Talk:Tel Dan stele

1

Interesting. Just some suggestions for improving (as I come away from this with questions and a wish to know more):

1. A date "between 7th and 9th centuries" seems pretty wide - what's it based on, and hasn't it been narrowed down?

Why narrow down the age when you don't have proof of how old it "really" is?

I narrowed down the range of centuries about a month ago. --Lawrencemykytiuk 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Some text is reconstructed between square brackets - how sure is the reconstruction? what's it based on?

3. If there really is no word divider, then what would the phrase "house of David" signify?

There is indeed no word divider but this simply means the scribe thought of it as a single (compound) word and not as two words. The weaselling in the article that a lack of a word divider somehow makes it mean something totally different doesn't make sense. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have touched up the part about the absence of a word divider to bring in the view of epigrapher Anson F. Rainey that the presence or absence of a word divider normally makes no difference in the meaning of the phrase. He referred to the objection to the translation "house of David" on that basis as "great quibble." I need to add the reference to his mid-1990s article in Biblical Archaeology Review.

4. If the stele were reconstructed according to Athas' idea, what would the resulting translation look like?

5. Finally, the Further Reading" section has nothing later than 2001 - surely more has been published?

Actually, when I looked, it went beyond 2001 to 2004. --Lawrencemykytiuk 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But a good article. PiCo 03:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another comment: Might be worth saying that Hadad was a god (the inscription says "Hadad made me king").

And a question, not related to this: When I David believed to have lived/reigned? It's just that the dates used on the Wiki article seem based on counting off the reigns given in the Bible, but I'm suspicious of kings who reign a neat 40 years.

PiCo 01:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A common example of fallacious reasoning in Biblical criticism, "40 can be obtained by rounding, it says 40, therefore it must be a rounded number" ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 14:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but 40 days/years etc. occurs very often in the Bible, which suggests that in many cases it is a rounded number. PatGallacher 11:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a biblical convention that 40 years means one generation. When the actual length of time in calendar years was 40, the text doesn't use terms like "actually," so from our standpoint, the text is ambiguous. Still, it's the only record we've got for the length of David's reign. --Lawrencemykytiuk 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have come round to the view that we should delete the reference to Ahmed Osman, since whatever the merits or otherwise of his unconventional views, they relate to general issues of the historicity of David, not this stele specifically. PatGallacher 11:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This entire article is a disgrace

It appears to me that what should be a short article summarizing an archaeological find has become platform for two or three capricious dissenters. Mainstream experts have considered these dissenting opinions and rejected them, and they therefore have no place in this article.

Anyone can make up a crack-pot theory, but they do not make it into wikipedia. By all means, we can have another article on "paranoid theories of archaeological fraud", and the Thompsen crowd can have their pathetic attention seeking theories repeated ad nauseum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions

I made a couple of additions to the article, including commentary by Kenneth Kitchen on Thomas L. Thompson's assessment of the Stela, and Dever's comments also. I also corrected the quote from Davies - he is Philip R Davies, not Paul Davies. --Taiwan boi 08:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Philip R Davies

I've been struggling to understand why Philip R Davies' opinions are mentioned in this article, since he is neither an archaeologist nor an epigrapher. He is a professor in Biblical studies and a historian, without qualifications in either of the aforementioned fields, yet he is given place here alongside professional archaeologists and epigraphers. Actually the same goes for Thompson and Athas. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

THE FACSIMILE INSERTED FROM THE GERMAN WIKIPEDIA, BY SCHREIBER

This facsimile needs to be replaced by a scientific one. SCHREIBER is evidently not aware that Semitic languages have 2 to 3 h's. So his reconstructions of both kings' names, Ah`ab and AHazyahu, are wrong - as any Israeli will immediately perceive. Please delete it - from all Wikipedias, not only from the English one. García 27/07/2008 84.148.103.149 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

THE HEBREW TRANSCRIPTION of the GERMAN WIKIPEDIA should be copied into the English version. García 27/07/2008 84.148.103.149 (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

PiCo versus the scholarship, as usual

PiCo, your recent edit was unfounded on two primary grounds:

• You claimed '"Professional" archaeolgists makes it sound as if the others aren't professional', which isn't true. You did not read the edit. The contrast was not between 'professional archaeologists' and other archaeologists who (it is implied), are not professional. The contrast was explicitly between 'professional archaeologists' and 'Biblical scholars who have no formal qualifications in the relevant fields'. This is an entirely accurate description. Both Kitchen and Dever are professional archaeologists, and recognized as such. Both of them have considerable professional experience in epigraphy. They object to armchair Biblical scholars who have no formal qualifications or professional standing in the relevant fields, making claims which are in direct contradiction to what Dever describes as 'most of the world's leading epigraphers'.

• The objection has been made not only by Kenneth Kitchen, but also by William Dever. I invite you to explain to us why you insist on describing William Dever as a 'conservative archaeologist', given that he views Kitchen as a conservative and places himself directly in the middle position between the conservatives (or 'Maximalists'), and the radicals (or 'Minimalists'). Dever doesn't believe the Bible is the work of God, doesn't believe in the historicity of Genesis through to Judges (though he believes Joshua and Judges preserve some historical facts), doesn't believe in the Exodus, and believes that the Jews originated as a Canaanite separatist socio-religious group. None of this is remotely 'conservative', and Dever distinguishes himself from conservative archaeology at every opportunity. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you made no response to this. You have continued to revert my edit on the grounds that it is NPOV. Explain yourself here please. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It might surprise you, but personally I agree with Kitchen on this one: the Tel Dan stele is pretty good proof of a Judahite dynasty which saw itself as descended from someone named David. (Or more accurately, was seen by an Aramaean king in this way, since he wrote the inscription). I'm just trying to make sure we have a fair and impartial description of the dispute. I've now reverted the article to an earlier version by Lawrence Mykytiuk, a name you'll no doubt recognise - he was kind enough to edit this page some time ago, and I think his version is better than the present one. PiCo (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about whether you agree with Kitchen (and I note you ignore Dever). This is about identifying the fact that those who criticize the reading are typically non-archaeologists and non-epigraphers, whose views are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of professional archaeologists and epigraphers. If this concerned a dispute in another article on another subject, and the majority view was held by secular critical Bible scholars and the minority was held by conservative evangelicals with no professional training in the relevant fields, you wouldn't be acting like this. You'd insist that the minority view be identified as exactly that, and you would resist any attempts to obscure the fact that the critics were only those without professional training in the subject at hand. You have thus far failed completely to explain why you do not want those quotes from Kitchen and Dever in the article, along with an explanation as to exactly why they object to the non-professional opinions of Thompson and others. Nor have you explained why you think this edit is 'better'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does "House of David" have to refer to an actual person, instead of, as in the case of Rome with Remus and Romulus, could it not refer to a mythic founder or even a local god? Even if the inscription is accurate why jump to the conclusion that this person actually existed? WjtWeston (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, by convention, in early 1st millennium Aramaic, the way of referring to an existing political entity was to say "the house of [name of founder]." For example, the northern kingdom of Israel was referred to as "the house of Omri"--who was, by the way, viewed as an actual king of the northern kingdom of Israel according to the Hebrew Bible, the Mesha Inscription, and Assyrian annals that were decidedly reality-based, not off into mythology. Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, that question isn't within our purview to answer - as mere Wikipedia editors, we're just drudges, we can look for already-published viewpoints and that's about it... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We're desert dry librarians that just points out dusty books for questions like that. We even don't care about the scientific debates, except as neutral spectators. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thoth and Enoch

