This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't have a copy, but you do get lots of this discussed in Ian Wilson's 1985 book "The Exodus Enigma". 91.111.29.190 ( talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the there is enough evidence to support a claim of limnic eruption. Furthermore, while volcanic activity has indirect causal relationship by providing the source of gas-rich water inflows, volcanic activity is not the direct cause of a limnic eruption. Limnically active lakes are noted for lack of direct lakebed volcanic activity. A different trigger like landslides into a lake, excessive rainfall into a lake is noted as a more likely trigger. Also, where are your references for this claim? Finally limnic eruptions are a lake feature, none of my research indicated that this was also a feature of delta. I am less than inclinced to believe that a delta water system could support the thermal layers required to allow gas build up needed for a L.E. Revmachine21 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The documentary provides experts that seem to disagree with your findings. The article here isn't claiming they are true, it is relating what the documentary said. References are not needed for that because the article is about what the documentary stated. You may or may not have reason to personally believe the findings of the documentary are in error, but either way it is not really relevant to this page.-- GenkiDama 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To see and a read list of criticism Mt.Sinai go to hashem-el tarif in wikipedia under comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 ( talk) 06:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Funny that it's being criticized as well, it's one of the very few points in the documentary that are actually plausible. I actually want to see the research on that one.
brill ( talk) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Jacobovici is obviously pressing a religious agenda, probably in an attempt to refute Israel Finkelstein's (and others) conclusion that there is no archeological evidence to support the myths in the Torah (and Joshua), including the Exodus.
Jacobovici's thesis is so full of holes, so speculative, and so archeologically and historically far fetched that it should be considered in the same vein as Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. TimeDog 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
All the "references" for this article are links to the posts on the message board at historychannel.com, these are circular references.
Hello. I started this article. I also started one of many short-lived articles about the documentary Zeitgeist. My Zeitgeist article was deleted because all of the references circled back to the Zeitgeist official webpage. As noted above, this article does exactly the same thing... and yet, it is going strong. I don't want this article to get deleted, but I think that all of the same criticisms that led to the deletion of my Zeitgeist article could be lobbied against it. I can think of three possible reasons why this article is alive while Zeitgeist is dead: 1) Exodus: Decoded is an affirmation of Biblical ideas while Zeitgeist is very critical of religion. I would hate to think that the religious right asserts censoring control over Wikipedia, but its not impossible. 2) Exodus: Decoded was televised while Zeitgeist was web-released. I think Wikipedia's notability standards are surprisingly biased in favour of conventional, commercial media to the neglect of free, web-based content. The Exodus: Decoded talk page is not, of course, the appropriate place to rant about that. and, 3) The Exodus: Decoded merits deletion, but has fallen fortuitously through the cracks. I am not going to nominate my own article for deletion, but unless more reliable sources evidencing the notability of this documentary are found, perhaps someone should. 142.167.185.83 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel like this article is being overly critical of this documentary.
207.118.9.58 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Agreed. The turquoise mine being used to dispute the accuracy is especially telling. The last sentence starts with "It has been noted...", with no regard to who notes it, or more importantly, why they find it to be that way. It also admits to the usage of the term El, but provides no explanation as to why it was found where it was, or why it was written in Pre-Hebrew Semitic writing.
The documentary may be completely false. I still find it to have better research and insight than those who dispute it.
~~I just made an effort to reduce the over-critical feel. I had to take out a lot of interesting critism that I happen to agree with because it is, uncited opinion. Still needs a lot of help, so be bold, neutrality lovers, be bold!
142.167.173.61 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
--I noticed that one criticism mentioned was about how the Bible describes walls of water and how it wasn't explained. However, the documentary does speak briefly of how there would be tsunamis that would recover the land bridge. I can see how most people would miss it, but it does explain the walls of water that are recorded in the Bible.
--I do agree that there are some previous facts and studies that weren't addressed in the documentary, but do keep in mind this WAS made for TV. There most likely wasn't time to address every little detail and fact. The documentary is 2 hours long just hitting and describing the main points of his thesis alone. I don't know if there is a paper or report published on his findings or not, but I'm sure it would be more informative and wouldn't have that distractingly abusive use of special effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.48.106 ( talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
--I actually know where some of the research came from and know that it has not yet been published. I also know that Jacobovici pretty much used the research to make his own story. However, we will have to wait because the author hasn't prepared it for publication and likely will not do so for a few years at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brillpappin ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone should note that the dates given in the Torah and the Bible also suggest c. 1500 BC as the date for the Exodus, the same as Jacobovitch's conjecture.
