Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) →Myth yet again: agree |
→Myth yet again: canvassing |
||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
::::::{{talk quote|Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at [[WP:CHOPSY]]: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the ''conservative'' side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)}} |
::::::{{talk quote|Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at [[WP:CHOPSY]]: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the ''conservative'' side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. [[User:Alephb|Alephb]] ([[User talk:Alephb|talk]]) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)}} |
||
::::::Quoted by [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
::::::Quoted by [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Izak also appears to be [[wp:canvassing]], see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ibn_Daud&diff=prev&oldid=961907845&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chefallen&diff=prev&oldid=961908088&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bus_stop&diff=prev&oldid=961908226&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoninah&diff=prev&oldid=961908545&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sir_Joseph&diff=prev&oldid=961908940&diffmode=source]. This does not inspire confidence in their good faith. As a 17-year veteran, Izak should be aware that the appropriate place to attract attention to discussions is neutral noticeboards such as [[WP:WikiProject Judaism]].--[[User:Ermenrich|Ermenrich]] ([[User talk:Ermenrich|talk]]) 12:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:27, 11 June 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clester07 (article contribs).
Minimalists vs. maximalists
@Editor977: Agree that these are now derogatory terms, and most germane, it was a dispute from the 20th century. It seems that most mainstream scholars from the 21st century are neither minimalists nor maximalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- we use the labels found in our sources.—Ermenrich (talk)
- agreed, the editor who added them likely did so for bias. which is consistent whith prior wording and choices in old version of historicity section when that was added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor977 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
consensus to change to new version with cited material added... see latest version ermenrich undid 3 times. is this what you want? consensus that reliable sources can be added? @Ermenrich: do you even have an issue with any of the reliable sources? try starting with naming 1 instead of edit warring without any stated complaint with the edits
suprise...@Ermenrich: goes silent when asked to present a concern with the edits. but has all the time in the world to edit war.
@El C: @Tgeorgescu: @Dimadick: since ermenrich wont say offer any complaint about the edit, could any of you offer your opinion on the latest edited version I made where I added only cited material and explained each edit in the edit summary?
unfortunately, youll have to look back to my last edit manually, since erminerch refused to go to talk and edit warred until the page was locked. so just fyi the current version is not my last edit. just look at the last one I edited thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor977 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- You are the one edit warring. You are violating rules on wp:balance by pushing one wp:pov in scholarship.—Ermenrich (talk)
you edit warred removing cited material repeatedly. and without any justification. even when asked repeatedly. i only added consensus claims that were cited.- there is a reason you continue to refuse to raise even 1 issue with 1 specific edit. just vague generic accusations of pov. your actions speak for themselves. again, if you find an issue with 1 of the edits that are all consensus and cited, see the sources instead of just edit warring and removing them without reading them, then by all means post even 1 concern. also dont follow me to every page i edit, its harassment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor977 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
ex:"The lack of evidence for the Exodus events is what leads most scholars to omit them from comprehensive histories of Israel." the source I cited even lists examples, not that you even read it before you edit warred to try to remove it. reliable sources do not have the exodus as a historical event in Israels history. see the source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor977 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Uninvolved comment It's ironic you're both accusing each other of edit warring, and yet you both gladly violated WP rules on edit warring until the article was blocked. Both of you have been reported. Now might be a good time to take a break for a little while. Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
- Now that the Fajsanadvs sock has been blocked: the text doesn’t mention maximalists, only minimalists. In this particular case maximalists have a fringe position, the debate is really between those who deny any historical basis to the Exodus (identified in cited sources here as minimalists) and those who believe something or other lies behind it.—Ermenrich (talk)
- Having reviewer the edits, there is indeed a mention of maximalism. However, again, it is the term used in the sources cited. Most scholars today do not fall into either category, obviously, but that does not change the accuracy of the descriptor for scholars taking extreme positions on the historicity of the Exodus.—Ermenrich (talk)
Myth
Why do you keep changing the description from a myth to a "story"? Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I don’t. I was referring mostly to the other changes. No problem with saying myth.—Ermenrich (talk)
- do you want to list an issue with a change? ex: the source says Moses is a mythical figure according to overwhelming scholarly consensus. although this was already cited and explained in the summary of edit. @Ermenrich:
- Why does it have to be a myth? Chairman Mao's Long March was many, many times more difficult and the organisation survived. 2A00:23C5:C102:9E00:74EC:3BBA:D27E:A52D (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- It is a myth because that's what WP:CHOPSY teach about it.
