Talk:Moses/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5


Article Review

It's claimed the article has reached A article criteria. If so, it should be passes GA review. Thus I propose to nominate it as GA article.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Horned Moses (medieval chr. depiction) not a good "opener"

Hey, i argue, if the horned moses, after a medieval mistranslation of the hebrew bible and tool to chr. antijudaistic propaganda, is a good pictural opener to this article. Please be more POV and tolerant and try an other picture, like i suggested (The Finding of Moses, 1904), which is even more illustrative and colourful. -- (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the horned Moses either, but adding another "Finding of Moses" by Alma-Tadema is not a good choice whenn the picture is followed by two other "Finding..." pictures; one by Tiepolo and the other by Long. I will delete the one by Alma and move another picture already in the article up to the front. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • While Michaelangelo's Horned Moses is a spectacular piece of art, I think using a more properly-translated vision of Moses or any figure is the best approach when it comes to presenting a first impression that might very well serve as the corner-stone for someone's education on Moses for all you know.-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


I realize that there is a trend to shift from BC dating to BCE dating but that has not been widely implemented yet as many based articles still use the BC format with only BCE redirects. Until that changes I believe that the use of BC should be retained in this article. See the following base articles

Until articles discussing the time periods themselves have been updated, it should be safe to say that the general Wikipedia concensus is to use BC instead of BCE. Knowing that this can be an article specific choice I would like to start a poll to find what the concensus is for this article. Please sign your name and add any comments need to explain your reasoning.

Dbiel (Talk)

Poll - BC vs BCE

This article should use BC

  1. Dbiel (Talk) 22:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC) per discussion above
  2. Knowledge_Incarnate(Talk) 10:27, 9 September 2009 (CT) BCE is just confusing. Whoever invented it confounded our broken calendar system even further.

This article should use BCE

End of Poll

  • WP:Polls are evil.
  • Per MOS:DATE either form is acceptable, but not a battle; whichever is in the article (in this case BCE) should be left as is. -- Jheald (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes either form is accpetable and should not be a battle; but the point is that it has become a minor battle with changes going back and forth multiple times over a long periods of time. Some of the earliest versions of this article were a bit confused on the subject as per the following quote: he may have lived between the 13th century BC and the early part of the 12th century BCE.[1].
  • I will attempt to build a bit of history of the changes
    • December 7, 2003 the article then went with the BC format [2]
    • April 21, 2004 the article went back to BCE format[3]
    • January 22, 2005 we are back to BC format[4]
    • Somewhere inbetween these two entries we get a mixed format, with the majority being BC
    • May 19, 2005 we are back to BCE format [5] by an IP editor and immediately reverted back to BC format by User:Codex Sinaiticus with a stray BCE format remaining
    • May 21, 2005 User:Noerouz changes it back to BCE[6] - User:Sam Korn reverts it right back to BC - Article is still mixed, but mostly BC format yep
    • July 16, 2005 the stray BCE formats are change to match the rest of the article in BC format by User:Master Thief Garrett[7]
    • April 17, 2006 after about a year of BC format User: begins adding new entries using the BCE format introducing a mixed format again.[[8]]
    • April 19, 2006 User:Greenshed changes BCE back to BC[9] and the article is no longer mixed using only the BC format
    • May 19, 2006 User: starts introducing BCE format again and creating red links to BCE dates in the edits that follow [10]
    • May 19, 2006 User:Gidonb reverts the red links back to BC format[11] User:SpaceFalcon2001 imediately reverts back to BCE and the red links are allowed to remain until User:Ceyockey pipes some of the entries to display BCE will linking to BC articles[12] but some red links remain. The article is in BCE format
    • By December 6, 2006. we are back in BC format but most of the previous date links have been deleted.[13]
    • July 8, 2007 User:Humus sapiens changes back to BCE format[14]
    • October 15, 2007 [User:Haemosu]] changes back to BC format[15]
    • By July 3, 2008 we have a mix of formats,but the majority are still BC[16]
    • July 10, 2008. User: changes the remaining BCE format back to BC with the edit summary: "Rules say that either BC or BCE should be use-- but should stick with just one. Both were used-- changed to just use BC" User:Avraham then changes all entries to CE format with the edit summary "As per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 84#BC/BCE in articles on religious figures Religious fidgure important to religions other than Christianity
    • Current version [17] leaves us still somewhat mixed in terms of format. BCE appears to be the current format over BC But AD appears to be the current format over CE

So what can be concluded from the preceeding history? Not much. Article consensus appears to have been split on both sides. A reference to Manual of Style archives is not the best source for current consensus. To quote the current version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article......the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other So we are back to the question, What is the consensus for this article, which was the reason I started the poll. And in the mean time we continue to use both formats. When User:Jheald says it "should be left as is." based on what point in time. This year it has been BC for more that 80% of the time and having been changed back to BCE less than 30 days ago. So what is the concensus for this article????? Dbiel (Talk) 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In general, articles which are important to religions other than Christianity should use BCE/CE. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 84#BC/BCE in articles on religious figures. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

moses lived in the 13th centruy?

Moses came before Jesus and Muhammad (PBUT), the came before the 13th century! so how can moses come after them? he was way before the 13th century! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "m%e%n%" :
    • {{cite web|url=|title=Moses' Egyptian Name}}
    • {{cite web|url=|title=Moses' Egyptian Name}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Dougweller (Talk | contribs) at 16:05 I did not understand the reason for reversion of my addition to this article. The reason given is "RS" (reliable sources), but I cited references -- books by university presses (Yale, University of California, etc.) and a standard encyclopedia (Jewish Encyclopaedia). I wonder what this editor's idea is of an "reliable source"? 0XQ (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you added a self-published website so far as I can see. Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


The article is about Moses in English. Why not tell readers how to pronounce Moses and move the non-English spellings to "names?" This is getting increasingly crowded, and for no purpose but language nationalism as far as I can figure. A non-English speaker can presumably go to an article in his/her own language. Student7 (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Most articles give the relevant other languages in the opening paragraph. This is fairly standard practice in encyclopedias and isn't about language nationalism but rather proper format. Its also an important element of the story to know the meaning of the name in its original language.Rktect (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dating the Exodus

I added in the theory relating to Solomon's reign. I'll try to dig up the citation in the next day or so. -- (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)



"PLEASE WRITE BACK." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk pages are for discussions about the articles, and how to improve them. If you want to know how Moses went from slave to prince, I would suggest you read the article and referenced scripture, and maybe other referenced material. Please don't ask us to do your homework for you. Also, please DON'T SHOUT. (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
You may also be interested in asking at the reference desk. -- how do you turn this on 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't think this is signficant enough to mention in this article. But if we do, we'd need good third-party sources. If we include it, we have to explain how most scientologists never heard of it, and the Church doesn't acknowledge it. That would be a pointless distraction. So, the simple fix, is to just delete the section, which seems so out-of-place. --Rob (talk) 07:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

biographical section should be labelled "Biography" rather than the current "Religious texts"?

Neither title is perfect, but "Biography" helps the reader more. Bo99 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Moses' Horns

I have just edited the section of this article that deals with Moses' horns because the previous version of the article kept stressing that Jerome's translation was a mistranslation, and such is inappropriate. I don't know if I explained myself as well as I could, but it is important to understand that the verb QRN (קרן) only ever means "to have horns" and that "to shine" is represented by the verb 'WR (אור), in the hiphil. Also, as a noun, QRN (קרן) only ever means "ray of light" in the post-Biblical literature, and so Jerome's interpretation (cornuta) was not incorrect at all.

