Nebuchadnezzar II has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 4, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The page includes "font-family:Akkadian" to display the name in Akkadian cuneiform, but this font is not commonly available. A possible solution would be to add "<link rel="stylesheet" media="screen" ref=" https://fontlibrary.org/face/akkadian" type="text/css"/>" to the head of the html page. See [1]. The referenced page says the font is free to use. I do not know how to edit the html header so help would be appreciated. Jony ( talk) 16:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
References
How is it relevant that the book of Daniel is fiction? I work as a teacher, and teach my students that anything not 100% relevant should be considered removed. Is the statement about Daniel really relevant to who Nebuchadnezzar II was? This is like an article about Gandalf discussing how Gollum is a work of fiction. It just isn't relevant.
Ader ( talk) 19:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Conversely, most critical scholars take for granted that the genre is not HISTORY.
— Collins, 1984: 41
I've tried making the change. I really don't want to be difficult, but a 34 year old book as a source on consesus among scholars, is not something I look upon as a good source. Most of the scholars Collins speaks about must be retired by now, so the only thing the source proves is that consensus existed 34 years ago. Does anyone know of any more recent metastudies on what scholars think of The Book of Daniel? Ader ( talk) 15:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This is regarding my reversion of this edit on the basis that it is original research (i.e. original conclusions were drawn from the sources which are not made in the sources themselves).
Firstly, this text was added:
This biblical portrayal of the King's descent into madness is consistent with modern and ancient historians' understanding that Nebuchadnezzar became increasingly irrational in his later years. [1].
This is what the cited reference says about this matter:
"According to a Babylonian poem, the king had begun to act irrationally: "He paid no heed to son and daughter, family and clan were not in his heart." Perhaps this is the basis for the later story that Nebuchadnezzar went mad."
The author doesn't mention the biblical account and makes no comment on the consistency of the biblical portrayal.
Similarly for this text that was added:
Daniel's prophecy of the downfall of Babylon, as described to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar in the Hebrew Bible, was also consistent with the eventual fate of the Babylonian Empire as described by historians. [2]
Again, I do not see where the source notes the consistency of Daniel's prophecy. It only speaks of the influence of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion on the Old Testament. Bennv3771 ( talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Critical scholars are WP:MAINSTREAM: their vision gets taught from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I recently erased a baseless statement at the end of the intro, citing some scholar named Collins, that the Book of Daniel is merely a collection of legendary tales and visions dating from the 2nd century BCE. User:Tgeorgescu seems to have a problem with that. The dating of the Book of Daniel by scholars to the 2nd century BCE refers to the sealing of the text by the Men of the Great Assembly (in it's original Hebrew version, see Great Assembly), not its original composition. Additionally, this statement is irrelevant in this entry, and if anything should be mentioned as a scholarly opinion in Book of Daniel (and definitely not as consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natorious ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems that there is historical depiction of Nebuchadnezzar II in the so called Tower of Babel Stele. Here is some info:
Anyone willing to upload it? 109.160.36.104 ( talk) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a WP:MAINSTREAM history article, so Barok777 don't bother us anymore with the fundamentalist POV, which would be booed off the stage at WP:CHOPSY. That falls within WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!
Critical scholars are WP:MAINSTREAM: their vision gets taught from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Barok777: The views of the Adventist scholars are considered marginal opinions. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have truncated the claim that there is 'substantial evidence' supporting an earlier date for Daniel. The Ferch source that was added cites Wiseman and the existence of Belshazzar as 'evidence', neither of which actually substantiate an earlier date for Daniel.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by. User:Kww
the Book of Daniel to contain both historical fact and accurate prophecy for a period during Daniel's lifetime and thereafteris dead in the water. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Vasyaivanov: Read the above. No bona fide history department could teach that Daniel had genuine prophecies, since the epistemology of history prohibits it. There is a difference between past (what really happened) and history (what historians can show in peer-reviewed papers that it happened). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Where we draw the line? Daniel's prophecies probably factual? David Irving probably factual? Andrew Wakefield probably factual? Ryke Geerd Hamer probably factual? AIDS denialism probably factual? Young Earth Creationism probably factual? Moon landing probably hoax? It seems a complete mockery to poo on the historical method and then call your papers history writing. Since the Enlightenment the supernatural has been purged from history, yet some Wikipedia editors seem unaware of this fact. The edits at this article by Barok777, Natorious, Madcricketer and Vasyaivanov are a perfect example of how to flunk as a history undergraduate. If historians could prove paranormal claims, then you should expect peer-reviewed history articles like "Have leprechauns dictated the Book of Isaiah? An alternative theory for the claim that angels have dictated the Book of Isaiah." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Bart D. Ehrman (23 September 1999).