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Should we add an FAQ about the "myth" designation? I've never been deeply involved in an article that had one and don't know the conventions for using one, but most of the discussion on this page seems to be occasioned by new people coming along and asking why we call the Exodus a myth. A. Parrot (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment For anyone who hasn't noticed, WP:CHOPSY is neither policy or a guideline. It is in fact part of WP:ABIAS, an essay created by Tgeorgescu. Jerm (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- So we should ignore the fact that reliable sources call it a myth, or what’s your point?—Ermenrich (talk)
- I never said to ignore reliable sources or consensus. I just don't want any editor to feel discouraged about editing or feel intimidated by pretense-like policy, and I certainly don't like the ideal of using an essay to substitute for policy. And with that, I have nothing more to add. Jerm (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Jerm: I never claimed that WP:CHOPSY were policy. But it is a pretty honest rule of thumb for how Wikipedia works. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. E.g. I would be surprised if several of https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/choosing-university/worlds-top-100-universities teach at history faculties that the Exodus did happen, precisely as told in the Bible (i.e. two million people for 38 years at Kadesh Barnea). Or pick top 100 from here: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I never said to ignore reliable sources or consensus. I just don't want any editor to feel discouraged about editing or feel intimidated by pretense-like policy, and I certainly don't like the ideal of using an essay to substitute for policy. And with that, I have nothing more to add. Jerm (talk) 01:07, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
There is evidence of the Exodus in the middle kingdom of ancient egypt. In the old city of Avaris. This premise of a "Myth" renders the whole article inaccurate and misleads the public . There is plenty of evidence for the Exodus, and the archeologists know it. They are scared to tell the truth. They knew it since 1942 when the city of Avaris, which was named after Joseph, was discovered by Prof Manfred Bietak.
WilliamWestcott (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yup, conspiracy theory. That's all you got. Forgetting that the archaeologist who will establish that the Exodus were a fact will get the million dollars from Dan David Prize, and, of course, world fame. And Bietak was 2 years old when he discovered Avaris??? If your statement wasn't intended to be humoristic, it should have been. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- 197.185.102.95 (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Surely the narrative is too detailed to be classified as a myth? Myth is also a misleading term but it commonly refers to something that is not true and there is an historical basis for the Israelite people being in Egypt. See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/
- Please can myth be removed as it is not a good description.
- Top 100 universities from The Times Higher Education Supplement do not agree with you. This is the end of the matter for the foreseeable future. There weren't two million Jews in Egypt and they didn't build the pyramids. And there isn't any trace of two million people for 38 years at Kadesh Barnea. As stated previously, the Exodus is mythologized history. That whole story with Kadesh Barnea is preposterous, unless angels were teleporting their feces to another planet. It would have been a gigantic engineering project to get rid of their feces. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
10th plague
I'd like to insert this image in the narrative section, between the other two. Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion about to what extent "Biblical account" sections (and similar) needs secondary sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Since the results of that discussion currently appear unclear, I'd suggest that anyone with easy access to secondary lit that summarizes the Exodus add citations to the narrative section here. I've already added a few footnotes from Redmount (and there's a few others already present there).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good thinking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Myth yet again
IZAK is removing the word "myth" from the lead again. As I have said before, "myth" is often used to refer to stories that have cultural importance, whether they are true or not. For example, a passage in The Pentateuch (2012) by Walter J. Houston, describing Jan Assmann's perspective on myth (p. 139): "…Assmann applies the term 'myth' to foundation stories… without necessarily implying anything about the actual historicity of those that are set in historical time. The heroic defense of Masada and the suicide of its defenders in 73 CE is an example of an undoubtedly historical event that has become a myth for modern Israelis. The past enters cultural memory, becomes a 'myth', when it has meaning for the present and the future, when it is 'a reality of a higher order, which not only rings true but also sets normative standards and possesses a formative power.'"