There are other problems with translating this verse, but it might need an article of its own. It is quite likely, as per Propp (William Propp?), that the word should have originally been vocalised as a noun and in construct with the following word: hence, "his face was a horn of flesh" - as an indicator of his disfigurement. There are no other examples in the Bible of anybody becoming effulgent after speaking to God, and God's declaration that no mortal may see him and live would also fit well with the notion of physical disfigurement.

Thoughts? --Aniboker (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aniboker (talkcontribs) 05:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Antiquities of the Jews

The Gutenberg urls don't work, this does [18] if anyone has the time to fix them. dougweller (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

rompa de suger ^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This article needs some work.

1. In the section Religious Texts the article brings in "Flavius Josephus" without any explanation or link, as if everyone knows what it is.

2. The first half of this article -- up to Religion's Views of Moses -- is written like a Sunday school story. Granted, with this sort of far-fetched mythology, it's pretty hard to construct a "factual" account that doesn't sound like Sunday school. But the section "The crossing of the Red Sea" is even worse than that. For one thing, it doesn't say a word about crossing the Red Sea. It says ". . .the Israelites despaired" and then jumps to "The people then continued to Marsa . . ." Like, huh? OK, so where's the part about parting the waters? Even in Sunday school they tell you about the waters (always plural!!) parting and the chariots all getting gurgulated. Balaam's talking ass gets more air-time in this article than the whole Red Sea trick.

3. The reference to Og as a contemporary of both Noah and Moses is somewhat misleading in that it refers to unspecified "rabbinical legends." This gives the myth too much credence. The WP article on Og refers to "Jewish folklore," which is a more accurate description of a myth that holds out Og as being 3000 years old.

There's a lot of good effort in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabelBoy (talkcontribs) 08:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Length of the narrative

The narrative section here is far too long and goes into too much detail - the purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to retell the story. It also makes it difficult to read. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't it just (in the first instance) be a summary of the story in Genesis? Why all the sources? This all seems to be WP:SYNTH. Dougweller (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Questionable verb tense in intro

The article states, "Moses is a Biblical Hebrew religious leader ...". At first glance, it seems obvious to replace "is" with "was", because Moses is most certainly deceased. I even began to make the change, but I stopped short, because the Bible does exist today, so one could argue that we must use "is" in this context.

I suggest that this is an ambiguously constructed passage that should be rewritten to meet both criteria--that Moses was a Hebrew religious leader, and that he is referred to as such in the Bible. Cernansky (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Identifying her

Article says "If Rameses II is the Pharaoh of the Oppression as is traditionally thought, identifying [Thermuthis] would be extremely difficult as Rameses II is thought to have fathered over a hundred children."

I guess what this sentence is trying to say is that Thermuthis is the daughter of Rameses II. But earlier in the same section it says "[Moses] was brought to Pharaoh's daughter (Thermuthis) and became her son, and a younger brother to Rameses II", which implies Thermuthis is the mother of Rameses II.

What is the correct relationship? Jay (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What I see in this section is that it seems to be treating the Exodus and Moses as historical fact, so it's getting a bit silly. It's "We don't know if there was an Exodus, but if there was there would have been a Pharaoh of the Oppression, with various possbilities for who he was, and if this possible Pharaoh was real and was X, we'd have a problem identifying his daughter". I'm not at all sure that belongs in an encyclopedia. In an essay or a website, sure, but this is an encyclopedia and should be reporting what reliable sources say about the subject, and that's not happening here. Dougweller (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

When was Moses born?

According to the article, as it appears currently, Moses was born 230 years after the Jews came to Egypt. According to Jewish tradition, the Jews were in Egypt for 210 years. Moses was 80 when the Jews left Egypt (Exudos 7:7), so the 230 should be 130. This is indeed the number in Jewish tradition (Rashi to Exudos 2:1). Even according to other, non-traditional, readings (e.g. the Jews were in Egypt 400 or 430 years), I believe the number 230 is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


While it is indeed an awesome name, a synecretist faith almost solely based in Lagos, Nigeria, doesn't really meet WP:Notability w/r/t the other Abrahamic faiths in the intro list, does it? -LlywelynII (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Moses story similarity with anthropology

Red Sea crossing

Check out the Recent African origin of modern humans article. It says basically that humans left Africa via the red sea to colonize the planet. As soon as I read that, I immediately thought about the story of Moses. I believe that some oral histories might be MUCH older than anyone realizes. For example, Homo floresiensis was known in a local folk tale about a hairy man living in the woods. It turns out that there WAS a hairy man living in the woods - TWELVE THOUSAND YEARS AGO! 12,000 years is a darn old story, and maybe the story of moses is, say 70,000 years old and actually refers to the exodus of all of humanity from Africa, rather than just a small tribe, especially considering that the evidence for the small tribe is nonexistent.

Another ancient oral history that turns out to be far more ancient than anyone thought is the stories in south america about a giant rat-like sloth with armor plates on it's body that couldn't be penetrated by arrows. Local people and foreign adventurers were telling stories about the sloth as if they had just seen one last week. It's called a mylodon, and since the last one died over 10,000 years ago, it's darn ancient. It also happens to be proof that oral histories have amazing longevity.

Think about that the next time you hear about a hairy man with big feet wandering in the forest. Legends about bigfoot and yeti might actually be true stories about cavemen from prehistory that keep getting told to the present day!

Qwasty (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure. however irrelevant for the article Moses. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 14:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Moses as Pope

There is a theological system known as supersessionism which postulates that the Christian Church supersedes or resembles ancient Israel. The books of the Old Testament are seen as a metaphor for the living modern Church. In this perspective, when John Paul II died, some people called him a new Moses for the Church because he had led the Church in a period of great turmoil, much like Moses had led the ancient Israelites out of Egypt. The patriarchal character of Catholic bishops tends to imitate the actual figures of Moses, Jacob or Abraham, who are viewed as the biblical predecessors of contemporary Church leaders. ADM (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think supersessionism is such a common view, that a remark under the Christianity section might be justified. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncircumsised lips?

Moses says to God: "Behold, I am of uncircumsised lips; how then shall Pharaoh listen to me?" (Exodus 6:30) Uncircumsised lips?? Precisely what does this mean? (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is really for discussion about the article, but you might look at alternate translations here. Also compare Ex 4:10 and 6:12. Gimmetrow 15:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
It's usually taken to mean that he had a slight speech defect - a stutter or something like that. Alternatively, it might mean that he doubted his ability to speak eloquently, "uncircumcised" in the sense of not mature, not adult/sophisticated. The point really is that he, a man who wishes not to speak at all, finds himself chosen as God's spokesman.PiCo (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


This article contains plagiarism of at least an entire paragraph from citation 81. The section covers the death of Moses. Please be on the lookout for any more plagiarism in this article, so we can begin fixing this problem. Also, try to see who exactly is responsible for plagiarizing. - Cyborg Ninja 15:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is actually copyright violation, as that web page clearly says "Copyright 2002 ". I've removed the para in the Death section, even the paraphrased bit was too close to the original. Is that the bit you were thinking of? Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
No, that would be copyfraud by
The text of the Jewish Encyclopedia was published in 1906, and is now public domain; its copyright has expired.
You can check the text against the scans of the original 1906 printing, that can be found [19] on the website. Jheald (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, sorry about that, I've asked elsewhere and you are right, only anything new from the 1906 version is copyright. But shouldn't we be doing more than just copy and paste? Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing things up for me, guys. I do hope that it will be reworked however. - Cyborg Ninja 03:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Formatting error

There is a formatting error after the Death section, making the rest of the article in sub text. Not sure why. SGGH ping! 19:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moses in Samaritanism?