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 197.
ISBN
978-0-19-983943-8. As I've pointed out, the historian cannot say that demons—real live supernatural spirits that invade human bodies—were actually cast out of people, because to do so would be to transcend the boundaries imposed on the historian by the historical method, in that it would require a religious belief system involving a supernatural realm outside of the historian's province.
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Jmcsparin: Your stance is highly preposterous to anyone familiar with the historical method. See why above. The supernatural does not count in writing history, beginning with the Enlightenment. Historians do not work with the hypothesis that the supernatural is real when they write history, only theologians do that when they write theology. So, yeah, sooner or later inerrantists will find that the whole historical method is from Satan, just as they found that about evolution and about mainstream geology. I'd say wait till the conclusion that David did not rule a kingdom, he only ruled a village trickles down to schoolbooks. Then it will happen. This is all what WP:FRINGE/PS WP:POV pushers can do here: trolling with a complete mockery of the historical method. That is the rub.
I vehemently disagree with your assertion that modern scholars are secretly in league with Satan, but, even if your accusation were true (which it certainly is not), it would not matter; Wikipedia is still bound to represent the views of modern scholars, regardless of whether or not they are secretly Satanists. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 19:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Quoted by
Tgeorgescu. Maybe he wanted to say "it doesn't derive from any ontological status".
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 07:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not known whether “most critical scholars agree” that the book of Daniel is historical fiction.— but, yes, it is known: for more than 100 years the claim "the Book of Daniel is real history" is WP:FRINGE/PS according to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
If you think that the WP:ONUS would be upon me to prove that Ivy Plus got it right, you misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia. The WP:BURDEN is upon you, not upon me. You are the WP:FRINGE/PS WP:POV pusher. This isn't a level playing field, the sooner you learn it, the better. Wikipedia is very biased for WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM, so you don't get to define the terms of the debate; we do, WP:RULES do. Something makes you think that your traditional religious authorities trump the authorities from Ivy Plus, BIU and TAU. Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. Who has the power to decide upon this historical fact? Mainstream Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not follow the Bible. Wikipedia follows mainstream Bible scholarship. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The correct name is Nebuchadrezzar with an R; I've added this and given a source. We should move the page to Nebuchadrezzar II. (This has been discussed before at length at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II/Archive 2#"Nebuchadrezzar".) Richard75 ( talk) 22:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per discussion here and at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar I. If revisiting this in the future, please use the procedure shown at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves and note Wikipedia:Correct; showing a preponderance of use in Wikipedia:Reliable sources would likely be necessary in order to gain consensus for this sort of change in the face of split usage. Less Unless began such a process below, but evidence in dispute of the assertion was also presented. Dekimasu よ! 05:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar II → Nebuchadrezzar II – The correct spelling is Nebuchadrezzar; the second n is an error which crept into the Bible (which uses both spellings). There is a source for this in the article. (This has been discussed before here, and see the section immediately above.) Richard75 ( talk) 11:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I have changed the final sentence of the opening to reflect a neutral stance. It is as follows:
"He is an important character in the Book of Daniel, a collection of writings and visions that were perhaps written in the 2nd century BC."
Saxophilist ( talk) 16:51, 21 May 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. Zero talk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb ( talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Who crowned Tgeorgescu as king of this page? If anyone disagrees with his opinions or his preferred scholars, then they are fringe fundamentalists. Really? Saxophilist ( talk) 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
A Unicode rendition of the Akkadian script for the name Nebuchadnezzar "𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀" has recently been added to the article. That rendition appears to be frequently used online (though it seems to transliterate as ANAKKUDUURRIŠEŠ). In any case, it does not take an expert in cuneiform to see that and 𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 are not the same word. Can somebody verify the form from the image from the original source (Bertin, G. (1891). "Babylonian Chronology and History". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 5: p. 50; [@ User:Ichthyovenator]?) and either replace with the correct form or add a note to the article explaining why the two forms are different? Ideally, if someone can also confirm the accuracy of the Unicode form too.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) is better than I expected (it has a well-referenced reception section), but it suffers from one critical issue - the coverage of this fictional entity (ship) is in passing, which makes it fail WP:GNG/ WP:NFICTION. Several sources do discuss a single aspect of it - its name - but do so in passing. As far as I can tell, none have more than a sentence or two about this aspect, and there is nothing about anything else. (Of course, there are also few sentences in some sources that are mentions in passing in the context of plot summaries, but that's pretty much irrelevant). As such, I think we should merge the receptions section somewhere, but I am not sure what article would be a good choice to discuss the meaning of the name of the ship. Perhaps 'in popular culture' section could be added to Nebuchadnezzar II and the entry redirected there? Another option would be to rename and rewrite the article into the Meaning of the name Nebuchadnezzar in The Matrix but that's a mouthful. There is also the option of merging it to some Matrix article (or forking it to both articles), but I couldn't find any Matrix-themed article that is relevant, as none discuss this ship outside a plot summary. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge! I completely disagree with your logic. Pixiechick66 ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Simongraham ( talk · contribs) 18:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article. It is stable, although it has been subject to claims of edit wars in the past as it covers some potentially controversial material. 94.4% of the authorship is from one user, Ichthyovenator. It is currently ranked both B and C class.
