| Revision as of 18:52, 20 April 2021 editBilto74811 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users671 edits →Moses myth vs legend vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:53, 20 April 2021 edit undoBilto74811 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users671 edits →Moses myth vs legend voteNext edit → | ||
| Line 266: | Line 266: | ||
| ::::::{{replyto|Ramos1990}}A simple yes or no would be helpful so we can all move on, I dont want to wait forever while you make time to make edits on the main page and just ignore repeated questions here. Its a only few words to vote, woud you be okay returning to your original edit of "mythical or legendary figure" or not? |
::::::{{replyto|Ramos1990}}A simple yes or no would be helpful so we can all move on, I dont want to wait forever while you make time to make edits on the main page and just ignore repeated questions here. Its a only few words to vote, woud you be okay returning to your original edit of "mythical or legendary figure" or not? | ||
| ::::::I think Editor2020 has checked out despite this vote being their suggestion, so your vote is all thats left to wait on since no one else has commented on it. ] (]) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:53, 20 April 2021
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_01.svg){kind=small}
 | Moses is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Former featured article candidate | ||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |||||||
Index
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Moses in Christianity
There seem to be no wiki page for Moses in Christianity, so the page goes to itself? Should a Moses in Christianity page be created and what should be included in it? Doremon764 (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Doremon764: Thanks for pointing that out; I added the link earlier but it redirects to the same section and I've removed it for now. An article could certainly be created; I suppose it would dwell on those aspects of Moses emphasized/diminished in Christianity relative to the other Abrahamic religions, and perhaps expand on Moses in Christian art in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and thereafter. GPinkerton (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
We could also bring up Jude mentioning of the Testament of Moses when comparing to Jesus. Doremon764 (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Doremon764: Sure. And the Harrowing of Hell. And generally expand the mentions of Moses in the NT and in patristics. GPinkerton (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Not a fan of this image of Moshe
It might be artistically significant, but it's almost certainly a horribly inaccurate one and gives viewers the wrong idea as far as what he might have looked like. (As in, probably not so pink) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7138:2B0:B:A2D6:268E:3993 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Guidance at WP:LEADIMAGE, I assume you mean the current LI. "Horribly inaccurate" is probably right if one assumes some kind of Moses existed in history, but not necessarily relevant. One could argue that it's an improvement on the previous one, Moses is less golden and writes in a different language. What images are "best" in a context like this is very subjective. What alternative do you propose? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Current leadimage 
Previous leadimage, I think
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if "accuracy" is desired then the Dura image is probably best. I prefer the French-language Moses to the current one. GPinkerton (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's certainly older, but is the clothing much more "right" (huh, I didn't look very closely, and assumed it was latin)? I think the leadimage should be Moses with the tablets, and somewhat prefer Hebrew-language Moses of these two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, did I say correct? I mean current. GPinkerton (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- That makes more sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, it might be best to have Charlton Heston with the tablets, probably the best known and most canonical image at this point. GPinkerton (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mel Brooks, perhaps? Though I'd like to have that movie's portrayal as a leadimage at Tharbis. But Heston was good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- See, those cultural references are all to Cecil B. DeMille, not some baroque painting. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Mel Brooks, perhaps? Though I'd like to have that movie's portrayal as a leadimage at Tharbis. But Heston was good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, it might be best to have Charlton Heston with the tablets, probably the best known and most canonical image at this point. GPinkerton (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- That makes more sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, did I say correct? I mean current. GPinkerton (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's certainly older, but is the clothing much more "right" (huh, I didn't look very closely, and assumed it was latin)? I think the leadimage should be Moses with the tablets, and somewhat prefer Hebrew-language Moses of these two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
- Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if "accuracy" is desired then the Dura image is probably best. I prefer the French-language Moses to the current one. GPinkerton (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking just the other day that we need an article on the Jordaens painting. I actually think that would make a great lead image! It is very distinctly Moses. Plus, he's looking right at you. Srnec (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
- The current one is unacceptably lo-res & fuzzy. The French one would be better. Most of the images are pretty poor, as usual. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
For the interested: Moses and his Ethiopian wife Zipporah Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Nice article, & would be a great dyk. Not sure it's right for the lead, but it should go in somewhere. I'm try to upgrade the art section & the pictures gradually. Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Possible addition to the 'Film' subject + addition of a Theatre subject
I was wondering, would it be possible to add that the film 'The Prince of Egypt' depicts Moses and the Egyptian Pharaoh as Rameses? It's just so as to make clear that the film is merely an adaptation with artistic license. Also, a musical theatre adaptation of 'The Prince of Egypt' was released in London in 2020, on the West End. Could someone add in that subject, to contribute to the depictions of Moses in popular culture? Thanks! Two Red Engines
Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2021
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "suwar" to "surah" in Moses in Islam 122.179.84.172 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done Suwar is a plural of Surah in Arabic. ParthikS8 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- This is also identified in the lead of Surah. I don't know if the Arabic plural is common in English though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Terminology on Moses
Hi,
I see that other editors have agreed that "legendary" is a better term than using the term "mythical" on Moses on the lead. The recent edit by @Editor2020: and even mine to restore the wording to "legendary" show that this is becoming a bit of an issue for just one editor while all other editors seem to not have any issues with the term "legendary". Also before User:Bilto74811 came back on wikipedia, the page had used the term "legendary" for many years since at least 2016 - when I looked at the history of this article. Only User:Bilto74811 has been recently trying to change the wording , , so we should follow WP:BRD at this point since his edits are the Bold ones.
