and out out of context (cherry picked) it may seem that way.--Stig 11:06, 4 October 2008 (CDT)