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | The article is clear and avoids unnecessary jargon. There are no obvious spelling or grammar errors. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | The article complies with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:WTW. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | Citations are given, including for direct quotations. Layout conforms to MOS:REFERENCES | Pass |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | All citations are from peer-reviewed journals or equivalent reliable sources as per WP:RELIABLE. | Pass |
(c) (original research) | There is no obvious original research as WP:NOR | Pass |
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | Confirmed with Earwig's Copyvio Detector that violation is unlikely. | Pass |
Notes | Result | The article is generally balanced and avoids bias. | Pass |
---|
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No edit war or content dispute is currently evident | Pass |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
Pass | Congratulations, Ichthyovenator, on another excellent Good Article. |
More to come. simongraham ( talk) 18:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Ichthyovenator: You have done great work with this and, although the list is long, I could only find minor things to do. Please see the comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham ( talk) 07:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
If I may raise a minor issue: In the lede, the statement "At the time of his death, Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful ruler in the known world" is made, cited to the World History Encyclopedia. I feel like the "known world" is a problematic qualifier (despite it being also used by the World History Encyclopedia), as the "known world" can either mean known to Nebuchadnezzar's region or "known" in the sense that we have records of it. The latter interpretation would be probably false, however, as Nebuchadnezzar II was a contemporary to the late Spring and Autumn period states of China. Some of these probably rivalled or even surpassed the Babylonian Empire in landmass, population, and military strength (the state of Chu, for example, allegedly fielded armies numbering hundreds of thousands by the late 6th century). Could the sentence be perhaps be adjusted to "At the time of his death, Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful ruler in the Middle East" or something like it? Applodion ( talk) 11:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
About is really based around a question of faith
—that's exactly the problem: historians work with shared assumptions (like
methodological naturalism), and faith in the supernatural does not belong to the shared assumptions of historical scholarship. Historiography which assumes there are supernatural causes is
pseudohistory, plain and simple, no doubt about that.
The requirements of the historical method do not allow stating as historical fact that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophecy. This is generally agreed, regardless of which faith the historian does belong to.
So, at the basic level of methodological requirements, modern historical research gives the lie to the fundamentalist reading of Daniel, and it cannot do otherwise.
The whole enterprise of modern historical WP:SCHOLARSHIP is designed to give the lie to fundamentalism. Modern historiography is based upon assumptions which are alien and inimical to fundamentalism.
People who complain that those darn liberal scholars bash the Bible don't understand that honest historians cannot do otherwise. It is their only choice, besides completely refraining from studying the Bible. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone thought that my inclusion of mentions in Jeremiah and Ezekiel was "fringe" (under the POV that those works are fiction), perhaps instead of reverting, a better approach would have been to change the word "predicted." The passages exist and are pertinent to the topic. I did not re-enter because I didn't want the risk of an edit war. 伟思礼 ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar II has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 4, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The page includes "font-family:Akkadian" to display the name in Akkadian cuneiform, but this font is not commonly available. A possible solution would be to add "<link rel="stylesheet" media="screen" ref=" https://fontlibrary.org/face/akkadian" type="text/css"/>" to the head of the html page. See [1]. The referenced page says the font is free to use. I do not know how to edit the html header so help would be appreciated. Jony ( talk) 16:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
References
How is it relevant that the book of Daniel is fiction? I work as a teacher, and teach my students that anything not 100% relevant should be considered removed. Is the statement about Daniel really relevant to who Nebuchadnezzar II was? This is like an article about Gandalf discussing how Gollum is a work of fiction. It just isn't relevant.
