Talk:Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Current "convention" practice[edit]

Given that the source for the "convention" is 60 years old, that the book hasn't been updated in 40 years, that it is entirely likely that more modern translations have come out (and the fact that one of the translators, W. F. Albright, has seen his methods discredited in the intervening years), it would seem highly likely that this "convention" no longer continues.

Regardless, I have taken the issue to WP:RSN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And the cite refers to a specific source - unless the source was changed (for which no claim appears to have been made), the present tense is fine. Collect (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Last I checked, there was no convention for updating outdated information contained in 60yo book reviews, even if the author of the review was still alive to do so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The reference to "ANET" here] would seem to settle the matter, although it's hardly necessary. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hardly. (i) It does not reference the numbered "texts within this volume". (ii) Counterexamples such as this would indicate that the convention (even to the extent of giving the contracted title) is by no means universal. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I have changed the text to make it clear that the convention is not compulsory. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I did not recall anyone in any source saying that any convention was "compulsory" so that seems a tad ... Collect (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hrafn above raised the question of whether the convention was "universal", and that's what I was referring to. I do know what I'm talking about, unlike you who seem to think that ANET is a "journal". SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I emended the reference to "work." Seeing a large number of "volumes" made me think that they were issued in some sort of organized sequence, and I noted the use of "Journal" in the prior sentence, making that error. OTOH, you should read AGF and NPA. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is only a single volume, and there are many translated texts within this single volume, and it is these texts that are numbered. I'm altering the article to reflect this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)