While a minority opinion it is still important, since it's one of the religions having that guy as a central prophet. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 12:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC) THIS IS NOT TURE


A few days ago I added Category:Monomyths to this articles, but it was reverted without reason. I think it applies. Please check the article Monomyth and comment. Wiki-uk (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If this is a term invented by Joseph Campbell, I would recommend "categories for deletion", since it seems to be using the category system to endorse Campbell's POV unduly. It would be better to add a short statement into each of the articles like "Joseph Campbell listed this as one of his 'monomyths'", if it is indeed notable. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Moses and Seventh-day Adventists

According to Seventh-day Adventist beliefs, Moses is currently one of three living persons in Heaven (Elijah and Enoch being the other two). This is based on the Transfiguration story where Jesus takes his disciples Peter, John, and James into the mountains where they are met by Elijah and Moses. :* [20]

This poses a problem as most of the Biblical evidence points to the fact that the dead become dust again. They do not go directly to Heaven as most Christian religions believe. Rather that they lie dormant and are resurrected in the last day during Christ's Second Coming.

In the book of Revelation it is noted that the archangel Michael rebukes the devil when he comes for the body of Moses :* [21], the implication being that the body was taken to Heaven. This would make him the only person to have lived, died, and traveled to Heaven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctortechie (talkcontribs) 12:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Moses is an Egyptian

Theory number 1.

The story of Exodus tells us Moses

F31 S29

mes ses (protect the birth)[1] best known as a character in the Book of Exodus is a person born and named in Egypt. [2] Rktect (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'mose' in Ahmose, etc. means 'son of'. It is not the same name as Kamose, Ahmose, etc nor is it right to say it appears in the form of those names as though it might show a relationship, if that's what is meant. As Exodus was written many centuries after the events it describes supposedly took place, even if there was a 'Moses' we cannot be sure that the name has come down exactly or that it is Egyptian, the arguments that it is not could be correct. Footnotes should not make unsourced statements like the one above dougweller (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe from Ove von Spaeth'es analysis of egyptian star maps from 1534 BCE:
Actually I don't know whether von Spaeth is scientific or pseudo-scientific, maybe someone know more about this guy, and so can estimate whether his theories are mentionable or not...
I believe the hebrew weren't in Egypt at the time refd to in the Moses-myth. However it might occur that hyksos were at decline and that this Mes-ses guy was forced to leave together with the semites around hyksos. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 13:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Section 5 for a sketch of the story involving Hatshepsut as the real mother of Moses. Actually I'm not sure that the hyksos are involved in that drama. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 14:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Eeh, uuh! Forget about hyksos in this context. Ove von Spaeth claims that Moses was Senmut, son of Hatshepsut, probably son of Iteru/Jethro in the farao court, outmanouvered by his cousin Thutmose III who got the support of the priests, while Moses was symbolically executed and forced into exile at the Sinai peninsula. But Moses reappeared repeatedly, using Hebrew guest workers as allies. He founded, according to von Spaeth, Judaeism, syncretically using this-and-that concept in an Egyptian mystical framework. He also probably, according to von Spaeth, invented the protosinaitic script. Good and pretty uncontroversial story, but impossible to evaluate without the books and their sources available. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 15:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Theory number 2: My name is Moses. This is how I explain it: Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה, Modern Moshe Tiberian Mōšeh; Greek: Mωϋσῆς in both the Septuagint and the New Testament; Arabic: موسىٰ, Mūsa.

Let us look at the parts: The first part is Mu in Greek, Mo in Tiberian, Ma'a in Arabic, My in Cyrillic which had been simplified by the Phoenicians and named after their word for water, ultimately coming from Proto-Semitic *ma'. - However, it may be associated with Egyptian hieroglyphs for owl (because of it's use as a preposition), and/ or Aa13 and/or Aa15; and / or the birth hieroglyph may be a possible interpretation because it is onomatopoeia and birth is associated with water; or it could be a prefix meaning a great number or expanse; or perhaps all of these.

The second part is the Ss, Sh, or "Sha" sound. Looking at the orthography of Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, as well as Cyrillic Ш we see several similarities. Three lines projecting from one point. This S(sha) or Scha sound is similar to the hieroglyph for tree, reed, or bulrush. This is the sound of S(sha) This one is the onomatopoeia when thinking of the sound reeds, trees, or bulrushes can make in a windy marsh. There is a hieroglyph for which is a transliteration for the Sh sound. It has been suggested that there was phonetic redundancy in the writing of hieroglyphic sounds. So it is possible that ſ(s), Ш(sh), and the h hieroglyph sounds were all written.

The third part is the "ah" sound which is the Egyptian Hieroglyph for arm (the princess) - which is also a symbol of royalty.

So that it translates as: 1. Delivered from a watery expanse 2. amidst the marsh 3. removed by the hand (arm) of a princess and drawn (hieroglyphics) into royalty.

How does this relate to the English language? Well until 250 years ago the English language had no standard spelling for Moses. However since English is considered to be one of many Germanic languages - we look to German. It is documented that Moses first appeared in German as von Mose in the 15th Century. Von Mose is genetive and has subsequently been written as Mosis and Moses (English). The later English version (Moses) being the preferred spelling of the Biblical Clerics. From the age of the printing press until the 18th Century the s letter changed according to its position. In the 18th Century the first s looked like this ſ (also looks like a hieroglyph for reeds) whereas the second s looked like it does today.- Incidentally, the first ſ does not have the same meaning as the second s in Moſes. similar to Arabic.

Examples: Moses looked like Moſes, sisters looked like ſiſters, stress looked like ſtreſs or ſtreß. Referenced from the Print Shop in Williamsburg VA.

I have used reliable sources for my translation. Again, it is my own name. So, as far as copyright violations go, please allow me an opinion and artistic license. However, I welcome your comments, and constructive corrections.. Perhaps someone can go through this and figure out how to display the referenced hieroglyphs from wiki. Every time I do this they get deleted or dis appear. I have edited the second theory and I do not see it conflicting with the first theory. Again, perhaps someone can go through and display the referenced hieroglyphs. Also, I believe this discussion is important enough to have an article made from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) September 2009

Where are the reliable sources -- see WP:RS making these specific claims? Our own ideas/theories/hypotheses have no place on Wikipedia, not on this page, not on the article page. If you have academic sources making the specific claim (not ones you use to make your claim), what are they? Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I do have academic sources. The hieroglyphs that I site are from Wiki pages. "von Mose" was used in the Gutenberg Bibel. There are multiple references for the development of language according to Onomatopoeia. I just am not sure what your specific reference procedures are. Dougweller if you know the specific format for references, why don't you do it. I think you would rather sit back and complain than do any actual work. Obviously, I did not do this for me because I have nothing to gain from this copyright wise or even accolades. Lazy criticism does not belong on wiki. p.s. If you would look at the German Moses article you would see that they were able to encorporate and discuss this. So, what is preventing this from happening here? Maybe its because I don't have a special English name like Dougweller (this is not a personal attack, it is very impersonal Dougy).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Flavius Josephus

I own an early 19th-century copy of Antiquities of the Jews. Would it be helpful if I scanned the relevant pages, so that the primary source is more checkable? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Moses the Lawgiver?

The most glaring thing missing from this article is a description of how Moses acted as the go-between between God and the Children of Israel to receive the Ten Commandments at Mount Horeb. I started a subsection which I hope to expand.