Ader ( talk) 19:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Conversely, most critical scholars take for granted that the genre is not HISTORY.
— Collins, 1984: 41
I've tried making the change. I really don't want to be difficult, but a 34 year old book as a source on consesus among scholars, is not something I look upon as a good source. Most of the scholars Collins speaks about must be retired by now, so the only thing the source proves is that consensus existed 34 years ago. Does anyone know of any more recent metastudies on what scholars think of The Book of Daniel? Ader ( talk) 15:39, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
This is regarding my reversion of this edit on the basis that it is original research (i.e. original conclusions were drawn from the sources which are not made in the sources themselves).
Firstly, this text was added:
This biblical portrayal of the King's descent into madness is consistent with modern and ancient historians' understanding that Nebuchadnezzar became increasingly irrational in his later years. [1].
This is what the cited reference says about this matter:
"According to a Babylonian poem, the king had begun to act irrationally: "He paid no heed to son and daughter, family and clan were not in his heart." Perhaps this is the basis for the later story that Nebuchadnezzar went mad."
The author doesn't mention the biblical account and makes no comment on the consistency of the biblical portrayal.
Similarly for this text that was added:
Daniel's prophecy of the downfall of Babylon, as described to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar in the Hebrew Bible, was also consistent with the eventual fate of the Babylonian Empire as described by historians. [2]
Again, I do not see where the source notes the consistency of Daniel's prophecy. It only speaks of the influence of the Babylonian-Assyrian religion on the Old Testament. Bennv3771 ( talk) 01:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
References
Critical scholars are WP:MAINSTREAM: their vision gets taught from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I recently erased a baseless statement at the end of the intro, citing some scholar named Collins, that the Book of Daniel is merely a collection of legendary tales and visions dating from the 2nd century BCE. User:Tgeorgescu seems to have a problem with that. The dating of the Book of Daniel by scholars to the 2nd century BCE refers to the sealing of the text by the Men of the Great Assembly (in it's original Hebrew version, see Great Assembly), not its original composition. Additionally, this statement is irrelevant in this entry, and if anything should be mentioned as a scholarly opinion in Book of Daniel (and definitely not as consensus). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natorious ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Seems that there is historical depiction of Nebuchadnezzar II in the so called Tower of Babel Stele. Here is some info:
Anyone willing to upload it? 109.160.36.104 ( talk) 22:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a WP:MAINSTREAM history article, so Barok777 don't bother us anymore with the fundamentalist POV, which would be booed off the stage at WP:CHOPSY. That falls within WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!
Critical scholars are WP:MAINSTREAM: their vision gets taught from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Biblical inerrantists are WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Barok777: The views of the Adventist scholars are considered marginal opinions. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have truncated the claim that there is 'substantial evidence' supporting an earlier date for Daniel. The Ferch source that was added cites Wiseman and the existence of Belshazzar as 'evidence', neither of which actually substantiate an earlier date for Daniel.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 08:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by. User:Kww
the Book of Daniel to contain both historical fact and accurate prophecy for a period during Daniel's lifetime and thereafteris dead in the water. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Vasyaivanov: Read the above. No bona fide history department could teach that Daniel had genuine prophecies, since the epistemology of history prohibits it. There is a difference between past (what really happened) and history (what historians can show in peer-reviewed papers that it happened). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 07:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Where we draw the line? Daniel's prophecies probably factual? David Irving probably factual? Andrew Wakefield probably factual? Ryke Geerd Hamer probably factual? AIDS denialism probably factual? Young Earth Creationism probably factual? Moon landing probably hoax? It seems a complete mockery to poo on the historical method and then call your papers history writing. Since the Enlightenment the supernatural has been purged from history, yet some Wikipedia editors seem unaware of this fact. The edits at this article by Barok777, Natorious, Madcricketer and Vasyaivanov are a perfect example of how to flunk as a history undergraduate. If historians could prove paranormal claims, then you should expect peer-reviewed history articles like "Have leprechauns dictated the Book of Isaiah? An alternative theory for the claim that angels have dictated the Book of Isaiah." Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Bart D. Ehrman (23 September 1999).
Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 197.
ISBN
978-0-19-983943-8. As I've pointed out, the historian cannot say that demons—real live supernatural spirits that invade human bodies—were actually cast out of people, because to do so would be to transcend the boundaries imposed on the historian by the historical method, in that it would require a religious belief system involving a supernatural realm outside of the historian's province.
