This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology 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 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the Nag Hammadi library should be removed because it is a collection of gnostic writings. Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it is more appropriate to say they are gnostic writings about figures described in the Bible. Is that an accurate statement and fair compromise? Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless there are some criteria, this article will become just an article on Iron age artefacts, inscriptions, settlements, etc in the Middle East. In other words, meaningless. Can we discuss some? My own opinion is that it shouldn't include structures. Dougweller ( talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article provides a list under the following pretext:
For whome? For a non-Jew/non-Christia person ― a very common occurrence ― such a purpose is worthless and pro-Bible-POVvy. For a Liberal Theological Christian, like me, the purpose smells falsehood and one of a very long sequence of violations of [2 Cor3:6]. Intro absolutely needs fixing! ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the image of the Shroud of Turin from the list of Biblical artifacts. The most recent dating of the shroud is around 1200 AD +/- 50 years. Ineuw ( talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed these two items from the list because both are deemed to be fakes. Ineuw ( talk) 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've edited a few entries, starting at the top, my aim being to correct errors where I see them and to improve the English. Please feel free to correct my corrections :). PiCo ( talk) 05:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to see the artifacts listed in roughly chronological order, rather than alphabetical. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that the artifacts should be arranged chronologically; in fact, when I attempted to do so, someone reversed it back. I guess you have to say "Mother, may I" before it sticks. WittyMan1986 ( talk) 23:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just saw on Yahoo! News that they'd discovered something; I think it was just Hebrew writing much older than aything they'd previously found. Would that be Biblically significant? Masternachos ( talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the connection between the Code of Hammurabi and the Bible? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This item can be found twice in the list. I don't change it, there might be a reason for it. ( Bende76 ( talk) 12:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC))
So, I was checking my emails on Yahoo! when this story shows up: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110330/ts_yblog_thelookout/could-lead-codices-prove-the-major-discovery-of-christian-history Seems like it's important. BUT, I don't know- this page might have to 'wait' to put it on the page to see if this blows over or really is important, or maybe it's ALREADY on the page (the article says they were first discovered five years ago?) and I just don't know it. Said article didn't exactly give a 'name' for these things, which is very annoying. So, somebody who knows something should, you know... Masternachos ( talk) 03:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
I'm involved in the trial of the new version of the Article Feedback Tool. As you may or may not know, this article has been part of that trial. The following piece of feedback came from an anonymous user. You may wish to take it into account in the future development of this article.
Thanks. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the list? -- RThompson82 ( talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It could be mentioned only under disputed artifacts section. Tritomex ( talk) 02:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I just shortened the name - per WP:BRD.
I would like to spend time improving the format of the article too - I plan to create a structure similar to our best list articles e.g. List of Presidents of the United States or List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Doug, on the title, do you still feel strongly against the proposed rename? If so, do you agree with any of my critique of the existing name? I am not keen to begin an RM process without you "on-side" so to speak. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As the lead says, this is a list of "objects created or modified by human culture, that are significant to the historicity of the Bible." Sites are not artifacts. Sites may contain artifacts and the list should mention those and can have a link to the site, but this is a list of artifacts. Dougweller ( talk) 12:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see User:Oncenawhile/List of Biblical Artifacts - propose to introduce this to this article for the most significant artefacts. Please comment or edit directly in the userfied-page. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should include these. This is a list, and some of these will certainly be controversial and a list is not the place to give details about a controversy. Of course we mention if something is controversial or disputed, but the main article is the place for that. I've come here after discovering an entry to something that is also fairly vague, "6 chamber gates". If something is notable enough for this list it should have an article first. Note that the red linked entry I removed did have an article but that showed no relevance to the Bible. Dougweller ( talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they didn't refer to "Palestina", a word invented by the much-later Romans in order to stop Jewish nationalism after the Bar Kokhba revolt.