The way the wording is being boldly changed to "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." seems to be confusing because when people speak of myth it usually is understood as complete fiction - as is understood for Jesus mythicism (see Christ Myth Theory). Keep in mind that when talking about myth in general - it carries the sense of not existing for most readers. And when using that term on religious figures it is usually understood as them not existing. For instance, Jesus mythicists do not think that Jesus existed at all. "Legendary" carries more of a nuanced meaning that includes that Moses may have been largely made up, and also that he may have some basis in history - like scholarly consensus holds.
There are authoritative reference sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford Biblical Studies cited for the statement and they do not even use the term "mythical" or "myth" at all and certainly reflect the much more recent consensus views that - Moses is largely legendary, but may have a historical core, and that there is no way to confirm one way of the other. The current view are agnosticism, not flat out mythicism.
I would argue that we should stay with the term "legendary" or say more nuanced things to compensate for these multiple views that scholars hold like it has been since at least 2016.
I will revert and restore to the "legendary" terminology at the moment.Ramos1990 (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- The other "editors" have not agreed, 1 did. "all other editors" have not had issue" is another mischaracterization as I have just now brought this up. I suggest you speak for yourself and let others discuss for themselves. I changed it because you changed what the scholarly conensus was which is clealry stated by reliable sources. You changed it to your own POV.
- We cannot state that "Scholarly consensu sees Moses as a legendary figure" simply because Editor2020 and you think it is better. That would be false, unssourced, and original research. Scholarly consensus see Moses as a "mythical figure, it is what the source says.
- You have been pushing legendary since I brought this up and have still yet to provide a single source that says that is the scholarly consensus. If you want to say that is the scholarly consensu, you need to provide a reliable source that says that this is the scholarly consensus and we can discuss it, but your OR on what you think "myth" means is not correct and cannot be included because its OR.
- Myth does not mean it is not based on something in history. See the Exodus wiki page. Myth does not exclude being based on something. We can link the word "myth", and as you point out the sentence explicitly states "while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed" so there is no potential for confusion.
- This has been discussed many times on the Exodus talk page - see the archive. Myth does not mean it cant be based on something. Scholarly consensus is very clear that the Exodus is a myth but that it could be based on something in history. So that is what we state. Every now and then someone tries to remove the word myth, but we never do because myth is accurate and it is the scholarly consnensu. Moses is the same, he is a mythical figure, not historical just like the Exodus, but he could be based on some "Moses like figure" in history, which we explicitly state. Same with the Exodus, which we explcitly state on that wiki page. Many other editors (see the archive) have had to put "myth" back on the Exodus page after someone removed it. Myth was added from talk page discussion consensus because it is the scholarly consensus and it is accurate. People have tried to change it to "legendary" and many other terms, but it is always changed back to myth because that is what the academic consneus is according to reliable sources.
- The difference with Jesus, is that most scholars do not think Jesus was a mythical figure (see your link - also your link says the Christ myth theory is about history and about the relation to the founding of Christianity). The Bible's supernatural version of Jesus is a myth, but I cannot state that on Misplaced Pages without reliable source as that would be OR. Most scholars think Jesus was a historical person, not a myth and not "possible based on a Jesus-like figure". Contrary to the academic consensus on Moses.
- Netiher Encyclopedia Britannica or Oxford Biblical Studies even say "legendary" or more importantly that scholarly consneus is that Moses is legendary like you chaged it to. We cannot falsely state that scholalry consensus is that Moses is legendary, based on your OR.
- Stating that it has been your preference for a long time does not change that your proposed sentence is false as it literally states falsely what scholarly consensus is and it is based on your own OR and POV.
- Sholarly consnensus is that Moses is a mythical figure, that is directly from a reliable source. No reliable source says otherwise so it is not a controversial issue in academia. Scholars maintain the possibility that a "Moses-like figure" existed, that is also sourced. That is why it says;
- "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure (not based on my POV or your POV, thats what it actually is according to reliable sources), while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed".
- That is what it should stay as unless you have a reliable source to back your POV.
- here are the quotes from the 2 reliable sources we are discussing:
- "A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century" source 1
- "Yet the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure; that Yahwism was highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism developed only late in Israel's history" source 2
- both are represented in my proposed edit, see below.