Concerning Thoth, I noticed that there was an interesting view among mythographers and egyptologists that Thoth was a supposed early incarnation of Enoch, who also held a special status among Jews. It would be interesting if we could show gather the ancient sources that make such a comparison in order to put it into perspective with the Tel Dan Stele. ADM (talk)

Lead

The lead piece in this article is saying that the stele says house of David when that is obviously in dispute.The other article about it on the wikipedia page about David is much more on the neutral side.This lead piece is a bit biased and should be changed to a more neutral piece which reflects the actual reality.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Has no one anything to say about this lead? It is not very neutral and the only reference for anything on it comes from an obvious pro house of David source supposedly from one of his books, so not neutral at all.If no one has anything to say then I am going to replace it with something that reflects the dispute, which is more neutral.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

the dispute is covered in the article's main body. As the lead says, the consensus among archaeologists is that the inscription does refer to 'House of David', so the minority viewpoint does not belong in the lead, but where it is right now. Jennifer Worth (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually in the whole article there are more references to people who agree with the house of david piece than disagree and the lead does not reflect at all the people who disagree. The lead basically states that it says the house of david when there is a lot of disagreement about it and as this is suppose to be a neutral article it should reflect that, it does not in the lead or the actual article.The only reference to a majority believing it is from a guy who is on that side of the argument so not neutral at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:LEAD: "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the lead does not do what is stated in the WP:LEAD,it basically just gives one side of the debate and is backed up by one link to a reference by a guy on that side of the debate.So it is not neutral at all and leaves out any controversies.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, great. Yet another one (Owain) who has a problem with Jewish history in Israel being proved correct scientifically.

However, the statement "If these letters refer to the Davidic line then this is the first time the name "David" has been recognized at any archaeological site" is inaccurate. It should say 'recognised reliably', since the Mesha stele is regarded by many serious scholars as mentioning David also. This should be reflected in the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.31.130 (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

For a fact folks, over the years I have read of more pro Atlantis sources than debunking Atlantis. The same for UFOs and Bigfoot. The number of sources is meaningless. If this is the criteria then there might as well be an article pretending David and Solomon and Biblical Israel were real rather than myths. TWIIWT (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Lol, your last sentence is hilariously ignorant.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

quotation difficulty

I am unable to parse the quote from Biran in Tel Dan Stele#Dispute over the phrase "House of David" because it starts with a double quote, contains double quotes and does not appear to end with a double quote. It would be helpful if someone with access to the source could fix it. Jojalozzo 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The PHRASE House of David does not exist

Look at the picture. There are dots separating words. There is the WORD "dwdtyb" (BYTDWD as in BYTLHM, Bethlehem) which is plain for all to see. A word is not a phrase, period. BYT means only something like "dwelling place." Its translation into English depends upon who or what dwells. Thus we have BYTYHWH as both TEMPLE of Yahweh and the poetic HOUSE of the Lord. Anyone wishing to translate BYTLHM as the Dynasty of Bread please feel free to do so. I prefer a town famous for its bread if you please.

Besides that House as in dynasty first appears in history in Renaissance Italy. For those not well versed in history that is more than two millennia after this inscription. Dynasty never means dwelling place or vice versa. The word is well known in all of its forms in all semitic languages. The meaning is consistent.

The best that can be said for this is a new meaning for the word was discovered but only when connected to DWD. So inserted beloved land for the single word on the inscription.

On top of that it is sort of incredible that a victory inscription is in a form barely at the quality level of a learner's exercise by a dimwitted learner. IOW forgery is most likely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for such a discussion. We can't use our own views in the article, and if want to discuss this you need to find, for instance, a forum. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Doug is right, we can only report on what published sources have to say on the subject 2) "House as in dynasty first appears in history in Renaissance Italy." - oh, really? The "Teachings of Merykare" refer to the Egyptian 9th Dynasty as the "House of Kheti (Akhtoy)", so you might want to check that again... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny thing how בית דו(י)ד occurs in the following passages in the Bible:

1 Kings 12:19, 1 Kings 12:20, 1 Kings 12:26, 1 Kings 13:2, 1 Kings 14:8, 2 Samuel 3:1, 2 Samuel 3:6, 1 Samuel 19:11, 1 Samuel 20:16, 2 Kings 17:21, Isaiah 7:2, Isaiah 7:13, Isaiah 22:22, Jeremiah 21:12, Zechariah 12:7, Zechariah 12:8, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 12:12, Zechariah 13:1, Nehemiah 12:37, Psalms 30:1, Psalms 122:5, 1 Chronicles 17:24, 2 Chronicles 10:19, 2 Chronicles 21:7

AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the term "deny" appropriate?