It refers to Peleset, the Philistines, a pre-hellenic greek nation that settled in modern Gaza strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אשכנזישעיידן ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article that you link to Oncenawhile clearly says that the name "Palestine" was first used in the 5th century BC which is well after the dates of the objects used in this article(1860 BC, 925 BC, 800 BC, 800 BC, 733 BC, 710 BC, and 675 BC). Again this is like writing an article about the Incan Empire and calling it Argentina or Colombia. Palestine is just a popular european name for the region, calling it that is wrong and misleading. Call it what it was called at the time. So can I change it back now or will you undo it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.75.175 ( talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ya that's actually a lot better and more accurate, thanks Oncenawhile! The problem I had was just that when people call the region Palestine before the mandate period, it seems to imply that the modern Palestine is much older it also unintendedly implies to some people that the Palestinian cause is more correct then the Israeli. Wikipedia should stay impartial; it should only have verified facts not opinions(sorry I'm just ranting; it's just the Jerusalem page bugs me it's loaded with opinions and not facts on the ground and whenever someone tries to edit it it's automatically undone because of some random arbitration). The region has had way to many names. Anyway thanks for the edit, it's a lot more researched and better then mine was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.75.175 ( talk) 18:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
List of artifacts significant to the Bible →
List of Biblical Artifacts –
The current title should be changed because:
The title "List of Biblical Artifacts" is the most appropriate replacement, because the term "Biblical artifacts" (or "Biblical artefacts") is commonly used for exactly those artifacts which are the subject of this article. This is confirmed with a quick review of google or googlebooks hits, with only a very few minor exceptions.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 14:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.The conversation so far appears to have ruled out 4 options: List of artifacts significant to the bible (too long, awkward, and not accurate as the artifacts are not significant to the bible but instead to "biblical studies" or "biblical archeology"), List of biblical artifacts (the artifacts are not technically biblical), List of extra-biblical evidence ("evidence" has POV implications), List of extra-biblical sources (too broad and doesn't specify what "sources" are regarding).
Having thought about this further in light of the comments received, I propose that either of the following would be most accurate and would solve all of the concerns raised:
This has the benefit of being shorter then the current title, as well as more accurate. It also fits nicely with our Biblical archeology article.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 13:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
List of artifacts significant to the Bible → List of discoveries in biblical archeology – Per explanation under "Discussion" in RM above. The existing title's failings have been shown above. The proposed new title has the benefit of being the most accurate description of what is being shown in the article. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Ok, so it seems i'm not doing particularly well getting consensus for an improvement to this title. It seems to me that many people are hoping for the perfect title, which may not exist in this article. However, if we can't agree on a new "least worst title", then i have one remaining proposal, albeit a smaller change, and that would be to List of artifacts significant to biblical archaeology. A very small change to the existing title, but an important one in terms of accuracy. Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Option 1b (List of artifacts in biblical archaeology). Well, this has been up for almost a month now so it seems like it's time to resolve it. With no firm resolution coming out of the discussion, it comes down to !votes. There are no !votes for the status quo, so it seems there is a consensus to move. And with two !votes for 1b as against one !vote for 2b (both reasonably similar to each other anyway, but with 1b using the existing term "artifact"), I deem that 1b edges it. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 14:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
List of artifacts significant to the Bible → ? – See above discussions - there is consensus to move away from current title, but disagreement as to the best new title.
The key alternatives discussed above are:
In order to reach consensus here, please do not answer "support" or "oppose". Instead please begin your comment with simply Option X, e.g.:
In addition, please do not suggest any further alternative options. FYI as the nominator I do not intend to vote either way. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 17:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
In his book, The Truth Behind the Bible Code (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1997), Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has written: "Oddly, a set of sixty-four marble and granite tablets with the entire book of Ezekiel carved in raised letters, laid out in a square grid, and also written in scripta continua, was discovered in Iraq during Israel’s War for Independence." (p54). Satinover claims these presumably ancient tablets are now held in a private collection somewhere in Israel. If true, their existence would be important to this article. Can anyone cast more light on this matter? -- DStanB ( talk) 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The source ^ The Philistines in Transition: A History from Ca. 1000-730 B.C.E. By Carl S. Ehrlich P:171 specifically names Israel/Samaria and Philistine. Palshtu and Bet Hurmria were foreign names for Philistine and the Kingdom of Israel/Samaria, so there is no need to create confusion, where the source specifically names this places with understandable English meaning. Tyre, the land of Sidon have also different names in Akkadian, but the correct English translation is given. -- Tritomex ( talk) 11:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"The indication of a single state by two alternative names is not unusual in the inscription of Shalmaneser, as witnessed also in alterations between Patin and Ulqi, between Samaal and Bit Gabbar and between Yahan and Bit Agusi...N.Nadav suggest that Yehu designation as Mar Humri was deliberately made by Shalmaneser in order to legitimize the new Israeli king, who adopted pro-Assyrian policy"