- here are some more quotes from reliable sources
- "many of these forms are not and should not be considered historically based; Moses' birth narrrative, for example, is built on folkloric motifs found throughout the ancient world" source 3
- "we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside of the tradition. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is a figure of history but not of memory." source 4
- "The life of Moses contains elements - canonical and apocryphal - that mark him as a true mythic hero...central figure in Hebrew mythology" source 5
- "the Old Testament…that its historical portions are not to be depended on….that its myths....the exodus from, Egypt, of the career of Moses and the Jews in the desert, of Joshua and his soldiers, of the judges and their clients, are all apocryphal and were fabricated at a late period of Jewish history, with the deisgn of ingspiring the Hebrews at a period when their depression of spirit from foreign conquest was extreme" source 6
- We need to accurately record the scholarly consensus, which is:
- "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." This is the edit I made, and the one I propose we stay with. Bilto74811 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- From myth "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods, or supernatural humans. Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths." Editor2020 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I will note that the last sentence you quoted on the myth wiki page is not sourced on that page. Also, Moses is often depicted using supernatural powers (whether you view that as the staff being supernatural or Moses being supernatural doesnt seem a meaningful distinction to me). Most importan to me is that the scholarly sources deemed Moses as a mythical figure so I think we should stick with that. We maybe could do "mythical or legendary figure" as a compromise like Ramos1990 originally added to my edit. But I think "mythical figure" is best because it is what the scholarly consensus acutally is. Bilto74811 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- We need to keep in mind WP:RF here. The word "mythical", as used in common parlance, implies that a figure is fictitious, though we know that the word's usage in academia doesn't necessarily mean that. A common synonym for what is meant by the academic usage of the word "mythical" is "legendary" which I think we can safely use—both laymen and academics readily understand this word without any confusion. Since the word "mythical" has the potential to be ambiguous, "legendary" should be used. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 19:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, thats a fair point that we should focus on readers impression. My understanding (from the sources I listed above) is that Moses is considered to be fictional. All that is considered is being based on a "Moses-like figure". This is concept of being based on something in history is true of all myths and mythical figures. To clarify, I dont think legendary is bad, I just think myth is better as its what the sources state. Bilto74811 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Per Editor2020 and Anupam's comments, that is what I have been trying to point out. This is not a POV or OR or SYN issue at all because all we are suggesting is a clearer synonym for the readers. General readers will understand myth as being about fiction, falsehoods, non-exiting things, etc. Just like they do about Jesus, readers usually equate Jesus being a "mythical figure" as literally meaning that he "did not exist". The sources clearly do not state that. It's one thing to say that the narratives of Moses as found in the Torah have mythical elements, but it is another to ambiguate it so that it could also read like scholars believe that Moses himself did not exist. Clearly scholars are divided over this last part and seem to be open to there being a Moses.
- Thanks for the response, thats a fair point that we should focus on readers impression. My understanding (from the sources I listed above) is that Moses is considered to be fictional. All that is considered is being based on a "Moses-like figure". This is concept of being based on something in history is true of all myths and mythical figures. To clarify, I dont think legendary is bad, I just think myth is better as its what the sources state. Bilto74811 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- We need to keep in mind WP:RF here. The word "mythical", as used in common parlance, implies that a figure is fictitious, though we know that the word's usage in academia doesn't necessarily mean that. A common synonym for what is meant by the academic usage of the word "mythical" is "legendary" which I think we can safely use—both laymen and academics readily understand this word without any confusion. Since the word "mythical" has the potential to be ambiguous, "legendary" should be used. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 19:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I will note that the last sentence you quoted on the myth wiki page is not sourced on that page. Also, Moses is often depicted using supernatural powers (whether you view that as the staff being supernatural or Moses being supernatural doesnt seem a meaningful distinction to me). Most importan to me is that the scholarly sources deemed Moses as a mythical figure so I think we should stick with that. We maybe could do "mythical or legendary figure" as a compromise like Ramos1990 originally added to my edit. But I think "mythical figure" is best because it is what the scholarly consensus acutally is. Bilto74811 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- From myth "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods, or supernatural humans. Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths." Editor2020 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Source 1 is archeologist William Dever in 2001 clarifying his views on Moses in that he may have existed, but there is no way to tell either way. This 2001 source supersedes what Dever said in 1993 (source 2 - when he said "Moses as a mythical figure..."). Furthermore, in 2008 William Dever clarified a bit further "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story." . He does not use "myth" in that source at all. Probably because he knows that it is meant for general audiences who watch documentaries, not scholars.
- The Enclyclopedia Brittanica source, the Oxford Biblical Studies, and Miller 2013 sources (already in the article) show similar nuance on Moses. For example, Miller 2013 states "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information." The scholarly situation on Moses existing is more open ended than effectively closed.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Clearly scholars are divided over this last part and seem to be open to there being a Moses. Thats not true and you have still not provided a source that says this. synonym that is not true either, per Editor2020's comment, myth and legend are not the same. It is definitely a synth issue to write "The scholarly consensus is that Moses is a legendary figure". That is false. If you want to state it wihtout attributing it to the consensus that would be different. As of now, you have not provided one source saying legendary so we cannot even attribute it to any scholars. We could try to just state it though.
- I already explained the differnece in Jesus vs Moses, its literally in bold above. Scholarly consensus is that Jesus is a historical person and not a myth. Scholarly consenus is that Moses is a mythical figure and not a historical person, but that he may be based on something, a "Mosese-like" figure
- on Moses in that he may have existed that is not what Dever says. Youre not helping by making false claims. He states that there may be a "Moses-like figure" not that "Moses may have existed"
- Yes the name Moses is probably an Egyptian name, which is likely due to the Egyptian rule over Canaan. That does not change the fact that Moses is a mythical figure and not considered historical. Every single source does not need to say the word "myth", that is not the burden of evidence here.
- See the many sources that make it clear that Moses is a mythical fiugre that I linked for you above. Most importantly the scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myhtical figure. Something that Dever never contradicts or changes. Your beliefs otherwise are your own WP:OR and not stated in any reliable source.