Moreover, the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus did not happen in the form described in the biblical text. At most, there was a small group of people who migrated out of Egypt, and some current hypotheses suggest there was no such migration and the story originated in Canaan. If there was an event that inspired the story, it was of vastly less significance than the story itself, whose significance comes from its status as a founding myth. A. Parrot (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @A. Parrot: I have noticed that a number of editors such as User:Ermenrich have been acting in a WP:OWN attitude in articles relating to Judaism and go all out to deny what classical Jewish commentators and scholarship has to say. Very nice that you can quote SECULAR anti-religious profs xyz, but they know beans about Jewish theology and just have an ax to grind against anything Biblical and even Jewish. That's the story for now! 02:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a secular Encyclopedia. If you want to write an Encyclopedia from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism or whatever, you can go find another Wiki to edit. We summarize what reliable scholarship says on a subject, and reliable scholarship calls the Exodus a myth, regardless of whether people believe in it or not. There has been no evidence to support it found by archaeology or historians.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- And by the way, IZAK, I would be very careful casting WP:ASPERSIONS that editors are motivated by antisemitism just because you don't like what reliable sources say on a topic! You've been here over 17 years I see, surely you must know better than that!--Ermenrich (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ermenrich: I have had this argument countless times, but here goes again: Wikipedia is just an Encyclopedia, an online Encyclopedia, it is NEITHER secular NOR religious. One can write about ANY topic under the sun as long as it is written from a WP:NPOV and using WP:RS, end of story. So both your radical secularism and my religiosity can live side by side and respect each other's methodologies. Your allegation that one cannot "quote" the Bible in WP arguments is ridiculous because that is precisely what YOU are doing, you quote the Bible to disparage it by citing so-called secular anti-religious professors, while I am relying on the ongoing scholarship of Torah by Jewish sages from ancient to modern times, just that you may not have heard of all of them, the following would and do assert and affirm what I have to say about the veracity of the Hebrew Bible and that The Exodus is 100% true and the 100% reliability of Judaism's Oral Torah: ALL in Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period -- thousands of Jewish scholars spanning two millennia that would ALL agree with what I am trying to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN. You have to make way for a more religious POV just like I have to make way for your secular POV, it's as simple as that. Hope we can agree on some common ground. IZAK (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zerotalk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
@DLWyer: We kowtow to Ivy Plus, we don't kowtow to true believers, be them Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu. ... . E.g. it is highly unlikely that a full professor from BIU or TAU would tell his/her students that the Exodus really happened, precisely as reported in the Torah. The position that the Exodus happened as described in the Bible is WP:FRINGE/PS at Ivy Plus, it is WP:FRINGE/PS at BIU and TAU. And this is how every experienced Wikipedian knows that you have already lost this debate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- BIU means Bar Ilan University; TAU means Tel Aviv University. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- You can’t remove “radical secular” views from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a “teach the controversy” sort of place: all academic scholars are in virtual agreement, we’re discussing history and archaeology here, not theology. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want, but you can’t promote those beliefs here according to your wp:agenda. You’ve been here 17 years, I suggest you acquaint yourself with our sourcing policies like WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:RNPOV.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, we tell it the Ivy Plus way, the Bar Ilan University way and the Tel Aviv University way. There our article would be recognized as a fine, up-to-date summary of mainstream Bible scholarship.
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Izak also appears to be wp:canvassing, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. This does not inspire confidence in their good faith. As a 17-year veteran, Izak should be aware that the appropriate place to attract attention to discussions is neutral noticeboards such as WP:WikiProject Judaism.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- You can’t remove “radical secular” views from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a “teach the controversy” sort of place: all academic scholars are in virtual agreement, we’re discussing history and archaeology here, not theology. You’re welcome to believe whatever you want, but you can’t promote those beliefs here according to your wp:agenda. You’ve been here 17 years, I suggest you acquaint yourself with our sourcing policies like WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:RNPOV.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Ermenrich: I have had this argument countless times, but here goes again: Wikipedia is just an Encyclopedia, an online Encyclopedia, it is NEITHER secular NOR religious. One can write about ANY topic under the sun as long as it is written from a WP:NPOV and using WP:RS, end of story. So both your radical secularism and my religiosity can live side by side and respect each other's methodologies. Your allegation that one cannot "quote" the Bible in WP arguments is ridiculous because that is precisely what YOU are doing, you quote the Bible to disparage it by citing so-called secular anti-religious professors, while I am relying on the ongoing scholarship of Torah by Jewish sages from ancient to modern times, just that you may not have heard of all of them, the following would and do assert and affirm what I have to say about the veracity of the Hebrew Bible and that The Exodus is 100% true and the 100% reliability of Judaism's Oral Torah: ALL in Category:Rabbis by rabbinical period -- thousands of Jewish scholars spanning two millennia that would ALL agree with what I am trying to DESCRIBE and EXPLAIN. You have to make way for a more religious POV just like I have to make way for your secular POV, it's as simple as that. Hope we can agree on some common ground. IZAK (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)