Medias are full of this nowadays, although this looks pretty unconvincing? [11] [12]-- Tritomex ( talk) 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Good list, but I don't really see the significance of the top 3 list items to the Bible. Egyptian campaigns in the Sinai don't really have any relevance to the Bible per se, nor does a cuneiform reference to Canaan. If the goal is just proving Shechem and Canaan exist as mentioned in the Bible, the Ebla Tablets, Amarna Letters, and Execration Texts are more relevant to the Bible specifically. I'm also pretty sure that the Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar Chronicles listed last are dated incorrectly and should be 6th century B.C. Either way, I'm working on an alternative list at BibleStrength that puts different ones at the top. -- 98.220.198.49 ( talk) 10:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
|}
I just rewrote this - it was written solely from a Creationist interpretation (mainly Bryant Wood's) and I've removed a lot of alleged findings and used The Oxford History of the Biblical World as my source. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of artifacts in biblical archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of artifacts in biblical archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I came across the article and was wondering why it's split into "selected artifacts" in a table with pictures/museum data, and "other artifacts" with text description and chronology? It seems like an odd split to me (and may or may not be NPOV). - - mathmitch7 ( talk/ contribs) 12:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm attempting to write an article on Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism at User:Daask/sandbox/Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism. This document is significant for mentioning a number of figures described in the Hebrew Bible, including imperial chancellor Nebuzaradan who is also known from 2 Kings 25:8-11 and Jeremiah 39:13. It also mentions Neriglissar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. However, I think I'm mixing up multiple documents and archaelogical finds. I don't think all of my sources are discussing the same document. Can anyone help me clear up this issue? Someone who can read German would be especially helpful. Daask ( talk) 13:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we toss that one in there as well? Cornelius ( talk) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology 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 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the Nag Hammadi library should be removed because it is a collection of gnostic writings. Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it is more appropriate to say they are gnostic writings about figures described in the Bible. Is that an accurate statement and fair compromise? Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Unless there are some criteria, this article will become just an article on Iron age artefacts, inscriptions, settlements, etc in the Middle East. In other words, meaningless. Can we discuss some? My own opinion is that it shouldn't include structures. Dougweller ( talk) 19:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Sweetmoose6 ( talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article provides a list under the following pretext:
For whome? For a non-Jew/non-Christia person ― a very common occurrence ― such a purpose is worthless and pro-Bible-POVvy. For a Liberal Theological Christian, like me, the purpose smells falsehood and one of a very long sequence of violations of [2 Cor3:6]. Intro absolutely needs fixing! ... said: Rursus ( bork²) 12:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed the image of the Shroud of Turin from the list of Biblical artifacts. The most recent dating of the shroud is around 1200 AD +/- 50 years. Ineuw ( talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I removed these two items from the list because both are deemed to be fakes. Ineuw ( talk) 22:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I've edited a few entries, starting at the top, my aim being to correct errors where I see them and to improve the English. Please feel free to correct my corrections :). PiCo ( talk) 05:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to see the artifacts listed in roughly chronological order, rather than alphabetical. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree that the artifacts should be arranged chronologically; in fact, when I attempted to do so, someone reversed it back. I guess you have to say "Mother, may I" before it sticks. WittyMan1986 ( talk) 23:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just saw on Yahoo! News that they'd discovered something; I think it was just Hebrew writing much older than aything they'd previously found. Would that be Biblically significant? Masternachos ( talk) 05:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the connection between the Code of Hammurabi and the Bible? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 03:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This item can be found twice in the list. I don't change it, there might be a reason for it. ( Bende76 ( talk) 12:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC))
So, I was checking my emails on Yahoo! when this story shows up: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110330/ts_yblog_thelookout/could-lead-codices-prove-the-major-discovery-of-christian-history Seems like it's important. BUT, I don't know- this page might have to 'wait' to put it on the page to see if this blows over or really is important, or maybe it's ALREADY on the page (the article says they were first discovered five years ago?) and I just don't know it. Said article didn't exactly give a 'name' for these things, which is very annoying. So, somebody who knows something should, you know... Masternachos ( talk) 03:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC) |
I'm involved in the trial of the new version of the Article Feedback Tool. As you may or may not know, this article has been part of that trial. The following piece of feedback came from an anonymous user. You may wish to take it into account in the future development of this article.