- All we have is scholars that state "myth" and 0 that state legendary. The only reason we would state "legendary" is if people were worried about readers confusion. The schoalry consensus is still that Moses is a mythical figure, but there may be some "Moses-like figure" (note, not Moses may have been real or there is any evidence for Moses). We cannot falsely attribute scholarly consensus. But we could try stating legendary if the consneus here ends up favoring that. Bilto74811 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- The Enclyclopedia Brittanica source, the Oxford Biblical Studies, and Miller 2013 sources (already in the article) show similar nuance on Moses. For example, Miller 2013 states "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information." The scholarly situation on Moses existing is more open ended than effectively closed.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
In the four references provided, William Dever doesn’t use either word, Robert Miller II (quoting Van Seters) uses both "legend" and "myth", Britannica doesn’t use either word, and Oxford Biblical Studies Online uses the phrase "comparable with the legends of other ancient peoples". So I propose we:
- Update the references, removing those which do not use either word and replacing them with those that use one or the other.
- Decide if we should use one or the other of the terms, or return to using both terms, as was once the case. Editor2020 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response, that seems reasonable, we could use both, "mythical or legendary figure" as a compromise like Ramos1990 originally added to my edit. I dont think its best to state the academic consensus to be different than it is, so maybe we could attribute "myth" to the consensus and "legendary" to the 2 sources you stated? But if everyone else wants both to be attributed to the academic consensus Ill go with it.
- The sources I have above, Dever says the overwhelming scholarly consensus is "myth", Leeming says "myth", Inman says "myth", I think Assmann and Coogann don't use either. Bilto74811 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Besides those sources though, there are others that use the word "legend" or "legendary"; for example, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states "Naturally, the historical figure of Moses has been surrounded by popular tradition and manifold legend." Since there is no ambiguity about the word "legendary" as there is with the word "mythical", it seems much more suitable for use here. Anupam 21:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thats not a link to the source thats a link to the Isaac Landman wiki page, and the encylcopedia isnt even notable enough to have a wiki page. And its not a statement from a scholar. We still cant attribute it to the scholarly consensus as that would be false.
- Actually we do not have any sources that use "legendary".
- Also we dont have any source stating that there is any evidence for Moses being a historical person, or stating that Moses is a historical person. We have the consensus stated clearly that he is mythical and that there may be a "Moses-like figure" the myth is based on. And we have this explicit statement from Assmann "Moses is a figure of memory but not of history"
- So I dont see why you are concerned with Moses sounding not historical when there isnt any evidence for his existence. There is nothing for the readers to be confused, and the rest of the literal same sentence is that "while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed", so there really is no concern for "ambiguity". Therefore I dont see any need to change the academic consensus (which we should not be doing anyways as it would be false and synth). I propose we state what the academic consensus is, "mythical" which is sourced, and if you want to add those 2 scholars saying "legend" or you want to change it to "legendary" Im fine with that. Bilto74811 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The article currently falsely states the academic consensus is that Moses is legendary, instead of mythical. The same sentence states "while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed", so mythical is fine. There is a whole historicity section going into further detail.
If we are going to keep "legendary" we can't faslely attribute it to scholars and certainly not the consensus, when we dont have any source that uses that word, although some sau "legend". We could just state Moses is a legendary figure. Or that scholarly consensus is that he is mythical.
We have 3 scholars that say myth, 1 that says both, 1 that states explciitly that the consensus he is a mythical figure. So we should acccurately use the academic term, especially when the same sentence clarifies this explicitly. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- Since no one has replied to your last comment it seems that you repeating yourself has taken a toll and no one wants to talk to you. I suggest more humility and openness to compromise. And please keep it short from now on. No one seems to be convinced of your arguments of OR and POV - please read the WP:OR policy - OR only applies when a statement has no source - not when trying to discussing how to paraphrase a source like we are doing here. If you cannot understand the policy then there will be very little reason to continue this discussion with you. You will continue to lose the other editor's interest since it looks like whining than actually reasonably attempting to negotiate and compromise.
- There is no point in repeating all other points (sources are inconsistent with term usage on Moses, most of the sources that use "myth" are talking about the story elements of Moses - birth, miracles, travels, etc; not his existence - these are 2 separate things). Keep in mind that Dever 2001 is the one who states that "A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century s.c., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose." So his claim from 1993 does not mean that Moses did not exist necessarily. Otherwise why would he contradict himself?
- Anyways, if you want we can remove the term "consensus" since I don't really care to use that term and think it is pointless. We could just reword the whole phrase as "Generally scholars see the story of Moses as legendary while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." I think this is a reasonable compromise. This makes more sense and is pretty clear and is what the sources are generally saying. Plus readers can literally see what the sources say so its not like we have to think that readers are stupid idiots who cannot think for themselves and see the citations and read them.
- The point is to show WP:NPOV, not confuse readers. And by the looks of this discussion there is consensus that "myth" confuses more (Editor2020, Anupam and Me agree on this) and that "legendary" does not (Editor2020, Anupam and Me agree on this). Repetition does not help so please keep that to minimum. Otherwise, other editors will not be motivated to continue to reply to you here. Assume good faith.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- You should learn to speak for yourself. No one has said they dont want to talk. Dont put words in other peoples mouths, its rude.
- We dont have a single source calling Moses legendary and we have 3 sources that say myth and only 1 that also says legend. Youre just pushing your own preference in wording and still have yet to provide a single source that calls Moses legendary. So falsely attributing that to "generally scholars" is not good either. We know exactly what scholars see Moses as, a myth.