I came across "Those who deny there was a David... " in the text. This topic is hard core zionist, and out of 3 letters they make a torch procession out of a fart (Fackelzug aus Furz, as a Nazi would say). Denying would imply that the denier had witnessed the stele with its intended meaning why it was erected but pretends to not have observed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.218.249 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

'Deny' is indeed the appropriate term, because 'those who deny (xyz)...' does not solely imply the nuance you infer, but it is also the correct English term used in regular scholarly discourse to describe any group of people who does not agree with, or subscribe to, any other school of thought, regardless of who may be "right" or wrong". One suspects that you know this full well, but are only here looking for any excuse to soapbox, chest thump, and be a cheerleader with side comments resembling "Bully for my POV, and pshaw on those who would disagree!" -- which usually doesn't prove too helpful for anyone in the long run. In addition, this, your second ever edit to wikipedia, when coupled with your first, makes you look like a definite troll. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow that is a textbook case of bad faith if I ever saw one. Ultra Venia (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet sometimes bad faith really is bad faith :) PiCo (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Tel Dan inscription

If you have sourced university material that there is universal consensus for the claims you have attributed to the book of Francesca Stavrakopoulou then quote it. This does not mean that you can remove well sourced, university material from other authors like Mykytiuk or Schmidt. Even more because this material is well sourced, reliable and accessible on line, contrary to your claims attributed to Stavrakopoulou which are not accessible. As you may notice I avoided any "universal claims" although I could use Grabbe 2007, p. 333. and write that the "reading of House of David as Davidic dynasty or the land of Davidic dynasty is today widely accepted by all relevant archeological scholars and other possibilities are ruled out" All material I used is attributed to its author, there are no "universally accepted truths" However your claims based allegedly to Stavrakopoulou book seems to be non existing as it is taken from Mykytiuk book, in opposite meaning than Mykytiuk is presenting them. To avoid this interpretation and to prove that I am mistaken, you have to provide clear accessible source to those pages in the Stavrakopoulou book, as I did for the material that I have used. Otherwise, you(or others) should remove claims, which are not based on any source. I wrote similar text to the talk page of the administrator of that site User:Dougweller in order to notice him about this problem. Third, the author of the book you referred is , Francesca Stavrakopoulou, without co-authors. Best regards Tritomex (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've re-written the para to bring it closer to Stavrakopoulou. Stavrakopoulou does not, in fact, differ markedly from, e.g., Grabbe. (Grabbe, as you quote him, says that the "reading of House of David as Davidic dynasty or the land of Davidic dynasty is today widely accepted by all relevant archeological scholars" - which is what Stavrakopoulou says).

Why do you say Stavrakopoulou is not available online? It's available to me.

It's a mistake to attribute material in-article when the views are widely or even universally held. We attribute in-article when there's a dispute: if a majority of scholars say one thing, and a notable minority another, we reflect that, but in this case, since the majority of scholars accept the "house of David" reading, we don't bother.

Please, in future, make comments about the article on the article talk-page, not my personal page. PiCo (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1. You can not remove good sourced material written by other authors BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT:

2. If you refer to Francesca Stavrakopoulou you have to attribute your quotes

3.You can not make universal truth claim, based on one source which is not even available.

4.Your source have to be accessible and they are not.

Tritomex (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you mean by not accessible not online, than that doesn't matter. WP:VERIFY says "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Who disputes that it is genuine?

Neils Peter Lemche, for a start. He hasn't changed his mind from when he wrote (In Thompson and Jayyusi, Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition, Continuum, 2003, pp. 46-68, saying (p. 66) "that all arguments put forward against the genuineness of the Tel Dan inscription (including a letter at the top that continues down the broken side) are hardly strong enough to win over persons who are convinced that the inscription is genuine." (quote is from him in an email, not the book). Russell Gmirkin is another. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"House of David"?

George Athas says BYTDWD should not be understood as a dynastic name ('House of David'), but as another name for Jerusalem, comparable to (YR-DWD (City of David).[1]. If we are serious about a good article, why aren't we using (besides Lemche's article) sources such as The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction by George Athas,[http://books.google.co.uk/books?

id=OPqpzmYBOxgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=George+Athas+%22house+of+david%22+Jerusalaem&source=bl&ots=bxRdqVhLDS&sig=_a7_rXmmZmDeJ9Dp5gmA46-meVs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1UFHUIiqIMOh0QXNyYEg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=George%20Athas%20%22house%20of%20david%22%20Jerusalaem&f=false and more] Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Today I added a citation of Athas' book, pages on the interpretation of bytdwd.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Right. Incidentally, in response to criticism of his book, Athas published a very clear restatement of his positions in this paper. Zero^talk 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Today I added a bibliographic citation of Athas' article, "Setting the Record Straight" in JSS. There is not yet a reference to it in the articleLawrencemykytiuk (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer to avoid this level of detail, but we could if you think it's necessary. We could also ask Lawrence Mykytiuk to come back and give us an opinion. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Athas was unfortunately misunderstood as advocating minimalism, so this article clears the way for a fair reading of his book. It's better to leave it in the bibliography, even though it might not rise to the level of a necessary inclusion in the article.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Please pardon my long-delayed response, PiCo et al. Dougweiler has very appropriately brought up--thank you!--the question of including discussion of George Athas' published dissertation, The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction, It appeared too late (2003) for me to do anything but mention it before my 2004 book went to press (long story). I have not noticed anyone else advocating or agreeing with his interpretation of bytdwd as a term for Jerusalem, but I have not at all researched others' publications regarding Athas' interpretation of this term. It is probably worth mentioning but not belaboring. I did not happen to mention it in my 2009 "Corrections and Updates" article in Maarav (which I have made freely available online). Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I quoted and cited Athas, "Setting the Record Straight . . ." in my book chapter "Sixteen Strong Identifications . . ." in Lubetski & Lubetski, eds., New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), p. 42, note 20---now freely available online at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_research/150/.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Today I made changes in the section "House of David," deleting a footnote containing and inaccurate citation and then briefly clarifying why I rejected certain interpretations which were possibilities (as opposed to rejecting the possibility of these interpretations). I also made Francesca Stavrakopoulou's statement penultimate in that paragraph and put the likely interpretation last. Doing this further avoids giving undue prominence to her single statement while keeping it in readers' awareness.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Today I added a citation of Rainey's 1994 BAR article and a footnote that refers to it.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems with Tritomex's paragraph

