Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than60 days may be automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleMasada myth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hi. I saw you partially revertedmy edit to still include the phrasing “although enthusiasm since cooled after mistakes were identified by archeologists.”

This is a bit strange, because language shift is generally not labeled as “mistakes”, and the source cited does not state this. The time period is also ambiguous, as “has since” is talking about from the late 1940s to late 1970s.

Therefore, I don’t see any point in keeping this line and I think it should be deleted.LivLovisa (talk)15:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@LivLovisa: the source saysThe earlier enthusiasm for restoring biblical names to their ancient sites has cooled down somewhat, especially after Tell (ʿArâq) el-Menšîyeh, changed to Tel Gat, was proved not to be a suitable candidate for Gath of the Philistines.

The example given was a mistaken identification. The Israeli towns ofGat, Israel andKiryat Gat were named as such because they were thought to be adjacent to the BiblicalGath (city). Turns out they were wrong and now the names are an embarrassing reminder.

Onceinawhile (talk)15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something being "not a suitable candidate" is not synonymous with being a mistake, and you calling it "an embarrassing reminder" is not exactly very NPOV.LivLovisa (talk)16:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On your second point, if my POV is “archeological accuracy", then yes perhaps you are right.

On your first point, you are incorrect. It certainly is synonymous for a mistake. If you still don’t agree, try explaining what you think it means in long form.Onceinawhile (talk)16:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not for you to formulate your opinions. If you wanna go down that route, it’s a bit like saying it’s embarrassing to call Hillingdon “London” because it’s not part of Londinium.

Either way, that’syour judgement, and not something that should be included in the article.LivLovisa (talk)16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion on what it means? Stating what you think it doesn’t mean is not enough.

We are editors, so we have to summarize in our own words. Let’s agree on a summary together.Onceinawhile (talk)16:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an outside observer, I found this helpful in understanding the subject overall and it fits in line with other trends in the constant works-in-progress that are Biblical Archaeology and Historical Criticism.2600:1700:131:51E0:140A:9AE7:757:60CD (talk)04:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, didn't realize I wasn't logged in and just following up to put a name to my comment.Eulersidentity (talk)04:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I woke up today completely burnt out with work. So I did the most sane and reasonable thing and spent a couple hours attending theCanaanite religion article, which is in a really sorry state. I would invite you, should you have time and interest, to contribute too. There's a goodarticle which is available to anyone. Best WishesBolter21(talk to me)15:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qadas was merged intoKedesh, hence the maps in the infobox no longer works. I seem to recall there was an easy fix for that, but cannot remember it, hope your memory better than mine, cheers,Huldra (talk)22:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: if this is about the historical map series, the solution was to add "name=Qadas" to the template.Zero^talk02:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zero0000; thanks a lot for fixing it, and giving me the "solution", I suspect I will forget it for the next time I come across it, though ;/, cheers,Huldra (talk)22:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Church-Mosques has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with thecategorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments atthe category's entry on thecategories for discussion page. Thank you.Bearcat (talk)15:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]