- You keep trying to imply that Dever contradicted himself, but he did not. Notice he says maybe a "Moses-like figure" existed. Not Moses. That is not contrary to the word myth, Editor2020 linked the wiki myth page, you should read it otherwise youll continue to think myth = false, which is not correct. Myth means its not historical, like Moses. There is no evidence for Moses, only possibly a "Moses-like figure". That is true of every myth, that it could be based on something in history, despite the lack of any evidence.
- Obviously, no one can disprove that any mythical human existed. Moses is disproven no more or less than a human version of any mythical person from any religion. But there is still no evidence to any degree for Moses (not a "Moses-like" figure, meaning a leader of some sort...) see this quote from an actual source I linked for you: "we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside of the tradition. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history"
- You keep trying to compare Moses to Jesus, but theyre not even somewhat similar. Overwheleming academic consensus is that a human Jesus existed and is not mythical (the supernatural elements aside) and that Moses is mythical. Both Moses and Jesus were supernatural so youre POV that "Moses is just referred to as myth because of miracles is false. Moses is mythical according to scholars and Jesus is not. Youre confused about them because youre comparing situations that are not similar. Just read the academic sources if you want to understand the differnce, otherwise you won't get anywhere.
- Youre pushing your preference in wording (contrary to the sources and scholars say) because "readers might be confused" but it doesn't make sense. There is no cause for confusion, as youve noted weve been over this repeatedly, the literal same sentence explicitly states what youre worried that readers will miss - that a "Moses-like" figure may have existed. Youre assuming readers will stop midsntence and be confused? no. see your quote: its not like we have to think that readers are stupid idiots
- I don't understand what is confusing to you about this: "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this be mistaken by readers to think that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? Bilto74811 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- Anupam already addressed your point here . Academic usage is different than what Misplaced Pages readers will understand myth to be. Anyways looks like this discussion is no Conesus on your bold proposition and edit. So the wording will stay as is since we cannot agree on any particular change.Ramos1990 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
- I already adressed Anupam's concerns, see the section youre replying to. You ignored the main question with your assuming readers will be confused: "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this be mistaken by readers to think that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? Youve repeatedly stated readers may be confused even though the next words in the exact same sentence explicitly state what youre worried readers will miss, "that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"". It makes no sense whatsoever and I think thats why you refuse to answer that question. Well see if any other editors have an opinion, otherwise eventually Ill look into a request for comment as we should not change what the scholars say to your preference of wording and your "worry over confusion" is unfounded given the explicit statement in the very same sentence. Just because Jesus is not a myth as you repeatedly point out does not mean that others are not or that "its confusing" to say myth for anyone. We use the word myth on many wiki pages where scholars use myth to state that a character like Moses is not historical, but "may be based on something" which is true of all mythical characters. Academic usage is that Moses is fictional, you still misunderstand the word myth, despite Editor2020 linking it. You need to just read that page already. Mythcial is not mutually excluisve with "based on something", thats literally true of all myths. Readers thinking that scholars see Moses as fictional is not contrary to its usage, see the many quotes from different scholars I linked above. Here is one: "we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside of the tradition. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history". Moses is a fictional myth, but may be based on seomthing like all myths. There is no confusion because that is accurate, and as I pointed out to you is made clear by the rest of the literal same sentence. Bilto74811 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see Anupam agreeing with your proposition though. Legendary is not my term or my POV. I could care less about it. However, it has been there since at least 2016 by other editors. I barely started editing this page very little this year. If you have to do so much reading for one word like "myth", then it is probably best to use the word that has not been disputed for numerous years like "legendary". It is self explanatory andpretty clear and sounds more NPOV. I will simply change the wording to not include "consensus" since I think there is some agreement on that alone. You suggested "We could just state Moses is a legendary figure." So I will just do a slight reword with that. That will be the end of this discussion.Ramos1990 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I didnt say they did, again dont put words in others mouths. I just said I already addressed their concern already when you brouhgt it up again. And then Anupam said we have a source that says legend "or legendary", but as I pointed out we dont have any source from scholars using legendary. As I already addressed, saying "its been there for a while" does not support it being there.
- I could care less about it. well you are spending a lot of time to maintain it and worrying about people not knowing there is a posssibility of some "Moses-like figure" despite the same exact sentence explicitly stating it. Seems like you care a lot about that one word.
- Its the same sentence, you do not have to "do a lot of reading". Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this be mistaken by readers to think that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? You again did not answer this question. This is the entire center of your argument against using "mythical" and yet you still have not answered it. You again ignored it, I bolded it for you last time, so I don't know how you keep missing it. Its literally your whole argument, and you refuse to define it. It doesnt makes sense, which is the problem with your argument, there is no possibilty for confusion with "myth", the same sentence makes the epxlicity statement that youre worried people will be missing and be "confused about"
- Removing the word consensus is less bad, but it still avoids using the terminology we have in sources because of "potential for confusion", when you still refuse to answer the question of how someone could possibly not know that "there is some posibility of a "Moses-like figure"" when it explicitly states that.
