This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hannah (biblical figure) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the paragraph below pending citation of a source. The information provided, "See article on Saul is not adequate. Note that the Saul link goes to a disambiguation page and a verifier has no way of knowing which of the many listings on that page was intended. Please supply an actual source or sources with author(s), title, journal title if applicapble, etc. for this theory, sufficient to permit an outsider to determine how notable it is, and particularly whether "most" scholars believe it as claimed, or the opinion of only a few or one, or [[WP:OR|original research).
Thanks, -- Shirahadasha 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:FDuffy appears to have identified a single source for claims that e.g. "most" scholars believe that Samuel in the story of Hannah really refers to Saul. The source is identified in the
King Saul article as the personal web site of Rabbi Moshe Reiss,
[1], a self-published source. Per
WP:RS,
None of the exceptions to self-published sources (e.g. by someone known to be highly regarded in a field) appear to apply here. Accordingly, it appears that this content is not reliably sourced and should be deleted. The claim that "most" scholars hold this view appears particularly unevidenced. -- Shirahadasha 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is well sourced. Shirahadasha's claim as to what my source is is totally inaccurate, and disingenous to say the least. I have been through this argument elsewhere that Shirahadasha has raised it. To save duplicating it again and again, please see Talk:Samuel. --User talk:FDuffy 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed an additional source
user:FDuffy provided, Peake's Biblical Commentary and the version I found (Mathew Black, Peake's Commentary on the Bible. Routledge, 2001.
ISBN
0415263557) says the following at p. 319:
I agree this commentary is a reliable source to support mention of the idea as a hypothesis. However, a plain reading suggests it describes the theory as a suggestion ("it has been suggested..."). This tentative statement of the view does not appear consistent with the use of emphatic language or claims that the idea is established among "most" academic scholars or with anything like the degree of evidence or support comparable to evolution. A lot of explanation (e.g. a later anti-monarchist author etc.) which does not appear to be in this source's commentary on the Hannah story (It may be elsewhere). The Hannah article (and others) need to be signifcantly toned down, to state only what the sources can support. It is the making of statements beyond what the sources can support, as well as Wikipedia's policy shouldering editors with the responsibility for supplying sources, that is at issue. If sources can simply be supplied in accordance with policy, they could be quietly checked without all this fuss and bother. Best, -- Shirahadasha 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
My first name is hanna -Mariah Helms
In the Hebrew version of the name ( ַחנָה), I am not seeing a dagesh. Is this just something wrong with my computer or is it something wrong with the article? Alephb ( talk) 14:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hannah (biblical figure) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the paragraph below pending citation of a source. The information provided, "See article on Saul is not adequate. Note that the Saul link goes to a disambiguation page and a verifier has no way of knowing which of the many listings on that page was intended. Please supply an actual source or sources with author(s), title, journal title if applicapble, etc. for this theory, sufficient to permit an outsider to determine how notable it is, and particularly whether "most" scholars believe it as claimed, or the opinion of only a few or one, or [[WP:OR|original research).
Thanks, -- Shirahadasha 17:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:FDuffy appears to have identified a single source for claims that e.g. "most" scholars believe that Samuel in the story of Hannah really refers to Saul. The source is identified in the
King Saul article as the personal web site of Rabbi Moshe Reiss,
[1], a self-published source. Per
WP:RS,
None of the exceptions to self-published sources (e.g. by someone known to be highly regarded in a field) appear to apply here. Accordingly, it appears that this content is not reliably sourced and should be deleted. The claim that "most" scholars hold this view appears particularly unevidenced. -- Shirahadasha 13:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is well sourced. Shirahadasha's claim as to what my source is is totally inaccurate, and disingenous to say the least. I have been through this argument elsewhere that Shirahadasha has raised it. To save duplicating it again and again, please see Talk:Samuel. --User talk:FDuffy 20:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have reviewed an additional source
user:FDuffy provided, Peake's Biblical Commentary and the version I found (Mathew Black, Peake's Commentary on the Bible. Routledge, 2001.
ISBN
0415263557) says the following at p. 319:
I agree this commentary is a reliable source to support mention of the idea as a hypothesis. However, a plain reading suggests it describes the theory as a suggestion ("it has been suggested..."). This tentative statement of the view does not appear consistent with the use of emphatic language or claims that the idea is established among "most" academic scholars or with anything like the degree of evidence or support comparable to evolution. A lot of explanation (e.g. a later anti-monarchist author etc.) which does not appear to be in this source's commentary on the Hannah story (It may be elsewhere). The Hannah article (and others) need to be signifcantly toned down, to state only what the sources can support. It is the making of statements beyond what the sources can support, as well as Wikipedia's policy shouldering editors with the responsibility for supplying sources, that is at issue. If sources can simply be supplied in accordance with policy, they could be quietly checked without all this fuss and bother. Best, -- Shirahadasha 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
My first name is hanna -Mariah Helms
In the Hebrew version of the name ( ַחנָה), I am not seeing a dagesh. Is this just something wrong with my computer or is it something wrong with the article? Alephb ( talk) 14:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)