Talk:Masada myth
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theMasada myth article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives:1,2Auto-archiving period:3 months  |
 | This article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated fordeletion on 22 July 2024. The result ofthe discussion wasno consensus. |
 | A fact fromMasada myth appeared on Wikipedia'sMain Page in theDid you know column on 20 September 2024, and was viewed approximately 8,574 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | The DYK hook above wasamended and thenpulled. |
 | On 5 March 2025,Masada myth waslinked fromTwitter, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted inits revision history. |
 | There have beenattempts torecruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input, such asrequest for comments,third opinions, posting to noticeboard, or other mechanisms based on neutral criteria. If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Remember that, on Wikipedia, disputes are resolved bycommunity consensus, not by majority vote. |
@Pyramids09: your statement that there have been historical discussions about neutrality is not a justification for a POV tag. Almost every article relating to the history of Zionism has editors making claims about neutrality. If that was our standard then all the Israel-Palestine articles across Wikipedia would need POV tags.
What matters is: what is the status of those discussions, and do they hold any policy-based substance?
An editor adding a tag is expected to make their own judgement on the content of the article.Onceinawhile (talk)08:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
…explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag,identifying specific issues that are actionable within Wikipedia's content policies.
Why sure. I mean this has been discussed much above, which is sufficient by itself to support the tag, but hey. Glad to be of service.
Remember:in this post, I am not trying to argue that the article is POV and is a POV fork. All I want to here is demonstrate thatat least a goodly percentage of intelligent, informed, disinterested, sane, and forthright people could make a quite decent argument that it is to the degree that both alerting the reader to this, and invited other editors to consider the matter, is appropriate, and easily so.
So, before getting to the merits and specific and actionable remedies, let's go over the history, with some annotations:
This hook states as fact that which the sources do not state as fact"So, a bunch of people think the article is a POV spinoff, and a bunch of people don't.If one wishes to maintain that the article is not at leastreasonably considered to bearguably POV, one would have to maintain that all of one's colleagues thinking it is or might be are idiots, ignoramuses, sheep, trolls, POV warriors, or madmen. Reading the posts, I'm not seeing that at all. At all. I mean, of course one could deny that one follows from the other, but what else am I to infer? What other logical conclusion is there? There isn't one. I'm not super interested in stated denials, as anybody can deny anything, if they gain an advantage. This has been true since people could talk.
Alright. That's the history. I would expect for thenth time the argument "The history means nothing, nothing means anything much except whether a given statement (including conclusions) does indeed appear in the cited peer-reviewed journal or similar; if it is, we can use it, and by definition, being accurate, it cannot be POV or used for POV purposes, end of discussion". Or however well honey-coated one wishes to put it. That is, however, getting into the second area, the merits of the case , whether the material is indeed arguable POV or not, and specific and actionable remedies. Given the above analysis of consensus I don't consider that necessary, but if one considers consensus unimportant I also am prepared to engage cogently in detail that also. I'm here all week.
I'll skip ahead to the third part, the suggested solution, since it's simple: The and specific and actionable remedy is to delete this mess, TNT it. Alternatively, merge it back into the original article which did exist, after all, from 2011 which is long before anybody invaded Gaza, and somehow the Wikipedia survived. Because reasons, I doubt this can be accomplished. AWP:IAR procedural deletion or merge based on the ArbCom directive and plain horse sense I guess, but no one believes in IAR anymore. So you all can relax. The article is going to continue to exist, and in its present very bad form too. A POV tag at the top of the article is all I am asking. You ought to be able to live with that. If you can't even do that, that may say something about one's ability to be cool-headedly NPOV.Herostratus (talk)06:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the merits of the case , whether the material is indeed arguable POV or not, and specific and actionable remedies. Given the above analysis of consensus I don't consider that necessary, but if one considers consensus unimportant I also am prepared to engage cogently in detail that also.
Herostratus (talk) here. We've already established that the articlemight be POV, and that about half the editors who've stated an opinion on that think that it probably is. Now let's dig down. Can we find stuff that actually does support the contention that it's POV on the merits.
But before that, let's lay down some parameters so that you all know where we all are coming from. Now, I get that editors might not agree, or say they don't. There's nothing we can do about that. So:
One passage inWP:RS that bears on our investigation is"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". I believe that this passage (and supporting ones) is held to be of some importance, and it is. It's not like it's a bad passage, it's an important and useful statement. And nobody disputes thatWP:RS one of the ten or so core policies that must be followed for the project to work. But note the "usually", and thatWP:RS is open to interpretation, and also has"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" and"[P]rimary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery [are maybe not so great], (in which case awaiting studies that attempt to replicate the discovery might be a good idea, or reviews that validate the methods used to make the discovery)" and"[A] paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper" and"A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs"as well as, right at the top,"Editors should generally follow [this policy], though exceptions may apply". Exceptions might be when an article is terribly POV and is being defended to the death by a crew of POV warriors, IMO. Whether that applies here I musn't say; you decide, Dear Reader. (N.B. to be fair I've cherry-picked a little bit, there are different quotes inWP:RS that might kind of support a different interpretation. I'll leave that for others to get if they wish, I don't care to make your arguments for you.)
So, in the normal course of things, being of the mind "peer-reviewed academic journal, we can use it, period" is acceptableas far as it goes. It's acceptable if you don't have the need to dig deeper (the usual case). We are busy, this is a hobby, we have to move fast, if we spent hours deep-checking each fact the project would slow down, we are notCitizendium or ourselves an academic publication, we rely on the fact-checking of sources (altho we also do our own). If the ref'd material is very minor, or if it seems that it would beprima facie true to any reasonable person, or if one's searching has found no significant counter-argument to the ref'd material, or if the material is neithercontended (opposed by an editor(s)) norcontentious (a reasonable editor might have some objection to it on ideological or like grounds (the usual case; someone's birthdate, for instance, is not usually contentious), or if one lacks the time, interest, diligence, or acuity to dig deeper, and so on, then that's one thing.
However,if there is reason to believe that a matter is contested or contentious, and does not look to beprima facie true, and if one has the time to look deeper, and there's reasonable reason to do so and materials with which to do so, that is different. And that is the situation here.