- We have zero sources using legendary. We do however have a stated, sourced statement from areliable scholar saying "mythical", and mulitple other sources saying "myth", with only 1 also saying "legend", and zero saying "legendary". So fixing it, given the zero likelihood for confusino given the same exact sentence has your explanation in it that "some possibility" for "some" basiss, like all myths. So if this is the end of your participation in the discussion then that is fine, but as I said eventually Ill look into a request for comment as we should not change what the scholars say to your preference of wording and your "worry over confusion" is unfounded given the explicit statement in the very same sentence Bilto74811 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see Anupam agreeing with your proposition though. Legendary is not my term or my POV. I could care less about it. However, it has been there since at least 2016 by other editors. I barely started editing this page very little this year. If you have to do so much reading for one word like "myth", then it is probably best to use the word that has not been disputed for numerous years like "legendary". It is self explanatory andpretty clear and sounds more NPOV. I will simply change the wording to not include "consensus" since I think there is some agreement on that alone. You suggested "We could just state Moses is a legendary figure." So I will just do a slight reword with that. That will be the end of this discussion.Ramos1990 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- I already adressed Anupam's concerns, see the section youre replying to. You ignored the main question with your assuming readers will be confused: "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this be mistaken by readers to think that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? Youve repeatedly stated readers may be confused even though the next words in the exact same sentence explicitly state what youre worried readers will miss, "that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"". It makes no sense whatsoever and I think thats why you refuse to answer that question. Well see if any other editors have an opinion, otherwise eventually Ill look into a request for comment as we should not change what the scholars say to your preference of wording and your "worry over confusion" is unfounded given the explicit statement in the very same sentence. Just because Jesus is not a myth as you repeatedly point out does not mean that others are not or that "its confusing" to say myth for anyone. We use the word myth on many wiki pages where scholars use myth to state that a character like Moses is not historical, but "may be based on something" which is true of all mythical characters. Academic usage is that Moses is fictional, you still misunderstand the word myth, despite Editor2020 linking it. You need to just read that page already. Mythcial is not mutually excluisve with "based on something", thats literally true of all myths. Readers thinking that scholars see Moses as fictional is not contrary to its usage, see the many quotes from different scholars I linked above. Here is one: "we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside of the tradition. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history". Moses is a fictional myth, but may be based on seomthing like all myths. There is no confusion because that is accurate, and as I pointed out to you is made clear by the rest of the literal same sentence. Bilto74811 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- Anupam already addressed your point here . Academic usage is different than what Misplaced Pages readers will understand myth to be. Anyways looks like this discussion is no Conesus on your bold proposition and edit. So the wording will stay as is since we cannot agree on any particular change.Ramos1990 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this confuse readers into thinking that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? This is your whole argument Ramos and you still have not answered. I get that youre done with discussing this but I am just poitning out that you never made any specific argument, jsut a vague claim of "potential confusion", and refused to specify repeatedly when I pointed out that the sentence explciitly states what youre worried readers will be confused about and miss. The only concrete specific argument you made was that Jesus is not considered a myth therefore Moses shouldn't be either, but that is not a logical argument, is not in line with the evidence, and is the opposite of what scholars have concluded. Bilto74811 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ramos1990:I see you still are ignoring this question but have time to make false claims and put words in peoples mouths, ever read WP:CIVIL? Bilto74811 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Moses myth vs legend vote
Per @Editor2020:’s suggestion “Decide if we should use one or the other of the terms, or return to using both terms, as was once the case”. I’m opening this section to vote on the terminology in the lede.
The sentence in question is in the lede: “Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed”
- “mythical figure" as the 3 sources say and as the consensus is
- “mythical and legendary figure" as 1 source also says “legend”
- “legendary figure" as 0 sources say
We all agreed in the discussion above that the academic consensus is that Moses is mythical, but Ramos stated their concern with “mythical” in that they think readers may be confused and think that there is no possibility of a “Moses-like figure”, which I disagree with due to the rest of the sentence explicitly stating that exact fact. Ramos was also concerned that because the scholarly consensus is that Jesus is not mythical, that we should ignore the scholarly consensus that Moses is mythical and instead say “legendary” so that people don’t think Moses was fictional. The sources are clear that Moses is not a historical person, but that of course as with all myths, no past person can literally be disproven and it is possible that a “Moses-like figure” existed. This is made explicitly clear in the same sentence with “mythical figure, while retaining the possibility of a Moses-like figure existed”. So there is no potential for confusion so we should keep the scholarly terminology and consenus.
Option 1 is my vote, per the reasons above and since the source explicitly states- "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure". Bilto74811 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- NOTE - See "Terminology on Moses" section above as this is the same discussion - we technically "voted" there with no consensus on any change towards using "mythical" and we changed the wording to be more generic than option 1, 2, and 3 just yesterday per Bilto74811's suggestion This is a weird attempt at getting another vote when clearly there was no consensus supporting Bilto74811 wording (option 1) from just yesterday. Please read the discussion of the other editors who made comments there. The current wording is more generic and was suggested by Bilto74811 himself. See his suggestion here . So we just adjusted the wording accordingly just yesterday . The current wording is simpler and NPOV.
- So because of this, options 1, 2, and 3 are all old wording with "Scholarly consensus...". That seemed to trigger the issue so we removed it.
- Furthermore, some of the sources for that statement in the article do in fact use the term "legend", while other sources do not even use the term "legend" or "myth" on Moses. Furthermore, another source says that there are 3 divisions among biblical scholars on his historicity, not that Moses is seen as myth by a consensus (as even the researcher who claimed consensus is that Moses is mythical clarified that non-existence was not what was meant in a 2001 source). So the results are actually mixed in the literature it seems. There are other sources that use the term "legend" and do not use "myth" such as "The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible" (entry on Moses) and "Oxford Companion to the Bible" (entry on Moses), "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia" (entry on Moses), and others. Its not hard to find.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- there is a reason you put "voted" in quotes. And prefaced it with "technically". Your disignenuosu false representaiton of the discussion shows your lack of good will. Per Editor2020s comment we did not vote yet. You made your own preferred change. I did not suggest making the change you made. I brought up an option. Stop putting words in other editors mouths. Its rude and I already asked you to stop.