I saw the documentary and i agree with his findings.
I noticed that Jacobovici is actually listed as the producer but the article states that it's his research (how many producers do you know with archaeological skills?). There may be more to the story in terms of evidence despite the obvious religious bent.
This is clearly a criticism article, not a description page of the documentary. Which is bad for the credibility of this article, as anyone can see. The whole article could be a "criticism section" of a new and more complete article. I would tell to anyone who would like to edit it: be impartial.
Many of the citations on this article (mainly on the 'Criticism' section) cannot be considered reliable, since they link to what appears to be a blog site that states an opinion and nothing more. "Higgaion" is not an academic/scientific or certified archaeology site. The writer over there simply does not like Jacobovici's film, and uses personal language/opinion to oppose the documentary. Wikipedia articles cannot rely on blog sites as citation sources, and therefore I will remove them if no tangible reason is presented.
In addition, Wikipedia is not a criticism arena. After reading the article, it seems clear that the writers of the 'Criticism' section also had their own agenda, as if they were trying to discredit even legitimate/challenging findings. Negativity will not work here, and I am giving you all a notice. A major rewrite/reorganization is coming. John Hyams ( talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Legitimacy of Chris Heard aside, the problem with this article is obvious: there is FAR more criticism on the documentary than there is about what the documentary actually says! The article is providing counter points to points that are not even enumerated! That in and of itself seems NOT NPOV. A far more reasonable thing would be to say "Professor <insert credentials here> has raised a number of criticisms about documentary [reference to blog]." Athemeus ( talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why these were added. The criticism section is thoroughly sourced, and each of the lines to which a Verification Needed tag was added has a verifiable source on which each claim was based. Therefore, I believe the tags are not needed, and moreover are misleading. Here's an explanation of all four tags. They can be verified simply by clicking the source at the end.
A minor point perhaps, but if the documentary is called The Exodus Decoded, should the page not have that same name (i.e., including the article)? This seems the convention with other book and film names which incorporate an article. Mooncow ( talk) 12:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does this product of utter egyptological ignorance have enough common attention to justify an article? CUSH 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The suggestion that Moses was named for the Egyptian suffix Mose (which I've seen in various places) is criticized because it doesn't match the Hebrew pronunciation "Moshe". The problem with this is that the letters Sin and Shin differ only in the position of the dot. But marks such as this dot are a modern invention. So how does Heard know it wasn't originally pronounced "Mose"? This suffix followed the name of an Egyptian god, so a hypothetical non-believing ruler would use the suffix by itself.
Anyway, I thought Moses was supposed to be Akhenaton? 198.228.228.157 ( talk) 15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Collin237
"Jacobovici's assertions have been criticized by archaeologists and religious scholars." --- I find this sentence misleading, if not manipulative, and let me explain why. The arguments listed below were conclusions made by one person only, not by many scholars. The author recalls articles and books that did not address the theories presented in the film directly. He uses the books and articles in order to improve his own understanding of the topic and then he himself makes conclusions on the basis of the existing literature, not his own research project. On top of that, the majority of the articles cited by that professor also include theories which are difficult to verify. Therefore we can say that the film goes against the grain of the current theories on that matter but when we juxtapose two theories, in order to stay objective, we cannot prefer one theory over another or we will risk experiencing the Semmelweis effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonnus ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
the Semmelweis effectsee WP:BALL. See also WP:RGW. The argument of purely natural events was criticized by such Bible scholars as Shaye J. D. Cohen (in his Vimeo Harvard courses) and Israel Finkelstein (in The Bible Unearthed if I am not wrong), who basically say that their proponents saved the story, but ruined its meaning (namely God actively acting in history).
The heavy reliance on a defunct blog of a non-notable academic is not exactly neutral. Needs a major rewrite, or perhaps deletion of that section. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
What made Das Leben Jesu so controversial was Strauss's characterization of the miraculous elements in the gospels as mythical. After analyzing the Bible in terms of self-coherence and paying attention to numerous contradictions, he concluded that the miracle stories were not actual events. According to Strauss, the early church developed these stories in order to present Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish prophecies. This perspective was in opposition to the prevailing views of Strauss' time: rationalism, which explained the miracles as misinterpretations of non-supernatural events, and the supernaturalist view that the biblical accounts were entirely accurate. Strauss's third way, in which the miracles are explained as myths developed by early Christians to support their evolving conception of Jesus, heralded a new epoch in the textual and historical treatment of the rise of Christianity.