Relying entirely on just the one passage fromWP:RS, for important, debatable, and contestable material, well... one might expect this from new users, from the mediocre, from the ideologically compromised, from the uncaring, from the confused, from children.
But you all and we all, we've been through that, and this is not our fate, so let us not talk falsely now.
I wroteWikipedia:Reliable sources checklist long ago. It's not very good, but makes some fair points. One is that thepublication is important, but so is theauthor. Authors -- even professors -- are just human, and (beside maybe just mediocre) have motivations. Someone writes something, butwhy?Quo Bono? Nobody writes for no reason. Of course usually the reason is proper and unexceptional -- contribute to human knowledge -- and that's fine. But maybe not always.
Regardingfacts, one thing I learned only recently is thatpeer-reviewed journals do not fact check. They are looking to see if the methods are done correctly to standard and the conclusions arereasonable. If an article concludes that a new particle has been discovered, the peers don't go verify if this is true, they present the conclusion forothers to reproduce (if it's a hard science) and verify. So forsome kinds of statments we're vulnerable to stuff likehere, where an egregiously false statistic spread around the world even tho whenNature investigated they found that "Among the 348 documents that we found to include the [completely false] claim are 186 peer-reviewed journal articles, including some inBioScience,The LancetPlanetary Health andPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society..." Nobody at all these fine journals fact-checked. So, you know, we are never absolved from our duty to be skeptical of some of the facts inany source.
That's for facts. I don't know if we are going to be checking actualfacts (how many potshards had inscriptions, where the skeletons were found, etc) or have the chops to vet them. Just pointing this out.
Now, going on the motivations. I know little of archeology but just a little bit of history, and I do know that "publish or perish" is a thing, and that works should usuallypresent something new. "I wrote a book about Abraham Lincoln, and found nothing new. I just moved around and rewrote and added details with stuff that's already known" you will get nowhere. "I wrote a book about Abraham Lincoln, and putting together various clues from various sources, I conclude that he had Attention Defecit Disorder". Something new! Something to get you invited to present at symposiums! Something to get people talking about the book and about you! Something for colleagues to write refutations or support! Something for theNew York Review of Books to review! Something for the department head to pat your head and give you a biscuit (so to speak)! Something for the tenure comittee to be aware of when the time comes! Something a cute male colleague wants to discuss over coffee! Etc.
And this is good. That is what historians arefor. To advance human knowlege by digging deep and looking at the facts in a different way, and maybe coming up with something new and worthwhile. This doesn't mean that Lincolndid have ADD. Maybe he did, maybe not. Who knows? It'll never be provable, but it's a historian doing her job correctly, and thank goodness for historians. It might someday become standard belief enough for us to say "the academic consensus is that Lincoln had ADD". Or maybe it will just fade away. Time will tell. But we seldom want to say "Lincoln had ADD"in our own voice unless it's really only contested by a few outliers. But now here's the crux, the in-between state... should we write "According to Professor Flutesnoot, Lincoln had ADHD."'? It depends. It'd be a true statement, and course one could say "It is true, and the reader can check it, so we can write it, end of story". But we are not children here. We know that writing that would put the notion into the reader's head.
So anyway.. we have to dig deeper and consider more thoughtfully. If Flutesnoot is an associate professor at East Jesus State Teacher's College, maybe not. If she's a distinguished professor at Yale, maybe. There are other considerations. Are there any marks on Flutesnoot's record? Has she (politely) been called an idiot by several other academics? Were some of her previous papers dismissed as claptrap? Has she won prestigious prize? Does she have an article here? How has her other work been recieved? What is her citation score? Is she a Lost Causer? And who all knows what else. These are all data points. Not proof of anything, but data points.
There's no rule anybody can give us to decide these things. That is why we have wits and experience and judgement, n'est-ce pas? I know it can feel discomfiting when there's no hard rule to cling to. But we are not here to feel comfortable.
Of course, one could say "What claptrap, Herostratus. It doesn't work like that. Academics are comitted to science, period. They are above all that, and they moved by such things. Stop dragging an entire profession thru the mud based on personal speculation. Stop bloviating about stuff half of which I can't even understand. It's a hobby and I literally don't have the time or inclination to read all this, give me three bullet points, this is TL;DR." Fine. You're excused. This is the grown-up table.
So, moving on, next, we will look at each source, point by point. We know that you all have been waiting for this. This is you all's wheelhouse, your one trick, put aside the mountain of points that demonstrate that this article is an egregious and frankly vile unwikipedian POV hatchet job, and talk about each point and argue fruitlessly about whether or not we can say something printed in a peer-reviewed journal in our own voice, period stop end of discussion. Let's argue whether "cherry-picking" is just a personal opinion, is not defined, and isn't even a thing since a fact is a fact and we are allowed to choose which ones to use. And so on. Let's pretend it's fun!
With you all's permisson, I will now take a break, hoping this meets with your approval.Herostratus (talk)01:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh just came across this in Smithsonian Magazine: “'Since archaeology is a humanistic science, it matters greatly who is doing the asking and generating the data,'” White explains." "White" is Bill White from UC Berkely, he doesn't have an article here but looks to be a legit professor and field archeologist. I think he makes a fair point.Herostratus (talk)04:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Executive summary: We are looking at the first ref. This is not a very good ref, I would not consider acceptable in the context it is used. If the |quote field is removed that'd be an improvement. But I would still tend to think that there must be better refs for the staement ref'd.
There are long quotes in some of the refs. That is fine. There are refs in the lede. That's a bit unusual but it also is fine. OK, so starting in the first ref, in the lede:
So, the article is a review ofThe Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel byNachman Ben-Yehuda. I only have access to the abstract for this article, that I can find. But fortunately, this article's editors have provided an excerpt, a long note added to the ref as it appears in the ref section. This is perfectly fine of course, we do this sometimes and IMO its a good way to get material in without muddying the main line.