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Jmcsparin: Your stance is highly preposterous to anyone familiar with the historical method. See why above. The supernatural does not count in writing history, beginning with the Enlightenment. Historians do not work with the hypothesis that the supernatural is real when they write history, only theologians do that when they write theology. So, yeah, sooner or later inerrantists will find that the whole historical method is from Satan, just as they found that about evolution and about mainstream geology. I'd say wait till the conclusion that David did not rule a kingdom, he only ruled a village trickles down to schoolbooks. Then it will happen. This is all what WP:FRINGE/PS WP:POV pushers can do here: trolling with a complete mockery of the historical method. That is the rub.
I vehemently disagree with your assertion that modern scholars are secretly in league with Satan, but, even if your accusation were true (which it certainly is not), it would not matter; Wikipedia is still bound to represent the views of modern scholars, regardless of whether or not they are secretly Satanists. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 19:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Just because members of the MGTOW community don't like this article doesn't mean it's biased. Wikipedia is designed to be written from a neutral point of view, not a promotional point of view. In the case of fringe opinions, such as MGTOW, Flat Earth Society, etc., the proponents of such opinions are as a rule never satisfied with the consensus version of the article. That doesn't mean Wikipedia should completely avoid covering such topics. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:
• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;
• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
Quoted by
Tgeorgescu. Maybe he wanted to say "it doesn't derive from any ontological status".
Tgeorgescu (
talk) 07:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It is not known whether “most critical scholars agree” that the book of Daniel is historical fiction.— but, yes, it is known: for more than 100 years the claim "the Book of Daniel is real history" is WP:FRINGE/PS according to WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
If you think that the WP:ONUS would be upon me to prove that Ivy Plus got it right, you misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia. The WP:BURDEN is upon you, not upon me. You are the WP:FRINGE/PS WP:POV pusher. This isn't a level playing field, the sooner you learn it, the better. Wikipedia is very biased for WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM, so you don't get to define the terms of the debate; we do, WP:RULES do. Something makes you think that your traditional religious authorities trump the authorities from Ivy Plus, BIU and TAU. Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. Who has the power to decide upon this historical fact? Mainstream Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not follow the Bible. Wikipedia follows mainstream Bible scholarship. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 05:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The correct name is Nebuchadrezzar with an R; I've added this and given a source. We should move the page to Nebuchadrezzar II. (This has been discussed before at length at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II/Archive 2#"Nebuchadrezzar".) Richard75 ( talk) 22:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per discussion here and at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar I. If revisiting this in the future, please use the procedure shown at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting multiple page moves and note Wikipedia:Correct; showing a preponderance of use in Wikipedia:Reliable sources would likely be necessary in order to gain consensus for this sort of change in the face of split usage. Less Unless began such a process below, but evidence in dispute of the assertion was also presented. Dekimasu よ! 05:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar II → Nebuchadrezzar II – The correct spelling is Nebuchadrezzar; the second n is an error which crept into the Bible (which uses both spellings). There is a source for this in the article. (This has been discussed before here, and see the section immediately above.) Richard75 ( talk) 11:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I have changed the final sentence of the opening to reflect a neutral stance. It is as follows:
"He is an important character in the Book of Daniel, a collection of writings and visions that were perhaps written in the 2nd century BC."