- There was no consensus for the change you made. You dont WP:OWN this article @Ramos1990:. We get as much say as you do. When there is a consensus for a given change we will make the change. Just bevcause you made up your mind does not mean anyone else has. And you seem to care about this enormously for someone who "doesn't care about the wording".
- There was no consensus on any option as we had not voted yet, per Editor2020s comment
- I said that 1 source says legend, did you read the section youre responding to? Zero use the word "legendary". You quote "another source" but dont link it. Throughout this whole discussion with you you have not actually provided a single source to support your preference, contrary to the multiple sources I have provided.
- The historicity of Moses is not under debate, if you did not know. He is not considered a historical person. We already agreed that shcolars see Moses as a mythical figure. You makign false claims about "another source"(note you provided no link as always) doesnt change that. The only point of contention was would it be "confusing" to readers, which is of course not true given the same sentence makes clear that there might be a "Moses-like" figure.
- By all means link this "another source" for us. It would make your arugment much stronger if a relaible source actually supported you..
- You again falsely represent Devers words, he did not say Moses existed in 2001, just that there is a possibility of a "Moses-like" figure. Making false claims isn't helping.
- You made more claims here without a single link. We still dont have a link to the "Jewish Encyclopedia". And as I pointed out we need scholarly relaible sources. Provide a source or how do you expect anyone to go wtih your preference.
- Note that the 3 sources you make sclaims about and do not provide links to, do not say Moses is seen as "legendary" as your lates edit faslely claims.
- The only sources we have say etiher mythical, myth, or myth and legend. Zero say legendary. Some expliclty say Moses is not historical. "Moses is a figure of memory but not of history" see how easy it is to provide a source?
- so we removed it. "we". this is false. you removed it unilaterally. no one agreed to your change.
- Most importanntly, you did not vote. If you don't vote for 1-3 or another new prefernece of yours, then no one can make you vote. If the consensus is not in your favor deal with it. If it is, then lucky you. But without a vote you get no say in it. Bilto74811 (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oops I thought I linked it in my last comment. Anyways, here is a quote I just found "Three views, based on source analysis or historical-critical method, seem to prevail among biblical scholars. First, a number of scholars, such as Meyer and Holscher, aim to deprive Moses all the prerogatives attributed to him by denying anything historical value about his person or the role he played in Israelite religion. Second, other scholars, such as Albright and Buber, diametrically oppose the first view and strive to anchor Moses the decisive role he played in Israelite religion in a firm setting. And third, those who take the middle position, such as Auerbach and Noth, delineate the solidly historical identification of Moses from the superstructure of later legendary accretions….Needless to say, these issues are hotly debated unresolved matters among scholars. Thus, the attempt to separate the historical from unnhistorical elements in the Torah has yielded few, if any, positive results regarding the figure of Moses or the role he played on Israelite religion. No wonder J. Van Seters concluded that "the quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend". . This source discusses in detail the prevailing views among scholars. Rather than just one sentence from one source, which you keep on mentioning.
- The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible - "Any critical attempt to assess the historicity of the portrait of Moses presented in Exodus to Deuteronomy must take into account a number of characteristics of this literature and its presentation. First, many of the stories are legendary in character and are built on folktale motif found in various cultures.”
- Interestingly in the same source (Oxford Companion to the Bible) "Exodus, The Book of." entry it also says "The historicity of Moses is the most reasonable assumption to be made about him. There is no viable argument why Moses should be regarded as a fiction of pious necessity. His removal from the scene of Israel's beginnings as a theocratic community would leave a vacuum that simply could not be explained away."
- Also read the policy on no consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS. It states "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So I hope you understand that if no consensus favors your proposition, then the original wording is retained by default.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for finally providing a source 3 weeks later. You seem to now think 1993 sources when they confirm your view, are actually valid, interesting. Well at least there is a source, from a scholar that supports your view.
- This would have been helpful 3 weeks ago instead of making illogical unsourced arguments like "Scholars don't consider Jesus a myth so we should ignore scholars acknowledging Moses as a myth". Or here are 2 sources that dont say myth or legend, therfore we should pick "legened"? For future refernece, sources are convincing, illogical arguments about your preferences and your POV are not going to convince anyone.
- I can't view the Oxford Companion to the Bible source as it says I dont have permission.
- Obviously the "Universal Jewish Encylcopedia" is not a relaible source. Its not noteable enough to even garner its own wikiepdia page.
- I cant find your quote from The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible. Im just looking at google preview though, did you find it in a page not in the preview?
- Just because myself and others attempted to bring different options up for discussion does not mean I suggested that or that anyone voted or formed consensus. You cannot unilaterally declare which option discussed was your preference and then change it without consensus. Or at least without anyone voting in favor of it. Again, stop putting words in peoples mouths, how many times do you need to be told that? When something is being discussed on a talk page you can't just decide to make your preferred changed based on guessing what you think someone else is okay with. I reverted it because per Editor2020's comment, we have not yet decided, which is why I stated that in the opening sentence of this section. read the section youre replying to next time before you reply.