So, the text taken from Rose Mary Sheldon's article and put into the |quote field of the ref is:
Sheldon 1998, p. 448: "The belief system he refers to is a myth created around the story of Masada and the Jewish fighters who committed suicide there at the end of the Great Jewish War against Rome in A.D. 73. The story, as Josephus tells it, is not one of heroism. The sicarii on Masada were simply an extremist group of terrorists who had never participated in the Jewish Revolt to begin with and had spent more time killing other Jews than fighting the Romans. Modern twentieth-century Zionists, however, took the original story, eliminated the more embarrassing parts (like the massacre of Jews at Ein Gedi by the sicarii), then used the remaining core to construct a "mythical narrative" of heroism, sacrifice, and national pride for modern Israelis."
All this is in support of the statemenht "The Masada myth is the early Zionist retelling of the Siege of Masada, and an Israeli national myth". So, no, the ref does not support the statement in the sense that "reffing a statement" is intended. It this was a court of law you might get the judge to agree that, technically, the letter of law allows it. But it's not a court of law. The ref isn'tlying, but it doesn't really have anything to do with the material the the ref is supposed to support. There's tons of material in the |quote field that has nothing to do with the ref'd statement, and this is pretty suspicious. Why would an editor do that. Could be a mistake or sloppiness. Could be. I would not want to accuse a colleague of being sloppy or incompetent, so maybe it's something else?
So, this ref is kind of like, for a person you don't like, you ref his birtplace to an article "Smith was born and grew up in Sandusky, Ohio, and went on to be a top neo-fascist radio personality, and also egregious asshole, grifter, kleptomaniac, and goat-fucker" to ref his birthplace. The title of the article isDoes Smith Fuck Goats? The source is reliable for his birthplace, but the other stuff is characterization and can't be proven (or let's say it isn't, in the article), so you can't use it in aWP:BLP. But you got it into the article! Sure, down in the refs, which is a more obscure position than you like, but plenty of people will still read it, and be like "Goats? Really?". And if you think you can get away with it, you can put all kinds of depractory stuff in the |quote field. It's clever work. It's smart work. But, you know,we have seen this exact same thing before. We are not children, or tyros. "It is cleverly disguised" is not a good defense for POV material.
And we aren't going to assume good faith. I mean we wouldn't want to accuse any colleagues of incompetence. At some point a person has todemonstrate good faith. The makers of this article haven't done that, in fact they have drowned good faith in the bathtub and run it thru the wood chipper. We have demonstrated this many times on this talk page and elsewhere. And we'll do it again if warranted. Yes anybody can say "How dare you say that, I'm pure as the driven snow. And anyway you cannot know anything about my internal mental state." Butanybody can say anything. It's what you do that counts.
So, basically Rose Mary Sheldon is describing what is in the book being reviewed. She's not really writing solely in her own words. So we had better vet the book. the |quote field in the ref is part of the article after all, so let's look at that.
So... above we have the actuall material, so to analyze it a bit: It's all Nachman Ben-Yehuda's considered opinion based on his interpetation of sources. However "opinion" not a deal-killer necessarily. His considered opinion is based on forensic examination of the (one, quite unreliable) ancient source we have, of interpretations of recent archeological digs, and... that's it, basically. Hard data on this subjec is just pretty thin. That's not going to keep academics from writing about it. There are tea leaves to be read. But the sources are thin. And apparently there's no "the general consensus of historian is..." on this subject. There isn't one. There isn't enough data. One guy interprets the source and the latest archeological digs one way, another another way. There's lively academic discussion and disagreement on the subject. Nachman Ben-Yehuda is in this, and it looks like he is kind of an outlier.
So, what is Nachman Ben-Yehuda's considered opinion? It's highly inflammatory for starters. Let's start with "the [legendary defenders of Masada] were... an extremist group of terrorists". "Terrorist" is a really loaded word, as is "extemist". One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Anyway, we want to avoid terms like "terrorist" -- particularly when we don't actually know anything much about them for sure, whether they were terrorists or thugs or what, or what, and if they were terrorists it seems they were using terror to fight the occupiers of their country, which is kind of different from the Zodiac Killer or whatever. We don't know. So moving on... "spent more time killing other Jews than fighting the Romans"... If true it's fine. But we don't know if it's true or not, and it's pretty strong for something we are just guessing at. All this might be OK if Ben-Yehuda is cool-headely neutral. So let's look at that.
There ara good number of reviews ofThe Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel, and of course we'll look at them all as we go forward. Again, I'm just a peasant so I can mostly only access the abstracts. Buthere is the abstract of a review fromBrigham Young University Studies. It has:
Perhaps to cushion the shock inflicted on fellow Israelis but his debunking of the 'Masada myth, Nachman Ben-Yehuda prefaces his analysis with a confession of trauma he personally experience in 1987 when his own faith was shaken... he read a paper by David Rappaport portraying the Sicarii on ancient Masada as Jewish terrorists. Simce that portrayal conficted with what he had learned in Israeli schooling and military service, [he] rushed to check the main source, Josephus'sThe Jewish War...
We don't know who David Rappoport[Rapoport!]is, he doesn't have an article or even much of a google presence. Rapoport is a distinguished academic. (change byHerostratus (talk)18:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)) I don't know how to take "trauma". It may be just hyperbole, or it may have been a life-changing event. We'll have to look into that. But I would tend to want to shy away from a source like that for such a fraught and contentious subject.[reply]
So anyway, Nachman Ben-Yehuda readThe Jewish War and this was a life-changing experience for him (the whole thing ishere., which is the source document for the myth (the stuff in it is different than what the myth says, or might be. This is to be expected for myths one would think.)
The Jewish War is 1) ancient, 2) the work of one guy (Josephus) and not fact-checked in any way, and 3) that one guy may have had an agenda (he was a former Jewish freedom fighter who went over the Romans, and could have had reason to please his Roman masters I suppose. I would speculate that he might have wanted to justify to himself being a turncoat you'd think, cos that's how people work. Who knows? Nobody.)
