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.
'you argued against sources you hadn’t read for almost two months. Then you read them, and did some great work. Suggest we shortcut it this time. We are not going to exclude high quality academic sources because you haven’t had time to read them'
I'm rather puzzled by this because I cannot see where in that page or the current page I am asking to exclude any high quality academic sources. I re-read theTalk:Modern Jewish historiography from 2023, and I cannot figure out what this is about, and I'm a little puzzled by the tone and insinuation. I think we did some good work on that page. But one of your initial claims on that page was that Jewish national historiography originated in the 19th century, and we ended up bringing that all the way back up to the 14th century with references to earlier historiography going back to Josephus, the Hellenistic historians, and medieval chronologers and chroniclers. You initially argued to exclude the 16th century which Yerushalmi and Bonfil both cover in-depth. And while we did not end up using the Baznitzky book, we did not use Shlomo Sand either in that article, which as far as I can tell was the main source I was arguing against. The question of "a religion, a culture, a nationality," isn't really addressed head-on but is side-stepped (or treated as all three). So again, what source are you saying I am trying to exclude, and where did I say I hadn't read it or didn't have time to read it?Andre🚐20:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember a long discussion, starting at the DYK in September 2023, and I think moving to one of our talk pages, where you ultimately accepted that the right way forward would be for you to read the sources. Some great work was done after that.Re my initial claim versus the article today, one did not disprove the other. Our difference was in the semantics. Jewish “national history” is a 19th century phenomenon, and the article’s description of Graetz and Dubnow are clear.
On this one, rather than commenting on the new bibliography I added, you suggested a bunch of tertiary sources. If you are saying you don’t object to the new sources, then we are in agreement.Onceinawhile (talk)21:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing the discussions, but I'm still not sure what that would refer to. Do not see that atUser_talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/60#DYK orTemplate:Did_you_know_nominations/Jewish_historiography. That discussion seems to be about whether various hooks were good for DYK or accurate. As the sources and the article make clear, Jewish national history dates to the Roman era, Basnage nor Graetz were not the first modern history, though the semantics as far as I can tell hinge more on "modern" than "national." I cannot find a comment from me in 2023 agreeing or refusing to read any sources, so I am still asking for clarification on that because as far as I can tell, it is not an accurate characterization of the discussion.
About the present article I am suggesting per policy atWP:TERTIARY to use the tertiary sources as a way to frame the article and determine fair weight. You accused me of proposing something outside of policy.Andre🚐21:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just think you should engage with the secondary sources. Only then can we assess anything substantial about the article, including whether the tertiary sources are a good framework.Onceinawhile (talk)21:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss that on the article talk page. But I would appreciate your clarifications here about your comments. As I am still reeling from your insinuations regarding the 2023 discussions. Could you please review those discussions again and let me know where you think I refused to read sources, said I didn't read or didn't have time to read them, or ultimately changed my mind and acquiesced to read them? Because I do not remember any of that happening.Andre🚐21:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My memory is fuzzy but I think it was at another article, and those discussions were the catalyst for creating the Jewish historiography page. I remember an in depth 1x1 discussion somewhere.Onceinawhile (talk)21:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've located the discussions in question and I still do not see where I refused to read or allowed to read any source. Please withdraw that claim as it is not accurate. There is a statement by you here:[2]when was "Jewish history" as we know it today first written? In the mid 19th century (e.g. Heinrich Graetz),, as I think the current state of the article proves, is not true. As I stated then and as the current article shows, Jewish history can be traced to the Roman and Hellenistic writers and threads through the middle ages. I don't want to rehash any old beefs or start any new ones. But unless you can cite a time when I refused to read the sources and later agreed to read them, that is an unfounded aspersion.Andre🚐23:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck it. I have failed to substantiate my recollection, so I withdraw it.
On the historiography question, it is interesting see that the work has not changed either of our views. This is because our difference of opinion was, and remains, about thenature of the history written by Jews about Jews prior to the modern nationalist period. As it stands the article doesn’t address that comparative question anywhere, so we are left with our unchanged preconceptions.Onceinawhile (talk)04:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking it. As far as the orientation to the material, I think the article itself is still incomplete, and it is necessarily difficult to complete as it is still a very vast topic. There are also big missing gaps in Wikipedia's depth onmedieval historiography in general. There are systemic reasons why it is challenging to address. But, I wonder if you have, in refamiliarizing yourself with the work on that article, come across for example the work of Bowman[3], relating howJudah Leon ben Moses Mosconi felt about theYosippon around p.32-33. Or consult what Yerushalmi thought about the Inquisition, versus what he thought aboutDavid Gans orJoseph ha-Kohen. What we ended up using for the DYK wasAzariah dei Rossi. There are other examples. The Wissenschaft generally discarded the Yosippon but they did embrace Gans, ha-Kohen and dei Rossi. or consider theGerson D. Cohen introduction toibn Daud, as I believe we discussed once.[4] or the work of Jeremy Cohen onShevet Yehudah.[5] These sources do look at the impact this all had to later periods. They also critically analyze the sources and methods. There was no Wissenschaft in the 19th without a significant heritage and indebtedness to the rabbinic chain of tradition literature, which Yerushalmi admits.Andre🚐05:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am using this thread to ask a question. I have been working on some framework for articles in myUser:Bolter21/sandbox and I was thinking maybe there should be aWP:TASKFORCE for the History of the Levant. Something that would expand on the history, geography, archaeology of the lands, people and cultures of the Levant - i.e. Syria, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine and Jordan, from Palaeolithic to the 20th century. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Would you participate?Bolter21(talk to me)09:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related togender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