As this page is 88 KB long, double the size of a normal page, I would also like to suggest breaking off the historiography, historicity, and Freudian analysis sections into separate articles. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviosly vandalism and sleeping editors who care not to guard this article. John Hyams (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Merge from Islamic view of Moses

The Islamic view of Moses does not differ from Jewish or Christian perspectives. What is worth preserving should be merged here. (Note that this article is already part of WikiProject Islam). Student7 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge - As far as I can see they describe the same person and mostly the same events. I have no problem keeping this article as a 'sub article' but most of the information should be merged into the main one, with perhaps this one left for information that pertains specifically to Islam. Grant bud (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So can we go ahead and merge this?Grant bud (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. No objections, it appears. Do you want to do it?Student7 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No. The other article is essentially an essay without meaningful support and miniscule sources. It is extremely long. As an unsourced essay it can only weaken any article that it's linked to and does not belong. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The idea would be to take the important stuff out of it and use insert it into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talkcontribs) 05:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A perhaps more informative and certainly more concise summary of how Moses in the Quran differs from Moses in the Bible can be found at Biblical_narratives_and_the_Qur'an#Moses_.28M.C5.ABs.C4.81_.D9.85.D9.88.D8.B3.D9.89.29. This clarifies that there are quite a number of points of departure.
Note that the "Islamic view of Moses" article is one of a systematic collection of articles on how a series of Biblical charcters are viewed in Islam. See {{Prophets in the Qur'an}}. It might be preferable not to merge the Moses article, in order to keep the pattern consistent. Jheald (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem with these satellite articles is that they are not robustly "watched" or edited. I just edited the paragraph mentioned above, which indeed would be useful in a merged article. It needs a lot more basic editing. The quality is poor. The impetus for merging them would be to emphasize the differences and skip the redundancies which may not be particularly well explained in Wikipedia anyway. If left to themselves, I think they will go downhill and maybe wind up with more inaccuracies than a single article. Student7 (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
The few cites in that article are only simple lists, just showing that Moses is mentioned in the Koran. The rest of the article is a recitation, without any independent sources. In fact, it seems the Keeler citation on Islam in this article is the only one with substance. The simple way to add more information to the Moses article is therefore to expand on Keeler and/or find other sources. The Koran should only be cited, as it is in the Moses article, to give a list of where he is mentioned. But any material that tries to interpret and explain more, without relying on outside cites, becomes pure WP:OR. The Islamic view of Moses article is almost 100% OR. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
If you're planning to take actions that affect the series of articles as a whole, that should probably at least be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam first -- in fact probably not a bad idea to raise it there anyway, if you see systemastic problems. Jheald (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats a Other Stuff exists argument. Plus, this movement here is a spin off from a discussion about either merging all of those into the main one, and not making the Islamic part secondary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talkcontribs) 05:22, 31 January 2010

  • Oppose. I agree with Peltimikko's points. Also, such merge would make this article too long (per Wikipedia:Article size). A general overview as it is now is sufficient. John Hyams (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is an ongoing discussion and request for comment on Moses as symbol in American history talk page. A group of editors wish to delete the article, so any objective comments could be helpful. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Article deletion being discussed: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Moses In Islam

there is just something wrong concerning the Islamic article Moses clearly had a strong relation with the Israelites maybe stronger than the bible because the bible doesnt talk about the story of cow mentioned in surat Baqara or the charector of al Khidr interacting with Moses and Joshua or the wife of the Pharoph beliving in the God od Moses and migrating with the Israelites .. so clearly the Quran portrays Moses as both a savior and a man with strong connectionHighdeeboy (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As you have been told on various talk pages, find some reliable sources and bring them here to discuss. That might also help us understand the point you are trying to make. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

true :) is the Quran enough of a source .. :)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdeeboy (talkcontribs) 15:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

btw sir Id really like to hear a reply from u in the Abraham page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Highdeeboy (talkcontribs) 15:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've just said elsewhere to you, you can quote the Koran without comment to describe what it says, eg the wife of the Pharaoh, but you can't use it to make a point/argue something. If you want to put forward any kind of 'argument' in the article you must find reliable sources using the Koran to summaries or quote. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not contain personal opinions or observations, regardless whether they are correct or not. That would be Original Research, and is not allowed. Here's an example: Imagine a person like Keeler, (see footnote #14 in article) who is one of the world's experts on Islam. She is a professor of Islamic studies at a renowned university; she has published articles and books; she is a member of related organizations. And Keeler wants to add her comments to this article about Islam. Guess what? She cannot do it! Anything she writes of her expert interpretation of the Quran is considered "original research," even though she may be right.
But then someone else, like you for instance, reads what Keeler has written in one of her books. You are allowed to quote her and cite her book as a source. The result: you can quote her published words, yet she herself could not write them in a Wikipedia article. Nor could she cite her own published writings, since that would be a non-neutral POV. She could not cite her own website or blogs either. Even the president of the United States could not quote himself in his own article. Yet you could, if you had an independent source such as a newspaper. That's the way Wikipedia works: see the first paragraph of WP:V for summary.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this clear explanation. I really hope the editor reads it carefully when his block expires (well, he can read it now, I hope he actions are based on it when his block expires. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok! i get it so now u want me to give u links of all what I state from the internet to prove myself right so u can go on ahead and examine it?Highdeeboy (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources Concerning Moses' Portrayal in Quran

ok! il first talk about the cow,then Joshua and al khidr and then the wife of the Pharoph Asiya

002.067 YUSUFALI: And remember Moses said to his people: "Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said: "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "Allah save me from being an ignorant (fool)!"

018.060 YUSUFALI: Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."

018.065 YUSUFALI: So they found one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence.

now according to Islamic hadiths Prophet Mohammed said Moses's attendant was a man called Yusha,and the story of Al Khidr is also mentioned in Islamic tradition .. u can look it up il make this Minimal ..

and the Pharoph's Wife Asiya according to Prophet Mohammed in one of his Hadiths he stated that Mary the mother of Jesus and Asiya the wife of the Pharoph and Khadija his first wife and Fatima his daughter are the 4 top or most blessed women in the world

u can look up the Asiya page to find out more .. thats it! so are all these mentioned in the bible .. I think not .. so its a merge of both not only Israelites but God too! Highdeeboy (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Age in opening

It won't let me edit the page, so can someone change the line about his age in the opening section. It's extremely unlikely that the historical Moses lived to 120 like the biblical character of Moses. The opening seems to go back and forth between history and mythology, which makes the line about his living to such a long age seem to come out of nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It is semi-protected, so that only established editors can edit it. I will change it so that it is clear that Moses "lived to 120" according to the Bible. We know very little about the real Moses if such a person existed. ... said: Rursus (mbor) 14:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You're also forgetting that when you say that "It's extremely unlikely that the historical Moses lived to 120" your forgetting that you are talking about the bible in which people actually lived this long, or longer. For example Adam lived about 930 years (Genesis 5:3-4) and all his sons and daughters lived about 300-500 years too(all of genesis 5). Kibukun —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibukun (talkcontribs) 22:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision of biography sections needed

The section "Religious texts" and subsequent sections outlining the biography of Moses conflate the Torah story with later texts such as Josephus. This is bad scholarship - the article needs to treat separately the Moses-story of the Torah from that of the later traditions (which should, of course, be treated, but not in this way). So I propose a re-write, first a section on the Torah narrative of Moses, then Moses in later literature. Comments? PiCo (talk) 05:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Moses in Islam

There is no prove at all from Quranic scripture or Hadith that proves what this page claims .. never was there any comment stating Moses had relation with god unseen in the Bible ... so therefore this shouldnt be kept because "It contradicts the Islamic tradition that clearly is similar to the Biblical version of the story of Moses so I find it Ironic that the editors stated that the Quran protrays Moses diffrently when the Quran and the bible have the exact story and Actually there is more mention of Moses and the Israelites in the Quran than there is in the bible and here is my sources so that claim with no scripture or tradition proof should be taken out because it contradicts with the sayings of prophet Mohammed and Quranic portrayel of the story of Moses

Like Highdee stated there is mention of this story .. the story of the cow in the bible therfore it adds to the relation between Moses and his people asking them to sacrifice a cow .. which contradicts with what the editors stated concerning Moses in the Quran

002.067 YUSUFALI: And remember Moses said to his people: "Allah commands that ye sacrifice a heifer." They said: "Makest thou a laughing-stock of us?" He said: "Allah save me from being an ignorant (fool)!" "this site talks about Moses and the cow as well as his story in general and the story of Asiya the wife of the pharoph which had a special connection with Moses and belived in his message which is another thing you dont find in the bible strengthening the ties between Moses and his people and contradicting what the editors have stated ............................