According toOur article on Josephus{{[Josephus] blames the Jewish War on what he calls "unrepresentative and over-zealous fanatics" among the Jews, who led the masses away from their traditional aristocratic leaders (like himself), with disastrous results. For example, Josephus writes that "Simon [bar Giora] was a greater terror to the people than the Romans themselves."}}
Like himself, eh? Sounds pretty sketchy. More atJosephus. It's lomg article and if I'm cherry-picking let me know. If this was a modern work we probably wouldn't use it. I expect that what he writes has some basis in fact tho. "Some basis in fact" is well below our reliablilty standards, and secondary works based in such a document would be suspect to, I would think.
So, so far I think thatNachman Ben-Yehuda is a sketchy source for this sort of thing, considering that we have other sources such asMasada: from Jewish Revolt to Modern Myth byJodi Magness, who is "Kenan Distinguished Professor for Teaching Excellence in Early Judaism at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" and so forth. She is not used as ref in the article at all, for whatever reason. We actually have a copy here, so we will be looking at that. I mean it can't be a matter of vetting her as a ref, cos she's notused as ref for whatever reason. But still. Let's see if she supports Ben-Yehuda and to what degree, shall we?
Anyway. That is the first ref, for the first sentence. We will get to the second presently.Herostratus (talk)08:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nachman Ben-Yehuda, an Israeli sociologist, notes that the Masada myth is based on a whitewashing of Josephus’s account. For example, instead of referring to sicarii, the Jews atop Masada are typically described as Zealots, as for example by Yadin, or as defenders or rebels—neutral terms that mask the group’s violent activities. Their terrorism of other Jews, including the massacre of innocent villagers at Ein Gedi, is overlooked in the Masada myth (see chapters 7 and 8).". The terrorism aspect is examined at great length by Magnes who is not inclined to deny it: "
Although many scholars have offered different solutions to reconcile these contradictions, most agree that Eleazar ben Yair and his group at Masada were sicarii. Nonetheless, Yadin’s consistent use of the term Zealots rather than sicarii to describe the dominant rebel group at Masada continues to cause confusion,..." Magnes refers to the "Masada myth" repeatedly and has quite a lot on it. At first (and second) sight, the first sentence of this article is in perfect accord with Magnes' book.Zerotalk12:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's a sketchy source with a super strong bias. We want him out altogether, that is your view, but not the view of any of the scholarly reviews. It is also an unacceptable way to malign the former dean of the department of sociology and anthropology at Israel's most prestigious academic institution.
Scholars debate whether contemporary sources about Saint Nicholas are true. Just like Josephus's Masada story, it is probable that the "real truth" was different. In the infinite number of possible true versions of Saint Nicholas, there is a theoretical scenario where he really did have a flying sleigh and reindeer, just as it is theoretically possible that the Sicarii (dagger-people) were kind-hearted brave and nationalistic defenders of Jewish culture. Since it can be demonstrated that both Santa Claus and the Masada myth are modern inventions, scholars leave it there rather than getting stuck in a loop ofphilosophical indeterminacy. This allows us to be comfortable saying that both modern stories of Santa Claus and the Masada myth are untrue.
We don't know who David Rappoport is, he doesn't have an article or even much of a google presence, I have added the relevant article byDavid C. Rapoport to the bibliography.Onceinawhile (talk)17:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for "why didn't you all use Magness": First, nobody has pointed out a serious disagreement between Magness and Ben-Yehuda and nobody has pointed out things we would write differently if we used Magness instead of Ben-Yehuda. Second, both of them are reliable sources and the optimal route is to use both. As for Josephus, as I said before we should use him only via modern experts and for that reason our personal analysis of Josephus' reliability is completely irrelevant.Zerotalk00:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus: are you still intending to bring any proposals for specific and actionable amendments to the content here?Onceinawhile (talk)15:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "you all" I mean the people who are refusing to allow the article to be tagged for POV. Remember, while we are indeed discussing whether the article is POV or not,we are doing so under the condition of not being allowed to have the{{POV}} tag on the article on the implicit threat of being dragged to ANI if we try. (Whether that's a the kind of behavior we'd expect from people who are confident in their arguments, I will have to leave to the reader's judgement.) So the question is "Should the notion that this article is POV be dismissed our of hand as not even worth discussing?"User:Zero0000 is welcome to the "you all" club. Anybody is. But there's no need for pearl-clutching. If you don't want to be spoken to plainly, don't defend silly propositions like that; WP:AGF is good for a starting point, at some point you have todemonstrate good faith, and putting the{{POV}} tag back would be at least a start.
Re "our personal analysis of Josephus' reliability is completely irrelevant". Well, there's a lot goes into making an encyclopedia. One of them is the brains, wit, skill, knowledge, experience, and strict neutrality of the individual editors. If we are are supposed to treat sources as if we are credulous dolts, OK if you say so, but what aboutwhen sources disagree? Since our personal analysis is completely irrelevant, what do we do? Not write the article? Consult ourMagic 8 Ball? Head to a nearby bar where we can get drunk and some intelligent conversation? I am all ears, colleagues.
So here isEric D. Huntsman, and since you all's position seems to be that your personal analysis of Josephus' reliability is completely irrelevant, I guess we'll have to use his, right?
So Huntsman comes in with... I have a few paragraphs of excerpts which I'll hide, but he basically rips into Josephus and certainly gives a number of good reasons to considerJewish Wars as a cross between a historical novel and a polemical tract. You can read the details below if you wish.