— Wikipedia article David Strauss
This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2021. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't have a copy, but you do get lots of this discussed in Ian Wilson's 1985 book "The Exodus Enigma". 91.111.29.190 ( talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the there is enough evidence to support a claim of limnic eruption. Furthermore, while volcanic activity has indirect causal relationship by providing the source of gas-rich water inflows, volcanic activity is not the direct cause of a limnic eruption. Limnically active lakes are noted for lack of direct lakebed volcanic activity. A different trigger like landslides into a lake, excessive rainfall into a lake is noted as a more likely trigger. Also, where are your references for this claim? Finally limnic eruptions are a lake feature, none of my research indicated that this was also a feature of delta. I am less than inclinced to believe that a delta water system could support the thermal layers required to allow gas build up needed for a L.E. Revmachine21 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The documentary provides experts that seem to disagree with your findings. The article here isn't claiming they are true, it is relating what the documentary said. References are not needed for that because the article is about what the documentary stated. You may or may not have reason to personally believe the findings of the documentary are in error, but either way it is not really relevant to this page.-- GenkiDama 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To see and a read list of criticism Mt.Sinai go to hashem-el tarif in wikipedia under comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 ( talk) 06:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Funny that it's being criticized as well, it's one of the very few points in the documentary that are actually plausible. I actually want to see the research on that one.
brill ( talk) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Jacobovici is obviously pressing a religious agenda, probably in an attempt to refute Israel Finkelstein's (and others) conclusion that there is no archeological evidence to support the myths in the Torah (and Joshua), including the Exodus.
Jacobovici's thesis is so full of holes, so speculative, and so archeologically and historically far fetched that it should be considered in the same vein as Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. TimeDog 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
All the "references" for this article are links to the posts on the message board at historychannel.com, these are circular references.
Hello. I started this article. I also started one of many short-lived articles about the documentary Zeitgeist. My Zeitgeist article was deleted because all of the references circled back to the Zeitgeist official webpage. As noted above, this article does exactly the same thing... and yet, it is going strong. I don't want this article to get deleted, but I think that all of the same criticisms that led to the deletion of my Zeitgeist article could be lobbied against it. I can think of three possible reasons why this article is alive while Zeitgeist is dead: 1) Exodus: Decoded is an affirmation of Biblical ideas while Zeitgeist is very critical of religion. I would hate to think that the religious right asserts censoring control over Wikipedia, but its not impossible. 2) Exodus: Decoded was televised while Zeitgeist was web-released. I think Wikipedia's notability standards are surprisingly biased in favour of conventional, commercial media to the neglect of free, web-based content. The Exodus: Decoded talk page is not, of course, the appropriate place to rant about that. and, 3) The Exodus: Decoded merits deletion, but has fallen fortuitously through the cracks. I am not going to nominate my own article for deletion, but unless more reliable sources evidencing the notability of this documentary are found, perhaps someone should. 142.167.185.83 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel like this article is being overly critical of this documentary.
207.118.9.58 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Agreed. The turquoise mine being used to dispute the accuracy is especially telling. The last sentence starts with "It has been noted...", with no regard to who notes it, or more importantly, why they find it to be that way. It also admits to the usage of the term El, but provides no explanation as to why it was found where it was, or why it was written in Pre-Hebrew Semitic writing.
The documentary may be completely false. I still find it to have better research and insight than those who dispute it.
~~I just made an effort to reduce the over-critical feel. I had to take out a lot of interesting critism that I happen to agree with because it is, uncited opinion. Still needs a lot of help, so be bold, neutrality lovers, be bold!
142.167.173.61 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
--I noticed that one criticism mentioned was about how the Bible describes walls of water and how it wasn't explained. However, the documentary does speak briefly of how there would be tsunamis that would recover the land bridge. I can see how most people would miss it, but it does explain the walls of water that are recorded in the Bible.
--I do agree that there are some previous facts and studies that weren't addressed in the documentary, but do keep in mind this WAS made for TV. There most likely wasn't time to address every little detail and fact. The documentary is 2 hours long just hitting and describing the main points of his thesis alone. I don't know if there is a paper or report published on his findings or not, but I'm sure it would be more informative and wouldn't have that distractingly abusive use of special effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.48.106 ( talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
--I actually know where some of the research came from and know that it has not yet been published. I also know that Jacobovici pretty much used the research to make his own story. However, we will have to wait because the author hasn't prepared it for publication and likely will not do so for a few years at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brillpappin ( talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Someone should note that the dates given in the Torah and the Bible also suggest c. 1500 BC as the date for the Exodus, the same as Jacobovitch's conjecture.