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 623: Narrated Abu Musa:

Allah's Apostle said, "Many amongst men reached (the level of) perfection but none amongst the women reached this level except Asia, Pharaoh's wife, and Mary, the daughter of 'Imran. And no doubt, the superiority of 'Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. a meat and bread dish) to other meals."

this is a hadith talking about her as well as there is a quranic verse talking about her too and giving focus to her

And Allah sets forth, as an example to those who believe, the wife of Pharaoh, behold she said: O my Lord! build for me, in nearness to You, a mansion in the garden, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from those that do wrong." (Qur'an 66:11). ........................

the last thing is the meeting of al Khidr with Joshua and Moses which was to help Moses gain more knowlege on how to deal with his people...

018.060 YUSUFALI: Behold, Moses said to his attendant, "I will not give up until I reach the junction of the two seas or (until) I spend years and years in travel."

018.065 YUSUFALI: So they found one of Our servants, on whom We had bestowed Mercy from Ourselves and whom We had taught knowledge from Our own Presence. "this is a link for the long hadith talking about Joshua and Al Khidr" its Volume 4, Book 55, Number 613: .................

also the Quran itself focuses on the relation between Moses and his people as well as prophet Mohammed himself spoke about Moses and his people in these following two articles

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 616: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "(The Prophet) Moses was a shy person and used to cover his body completely because of his extensive shyness. One of the children of Israel hurt him by saying, 'He covers his body in this way only because of some defect in his skin, either leprosy or scrotal hernia, or he has some other defect.' Allah wished to clear Moses of what they said about him, so one day while Moses was in seclusion, he took off his clothes and put them on a stone and started taking a bath. When he had finished the bath, he moved towards his clothes so as to take them, but the stone took his clothes and fled; Moses picked up his stick and ran after the stone saying, 'O stone! Give me my garment!' Till he reached a group of Bani Israel who saw him naked then, and found him the best of what Allah had created, and Allah cleared him of what they had accused him of. The stone stopped there and Moses took and put his garment on and started hitting the stone with his stick. By Allah, the stone still has some traces of the hitting, three, four or five marks. This was what Allah refers to in His Saying:--

"O you who believe! Be you not like those Who annoyed Moses, But Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, And he was honorable In Allah's Sight." (33.69) ...................

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 617: Narrated Abdullah:

Once the Prophet distributed something (among his followers. A man said, "This distribution has not been done (with justice) seeking Allah's Countenance." I went to the Prophet and told him (of that). He became so angry that I saw the signs of anger oh his face. Then he said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on Moses, for he was harmed more (in a worse manner) than this; yet he endured patiently "this is the link for those two articles"

.................. 005.020 YUSUFALI: Remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Call in remembrance the favour of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples

005.026 YUSUFALI: Allah said: "Therefore will the land be out of their reach for forty years: In distraction will they wander through the land: But sorrow thou not over these rebellious people.

.......... 002.060 YUSUFALI: And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: "Strike the rock with thy staff." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.

002.061 YUSUFALI: And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

clearly these hadiths and Quranic verses talk about Moses and his people as well as the Quran talks about the passing of the children of Israel to get to thier holy land and thier dismissal of entry for 4O YEARS as a punishment as well as when God sent the children of Israel food to eat and they reblled wanting vegetables and egyption treatment and ALL THIS IS FOUND IN THE BIBLE AND QURAN .. so how can the bible focus on one thing and the Quran with its extra STORIES of Moses and his people tend to look at something diffrent .. this makes no sense and the Quran and Hadiths prove it wrongMoodswingster (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

please edit the Islamic article as soon as you see thisMoodswingster (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved paragraph with OR

Moses is also held responsible by some Jews for some of the earliest mass genocides on record, namely those of the Amalekites and Midianites described in the Old Testament.[3]

This paragraph is placed here for any discussion after being removed from the lead. Although it cites a reference, the description draws a conclusion that cannot be attributed to the cite, and seems to be a case of original research. Placing material in the lead, for one thing, should not be done unless it summarizes material in the body, per WP:Lead section:

"The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article."

Nor should we simply place a disconnected sentence-paragraph in the article in any case. Here, it infers connections between some unrelated material, such as Moses being "personally responsible" for anything written in a Bible, when the Old Testament includes books written over centuries, and millenia, after he lived. The cite itself uses the phrase "encompasses a call," and going from that to a focused statement that "Moses is also held responsible" is beyond the cite and draws a conclusion. Nor is it necessary to include redundancies like "mass genocide" or implied terms such as "on record" or "some Jews."

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest: Moses and the people he led are also responsible for some of the earliest mass killings (what today would be termed genocides) on record, namely those of the Amalekites and Midianites described in the Old Testament.[4]}}--Little sawyer (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Too vague... "Some of the earliest on record"? No. Even taking the date of Moses / Genesis to be ca. 1200 (far earlier than most accept Genesis was written) - there's plenty of earlier 'records' than this in Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere, that speak of massacres happening way, way earlier. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Same OR, except with new added OR in redefining "genocide." It also treats the Old Testament as a proven historical document, not a Bible. "Genocide" is not a common term for inter-tribal warfare, and by changing from "Moses" to "Moses and the people he led" it simply adds implied terms and more words. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Historiography section

The three quotes in the sub-sections don't belong, IMO. There is no real context, so no reason that the average reader would read them. And if they did, they wouldn't make sense or be understood in any case. Even with a clear introduction to those quotes, they are way too long and appear as almost filler — not at all encyclopedic. I propose that all three as they are be removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Views from non-Biblical historians to me are the most interesting and encyclopedic of all, because they are overlooked the majority of time, until you get ignorami (as we used to before that section was added) coming in every other week, shouting the erroneous assertion "there is no mention of Moses by any historian, nor anywhere but in the Bible, and this proves he was a myth." If we assume good faith, these people who say this are misguided and have never once cracked open a book. Historiography should be what encyclopedias are all about - letting people peruse the entire history of thought on a subject, not just what someone today is telling you to think. The book 1984 on the other hand, was all about flushing any and all historiography down the memory hole (see also damnatio memoriae) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Wikiwatcher. They don't belong here. The 'no mention by any historian' is a red herring, what there is is no contemporary or near-contemporary mention in non-biblical texts. We shouldn't keep quotes because of a red herring. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The only alternative would be some kind of paraphrase of what input these classical historians have shed on what they (in 200 BC-100 AD) variously believed to be the origin of Moses and Jews, which is obviously crucial information to the encyclopedic article. At the time, we decided to go against a paraphrase, because that might be subject to more disagreement on wording, and to just let the original words speak for themselves. But maybe we can work out a fair draft paraphrase here on the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Is there a time frame for this historiography section? Could we include references from the Medieval or Renaissance period? BTW, I don't think paraphrasing would be a good idea, and suggest some descriptive context along with smaller quotes. I'll try to put an example down soon. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
What you did there looks great, and a total improvement! The only thing I'm unsure is the new section on Plutarch being on topic - does he say anything at all about Moses? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
On topic for inclusion? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It's just that per WP:SYNT, all sources have to make mention of the article topic. In this case, the article topic is Moses, but I don't see any mention of him in the quotes from Plutarch, so maybe we'd better remove him, unless some secondary source has specifically interpreted this in light of Moses. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is deletion of section "Foundation for democracy" acceptable with stated rationale?