"Josephus however was sometimes inaccurate, somewhat evasive, prone to tangents, and even sloppy in his writing... when elements of Josephus's works are contradictory, inaccurate, obviously fabricated, or simply wrong, the nmodem reader may begin to question Josephus's reliability. To understand how an author like Josephus could be both a great writer and at the same time a questionable historian we must understand the difference between history and historiography... In antiquity historiography was writing about history and was a literary genre of its own. To the sophisticated reading audiences of Greece and Rome, rhetoric was as important as accuracy... the authors tried to persuade their audiences that what the authors thought happened or even what they thoughtshould have happened actually occurred. Therefore Greek and Roman writers of history omitted, expanded, or compressed historical material to suit their own needs, freely appropriated whole passages from other writers, and readily invented detail while adorning their narrative to make it more persuasive and aesthetically pleasing. How clearly Josephus falls into the classical historiographic tradition is clear from the direct influence exerted on him by previous greek authors... Gregory Sterling has identified a subgenre of history writing that he calls apologetic historiography. He sees this as a type of writing particularly in the Hellenized near east in which a local content (the history of a particular people) is recounted in a non-native form adapted from a superimposed dominant culture... Josephus engaged in this kind of apologetic writing when he tried to redefine Judaism within the context of a Greco-Roman world. By doing so he hoped to inform others about his people while defending them and their traditions from growing antisemitism among the Greeks... Hence in a famous episode prior to the fall of Masada to the Romans, Josephus composed an elaborate philosophical treatise for the rebel leader Eleazar. Josephus was not present to hear what speech if any Eleazar actually gave... The speech, like others in Josephus's works, is a literary creation... Since ancient history was intended to be didactic, Its writers fashioned their narratives for their own purposes... if an event did not support their point they were free to ignore or modify it... some of Josephus's sources were in as much a position to approve or even censure his account as they were were to provide information for it... it is apparent that these political figures were able to influence and even direct his history, insomuch that it has been suggested thatJewish War' was a work commissioned by the imperial government... The need to please his patrons provided Josephus with an external bias that imposed limits on what he could and could not include in his work... It was Josephus'sinternal bias, however, that had the greatest affect on his selection and use of evidence... Josephus's solution to this dilemma was to blame the war on... the Jewish extremists whom, whether they were the zealots in Jerusalem or the Sicarii who seized control of Masada he calledlēstēs or 'bandits'. This shifting of blame however is probably only the proximate purpose ofJewish War... The reliability of the works of Josephus suffered even more after the texts actually left his hands... the oldest manuscripts date between the ninth and eleventh centuries, at least eight hundred years after Josephus first began to write. During that time copying errors were made, marginal notes were accidentally included, and interpolations were,willfully injected into the text..."
You can read the whole thinghereHerostratus (talk)06:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now,Eric D. Huntsman is a full professor too. At a large, famous, second-tier university rated R1 for research. B.A. in Greek and Latin, Ph.D.in Ancient History and Classics from an Ivy League school (Penn). Written scads of scholarly books and articles.Association of Ancient Historians member. Started out at BYU in the Ancient History and Classics department, is (or was) coordinator of the Ancient Near Eastern Studies program. Has the usual log-rolling awards (Susan and Harvey Black Outstanding Publication Award, Honors Professor of the Year, that sort of thing). But he's not used anywhere in your copious refs or even mentioned in your extensive bilbliography. Well imagine that.
Is Huntsman reliable? I mean if we are only allowed to judge on credentials, hehas to be, prima facie. We can say anything he writes in our voice, just as we apparantly do with Ben-Yehuda and anyone else with a fancy CV. Or am I missing something here?
But he's not reliable, at all. I would prefer it if he was, but since I'm fair-minded and honest (the water's fine), I have to vouchsafe that he's not. He reliable for his own opinions ("According to Eric Huntsman...") and even then I wouldn't usually use that without giving a proximate valid contrary opinion, if there is one.
Why isn't he reliable? He's biased. He's a Mormon. Not just a Mormon, but a really really religious Mormon cocooned in a Mormon university. Born in New Mexico and I surmise he was brought up Mormon. Did his missionary work, was in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and was even a Mormonbishop (altho in Mormonism that really just means "lay pastor", but still.) He's at the College ofReligious Education, where he is or was a Professor of AncientScripture (emphasis mine). In the work I quoted from above, he used the term "the Lord" when he wasn't quoting anyone directly and other people might have said "Jesus". There's nothing actually wrong with any of that. But wait, it gets worse. In addition to his works like "The Impact of Gentile Conversions in the Greco-Roman World" and "Levels of Meaning: The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Teaching of Roman History" and so forth, he's written stuff like "Good Tidings of Great Joy: An Advent Celebration of the Savior's Life" and "Worship: Adding Depth to Your Devotion" and "Communicating With The Lord" and "Greater Love Hath No Man: A Latter-day Saint Guide to Celebrating the Easter Season" and just a whole gobs of stuff like that oreven more hard-core religious. I'm sure he's a great guy, but I would be super leery of anything he writes that might in some way intersect with the Mormon religion, broadly construed. Which ancient events in the Holy Land pretty much have to. And without looking it up, I bet that Church of Latter-Day Saints would be quite pleased to advance the notion that the Masada myth is more true than it is.
Sure one could say "Huntsman's a fancy-dan professor, so he's a reliable source, so we can report what he says as fact, full stop. It's not our job to try to surmise what anyone's internal state is or guess if anyone is 'biased' one way or the other". Anybody can say anything that suits them. Doesn't mean its not silly. Becausethere's no such thing as "reliability-laundering". There's no such thing is "Such-and-so is a terrible source, but I am a distinguished professor with lots of expertise, and therefore I am a very reliable secondary source. So ifI, for whatever reason, choose to consider Such-and-so's writings as factual, the Wikipedia can and even must treat them as coming from a very reliable secondary source and therefore reportable as stone solid fact". But that's nonsense, so Huntsman is mostly out.
But if Huntsman is out, so is Ben-Yehuda. And if Ben-Yehuda is in, so is Huntsman. Sauce for the goose.Herostratus (talk)05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But anyway Magness agrees with Huntsman, basically, although briefly as it's not her main interest, so you still have to shoot down Magness. She even lumps Josephus in with Thucydidies as a storyteller, too. Magness: "On the one hand, [Jewish War] is intended as a cautionary tale for peoples living under Roman rule not to consider the possibility of revolt... on the other hand, for the benefit of a Roman audience, Josephus pins the blame for the First Revolt on extremists and criminals who do not represent Judaism or the Jews." (pp. 20-21). And, you know, states like Rome have been using Josephus's language since forever. When the Soviets were hunting down the Ukrainian guerillas after WWII, did they characterize them as patriots or as bandits? Two guesses. Regimes fighting nationalist guerillas are always characterizing them as gangs of simple common criminals. What would be remarkable was if Josephusdidn't do that.Herostratus (talk)05:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Masada myth" is a Zionist narrative, based on Josephus's account, that portrays the defenders of Masada as heroic freedom fighters who chose death over capture by the Romans, becoming a symbol of Jewish resistance and national heroism in modern Israel.