This is the paragraph on "House of David" the way Tritomex wants it: In the early/mid 1990s, when the inscription was discovered, the world of biblical scholarship was being rocked by the strand of thought called by its detractors "biblical minimalism". The minimalists argued that the bible was not a reliable guide to the history of ancient Israel, and, specifically, that its story of a united kingdom of Israel ruled by David and Solomon could not be taken at face value. The Tel Dan stele therefore found great favour among those who wished to defend the biblical version of Israel's ancient past. Its significance for this argument lay particularly in lines 8 and 9, which mention a "king of Israel" and a "house of David". The latter is generally understood to refer to the ruling dynasty of Judah, the descendants of the biblical David. However, although the "king of Israel" is generally accepted, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed by Francesca Stavrakopoulou, not least because it appears without a word-divider between the two parts. Other possible meanings have been suggested by Stavrakopoulou : it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet. Stavrakopoulou also suggested that even if the correct translation is "House of David", it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure.[11] Analyzing other proposed suggestion, Associate Professor of Library Science Lawrence J. Mykytiuk argues against the possibility that the term bytdwd could refer to the name of a god, cultic object, epithet or a place and concludes that in line with ancient Aramaic and Assyrian patterns for geopolitical terms, the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty. [12] Brian B. Schmidt states that the reading of "House of David" in Tel Dan inscription "is now widely accepted" [13] Hallvard believes that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls [14]

The problem is that it ascribes to Stavrakopoulou views which are not hers alone, and thereby makes them seem less significant than they really are. I'll list these:

1. "[A]lthough the "king of Israel" is generally accepted, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed by Francesca Stavrakopoulou". But also by George Athas, N.P. Lemche, and others. In addition, the points Stavrakopoulou mentions - lack of word dividers etc - are objective facts, not suppositions.
2. "Other possible meanings have been suggested by Stavrakopoulou". Not true - Stavrakopoulou is simply repeating suggestions made by Athas and others, none of them are hers.
3. "Stavrakopoulou also suggested that even if the correct translation is "House of David", it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure." Misleading - this is a point that ALL scholars involved in the study of the stele agree with.
4. . "Associate Professor of Library Science Lawrence J. Mykytiuk..." Irrelevant. Yes, he is a professional librarian, but Lawrence has published a widely consulted book on Biblical names in ANE inscriptions, and THAT is why he's mentioned here, not because he's a librarian.
5. "Mykytiuk argues [that] the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty." Very true - but Stavrakopoulou says the same, so why repeat it?
6. "Brian B. Schmidt states that the reading of "House of David" in Tel Dan inscription "is now widely accepted". Yes - but this just repeats what Stavrakopoulou says, yet again.
7. "Hallvard believes that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls". This is trivial - sort of thing you get on National Geographic, not in an encyclopedia.

So, for these excellent reasons, I'm going to revert tomorrow. I have no objection, by the way, to using a different source instead of Stavrakopoulou - they all say the same thing. PiCo (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Problems with PiCo editions

I have nothing against the edition of well sourced material disputing the reading of HD. I never removed any sourced material-Therefor I have problem with the removal of other sourced material without any explanation PiCo. Also, I have problem with the fact that reference number 11 is identical with the analyzed proposals for the meaning of the "House of David" written by Lawrence J. Mykytiuk (page 124-126). Its very unlikely that both Stavrakopoulou and Mykytiuk analyzed the same proposals for the same phrase in the same year (2004) independently Its more likely that the editor of reference no 11 used the text of Mykytiuk in opposite way of its meaning, attributed it to non accessible pages of Stavrakopoulou book (and page 86-87 is not accessible) All arguments attributed to Stavrakopoulou can be found at Mykytiuk (page 125-126) Therefor its beyond reasonable doubt that reference no 11 originates from Mykytiuk (page 125-126 as all arguments presented here are written there) which were latter attributed to non accessible parts (page 86-87) of Stavrakopoulou book, avoiding atribution presented as universal oppinion and finaly completed with removal of other material which did not fit this interpretation.

Btw Pi Co How you were able to read page 86-87 of Stavrakopoulou book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Third, you can re write your editions, but you can not remove my well sourced material without any explanation as you didTritomex (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, just let us make sure we're talking about the same paragraphs. This is the paragraph I wantin the article, and which you reverted:

The stele mentions "king of Israel" and possibly "house of David" in lines 8 and 9 respectively. The latter is generally understood to refer to the ruling dynasty of the kingdom of Judah, although the reading has been disputed on various grounds, notably the lack of the expected word dividers. The stele has found particular favour among those seeking to defend the biblical narrative of the united kingdom of Israel ruled by David and Solomon, but even if the reading "house of David" is correct (and as noted above, this is the general understanding), it does not in fact support the assumption that David was an historical figure or that the bible's version of history is accurate.

This is a summary of pages 86-87 of Stavrakopoulou's book. You ask how I was able to read it. Are you not able to do so? Try this link. PiCo (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No I cant access, page 79-91 is not accessible and in page summary I can not find this part "it does not in fact support the assumption that David was an historical figure or that the bible's version of history is accurate." However, what I disputed was the claim also written under this reference namely "Other possible meanings have been suggested  : it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet." This was also written under same reference. Other possible meanings have been suggested by whom? and where? (SOURCE??) Finally, even if this reference is found to be genuine what I oppose the most is the removal of other well sourced material-without any legitimate reasonTritomex (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1."[A]lthough the "king of Israel" is generally accepted, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed by Francesca Stavrakopoulou". But also by George Athas, N.P. Lemche, and others. In addition, the points Stavrakopoulou mentions - lack of word dividers etc - are objective facts, not suppositions".

• Than provide please material from George Athas, N.P. Lemche supporting your claim, and avoid using "others" I have nothing against that you add well sourced material, but you HAVE TO ATTRIBUTE THEM, without using "universal truths" like "others claim as well"

2. "Other possible meanings have been suggested by Stavrakopoulou". Not true - Stavrakopoulou is simply repeating suggestions made by Athas and others, none of them are hers".

• Than again write it down, from whom the claim is originating, without using "OTHERS" Btw I can not find this claim in Stavrakopoulou book.

• Misleading would be if you again try to use "others" instead of proper attribution. You have to name to whom you are referring and also to provide a source, as this claim I can not find anywhere in page 86 of Stavrakopoulou book

4. "Mykytiuk argues [that] the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty." Very true - but Stavrakopoulou says the same, so why repeat it?"

• No in fact the opposite could be seen from your edition. " However, although the "king of Israel" is generally accepted, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed "

5."Hallvard believes that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls". This is trivial - sort of thing you get on National Geographic, not in an encyclopedia."