Should the deletion of an entire section, containing numerous sources by notable authors, be allowed? Note that same two editors deleted similar material from Democracy. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Pending 3rd party comments from "neutral" editors, I am restoring the material deleted. Furthermore, the last deletion was based on a contrived rationale, as neither "modern", "mainstream" nor "scholarship" are required per WP:V. Suggestion by User_talk:Athenean for another similar deletion, "Try and find modern, mainstream sources, not 19th century claptrap," is unfortunate and unexplainable, coming from an editor of ancient Greece. Other comments made to justify the deletions, such as "All I see are some quotes from heavily outdated 19th century sources," or "We know a lot more now than we did back then," are equally invalid as a rationale. This is an article about Moses — nothing can legitimately be called "outdated." Continuing to engage in edit warring by posting contrived rationales is clearly disruptive. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What's disruptive is your edit-warring under any pretenses. No rationale is good enough for you, no discussion, nothing. Your manner of editing is highly disruptive and is best described by WP:TEND: You have a very strong opinion on the subject, give it undue weight, and then proceed to edit-war to have your way. The way you edit also shows bad faith: You post on the discussion, but then revert immediately, without waiting for an answer. You ask for an RfC, and then say, well, I'm going to revert anyway. This is very bad form, and also shows bad faith (of the wikipedia kind). Athenean (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
You wrote earlier, "Also read WP:BRD, you really need to." Here's what it says:
"Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous: Many people will first make an edit, and then explain it on the talk page. Somehow there will always be some fast-off-the-hip reverter who manages to revert you right in the middle, before you have time to complete your explanation. To try to prevent this, reverse the order, first edit the talk page, and then make your edit immediately afterwards."
Your comment therefore, the way you edit also shows bad faith: You post on the discussion, but then revert immediately, is obviously wrong and, along with your other comments, extremely argumentative and against WP:AGF, at a minimum. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Um, WP:BRD goes something like this:
  1. BE BOLD, and make what you currently believe to be the optimal change. (any change will do, but it is easier and wiser to proceed based on your best effort.)
  2. Wait until someone reverts your edit. You have now discovered a Most Interested Person.
  3. Discuss the changes you would like to make with this Most Interested Person, perhaps using other forms of Wikipedia dispute resolution as needed, and reach a compromise.
Here you posted on the talkpage [22], and within 7 seven minutes you reverted, before anyone had time to reply [23]. Here again, you posted on the talkpage [24], and then reverted 3 minutes later with the edit summary "per talk" [25]. That is definitely NOT in the spirit of WP:BRD. As to who is extremely argumentative, I don't need to comment on that. You asked for an RfC, then couldn't wait for it, so you decided to revert anyway. This makes it very difficult to assume good faith on your part. Athenean (talk) 05:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course! I explained my edits on the talk page, as mentioned, and then edited the article, as I mentioned above. I was not waiting for anyone's approval — it was an explanation. As opposed to your deletions in this article, where you gave no warning explanation, and just went in first and deleted 9,000Kb from an article you seem to have never contributed to. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I was not waiting for anyone's approval. Do you have any idea how arrogant that sounds? This is meant to be a collaborative, not an individual project. Like it or not, you are going to need the approval of others (WP:CONSENSUS). Athenean (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Your material is interesting, Wikiwatcher1, but not acceptable in its current form. It goes against a number of principles, mostly WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH, to some extent also {{quotefarm}}. Perhaps it would be best to put up a Wikipedia:Workpage for it and invite people to work on it and try to decide in which article it would be most pertinent. Your material deals mostly with 18th to 19th century Republicanism and I don't think it has any relevance to the Moses article, but it may be relevant to topics like Republicanism, Republicanism in the United States, Antidisestablishmentarianism or similar. --dab (��) 06:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Among the rationales given for the deletions was they were sourced with "19th century claptrap," Are you agreeing that a source like "Democracy in Europe, written by one of the authors of the constitution of the U.K, yet deleted from the Democracy article, are unacceptable per WP:V? Athenean thinks so, and deleted it, with no criticism from anyone. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Acceptability of a source is not a yes or no matter that only depends on the source itself. It also depends on what you want to use it for. Hans Adler 08:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with Dbachmann. Another problem with the section is that it represents outdated opinion as if it were current. The context of the material that you have unearthed is probably discussions about democracy in a Christian society, in an environment in which monarchy was generally presented as the natural, God-given social system. Contributions of notable people to that debate are only of historical interest nowadays. You simply can't ignore the historical dimension and write your section as if they had all lived at the same time and everything they said were still up to date.
But the main problem, which is why the section needs to be removed rather than fixed, is that it doesn't belong in this article at all. It's about a very minor aspect of the reception of a historical personality who got a lot of reception. The most you can hope to get into this article is a single sentence. Everything else would be very obviously undue weight unless you can come up with any modern scholarship that discusses your topic in a Moses context, not the other way round. Hans Adler 08:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll chime in, not just to support those who don't think it should be here, but also to express my concerns about the large US-centric section. Does it really belong in this article? Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
With consensus we could split off the "Symbol in American history" section into a separate article, such as "Moses as symbol in American history." Keep in mind that an article by that title was already deleted as being fringe, presumably because it lacked the academic and scholarly veracity of subjects like Alien abduction or Life on Mars. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Splitting the article is a very good idea. Wikipedia is meant to be an international encyclopedia. Having a section solely devoted to American History does sound nationalistic and it is a bit off topic compared to the rest of the article. I would actually prefer seeing something called 'Moses as symbol in World History', but either way it would work better on its own, I think. The deleted section might be added there, but I agree that it needs to be reworked. It's very long and while overall it seems fairly well sourced some section may more reliable so than others, I would like to see it in a sandbox and in a different article --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll need to look at the AfD mentioned above, it may be that adding it here was in violation of that AfD. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Responding to the RfC I agree with Dbachmann per his arguments and Hans Adler's. This section has nothing to do with informing the reader about Moses and it has no place in this article. Whether it could find a home anywhere in Wikipedia is a matter I will leave for others. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm here for the RfC and agree that this material doesn't belong on this page because it doesn't represent current scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable as legacy

As a biography, it should be reasonable to accept it as part of his "legacy." As the section included many totally valid sources, from distant history up to Barak Obama, his legacy is not in dispute. Just because his legacy has apparently only had a notable effect on a small, recently-discovered place, like America, is no reason to exlude it, IMHO. Hence, I respectfully disagree that it "has no place in this article." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete does not mean merge