According to Josephus's account, the Jewish rebels, known as Sicarii, fortified themselves on the mountaintop fortress of Masada and resisted the Roman siege for several years. When the Romans breached the fortress, the rebels, rather than surrender, chose to commit mass suicide, killing their families and each other, rather than be captured and enslaved.
The Masada myth, which emerged in Mandatory Palestine and later Israel, selectively emphasizes Josephus's account, highlighting the defenders' courage and resistance while omitting details of their violent actions against other Jews.
The early Zionist settlers used the Masada myth to establish a sense of national heroism and promote patriotism, solidifying Masada's status as a symbol of Jewish resistance and national identity.
While the myth is revered in modern Israel as a symbol of Jewish heroism and a "last stand" against an aggressive empire, some scholars and archaeologists have questioned the accuracy of Josephus's account, suggesting that the mass suicide narrative might be an exaggeration or even a fabrication.
Archaeological evidence, including the discovery of Roman artifacts and the lack of extensive skeletal remains, has led to some debate about the extent of the mass suicide and the accuracy of Josephus's account.
Despite the ongoing debate about the myth's historical accuracy, Masada remains a significant site in Israel, a UNESCO World Heritage site, and a symbol of Jewish history and resilience.
"and actually tells more about what is in the myth"followed by quotes from Josephus' original account show that you think the myth is what Josephus wrote. That is not how any scholars use the term “Masada myth”.
I had an epiphany! Ididn't understand what this article is about! Or maybe you all don't. Or maybe none of us do. Or something. Because we have been talking about two different articles. Two quite different ideas of what the article is supposed to be. This is probably a big part of the reason why we are talking at cross purposes a fair amount. I'll explain all this right below.
I don't know if the sources used in the article are reliable or not. I am skeptical of all sources here on the general subject of Israel, because it is hard to get truly disinterested writers in the general subject of Israeli history it seems. Sourcesalways have to be vetted if it's called for (I am calling) andacademic sources in the soft sciences particular, because the acadamies are pretty anti-Zionist. People feely strongly about the subject and -- people being people -- that's likely to affect their analysises. Anti-colonialism I guess. Maybe other reasons. who knows.
Yeah I don't read Greek. "Some of the quotes you brought were simply direct translations of Josephus made by scholars" -- I mean, why are quoting Josephus at all since we all agree that he is completely unreliable? If we're going to use unreliable sources, maybe Meir Kahane or whomever has their version of what actually happened. Can we quote from sources like that. I mean I am sure that we can find acceptable sources that say "The Masada myth is... true...." Or whatever. If taken from an article by a professor, we can use that, right? I mean since cherry-picking material is not a thing (if it is in an article in an academic journal we can quote whatever parts we feel best advance our mission), as I gather you all seem to feel, yes, we can. Shall we?
Anyway -- our main and primary source for this article should be Yadin. Right? I mean he only, I don't know,made the thing. We ought to have lots of stuff like:
It is thanks to Ben Ya'ir and his comrades, to their heroic stand, to their choice of death over slavery, and the burning of their humble chattels as a final act of defiance to the enemy, that they elevated Masada to an undying symbol of desperate courage which has stirred hearts throughout the last nineteen centuries. It is this which has... drawn the Jewish youth of our generation in their thousands to climb to its summit in a solemn pilgrimage...
It's not a question of Yadin's reliabily. He's extremely biased I'm sure. We probably shouldn't use his stuff in the articleSiege of Masada to support anyfacts.
But this is literature, mythmaking. It's doesn't matter if it's true. The Greek myths aren't true but we describe them. I mean right there Yadin is blowing smoke with the "last nineteen centuries" thing -- practically nobody knew about the siege for most of that time I think. Maybe he blows a lot of smoke -- probably does. So what. If the myth had the defenders being lifted bodily to heaven then we would include that.
Obviously the article should include mostly stuff like that. (The debunking should be included, sure, but it is secondary to what the article ismainly about, it should be below the fold and shouldn't dominate the material, and by no means give much shrift to Josephus I wouldn't think. It should mostly be about the archeology I would think -- more recent digs that indicate that maybe the defenders didn't kill themselves as the myth said but rather fought to the last man and so forth. This is quibbling about details and it's not a huge deal.)
But... see, this would be the right approachif the article was about the myth, the story. But it's not! It was never intended to be. It's about something else altogether.
So. this article is inCategory:Historical myths. The other articles in the category are
One other,Myth of the flat Earth, doesn't belong, andMyth of the clean Wehrmacht isn't actually in the category but would fit well.
Anyway, all these can be pretty much characterized to a greater or lesser extent as either "Story made up by blackguards for some evil end" or at least "Story made up for propagada (in the bad sense)" and we can and do be straight up with the "This is polemical bullshit" pretty much. (The category is quite misnamed, I was expecting myths based on real people as opposed to Rama and so on, but its only a small subset of that. Something like "Polemical myths" or "Propaganda myths" or whatever would be more accurate.)
Anyway, you could certianly include the Masada mythas the article currently is and was intended to be with these:
But here is the thing. Everybody agree that homophobes, racists, Third Reich apologists, colonialists, genociders, and imperialialists are blackguards. But not everybody agrees that Zionists are blackguards, at all. And also, unlike most of these others, the myth is based on a real thing that happened, in which the protagonists apparently actually were the good guys and not blackguards at all (the Romans were the bad guys). Which matters I think.
We, as a project, we certainly can't assume that Zionists are blackguards. It's not unreasonable to believe that, but it's complicated, and there isn't a consensus on that. In America certainly a good majority support Israel (I'm talking about everyday people, not academic types) and in fact both our political parties agree with this which is unusual. Our demographic here at the Wikipedia is going to overrepresent the river-to-the-sea folks because reasons, so we have to be extra careful to check our biases at the door.
But you all are not doing that. You can deny it all you like, even to yourselves if you like, but as the man said don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I'll tell you what you believe. What you've shown is that you believe is that Zionism is bad enough that leading the reader to see that supercedes evenWP:NPOV. This is a problem, it is a behavioral problem, and it's not a good look.