• I gave a direct reference from well sourced university material namely Hagelia, Hallvard (2005). "Philological Issues in the Tel Dan Inscription" page 232

6."Associate Professor of Library Science Lawrence J. Mykytiuk..." Irrelevant. Yes, he is a professional librarian, but Lawrence has published a widely consulted book on Biblical names in ANE inscriptions, and THAT is why he's mentioned here, not because he's a librarian"

• I did not write his profession, or title, that was not my edition. If you take a look it was Dougweller edition.

Tritomex (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Also please respect my work. You can rewrite your editions in accordance with standards and well known requirements stated above . However the section bellow is my contribution, well sourced and properly attributed. Therefore do not remove it:

"Analyzing other proposed suggestion, J. Mykytiuk argues against the possibility that the term bytdwd could refer to the name of a god, cultic object, epithet or a place and concludes that in line with ancient Aramaic and Assyrian patterns for geopolitical terms, the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty. [12] Brian B. Schmidt states that the reading of "House of David" in Tel Dan inscription "is now widely accepted" [13] Hallvard believes that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls [14]Tritomex (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the existing para rather sparingly. I've taken out mentions of Stavrakopoulou which make it seem as if commonly held positions are hers alone; and I've removed the material from Mykytiuk etc (immediately above this post) because they simply repeat material already in the section. Mykytiuk gives arguments supporting the "house of David" reading", but the sectikon already says this is the most widely accepted reading and we don't need the detail (and, incidentally, arguments aren't his, he's simply repeating points raisded by others before him); same for Schmidt, he's saying that the House of David reading is widely accepted and we already have that; and Halvard's point is trivial (by the way, that's his first name). PiCo (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility

I have already told Tritomex, but sources do NOT have to be on the web. You might have to pay for them, you might have to get them from inter-library loan, you might even have to go see them if they are records you can't see any other way. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not just about accessibility, as I have written the biggest problems here are:

1. The removal of well sourced material by PiCo

2. The avoiding of attribution of certain claims to theirs authors and the attempt to present them as universal

3. is disputed (by whom)soruce is claimed (by whom)source

This are basic standards, I was many time remined to adhere to them and PiCo has to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 11:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I will rewrite the upper sections (which is/will referee to the criticism of bytdvd reading as Davidic Dynasty) in coming days, if PiCo does not want to do it, with well sourced material and proper attribution,Tritomex (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to discuss your changes here first. I've reverted you again - you were told that you were using an author's first name (and I can't see a reason for that bit anyway), Bible is spelled with a capital B, etc. And please don't use sources that are self-published, Creationist, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

1.Where I have used sources that are self-published or creationist in this article??

2.Are Mykytiuk 2004, Hagelia or Schmidt self-published or creationist?

3. What this sentence means "Other possible meanings have been suggested: it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet." and where is the source?

4. Why the next well sourced material "Analyzing other proposed suggestion, Associate Professor of Library Science Lawrence J. Mykytiuk argues against the possibility that the term bytdwd could refer to the name of a god, cultic object, epithet or a place and concludes that in line with ancient Aramaic and Assyrian patterns for geopolitical terms, the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty." was removed? It was well sourced, contrary to the "suggestion" of unknown origin written above.

4. suggested by whom?

5, Disputed by whom?

6. "it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure"

Based on which facts this "logical conclusion" is done?

7.who is the author of that logic?

How such kind of conclusion can be written in a sense that assume that everyone agrees with this logic.(Not to mention the fact that all provided references with "It has been suggested", and "it has been disputed", are without any attribution.

8. Do you really think that the current form of this tickler is acceptable?

9. I would like to hear criticism of my removed editions!Tritomex (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

10. * Extremely vague statements ("Alice Expert enjoys broad support") should normally be removed. What about our ""it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure" ??

11. I have used the author first name, that is certainly my mistake, but was that the reason that all my sourced material was reverted?Tritomex (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You've used at least one creationist source elsewhere. We shouldn't need a source for every sentence when they are in a sequence, but I've provided it. I've added some earlier stuff that was removed. How is Lawrence J. Mykytiuk a reliable source? You might be able to convince me and I see he's been used before and I went ahead and put him back when I restored the earlier edit, but it needs discussion, and as you seem to think Creationists are reliable sources I'm not sure if you understand WP:RS. Some of your edits elsewhere have failed WP:NPOV. I don't know what a tickler is. I removed the unbalanced tag as it doesn't seem appropriate, it's a statement by a scholar and I've attributed it now.

The next thing you need to do is justify the NPOV tag. How does this section fail WP:NPOV. Please be specific. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence J. Mykytiuk was used in this article before. His book "Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E." and many other books are widely used in many articles. Beyond this he is widely respected scholar. I don't know why you question this? His Education

Ph.D., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1998.

M.A., Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1992.

M.A., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1988.

M.T.S. summa cum laude, Theological Studies, Asian Theological Seminary, Quezon City, Republic of the Philippines, 1983.

B.A. summa cum laude, English, Trinity International University, Deerfield, Illinois, 1972.

Award Purdue University Libraries Second Annual Award for Excellence in Teaching, 2012

That's nothing to do with NPOV. Why haven't you used Athos? Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Athos was already used in upper section but without proper attribution. As I did not wrrite the upper section, I did changed anything there.Tritomex (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

I just first-rated the article in its current form, with a '2' for objectivity (moderate bias) on the Article Feedback Tool, because of the final sentence, which is poorly written - it sounds like an unattributed stance on what is 'likely' and 'logical'. If this is improved to sound less like pushing, I'll re-rate it higher. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've attributed it. I've also moved your post to the bottom as an editor had duplicated mine under yours and then replied to it, I think this makes more sense. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Til, at the moment I don't think there's much point in rating the article - it's too unstable, and even I don't know what the "final sentence" that you read, actually was. But please, do come and do it when things have settled down. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If I used a creationist in my article about King Ahaz Seal, I gave also another references too. However I agree to avoid using creationists, maybe I made mistake. Just to be clear I have no religious agenda and although, it is not subject here, I am not religious.Tritomex (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)WP:NPOV

arguments against the reading of House of David as Davidic dynasty-minority view

the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed,(BY WHOM??)[11] in part because it appears without a word-divider between the two parts. In addition, the rest of the inscription uses dots to separate words, but bytdwd appears as a single word, ביתדוד, not בית•דוד. ...

but some have argued that "dwd" could be a name for a god ("beloved"), or could mean "uncle" (a word with a rather wider meaning in ancient times than it has today), or that the whole phrase might be a

name for Jerusalem (so that the author might be claiming to have killed the king of Jerusalem rather than a king of the "house of David".[12][13]

Other possible meanings have been suggested:(BY WHOM???) it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet.[11] But even if (as seems likely)[14] the correct translation is "House of David", Francesca

Stavrakopoulou argues that it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure.[11]

arguments in favor of the reading is House of David as Davydic Dynasty-majority view

__________NOTHING________Everything has been erased

" The latter is generally understood to refer to the ruling dynasty of Judah," can not been seen as argument in favor of reading bytdwd as Davidic Dynasty as it simply explains that "House of David" is generaly considered to be biblical phrase for Davidic dynasty, or even less, it does not clearly explains anything but is misleading.