I discovered that Wikiwatcher has bypassed the delete decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history by adding the deleted material to this article. I've removed it - note that the article was considered WP:OR (among other flaws). Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly a discovery, as I explained that an earlier article was deleted. Should you care to repost any of the old discussions, you'll notice something interesting: The article was tagged in a sudden 24-hr frenzy to delete the wild-and-crazy hair-brained, insane ideas presented in the article, which was about 3 times longer than the section that you deleted from this article. However, when I requested, numerous times, for clear examples of some of the pretexts for deletion of the earlier article, i.e. Fringe, Synth, OR, etc, no one attempted to provide any. Complete silence! That's partly because there was no OR, nor was there any in this section. Every single word or statement was sourced. The original article had about 30 - 40 cites, some with quotes (can't remember). They were all from totally valid published sources, many references, such as Ben Franklin's bio, etc. What's also interesting is that the section deleted here likewise had no one provide examples of why it would be Fringe, OR, etc. It is, despite being only a fraction of the original, and totally sourced and relevant, deleted. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have been asked to comment as closing administrator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history
  • The AfD was nearly unanimous, the major concern being WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
  • The disputed material here is considerably cut down from that article - maybe one third the length - but covers the same ground.
  • The question whether the material should be included here is a content dispute, and an admin has no more voice in that than any other editor. In terms of WP:BRD, now that the material has been boldly inserted and then removed, it should not be re-inserted unless a consensus to do so is achieved on this talk page, and this RFC is the right way to go about deciding that.
  • If the material were split into a separate article again, it would certainly have to go through WP:Deletion review, and would probably be subject to speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 repost of deleted material.
JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
As the original AfD discussion shows, I included Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history as proof that the term has been used numerous times and was therefore not WP:SYNTH as claimed. Click on "Find sources." There was no response for the group of deleters. Complete silence. Then the article was simply deleted.
For example, this quote from a web site months before the article was added is a typical mention. Note that the majority of sources in the article, however, were from serious books, not web sites, many of which are of questionable value:
Moses and the story of the Exodus have served as both catalyst and symbol for many key events, movements and, indeed, whole epochs in American history.[26] For others, search "Moses" "symbol" "American history."
If anyone is willing to back up the SYNTH rationale for deleting an article, the floor is yours. Without discussing, per BRD, there will be an implication that the earlier deletion was based on erroneous grounds. Same for OR, or Fringe. Anyone who can show that Moses, in relation to U.S. history (i.e. as a "symbol"), is a "Fringe theory," will warrant serious respect. Otherwise, the material should be added to the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
As JohnCD says, you'd need a consensus here to put it back into the article, and you clearly don't have one. Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The AfD was right, the deletion prob also right. Consider both the splitoff and the subsequent deletion being good things. I think (based on what Jupiter says about this fat article below) that splitting off and subsequent deletions are a very suitable method for stringently test the viability on contents in the article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus section

According to WP:BRD, a consensus should be reached to restore material deleted. It also expects that "interested parties," including those who deleted material, will provide clear rationales for the deletion. In this case, the rationales have been explained and partially disputed above. Is the deleted material something we should "keep," (by restoring to the article) or "delete?" Include a descriptive rationale, not just a template, which implies a mere personal opinion only, and lacks value.
Keep: All prior rationales, incl. WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, etc. appear to lack any support and no evidence has been given. On the contrary, evidence has been given that contradicts those rationales (see above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwatcher (talkcontribs) 21:31, 5 May 2010

Endorse removal. Not particularly high quality material, undue weight to one national tradition – much the same kinds of quotes could be collected from just about every other Christian or Jewish society on earth. Fut.Perf. 10:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Endorse removal. Basically per FPAS. In the current form it's very misleading, and it gives undue weight to just one episode in the general Moses reception. It may be a relatively prominent one and thus deserve a sentence here, but certainly not an entire section. Hans Adler 11:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Article obesity

  1. This page is 93 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles.
  2. 13 images

Time to split, time to image clean, by Jove! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE (a rule of thumb, not a policy) indicates that at > 100 kb then "Almost certainly should be divided". Cheers, and happy editing! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 12:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

New article suggestion

Per suggestion earlier, that either a newer section here or else a separate article, such as "Moses as symbol in World History," would take care of the undue weight issue. It would obviously contain a more balanced commentary with other countries and nations represented with available literature. Good idea or Bad idea? Please give rationale if you have one. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The following is a recent example of how Moses influenced history from an article in this months Nation magazine:
A speech by Obama culminated in an extended allusion to the book of Exodus. "So I just want to talk a little about Moses and Aaron and Joshua, because we are in the presence today of a lot of Moseses. We're in the presence today of giants whose shoulders we stand on, people who battled, not just on behalf of African-Americans but on behalf of all of America; that battled for America's soul, that shed blood.... Like Moses, they challenged Pharaoh, the princes, powers who said that some are atop and others are at the bottom, and that's how it's always going to be."
No one commented on the above question, but I feel that a section relating to the influence of Moses on history is clearly warranted. A section relating to this was removed as an alleged shortened "merge" from an earlier article. Let's discuss this reasonably to see if a similar section, possibly with a more universal coverage, should be restored. There are 955 articles on female pornographic film actors and 255 articles about people appearing in gay pornography. Is it really that radical to include material about Moses such as was included here? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
And you example shows the problem here. It shows no evidence that history would have been different if there had never been a Moses story. The story is used as an example, if there had been no Moses story Obama would have used another example. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain why it is necessary for history to have been different to include material which directly relates to the biblical story. And whether it was or was not necessary, there would be no way to prove it. And as far as I can see, nowhere does WP require either such necessity of historical effect, or proof, before details about biblical, mythological, fantasy, or real life people is allowed. My belief was that verifiable published sources about a subject was the primary concern. The "fact" that notable people used and cited the story of Moses, and those facts were published, is all that is required. Am I wrong here? If so, can you explain so others can also understand the WP rules? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't write "a recent example of how Moses influenced history", you did. If you didn't mean to write it, you can strike it out. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was understood from the link that we were discussing the "symbolism" in the bible, not the "person" of Moses himself. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it required or necessary that any items of Religious symbolism be proven to have changed history? Of course not! This would put an impossible burden on any editor, even with a multitude of cites. It's only necessary to have verifiable sources confirm that specific symbols have been used throughout history, and are thereby notable, such as biblical stories like Genesis creation narrative. The article on Religious symbolism gives a long list of examples that are significant in history, notable to the past or present. An earlier article since deleted, Moses as symbol in American history, had about 45 solid citations from scholars throughout history, including Founding fathers and presidents, where an article such as Christian cross, another symbol, has only 11. Where is the logic in that? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be Original Research. Are there reliable sources that discuss "Moses as symbol in World History"? Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Quite a few: Find sources: "Moses" symbol American history – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference (by subject) and a few more here, and most importantly, here for just American history. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The original focus was obviously on American history, with the most cites. So the term "world history" may not be a better topic, as it covers too much geography and a longer timeline. In any case, he was used as a symbol primarily in Judeo-Christian cultures. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Have you actually looked at those sources? Very few of them actually refer to the topic you have raised, but merely happen to have those terms in them. Can you provide, say, 3 strong scholarly sources on this topic? Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
With a multitude of references already given, to imply that "3 strong scholarly sources" are needed to boot, is creating a new and virtually impossible standard, for any article on Wikipedia, unless you are declaring it to be a "fringe" theory without them. IMO, the sources given are prima facie proof that Moses was used, and is still used, as a symbol. I even added text from a speech by Obama:
So I just want to talk a little about Moses and Aaron and Joshua, because we are in the presence today of a lot of Moseses. We're in the presence today of giants whose shoulders we stand on, people who battled, not just on behalf of African-Americans but on behalf of all of America; that battled for America's soul, that shed blood.... Like Moses, they challenged Pharaoh, the princes, powers who said that some are atop and others are at the bottom, and that's how it's always going to be.
But then Obama is no "scholar," nor did he exactly announce that he was using "Moses as a symbol." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Request support for adding section and/or article relating to Moses