So, because you are biased, you're thinking that the article ought be sort of likeIrish slaves myth etc. So you don't see it as a disgraceful hatchet job, but just explaining to the reader the truth: Hey here's this story made up blackguards to justify evil. While I was thinking the article (if it continues to exist, which it shouldn't) should be more likeRomulus and Remus or whatever.
So we are really talking about two entirely different articles here. This is a conundrum and at the moment I'm not sure how to proceed.Herostratus (talk)06:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In America certainly a good majority support Israel.
Καθαρθείσης δὲ τῆς χώρας ἕτερον εἶδος λῃστῶν ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐπεφύετο, οἱ καλούμενοι σικάριοι, μεθ᾽ ἡμέραν καὶ ἐν μέσῃ τῇ πόλει φονεύοντες ἀνθρώπους, μάλιστα [δὲ] ἐν ταῖς ἑορταῖς μισγόμενοι τῷ πλήθει καὶ ταῖς ἐσθῆσιν ὑποκρύπτοντες μικρὰ ξιφίδια, τούτοις ἔνυττον τοὺς διαφόρους, ἔπειτα πεσόντων μέρος ἐγίνοντο τῶν ἐπαγανακτούντων οἱ πεφονευκότες, διὸ καὶ παντάπασιν ὑπὸ ἀξιοπιστίας ἦσαν ἀνεύρετοι. πρῶτος μὲν οὖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν Ἰωνάθης ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀποσφάττεται, μετὰ δ᾽ αὐτὸν καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἀνῃροῦντο πολλοί: καὶ τῶν συμφορῶν ὁ φόβος ἦν χαλεπώτερος, ἑκάστου καθάπερ ἐν πολέμῳ καθ᾽ ὥραν τὸν θάνατον προσδεχομένου. προεσκοποῦντο δὲ πόρρωθεν τοὺς διαφόρους, καὶ οὐδὲ τοῖς φίλοις προσιοῦσιν πίστις ἦν, ἐν μέσαις δὲ ταῖς ὑπονοίαις καὶ ταῖς φυλακαῖς ἀνῃροῦντο: τοσοῦτον τῶν ἐπιβουλευόντων τὸ τάχος ἦν καὶ τοῦ λαθεῖν ἡ τέχνη.
When the country was purged of these, there sprang up another sort of robbers in Jerusalem, which were called Sicarii, who slew men in the day time, and in the midst of the city; this they did chiefly at the festivals, when they mingled themselves among the multitude, and concealed daggers under their garments, with which they stabbed those that were their enemies; and when any fell down dead, the murderers became a part of those that had indignation against them; by which means they appeared persons of such reputation, that they could by no means be discovered. The first man who was slain by them was Jonathan the high priest, after whose death many were slain every day, while the fear men were in of being so served was more afflicting than the calamity itself; and while every body expected death every hour, as men do in war, so men were obliged to look before them, and to take notice of their enemies at a great distance; nor, if their friends were coming to them, durst they trust them any longer; but, in the midst of their suspicions and guarding of themselves, they were slain. Such was the celerity of the plotters against them, and so cunning was their contrivance.
” He also describes the Sicarii as “bandits in different form” (ἕτερον εἶδος λῃστῶν)… “Bandits” and “banditry” were terms well known to Josephus’s audience. In classical and Hellenistic authors, λῃστής commonly denotes one who devotes himself to robbery or piracy (Plato Laws 823e; Aristotle Politics 1256a36; et passim)… Thus the term was used to describe categories of warfare that were not legitimate or genuine (iustum). Accordingly, such individuals fell outside the law, being classified neither as citizens nor as legitimate enemies of a foreign state.”
“Finally, we may briefly note that Josephus calls the activity of the Sicarii “murder” (φονεύοντες, οἱ πεφονευκότες), and the general panic he likens to that of warfare (καθάπερ ἐν πολέμῳ).”
Thus, we might reasonably conclude the following. It would seem precarious to insist that the Sicarii were a historically identifiable, card-carrying, banner-waving group during and after the war… Instead, Josephus seems to have adopted this Roman label, attached to perpetrators of high-profile household assassinations carried out at the war’s inception, to demonstrate the blindness and folly of such behavior. That is, Josephus uses the term primarily for rhetorical purposes, calling the raiders from Masada “bandits” when they follow Simon and kill Idumeans, but “Sicarii” when they kill fellow Jews at Engaddi. Such an identifying label was of particular use in developing and bringing to a resolution the theme of stasis. Therefore, if we were to construct a historical image of the Sicarii on the basis of the narrative of War, we might suggest the identity of a modern “terrorist” as an analogy. Both labels are highly charged words which bring vividly to mind acts of violence against innocent people for political ends. Both can be used in a variety of political contexts to describe not only those who actually commit such acts, but also for those who merely express the intention or have the clear potential. Both can thus also be used as labels by which to marginalize political enemies. The label sicarii first came into use among the Jews to describe terrorist activities in Jerusalem: swift and stealthy acts of violence directed by Jews against their own countrymen. The method of violence distinguished the Sicarii from other bandit gangs so that Josephus could call them “bandits in diff erent form.” This activity eventually solidified against Jews in Jerusalem who supported Rome, and these nameless Sicarii were identified thus not only by their terrorist activities but also by their targets.
The Masada myth is a selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus's account, with the Sicarii depicted as national heroes in theFirst Jewish–Roman War. Josephus, the only written source for the event – albeit one considered biased – instead described the Sicarii using words that have been translated as "bandits", "terrorists" and "murderers", and recorded them killing their fellow Jews rather than fighting Romans.
For those editors more interested in how modern publications have altered the masses' understanding of classical history, you might be equally interested in my new articleOcto Mundi Miracula, and the resulting edits toSeven Wonders of the Ancient World. Despite the Seven Wonders article getting 200,000 views very month, I bet the new article won't draw anywhere near as much drama as this one did!Onceinawhile (talk)01:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing some reading and thinking. I think the introduction might be better to describe first what the myth is:
TheMasada myth is the earlyZionist retelling of theSiege of Masada, and an Israelinational myth. The Masada myth is a selectively constructed narrative, with theZealot defenders of Masada depicted as national heroes in theFirst Jewish–Roman War who killed themselves rather than surrendering to the Roman army.