Why this sections have been removed?

0.Lawrence J. Mykytiuk argues against the possibility that the term bytdwd could refer to the name of a god, cultic object, epithet or a place and concludes that in line with ancient Aramaic and Assyrian patterns for geopolitical terms, the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty. Brian B. Schmidt states that the reading of "House of David" in Tel Dan inscription "is now widely accepted" Hallvard believes that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls

Also why this materiel is avoided?

Lawrence J. Mykytiuk

1. David, founder of the dynasty that ruled Judah (r. ca. 1010–970), 1 Sam 16:13, etc. (IBP, 110–32, 265–77; Mykytiuk, “Corrections,” 119–21) Terms that incorporate his name in monumental Northwest Semitic inscriptions, leading to IDs, are as follows: a. David’s name is a clear element in the phrase bytdwd in the Tel Dan stele, line 9.17 b. David’s name is also an element in the phrase bt[d]wd in the Mesha Inscription, line 31, though its presence is unclear at prima vista, due to the fragmentation in that line.18 ● Aramaic usage of b(y)t + personal name in a variety of Aramaic sources, including the Tel Dan stele, is a way of indicating a dynasty by a phrase pattern that incorporates the name of its founder.19 That this phrase pattern has this significance is especially clear in instances where the incorporated personal name is known to be a royal name or where the phrase is known to refer to a kingdom. Since a dynasty governs a territorial realm, b(y)t + personal name is also a geographical name referring to that territorial realm.20 Thus the term in the Tel Dan stele incorporates a conventional phrase pattern which indicates that the David to whom it refers was the founder of a dynasty. This point of singularity is also found in the biblical text: both the Bible and the inscription refer to the one and only David who was the founder of the dynasty of Judah. Also, it can then be argued, from internationalization of this Aramaic usage and resulting—or simply parallel—Moabite usage, that bt + personal name in line 31 of the Mesha Inscription contains the same point of singularity. Besides such inscriptionalbiblical singularity, the fact that there is only one David in the biblical king lists, which purport to be complete, gives his ID also what can be called biblical singularity. c. An inscription written within about forty-five years of David’s lifetime by Pharaoh Sheshonq I sheds additional light on “the house of David” mentioned in the Tel Dan stele as a possible geographical reference to the territory ruled by “[the kin]g of the house of David.” Sheshonq’s inscription contains the phrase hadabiyat-dawit, “the heights (or highland) of David.” According to the geographically organized sequence in the inscription, this area should be in the southern part of Judah or the Negev, where the book of 1 Samuel places David when he was hiding from King Saul. An ID of King David as the person whose name is included in this phrase is entirely plausible, both in view of Kitchen’s research into the rendering of the name and in view of other ancient Hebrew phrases, such as “the city of David” and “the house of David,” which include a geographical dimension. It seems extremely doubtful that we shall suddenly discover some other, previously unknown David who was famous enough to have lent his name to the region mentioned in Sheshonq’s timely inscription.21

Also omitted from the text is

2..Hagelia, Hallvard (2005). "Philological Issues in the Tel Dan Inscription"

●Supporting that "house of David" refer to Davidic dynasty

3. Simcha Shalom (2005).

●Supporting that "house of David refer to Davidic dynasty even stating that it is usual practice not to use dots in royal names.

4.Schmidt, Brian B. (2006)

●Supporting that "house of David refer to Davidic dynasty and even pointing out to similar patterns like "BytHmria"-for Israel

5.Grabbe 2007, p. 333.

"The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, and even accusations of forgery, "but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus"

6.Gary A. Rendsburg, “On the Writing ביתדוד in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” IEJ 45 (1995): 22–5;

●Supporting that "house of David refer to Davidic dynasty

7.Hallvard Hagelia et all 2009 "The Dan Debate: The Tel Dan Inscription in Recent Research (Recent Research in Biblical Studies) "

●Supporting that "house of David refer to Davidic dynasty

and again we have "Other possible meanings have been suggested:(BY WHOM???)" and "it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet" which is originating from Mykytiuk

the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed,(BY WHOM??)

Best regards

References

New version

Thank you for rewriting the section. The only thing I suggest is the inclusion of Hagelia opinion about importance of this artifact.

"Hagelia considers that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls "

and , if it is possible I think it is important to name the scholars who suggested other meaning for HD and who disputed the phrase bytdwd as the House of David.Because "Others" is very wide term

However, thank you for correcting this article.Tritomex (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2012

if it is possible I think it is important to name the scholars who suggested other meaning for HD and who disputed the phrase bytdwd as the House of David.Because "Others" is very wide term

It's certainly possible - I can give you about 20 names - but it would make the article look pretty ugly. PiCo (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Tritomex, why should the article cite Hagelia? And the reason really can't be "because it shows someone thinks it's extremely important", the reason has to be about Hagelia. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

