![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've always heard that Amraphel == Hammurabi. However, The Oxford Companion to the Bible states, in the article about Hammurapi, that "In the past, Hammurapi has been identified with Amraphel, king of Shinar (Gen.14), but current knowledge does not support this." Does anybody know more about this? I would hate for Wikipedia to perpetuate a commonly-believed but discredited notion. Josh Cherry 12:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article should be identified by a template and related to other Biblical articles. Otherwise it appears as an orphan entry. Ineuw 00:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An unidentified editor has demanded that the Old Testament not be described as a religious text. The claims of this unidentified editor are that
There is no established standard as to what is or is not necessary. There is no WP policy that only necessary facts be included in articles (probably for the reason that no emprical standard can be established). Even if there were such a standard, the unidentified editor, firstly, has never challenged the truth of the fact sought to be included in the article, and, secondly, if WP is to be regarded as a source of information to people who do not know, it is desirable to include this descriptive term in the page to provide some sense to the lede which relies entirely on that text for its factual assertion of notability of the subject. Very few articles on a subject commence with a a single textual source of information as the foundation of notability; something factual and descriptive to explain may be described as essential. Most important, though, is that it is a fact not challenged by the unidentified editor.
Who is this enigmatic "WP"? What is "it"? The unidentified editor's claim can only mean that he/she has not seen WP articles where the Old Testament is attended by the descriptive term " religious text". Is this relevant? Is there a special WP exception applying to the Old Testament which says it shall not be attended by factually-accurate descriptive terms? It behoves the unidentified editor to explain the basis for this assertion because it is that editor who is attempting to suppress the uncontested fact from WP.
To an observer who is a believer and reveres the text, this is an easily understood assertion: it's all too obvious. WP is not a forum for the exclusive use of believers, though; it is a World Encyclopaedia for all readers of all faiths and no faith at all. If a special rule is to be applied to the Old Testament excluding its being described for readers who have never heard of it (and there are countless millions of such people), then WP is adopting a POV.
That other treatments by other editors can be seen elsewhere in WP is no basis on which it determine whether text in any given article is factually sound and helpful to readers. Practices adopted must be subjected to inspection applying WP objects irrespective of how often or prevalent certain informal (and biased) practices may be. If this were not so, progress and improvement could never be achieved on WP; everything would be written in rock.
I am unable to find any trace of the consensus alleged by the unidentified editor but will be intrigued to be directed to where such a debate has been conducted and consensus arrived at. The main point here is that the unidentified editor objects to an uncontroversial factual description being used on a WP page. That is a highly controversial position to adopt and it is suggested that that position is grounded in faith, thus strongly biased and POV-driven. WP is agnostic, inclusive and written for the benefit of all readers. sirlanz 00:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently, User:Judahtzdk added a book by fringe scholar David Rohl (Lords of Avaris) to the Bibliography section of this article. Unfortunately, David Rohl is a scholar out on the fringes of Ancient Near Eastern history. Mainstream scholars all ignore him -- I haven't been able to find a single academic review of Lords of Avaris. Therefore, according to the WP:FRINGE policy, David Rohl and his book should not be cited as an authority in articles. Alephb ( talk) 12:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This is misusing the WP:FRINGE policy for censorship, when it merely states that alternative ideas that are not mainstream should be stated as such and not given undue weight in the article. Rohl's research is cited in numerous wikipedia articles this way. Therefore, restore the section and stop wasting my time.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've always heard that Amraphel == Hammurabi. However, The Oxford Companion to the Bible states, in the article about Hammurapi, that "In the past, Hammurapi has been identified with Amraphel, king of Shinar (Gen.14), but current knowledge does not support this." Does anybody know more about this? I would hate for Wikipedia to perpetuate a commonly-believed but discredited notion. Josh Cherry 12:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article should be identified by a template and related to other Biblical articles. Otherwise it appears as an orphan entry. Ineuw 00:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
An unidentified editor has demanded that the Old Testament not be described as a religious text. The claims of this unidentified editor are that
There is no established standard as to what is or is not necessary. There is no WP policy that only necessary facts be included in articles (probably for the reason that no emprical standard can be established). Even if there were such a standard, the unidentified editor, firstly, has never challenged the truth of the fact sought to be included in the article, and, secondly, if WP is to be regarded as a source of information to people who do not know, it is desirable to include this descriptive term in the page to provide some sense to the lede which relies entirely on that text for its factual assertion of notability of the subject. Very few articles on a subject commence with a a single textual source of information as the foundation of notability; something factual and descriptive to explain may be described as essential. Most important, though, is that it is a fact not challenged by the unidentified editor.
Who is this enigmatic "WP"? What is "it"? The unidentified editor's claim can only mean that he/she has not seen WP articles where the Old Testament is attended by the descriptive term " religious text". Is this relevant? Is there a special WP exception applying to the Old Testament which says it shall not be attended by factually-accurate descriptive terms? It behoves the unidentified editor to explain the basis for this assertion because it is that editor who is attempting to suppress the uncontested fact from WP.
To an observer who is a believer and reveres the text, this is an easily understood assertion: it's all too obvious. WP is not a forum for the exclusive use of believers, though; it is a World Encyclopaedia for all readers of all faiths and no faith at all. If a special rule is to be applied to the Old Testament excluding its being described for readers who have never heard of it (and there are countless millions of such people), then WP is adopting a POV.
That other treatments by other editors can be seen elsewhere in WP is no basis on which it determine whether text in any given article is factually sound and helpful to readers. Practices adopted must be subjected to inspection applying WP objects irrespective of how often or prevalent certain informal (and biased) practices may be. If this were not so, progress and improvement could never be achieved on WP; everything would be written in rock.
I am unable to find any trace of the consensus alleged by the unidentified editor but will be intrigued to be directed to where such a debate has been conducted and consensus arrived at. The main point here is that the unidentified editor objects to an uncontroversial factual description being used on a WP page. That is a highly controversial position to adopt and it is suggested that that position is grounded in faith, thus strongly biased and POV-driven. WP is agnostic, inclusive and written for the benefit of all readers. sirlanz 00:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Recently, User:Judahtzdk added a book by fringe scholar David Rohl (Lords of Avaris) to the Bibliography section of this article. Unfortunately, David Rohl is a scholar out on the fringes of Ancient Near Eastern history. Mainstream scholars all ignore him -- I haven't been able to find a single academic review of Lords of Avaris. Therefore, according to the WP:FRINGE policy, David Rohl and his book should not be cited as an authority in articles. Alephb ( talk) 12:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
This is misusing the WP:FRINGE policy for censorship, when it merely states that alternative ideas that are not mainstream should be stated as such and not given undue weight in the article. Rohl's research is cited in numerous wikipedia articles this way. Therefore, restore the section and stop wasting my time.