The next sentences should summarize the scholarly consensus on what actually happened
Josephus, the only written source for the event – albeit one considered strongly biased – had theSicarii as the defenders of Masada using words to describe them that have been translated as "bandits", "terrorists" and "murderers", and recorded them killing their fellow Jews rather than fighting Romans. Josephus does describe a mass suicide though many modern scholars consider this doubtful.
TheSiege of Masada article should concentrate on the scholarly consensus of what actually happened then; this article on the creation, evolution, and reception of the modern myth. I note the body of this article does need work. Thoughts?Erp (talk)03:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to reiterate, we're playing this game under protest as we have not been allowed to to keep the merge and POV templates up, by brute force. I'll put 'em back and we'll see.
So, anyway,User:Onceinawhile, my ears pricked up when I heard the word "deconstruction". I thought that theory had been long abandoned outside of literar yanalysis, because ultimately with deconstruction in the real world you end up with Mussolini being no worse than George Washington, and that was the end of that.
Our articleDeconstruction opens with
In philosophy, deconstruction is a loosely defined set of approaches to understand the relationship betweentext and meaning. The concept of deconstruction was introduced by the philosopherJacques Derrida
And continues on in this manner. Derridas article has
Jacques Derrida was a French Algerian philosopher. He developed the philosophy ofdeconstruction, which he utilized in a number of his texts, and which was developed through close readings of the linguistics of [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] and [[Edmund Husserl|Husserlian]] and [[Martin Heidegger|Heideggerian]] [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]]. He is one of the major figures associated with [[post-structuralism]] and [[postmodern philosophy]] although he [[Deconstruction#Not post-structuralist|distanced himself from post-structuralism]] and disavowed the word "postmodernity"...
Derrida states that his use of the word deconstruction first took place in a context in which "structuralism was dominant" and deconstruction's meaning is within this context. Derrida states that deconstruction is an "antistructuralist gesture" because "[s]tructures were to be undone, decomposed, desedimented". At the same time, deconstruction is also a "structuralist gesture" because it is concerned with the structure of texts... involves "a certain attention to structures" and tries to "understand how an 'ensemble' was constituted". As both a structuralist and an antistructuralist gesture, deconstruction is tied up with what Derrida calls the "structural problematic". The structural problematic for Derrida is the tension between genesis, that which is "in the essential mode of creation or movement", and structure: "systems, or complexes, or static configurations". An example of genesis would be thesensoryideas from which knowledge is then derived in theempiricalepistemology. An example of structure would be abinary opposition such asgood and evil where the meaning of each element is established, at least partly, through its relationship to the other element...
In a paper...Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak... criticised Derrida's understanding of Marx... The American philosopherWalter A. Davis, inInwardness and Existence: Subjectivity in/and Hegel, Heidegger, Marx and Freud, argues that both deconstruction and structuralism are prematurely arrested moments of a dialectical movement that issues from Hegelian "unhappy consciousness"...Paul R. Gross andNorman Levitt also criticized his work for misusing scientific terms and concepts inHigher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels With Science...Noam Chomsky wrote "I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading...
So. Twenty-dollar words. So what. Derrida has been criticized even by other academics as being obscure. Academics arguing with each other about fine points of philosophy, we want to stayvery very far away from that and including it in our works. We are not here to deconstruct anything, we are here to
As far as Josephus, he is about as as biased as say Joseph Goebells. In the Warsaw Uprising article we do not have:
On the other hand, Joseph Goebells – albeit being considered strongly biased – had the Polish Home Army as fighting in Warsaw using words to describe them that have been translated from German as "bandits", "terrorists" and "murderers", and recorded them killing their fellow Home Army comrades rather than fighting Germans. The Home Army myth emerged and was promoted in Poland. Despite the modern academic consensus, popular accounts by figures like [varios anti-communists] have perpetuated the myth, influencing public perception. In the myth narrative, the defenders of Warsaw were depicted as national symbols of heroism, freedom, and national dignity. This narrative selectively emphasized Goebbel's account, highlighting the defenders' courage and resistance while omitting the details of their murderous campaign against innocent Poles...The Home Army's myth's central role in Polish collective memory has puzzled scholars due to its structural differences from other national myths: Goebbe;'s account was not an origin myth, did not provide formative context, and was not heroic in nature. It has been described as "an extreme example of the constructbeion of national memory", as it had no prior basis in Polish collective memory... Goebells describes the defenders of Masada as communists, an extreme Polish group known for assassination. He further described the Polish Home Army using words that have been translated from german as "bandits", "terrorists", and "murderers"... [repeat of lede stuff about historians being gobsmacked]... The rigid and uncompromising stance symbolized by the Warsaw Uprising myth became associated with right-wing nationalism and was increasingly viewed negatively by those advocating for peace and compromise with the communist government.
Followed by the references, of which many feature paragraph-length excerpts -- perfectly legit but quite unusual. All -- all -- of these excerpts are various opinions about how the Home Army myth is false horrible, and toxic propaganda. Nothing about more details about the event itself, how it is celebrated, or anything positive about the myth.
Sure Goebells is not the only source. Certainly only fringe communists (some academics are tho) are negative about the Uprising. SO WHAT. We would still not have anything like thisbecause it is super biased and vile
Why is that? Well one reason might be thatWe think the Uprising, or our perception of itis heroic, and we have nothing against modern-day Poles. THAT IS UNACCEPTABLY MEDIOCRE and I resent it as a 20-year builder here who, as a Social Democrat -- SR really -- have taken care that our article on Jim Jordan is not biased, and that our article on Bernie Sanders includes that apalling article he wrote. Be like me.
We do not lead the reader. Let the reader read the neutral description of established facts, and when do mention Josephus we do not include peoples biased opinions about the things that may not have happened by a writer who was a Roman thrall and wrote -- probably under duress -- stuff that that the Empire would approve about their enemy. Let the reader read the descriptions anddecide for hersel what to make of it.Herostratus (talk)10:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