Thanks. — Tom Morris ( talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the list? -- RThompson82 ( talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It could be mentioned only under disputed artifacts section. Tritomex ( talk) 02:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I just shortened the name - per WP:BRD.
I would like to spend time improving the format of the article too - I plan to create a structure similar to our best list articles e.g. List of Presidents of the United States or List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Oncenawhile ( talk) 11:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Doug, on the title, do you still feel strongly against the proposed rename? If so, do you agree with any of my critique of the existing name? I am not keen to begin an RM process without you "on-side" so to speak. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
As the lead says, this is a list of "objects created or modified by human culture, that are significant to the historicity of the Bible." Sites are not artifacts. Sites may contain artifacts and the list should mention those and can have a link to the site, but this is a list of artifacts. Dougweller ( talk) 12:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see User:Oncenawhile/List of Biblical Artifacts - propose to introduce this to this article for the most significant artefacts. Please comment or edit directly in the userfied-page. Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should include these. This is a list, and some of these will certainly be controversial and a list is not the place to give details about a controversy. Of course we mention if something is controversial or disputed, but the main article is the place for that. I've come here after discovering an entry to something that is also fairly vague, "6 chamber gates". If something is notable enough for this list it should have an article first. Note that the red linked entry I removed did have an article but that showed no relevance to the Bible. Dougweller ( talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No, they didn't refer to "Palestina", a word invented by the much-later Romans in order to stop Jewish nationalism after the Bar Kokhba revolt.
It refers to Peleset, the Philistines, a pre-hellenic greek nation that settled in modern Gaza strip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אשכנזישעיידן ( talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article that you link to Oncenawhile clearly says that the name "Palestine" was first used in the 5th century BC which is well after the dates of the objects used in this article(1860 BC, 925 BC, 800 BC, 800 BC, 733 BC, 710 BC, and 675 BC). Again this is like writing an article about the Incan Empire and calling it Argentina or Colombia. Palestine is just a popular european name for the region, calling it that is wrong and misleading. Call it what it was called at the time. So can I change it back now or will you undo it again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.75.175 ( talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Ya that's actually a lot better and more accurate, thanks Oncenawhile! The problem I had was just that when people call the region Palestine before the mandate period, it seems to imply that the modern Palestine is much older it also unintendedly implies to some people that the Palestinian cause is more correct then the Israeli. Wikipedia should stay impartial; it should only have verified facts not opinions(sorry I'm just ranting; it's just the Jerusalem page bugs me it's loaded with opinions and not facts on the ground and whenever someone tries to edit it it's automatically undone because of some random arbitration). The region has had way to many names. Anyway thanks for the edit, it's a lot more researched and better then mine was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.75.175 ( talk) 18:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
List of artifacts significant to the Bible →
List of Biblical Artifacts –
The current title should be changed because:
The title "List of Biblical Artifacts" is the most appropriate replacement, because the term "Biblical artifacts" (or "Biblical artefacts") is commonly used for exactly those artifacts which are the subject of this article. This is confirmed with a quick review of google or googlebooks hits, with only a very few minor exceptions.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 14:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.The conversation so far appears to have ruled out 4 options: List of artifacts significant to the bible (too long, awkward, and not accurate as the artifacts are not significant to the bible but instead to "biblical studies" or "biblical archeology"), List of biblical artifacts (the artifacts are not technically biblical), List of extra-biblical evidence ("evidence" has POV implications), List of extra-biblical sources (too broad and doesn't specify what "sources" are regarding).
Having thought about this further in light of the comments received, I propose that either of the following would be most accurate and would solve all of the concerns raised:
This has the benefit of being shorter then the current title, as well as more accurate. It also fits nicely with our Biblical archeology article.