Saxophilist ( talk) 16:51, 21 May 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. Zero talk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I would like to chime in here that the reason we know the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC is because the prophecies in it are only accurate up until a certain date: 164 BC exactly. After that date, all of the prophecies are catastrophically wrong. The only way that you can arrive with a work containing accurate prophecies up to one, specific date and inaccurate prophecies thereafter is if the book was actually written at that date, making all the "predictions" prior to that point actually be history framed as predictions to make the actual predictions found later seem reliable. -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 15:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb ( talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Who crowned Tgeorgescu as king of this page? If anyone disagrees with his opinions or his preferred scholars, then they are fringe fundamentalists. Really? Saxophilist ( talk) 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
A Unicode rendition of the Akkadian script for the name Nebuchadnezzar "𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀" has recently been added to the article. That rendition appears to be frequently used online (though it seems to transliterate as ANAKKUDUURRIŠEŠ). In any case, it does not take an expert in cuneiform to see that and 𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 are not the same word. Can somebody verify the form from the image from the original source (Bertin, G. (1891). "Babylonian Chronology and History". Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 5: p. 50; [@ User:Ichthyovenator]?) and either replace with the correct form or add a note to the article explaining why the two forms are different? Ideally, if someone can also confirm the accuracy of the Unicode form too.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 00:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) is better than I expected (it has a well-referenced reception section), but it suffers from one critical issue - the coverage of this fictional entity (ship) is in passing, which makes it fail WP:GNG/ WP:NFICTION. Several sources do discuss a single aspect of it - its name - but do so in passing. As far as I can tell, none have more than a sentence or two about this aspect, and there is nothing about anything else. (Of course, there are also few sentences in some sources that are mentions in passing in the context of plot summaries, but that's pretty much irrelevant). As such, I think we should merge the receptions section somewhere, but I am not sure what article would be a good choice to discuss the meaning of the name of the ship. Perhaps 'in popular culture' section could be added to Nebuchadnezzar II and the entry redirected there? Another option would be to rename and rewrite the article into the Meaning of the name Nebuchadnezzar in The Matrix but that's a mouthful. There is also the option of merging it to some Matrix article (or forking it to both articles), but I couldn't find any Matrix-themed article that is relevant, as none discuss this ship outside a plot summary. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose merge! I completely disagree with your logic. Pixiechick66 ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Simongraham ( talk · contribs) 18:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article. It is stable, although it has been subject to claims of edit wars in the past as it covers some potentially controversial material. 94.4% of the authorship is from one user, Ichthyovenator. It is currently ranked both B and C class.
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | The article is clear and avoids unnecessary jargon. There are no obvious spelling or grammar errors. | Pass |
(b) (MoS) | The article complies with MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:WTW. | Pass |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) | Citations are given, including for direct quotations. Layout conforms to MOS:REFERENCES | Pass |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | All citations are from peer-reviewed journals or equivalent reliable sources as per WP:RELIABLE. | Pass |
(c) (original research) | There is no obvious original research as WP:NOR | Pass |
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism) | Confirmed with Earwig's Copyvio Detector that violation is unlikely. | Pass |
Notes | Result | The article is generally balanced and avoids bias. | Pass |
---|
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No edit war or content dispute is currently evident | Pass |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
Pass | Congratulations, Ichthyovenator, on another excellent Good Article. |
More to come. simongraham ( talk) 18:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Ichthyovenator: You have done great work with this and, although the list is long, I could only find minor things to do. Please see the comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham ( talk) 07:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
If I may raise a minor issue: In the lede, the statement "At the time of his death, Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful ruler in the known world" is made, cited to the World History Encyclopedia. I feel like the "known world" is a problematic qualifier (despite it being also used by the World History Encyclopedia), as the "known world" can either mean known to Nebuchadnezzar's region or "known" in the sense that we have records of it. The latter interpretation would be probably false, however, as Nebuchadnezzar II was a contemporary to the late Spring and Autumn period states of China. Some of these probably rivalled or even surpassed the Babylonian Empire in landmass, population, and military strength (the state of Chu, for example, allegedly fielded armies numbering hundreds of thousands by the late 6th century). Could the sentence be perhaps be adjusted to "At the time of his death, Nebuchadnezzar was the most powerful ruler in the Middle East" or something like it? Applodion ( talk) 11:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#𒀭𒀝𒆪𒁺𒌨𒊑𒋀 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
About is really based around a question of faith
—that's exactly the problem: historians work with shared assumptions (like
methodological naturalism), and faith in the supernatural does not belong to the shared assumptions of historical scholarship. Historiography which assumes there are supernatural causes is
pseudohistory, plain and simple, no doubt about that.
The requirements of the historical method do not allow stating as historical fact that the Book of Daniel is genuine prophecy. This is generally agreed, regardless of which faith the historian does belong to.
So, at the basic level of methodological requirements, modern historical research gives the lie to the fundamentalist reading of Daniel, and it cannot do otherwise.
The whole enterprise of modern historical WP:SCHOLARSHIP is designed to give the lie to fundamentalism. Modern historiography is based upon assumptions which are alien and inimical to fundamentalism.
People who complain that those darn liberal scholars bash the Bible don't understand that honest historians cannot do otherwise. It is their only choice, besides completely refraining from studying the Bible. tgeorgescu ( talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone thought that my inclusion of mentions in Jeremiah and Ezekiel was "fringe" (under the POV that those works are fiction), perhaps instead of reverting, a better approach would have been to change the word "predicted." The passages exist and are pertinent to the topic. I did not re-enter because I didn't want the risk of an edit war. 伟思礼 ( talk) 17:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)