PiCo Can you show us here on talk page, references from that source about who those scholars exactly are? References are needed here: "Other possible meanings have been suggested (BY WHOM) and "Though the reference to a "king of Israel" is fairly secure, the rendering of bytdwd is disputed,(BY WHOM?) I think proper attribution is needed here. Tritomex (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Hagelia has written two books regarding the The Tel Dan inscription which are widely used. She is a respected authority in this subject. Her opinion about the Tel Dan inscription is shared by many other scholars. As we have noticed, we wrote down what Stavrakopoulou personal thoughts about logic supporting the assumption of David existence, which I think has nothing to do in the section regarding the reading of the "House of David", especially as we know that her opinion about the historicity of David is not supported by any archeologist involved in this and other excavations in Israel/Palestine (when I said ANY I double checked) including those with close ties to minimalism like TAU scholars: Finkelstein, Silberman,Nadav Na'aman etc. Therefore in order to get objective view, and if the keeping of Stavrakopoulou personal opinion about David is "a must" I propose to balance it with Hagelia opinion, which is clearly related only to the subject(namely the Tel Dan inscription) but has a "contra-argument" in its essence Tritomex (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thnak you. So does any one has any objection regarding the edition of Hagelia opinion in parallel with Stavrakopoulou? If this is done, the dispute is from my point of view finishedTritomex (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A footnote on page 86 of Stavrakopoulou gives the following list of alternative interpretations of bytdwd and associated scholars: (1) DWD as a toponym (i.e., a placename): e.g. Cryer, Davies, Lemche; (2) Dive name or epithet (i.e., name or title of a god): Knauf, de Pury, Romer, Lehman/Reichel. All this means is that the reading House of David is controverted; as Stavrakopoulou says, the reading House of David is generally accepted as correct.PiCo (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I still do not understand why we should use Hagelia to say 'this is important'. What makes him so special? And why would that belong in that section? Use Hegalia for something more substantive. His (not hers) books are described at Amazon in relationship to Athas - " In particular Hagelia's two books offer an notable exchange of views with George Athas's The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (2003)." So if we use Hegalia it should be to mention that exchange. And we can use Athas's review.[2] I keep saying there should be more here from Athas. Finkelstein and Silberman are not minimalists, they do not deny David's existence. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes my mistake, when I said she I taught about Stavrakopoulou. We already used Athas and I have nothing against it, his opinion has merit in this field. We did not use Hagelia, and I would not even object that, although I do not see the reason why we are avoiding him. However, with same logic I do not see any reason why we should keep Stavrakopoulou opinion about the historicity of David on this page. I am sure that the reason can not be because Stavrakopoulou opinion "is more important" than the opinion of Hagelia, Finkelstein, Mykytiuk, Schmidt, Biran Naveh and others. Considering Finkelstein and Silberman I did not qualified them as minimalists, I said that they have close ties with them. I propose therefor the removal of this sentence.Tritomex (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

May I ask why should we have conclusions like this in last sentence "XY states that logically David is (not) historic figure".Tritomex (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's take it step by step

To take a bit of heat out of this, let's take it step by step. Let's begin by taking a close look at the first few sentences of that section, as far as the first footnote (i.e., the first point at which we have a refernnced source for what's said). This is it:

• In the early/mid 1990s, when the inscription was discovered, the world of biblical scholarship was being rocked by the strand of thought called by its detractors "biblical minimalism". The minimalists argued that the Bible was not a reliable guide to the history of ancient Israel, and, specifically, that its story of a united kingdom of Israel ruled by David and Solomon could not be taken at face value. The Tel Dan stele therefore found great favour among those who wished to defend the biblical version of Israel's ancient past. Its significance for this argument lay particularly in lines 8 and 9, which mention a "king of Israel" and a "house of David". The latter is generally understood to refer to the ruling dynasty of Judah, the descendants of the biblical David. However, although the "king of Israel" is generally accepted, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed, in part because it appears without a word-divider between the two parts.Stavrakopoulou, pp.86-87

Do we all have access to that book?

Now, I must say that I can't see anything on those pages to support the first few sentences - nothing on the first sentence, nothing on the second, although the third sentence is supported. (Stav. says: "Tel Dan stele has found particular favour among those seeking to defend the existence of the united monarchy".) It also supports the sentence about the significance of lines 8 and 9 of the stele. (She says: "Its significance is found in its mention of a "king of Israel" and a possible reference to the "house of David" in lines 8 and 9 respectively"). And the book also supports the next sentence, about the general understanding that House of David refers to the ruling dynasty of Judah, although she doesn't say anything about this house being the descendants of biblical David. ("This latter phrase is generally understood to refer to the dynastic name of the state of Judah"). And it supports the final line, about the dispute over the rendering of bytdwd and the importance of the lack of word dividers. ("Though the reference to a "king of Israel" is fairly secure, the rendering of bytdwd is disputed, not least because it occurs without the expected word dividers ...").

Please compare these sentences with the source, and make sure that they don't say anything (like the first few sentences and the bit about descended from biblical David) that isn't actually said in the source. This doesn't mean we can't go on to find more sources, but we should at least begin by making sure that what we have reflects the sources supposedly being used. PiCo (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I think those first two sentence were originally your edition PiCo, aren't they? We have also problem with other sentence originating from the same source "Other possible meanings have been suggested: it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet" as I can not find this in page summary too. Page 86 is still non accessible to me( maybe its just my problem) and I have proposed many times to avoid it..

"This latter phrase is generally understood to refer to the dynastic name of the state of Judah" and "the descendants of the biblical David" are synonyms which may have to be used to avoid copyright problems. However if we started the section with Stavrakopoulou and Athas i think it is too much to finish the section with them, like there is none other author involved in this issue.Tritomex (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The first few sentences might have been added by me, I don't know, but they're not supported by the source and can be deleted. If we think the points they contain are important we can come back later and find sources, but for now they can go.

The line about "other possible meanings" isn't included in this gobbet and we can leave it till later.

You raise a good point towards the end, namely, whether the phrases "dynastic name of the state of Judah" and "descendants of the biblical David" are synonyms. In fact they're not: the phrase "dynastic name", when used for Iron Age Middle Eastern states, means the habit at that time of calling countries after their ruling dynasties - House of Omri meant what we call Israel, and their are many other examples. So it's the name of a country, not anyone's human descendants. (Israel's neighbours kept on calling the country House of Omri even after it was being ruled by the House of Jehu and other dynasties). The point is, if it isn't in the source, let's not say it. PiCo (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Partially I agree with you, and it could be written in this artickle that as the "House of Omri" refer in other scripts to Israel, the phrase "House of David" could refer to Judah as a state. This would clarify this problem and avoid most of dispute. However, I suggest you this: " Aramaic usage of b(y)t + personal name in a variety of Aramaic sources, including the Tel Dan stele, is a way of indicating a dynasty by a phrase pattern that incorporates the name of its founder.That this phrase pattern has this significance is especially clear in instances where the incorporated personal name is known to be a royal name or where the phrase is known to refer to a kingdom. Since a dynasty governs a territorial realm, b(y)t + personal name is also a geographical name referring to that territorial realm.20 Thus the term in the Tel Dan stele incorporates a conventional phrase pattern which indicates that the David to whom it refers was the founder of a dynasty. This point of singularity is also found in the biblical text: both the Bible and the inscription refer to the one and only David who was the founder of the dynasty of Judah." The same is truth with bytdwd, Beyt Omri as both names indicates founders of dynasty.Tritomex (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

We have again 70% of the article section based on Stavrakopoulou famous page 86. This can not stand in my opinion.Tritomex (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC) In order to balance this clear unbalanced current form I propose the deletion of sentence "Francesca Stavrakopoulou argues that it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure."