- Is Oxford Biblical Studies Online concsidered a reliable source? I can't find it here WP:RSP. To be clear, Im not saying its not a reliable source, I just don't know how to check other than either it being on that list or it being from an actual scholar.
- I looked into the sources and scholars your quote referenced, to be fair you should see Albright and Buber pages, see Dever amd Thompson quote on the Albright page in particular.
- I found another source that says legend, from an actual scholar, "The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise . He now belongs only to legend" . Not legendary but at least there is some scholar using "legend".
- If you read that source and the others we cited, there isnt any discusion of whether Moses existed or the Exodus was real, its always a question of what these myths are possibly "based on"your Oxford link, as I keep saying is true of all myths. This is in contrast to the human Jesus you always bring up, where academic consensus is that he is not a myth at all.
- Per Editor2020, see above, "Robert Miller II (quoting Van Seters) uses both "legend" and "myth". "Decide if we should use one or the other of the terms, or return to using both terms, as was once the case"
- So if we accept that sources use both legend, myth, and mythical. And if legednary is just brought into discussion because its close enough to legend. Then saying consensus is legend would be bad. I would be in okay with using both as some scholars use either.
- I would prefer Option 1 but would be okay with Option 2.
- Or "mythical or legendary figure" as Ramos once edited it to be. Since you acknowledge that scholars use both we should accurately represent that. You still havent voted on 1-3 or an alteranative, without a vote your opinion won't carry weight Bilto74811 (talk)
- Just adding in Ramos's new source literally called "The Moses Myth, Beyond Biblical History"
- @Ramos1990: Speaking of not seeming to support your own actual suggestions, do you no longer support option 2 (myth or legendary figure) as it is the edit you made? And as you know, most of our sources use myth and only some legend. Option 2 at least gives due weight to all scholars instead of favoring some. Bilto74811 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ramos1990:Would you be in favor of your original edit of "mythical or legendary figure", that you reverted yourself? At least this compromise would represent both terms scholars use (despite myth being the majority term), and it gives due weight to the terms scholars use
- Also do you have a link to The Oxford Companion to the Bible non-paywall you said exists? I dont see any not behind a paywall Bilto74811 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ramos1990:A simple yes or no would be helpful so we can all move on, I dont want to wait forever while you make time to make edits on the main page and just ignore repeated questions here. Its a only few words to vote, woud you be okay returning to your original edit of "mythical or legendary figure" or not?
- I think Editor2020 has checked out despite this vote being their suggestion, so your vote is all thats left to wait on since no one else has commented on it. Bilto74811 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Given the quotation provided by User:Ramos1990, it seems that there is actually no consensus among scholars, but rather three prevailing views. As such, I would support keeping the lede the way it is. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for voting, that does help. That makes 1 for option 1 or option 2 (my vote) and 1 for option 3. That does help as that is how consensus is formed, contrary to Ramos unilaterally deciding when consensus if formed.
- However since you acknoweldege we dont have consensus and that scholars use myth or legend, then why not option 2? That would be an accurate representation of the scholars terminology Bilto74811 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. At this time, I would support keeping the lede essentially the way it is but perhaps without mentioning a "consensus" so that it reads more broadly. Kind regards, Anupam 17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree removing consensus would be better, but why exclusively favor one term, "legend", and not give due credit to "myth", which more of our sources use anyways? Would you be okay with following Ramos's edit of "myth or legendary" figure? @Anupam: Bilto74811 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Anupam: See the source Ramos put: "Modern maximalists tend to follow in the footsteps of William Albright, with some dating him as early as the Amarna period (14th century BCE) and the earliest stages of the Yahweh cult. Contrary to the impression given by television documentaries, maximalists have little evidence in their favor, though James K. Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford, 1999) makes as good a case as any". By the way, this source from Ramos is the one called The Moses Myth, Beyond Biblical History
- As you decided here, you dont even want to represent myth and legend, despite the fact that most of our scholars we cite here use myth and far fewer use legend, just because a source words something a certain way doesnt mean we dont have to evaluate how to word it here. Especailly when it contrasts with the consensus view on the historicity. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- I agree removing consensus would be better, but why exclusively favor one term, "legend", and not give due credit to "myth", which more of our sources use anyways? Would you be okay with following Ramos's edit of "myth or legendary" figure? @Anupam: Bilto74811 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome. At this time, I would support keeping the lede essentially the way it is but perhaps without mentioning a "consensus" so that it reads more broadly. Kind regards, Anupam 17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Judaism articles
- Top-importance Judaism articles
- B-Class Bible articles
- Top-importance Bible articles
- WikiProject Bible articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Top-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Top-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Saints articles
- High-importance Saints articles
- WikiProject Saints articles
- B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
- High-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
- WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
- Low-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
- WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (royalty) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (royalty) articles
- Royalty work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Ancient Egypt articles
- Low-importance Ancient Egypt articles
- B-Class Folklore articles
- Low-importance Folklore articles
- WikiProject Folklore articles
- B-Class Mythology articles
- Low-importance Mythology articles
- B-Class Ancient Near East articles
- Low-importance Ancient Near East articles
- Ancient Near East articles by assessment
- B-Class Israel-related articles
- High-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Former good article nominees