Oncenawhile ( talk) 13:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no consensus. -- BDD ( talk) 19:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
List of artifacts significant to the Bible → List of discoveries in biblical archeology – Per explanation under "Discussion" in RM above. The existing title's failings have been shown above. The proposed new title has the benefit of being the most accurate description of what is being shown in the article. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Oncenawhile ( talk) 20:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Ok, so it seems i'm not doing particularly well getting consensus for an improvement to this title. It seems to me that many people are hoping for the perfect title, which may not exist in this article. However, if we can't agree on a new "least worst title", then i have one remaining proposal, albeit a smaller change, and that would be to List of artifacts significant to biblical archaeology. A very small change to the existing title, but an important one in terms of accuracy. Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Option 1b (List of artifacts in biblical archaeology). Well, this has been up for almost a month now so it seems like it's time to resolve it. With no firm resolution coming out of the discussion, it comes down to !votes. There are no !votes for the status quo, so it seems there is a consensus to move. And with two !votes for 1b as against one !vote for 2b (both reasonably similar to each other anyway, but with 1b using the existing term "artifact"), I deem that 1b edges it. ( non-admin closure) — Amakuru ( talk) 14:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
List of artifacts significant to the Bible → ? – See above discussions - there is consensus to move away from current title, but disagreement as to the best new title.
The key alternatives discussed above are:
In order to reach consensus here, please do not answer "support" or "oppose". Instead please begin your comment with simply Option X, e.g.:
In addition, please do not suggest any further alternative options. FYI as the nominator I do not intend to vote either way. Relisted. BDD ( talk) 17:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC) Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
In his book, The Truth Behind the Bible Code (Sidgwick & Jackson, 1997), Dr. Jeffrey Satinover has written: "Oddly, a set of sixty-four marble and granite tablets with the entire book of Ezekiel carved in raised letters, laid out in a square grid, and also written in scripta continua, was discovered in Iraq during Israel’s War for Independence." (p54). Satinover claims these presumably ancient tablets are now held in a private collection somewhere in Israel. If true, their existence would be important to this article. Can anyone cast more light on this matter? -- DStanB ( talk) 19:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The source ^ The Philistines in Transition: A History from Ca. 1000-730 B.C.E. By Carl S. Ehrlich P:171 specifically names Israel/Samaria and Philistine. Palshtu and Bet Hurmria were foreign names for Philistine and the Kingdom of Israel/Samaria, so there is no need to create confusion, where the source specifically names this places with understandable English meaning. Tyre, the land of Sidon have also different names in Akkadian, but the correct English translation is given. -- Tritomex ( talk) 11:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
"The indication of a single state by two alternative names is not unusual in the inscription of Shalmaneser, as witnessed also in alterations between Patin and Ulqi, between Samaal and Bit Gabbar and between Yahan and Bit Agusi...N.Nadav suggest that Yehu designation as Mar Humri was deliberately made by Shalmaneser in order to legitimize the new Israeli king, who adopted pro-Assyrian policy"
Medias are full of this nowadays, although this looks pretty unconvincing? [11] [12]-- Tritomex ( talk) 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Good list, but I don't really see the significance of the top 3 list items to the Bible. Egyptian campaigns in the Sinai don't really have any relevance to the Bible per se, nor does a cuneiform reference to Canaan. If the goal is just proving Shechem and Canaan exist as mentioned in the Bible, the Ebla Tablets, Amarna Letters, and Execration Texts are more relevant to the Bible specifically. I'm also pretty sure that the Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar Chronicles listed last are dated incorrectly and should be 6th century B.C. Either way, I'm working on an alternative list at BibleStrength that puts different ones at the top. -- 98.220.198.49 ( talk) 10:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
|}
I just rewrote this - it was written solely from a Creationist interpretation (mainly Bryant Wood's) and I've removed a lot of alleged findings and used The Oxford History of the Biblical World as my source. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of artifacts in biblical archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of artifacts in biblical archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I came across the article and was wondering why it's split into "selected artifacts" in a table with pictures/museum data, and "other artifacts" with text description and chronology? It seems like an odd split to me (and may or may not be NPOV). - - mathmitch7 ( talk/ contribs) 12:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm attempting to write an article on Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism at User:Daask/sandbox/Nebuchadnezzar II’s Prism. This document is significant for mentioning a number of figures described in the Hebrew Bible, including imperial chancellor Nebuzaradan who is also known from 2 Kings 25:8-11 and Jeremiah 39:13. It also mentions Neriglissar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. However, I think I'm mixing up multiple documents and archaelogical finds. I don't think all of my sources are discussing the same document. Can anyone help me clear up this issue? Someone who can read German would be especially helpful. Daask ( talk) 13:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we toss that one in there as well? Cornelius ( talk) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)