As explained in the preceding section, a request to add a section to this article was made two weeks ago. As far as I can see, no rationale is given why it's not acceptable, but on the contrary there seems to be overwhelming logic in including such material. Only one editor has commented just yesterday. Any thoughts are appreciated. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Please add ~~~~ to your postings.
2. Wikiwatcher1: nobody answers, WP:BOLD! You have my vote. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Being fairly new to Wikipedia I have a lot to learn. These things I know;
  • 1)-Certain articles need updating or else we could just use a reprinted 1930 edition.
  • 2)-Adding relevent articles, or sections to articles, to Wikipedia is not only important but needed and encouraged.
  • 3)-Adding current information to an article related to "history", or a person of historical times, serves no actual purpose if said informaton does not add relevent content to the article.
  • 4)-If editors added "quotes" from current people to articles there could be pages upon pages of such articles and what would the actual relevence or benefits be?
I did not delve into the article or history to see what was deleted to give my opinion on that. My opinion is that if adding to an article is relevent, does not change the scope of the article, and especially if there are references and resources, then this would be within the scope of Wikipedia. So far I have seen that there are touchy subjects, pet projects, and even "Delete specialists". If I see something in an article that is off subject, not relevent, or POV I will comment in the talk section. If there is no reply I will delete or modify. Exceptions are clear violations.
Recommendation: put most of the section References in literature into References to Moses in literature, and then use that article as a place for moving as much as possible to Wikiquote. Some general info about the meanings read into the life of Mose could be created and kept here. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Greco-Roman section used to be entitled "Historiography" (maybe a better title) and is crucial to this article as non-Biblical historiographic perspectives on the life of Moses. I don't understand any suggestion to do away with that info from here, but rather to make a new article about Moses in Popular Culture. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Something to take into account concerning this article(or like articles) is that it was a former featured article candidate. and it is a B-class article. Any additions or improvements should be with this in mind and the expectations to elevate the article's status. I would think, without controversy, this would be a statement of concensus. With this statement I feel that editors should always keep this in mind when adding to or otherwise editing articles.
My pet peeve
I do not like articles written with a clear POV to explain only one point or to lead the article in one direction. This is grounds for immediate deletion. I have seen this far to many times in my short time here and religous articles are the worst. I advocate all working together to establish a good neutral article. I have passions, interests, and POV's but this must be contained to achieve good article status.
As I see it; If an editor feels information adds to an article's worth, and adding does not alter the concensus of the current direction of the article(or be well documented with references if it does), then this should happen. I would first seek input from the talk page. If a reply is not expediate then make the change. If someone deletes (especially without good cause) and the explanation is not valid, or corrections are made, then reinstate. If a "Mr. Master Delete" deletes( or deletes again) this is time to seek arbitration. If two editors are at odds then a concensus is needed. I think that is one of the things Wikipedia is about. Many editors contributing valid information (with references), with continuing editing, to get a good article.
Does the proposed information add "worth" and is valuable to this article? Is the information needed? Will adding the information add relevance to the article? Will the information excell the article to a higher status? Does what a sitting President might say change anything about an article such as validation? Otr500 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Jupiter says this article is obese!

References in American history

There is currently a section for "References in literature", with subsections for "Greek and Roman" and "General literature." I propose we add one called "American history." It would exclude popular culture or recent quotes, but only include references within the context of historical and some modern literature pertaining to American history. I have a draft here for review, and any comments can be added below. If you agree that this section would be a valuable addition to the article, please say whether you support or not. As for thoughts that the subject is too America-centric, note there is much less in the way of world literature, besides some of the quotes already in the other sections mentioned.

  • Support. Great idea! Two thumbs up, way up! ;-) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support with reservations: the quotes bloat the article, and they should instead be in Wikiquote, except as for a few short illustrative ones. The references-kind of subsections reflect the myth, and are therefore justified and important, but preferrably they should contain a short conventional citable synthesis (remember, WP:SYNTH only forbids undue and original synthesis). Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
After trying to discern the mythical role of Moses, I think he functions as a prototype for the flight from religious persecution and resettlement in a "promised" land in the US history. This naturally applies to the Pilgrims and early settlers, the Founding fathers and possibly the Lawmakers although the US law AFAIK is explicitly non-religious, and for Martin Luther King Jr. this pattern seems far fetched, since he is a defender of the rights of black people that were originally deported to US in slavery. His Moses usage must be some other variant.
I think the whole References in literature section should concentrate on myth usage, not being long-long lists of citation that doesn't make sense without thorough reading. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Look through page history this was already discussed and removed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history. There is no support or consensus to include its content for the reasons pointed out hence it was deleted. Just to add my own two cents worth..., Africa was regarded as the "promised land" for African American slaves who fled racial discrimination in the US and were settled in east Africa in the early 19th century via the American Colonization Society. Regards any America-centric input from Wikiwatcher, wikipedia is meant to represent 'a worldwide view of the subject and prevent systematic bias', otherwise the content becomes skewed/unbalanced and distorted. FWIW i predominantly enjoy just reading wikipedia and hope it maintains balance.AussieGreen&Gold (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant as far as I can see it, since the question was to politely seek a consensus for adding some info abt american references in the current section references in literature, not in the form that was deleted in the article Moses as symbol in American history. (Might I suspect that this has become an matter of prestige?) Now, if what we insert here is not the kind of text that was spawned/deleted, is this then the same topic as before? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Note i stated content, whatever name it comes under is irrelevant. The comments in the discussion give no consensus for such input, hence it was deleted.AussieGreen&Gold (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On Tacticus

              • I'd like to point out that the inclusion of Tacticus'

"knowledge of the Jewish people" in any straightforward way is highly problematic.

Tacticus lived in Rome at a time when more than 5% of the populations was Jewish, and percentage of Jews in the better-off classes (such as the prosperous merchant class, and the Equites) would have been in excess of 15%. Moreover, several important Roman writers and scholars of his generation were Jewish, and he would have been in regular contact with them at the two major research libraries in Rome, located opposite Trajan's Market and column. Thus Tacticus was is a very good position to know the origin stories of Jews---most all educated Romans would have, no special academic knowledge would have been required.

We have many reports from Roman Jews and Roman philo-semites which indicate Tacticus was a famous anti-semite. Thus it is very likely Tacticus gets the Jewish myth of origin wrong quite on purpose, as a form of satirical attack on the Jews.

If someone could mention this in the article it would be much improved.

E.A. Weinstein, Princeton NJEricwinnyc1967 (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • If you can cite some solid reliable sources and find a way to logically tie this in with Moses then sure. However, I have to seriously question your motives here. Why put this info in the Moses article? You know what happened the last time someone posted some uncited story about how a personally researched theory would fit great in an article that was totally unrelated? It became part of the Zeitgeist movie and turned out to be completely bogus information and thousands of people think it is true now. I am not calling you a liar, but as for me and my Wiki we shall serve the Truth. I am going to look in to this Tacticus fellow and see if there is merit enough to your claim to post it, but some details up front sure would help your case. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Roman historian's name is Tacitus, not Tacticus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ was born in Egypt. Moses is the midwife of a new religion
  2. ^ The name appears in the form of Kamose in king lists of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt, the form of Ahmose the founder of the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt, Thutmosis its most famous and powerful pharoahs and Ramesses throughout the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt suggesting there may be some historical context to the stories claim that he was abandoned by his mother and found floating in a basket in the Nile as a baby, then taken into the royal house and named by a princess.
  3. ^ Jones quotes Jerusalem-based Holocaust Studies Professor Yehuda Bauer: "As a Jew, I must live with the fact that the civilization I inherited ... encompasses the call for genocide in its canon." Adam Jones References p. 4, note 6, citing Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), p. 41
  4. ^ Jones quotes Jerusalem-based Holocaust Studies Professor Yehuda Bauer: "As a Jew, I must live with the fact that the civilization I inherited ... encompasses the call for genocide in its canon." Adam Jones References p. 4, note 6, citing Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), p. 41