I saw the documentary and i agree with his findings.
I noticed that Jacobovici is actually listed as the producer but the article states that it's his research (how many producers do you know with archaeological skills?). There may be more to the story in terms of evidence despite the obvious religious bent.
This is clearly a criticism article, not a description page of the documentary. Which is bad for the credibility of this article, as anyone can see. The whole article could be a "criticism section" of a new and more complete article. I would tell to anyone who would like to edit it: be impartial.
Many of the citations on this article (mainly on the 'Criticism' section) cannot be considered reliable, since they link to what appears to be a blog site that states an opinion and nothing more. "Higgaion" is not an academic/scientific or certified archaeology site. The writer over there simply does not like Jacobovici's film, and uses personal language/opinion to oppose the documentary. Wikipedia articles cannot rely on blog sites as citation sources, and therefore I will remove them if no tangible reason is presented.
In addition, Wikipedia is not a criticism arena. After reading the article, it seems clear that the writers of the 'Criticism' section also had their own agenda, as if they were trying to discredit even legitimate/challenging findings. Negativity will not work here, and I am giving you all a notice. A major rewrite/reorganization is coming. John Hyams ( talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Legitimacy of Chris Heard aside, the problem with this article is obvious: there is FAR more criticism on the documentary than there is about what the documentary actually says! The article is providing counter points to points that are not even enumerated! That in and of itself seems NOT NPOV. A far more reasonable thing would be to say "Professor <insert credentials here> has raised a number of criticisms about documentary [reference to blog]." Athemeus ( talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea why these were added. The criticism section is thoroughly sourced, and each of the lines to which a Verification Needed tag was added has a verifiable source on which each claim was based. Therefore, I believe the tags are not needed, and moreover are misleading. Here's an explanation of all four tags. They can be verified simply by clicking the source at the end.
A minor point perhaps, but if the documentary is called The Exodus Decoded, should the page not have that same name (i.e., including the article)? This seems the convention with other book and film names which incorporate an article. Mooncow ( talk) 12:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Does this product of utter egyptological ignorance have enough common attention to justify an article? CUSH 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The suggestion that Moses was named for the Egyptian suffix Mose (which I've seen in various places) is criticized because it doesn't match the Hebrew pronunciation "Moshe". The problem with this is that the letters Sin and Shin differ only in the position of the dot. But marks such as this dot are a modern invention. So how does Heard know it wasn't originally pronounced "Mose"? This suffix followed the name of an Egyptian god, so a hypothetical non-believing ruler would use the suffix by itself.
Anyway, I thought Moses was supposed to be Akhenaton? 198.228.228.157 ( talk) 15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Collin237
"Jacobovici's assertions have been criticized by archaeologists and religious scholars." --- I find this sentence misleading, if not manipulative, and let me explain why. The arguments listed below were conclusions made by one person only, not by many scholars. The author recalls articles and books that did not address the theories presented in the film directly. He uses the books and articles in order to improve his own understanding of the topic and then he himself makes conclusions on the basis of the existing literature, not his own research project. On top of that, the majority of the articles cited by that professor also include theories which are difficult to verify. Therefore we can say that the film goes against the grain of the current theories on that matter but when we juxtapose two theories, in order to stay objective, we cannot prefer one theory over another or we will risk experiencing the Semmelweis effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonnus ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
the Semmelweis effectsee WP:BALL. See also WP:RGW. The argument of purely natural events was criticized by such Bible scholars as Shaye J. D. Cohen (in his Vimeo Harvard courses) and Israel Finkelstein (in The Bible Unearthed if I am not wrong), who basically say that their proponents saved the story, but ruined its meaning (namely God actively acting in history).
The heavy reliance on a defunct blog of a non-notable academic is not exactly neutral. Needs a major rewrite, or perhaps deletion of that section. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
What made Das Leben Jesu so controversial was Strauss's characterization of the miraculous elements in the gospels as mythical. After analyzing the Bible in terms of self-coherence and paying attention to numerous contradictions, he concluded that the miracle stories were not actual events. According to Strauss, the early church developed these stories in order to present Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish prophecies. This perspective was in opposition to the prevailing views of Strauss' time: rationalism, which explained the miracles as misinterpretations of non-supernatural events, and the supernaturalist view that the biblical accounts were entirely accurate. Strauss's third way, in which the miracles are explained as myths developed by early Christians to support their evolving conception of Jesus, heralded a new epoch in the textual and historical treatment of the rise of Christianity.
— Wikipedia article David Strauss