I seem to be coming at the end of a lengthy but now 2-year-old discussion, with the question of objectivity of this part of the article still unresolved (and yes, I have been wanting to make some adjustments to this section of the article for a long time). On this Talk page, it was hard to choose from among the many places where I could have inserted these remarks, so I just went to the end of the relevant portions. Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

While attempting not to do damage to the work others have put into this article, I have changed the phrasing of the end of the paragraph to mention as simply as possible Brian Schmidt's vouching for the most widely accepted view. At the same time, by using a separate sentence, I hope I avoided giving undue emphasis to Stavrakopoulou's view (i.e., that the inscriptional phrase "does not logically support" David's being a genuine historical figure) by putting it at the end as if in heroic opposition to the majority (as it were, Athanasius versus the world). I got a copy of her p. 86 through interlibrary loan and cannot find an actual argument for her statement, so I changed the article to say that she "states" rather than "argues" (that historicity of David does not logically follow). If she had presented an argument, I would be happy to engage it, but all I can find is an assertion. Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, at the beginning of this section of the article, I tried to bring in more balance by observing that scholars from the whole spectrum were interested in the Tel Dan Stele, rather than simply observing the excitement in only one portion of scholarly opinion. Because that sentence came from me, not Stavrakopoulou, I began a new paragraph after that, in order to avoid any implication that the footnote citing her might apply to my statement. I hope I have not offended anyone by these changes. Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with tickler altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tritomex (talk • contribs) 12:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Extreme minimalists

It is quite surreal to have Richard Freund calling doubters "extreme minimalists" when Freund is the one who is extreme. Lemche and Athas are mainstream, not extreme, but Freund on the other hand...his theory that Atlantis and Tarshish were the same and can be identified as a place in Spain is an example to go on with. Even if that wasn't true, it is ridiculous (not to mention, contrary to NPOV) to cite a person on one side of an argument as being a source of unattributed truth about people on the other side of the argument. Zero^talk 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The source used as reference refer to those who question the accepted reading as "extreme minimalists". It also explains that not all biblical minimalists question the accepted reading. So the current wording does not reflect what the source tells. Eighter the source, or the text have to be changed because the current wording does not reflect the reference provided and represents WP:OR. Most of the scholars today accept the proposed reading and only a very small group of them have doubts like those mentioned in the lead. I did not proposed using Richard Freund as a source, however those who added him must cite him correctly. --Tritomex (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Extreme minimalist look at the inscription "Bet David" (House of David) and ask: Which house of which David? They even question whether or not it really says "house of David" since the text has no vowels and can be red with different vowels. In this case using different Hebrew vowels the text can be red as "Bet Dod" (House of Beloved or House of uncle) if you wish to make a case against the reading of House of David. Extreme minimalist say litle can be learned even from very specific reference like this. But unfortunately extreme minimalist create more from the discovery than the scientific method can accommodate." [3]

The text says: "However, Biblical minimalists continue to question "which house of which David" as well as whether it says David at all "since the text has no vowels and can be read with different vowels" Personally I believe that the source itself is not sufficient for the lead for the same reasons as stated by Zero0000, however, if it is used it has to be used correctly per WP:V and without WP:OR . "extreme minimalists" can not be redefined to all biblical minimalists, without any source. --Tritomex (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"House of David" Tag

What is the problem with "House of David" that it requires a tag from 2012? I do not know the topic, but the section represents a diverse spectrum of attitudes and opinions.--Inayity (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks to me that the discussion died out but no one bothered to remove it. I don't see anything above since 2012, do you? Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone should mention the specifics to the House of David in the lead, because its implications are pretty important to the Abrahamic religions.--Inayity (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Lemche and biblical scholars' "wish to create links"

On p.43 of his 1998 work, Lemche writes: “In this way the short history of the reception of the Tel Dan inscriptions constitutes a classic example of how biblical scholars are moved not so much by evidence from the inscription itself as by the wish to create links between the inscription and the biblical narrative.”

This seems like an interesting quote to add into the article, but it clearly needs to be done in a sensitive fashion. Any ideas would be appreciated.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Poor Quality Source or Religious Censorship of Alternative Views Regarding the World’s First Alphabetic Inscriptions In and Near Israel?

My post from questioned source was suddenly deleted with no prior discussion by Doug Weller. I posted a well supported translation of the Dan Stele from this website which I found online which is in turn from a self-published book on Amazon which I now have. I did not delete anything from the Wikipedia article itself. My aim was to post a well supported alternative translation of the inscription. Any quality encyclopedia article about controversial subjects will provide the dominant viewpoint but they always mention the minority viewpoints in order to avoid the appearance of bias.

The author of this book (Olmsted) is suggesting that these texts were composed in a different language (Akkadian, the language of Babylon and Assyria) than what has been assumed (some form of early Hebrew). This is revolutionary! People need to know about this alternative approach since it seems to allow for the translation of All the early alphabetic inscriptions.

I have been following these inscriptions for a long time in the popular magazine “Biblical Archaeology Review” and with the exception of the Dan Stele and inscriptions found prior to 1940, they have not been translatable using Hebrew. Even the first inscriptions, Proto-Sinaitic found in the Sinai desert, have not been translated. Of course this make the existing Dan Stele translation very suspect in my eyes. How could this be translated when all others cannot be? Olmsted critiques these Hebrew language derived translations and finds them to be severely flawed with letters ignored or inserted to make the desired words. In the case of the Dan stele no letter by letter translation was actually provided. Instead it is a “connect the dot” translation (Olmsted’s term) in which some isolated words are recognized and then phrases are invented to connect them. So Olmsted’s translations are actually a better quality than any existing ones.

I think we need to take the author’s explanation about why his book was self-published to heart. He wanted to make these inscriptions available to everyone without copyright restriction so he published these under the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia which no commercial publisher would do. I have lots of books with ancient inscription translations which I would love to post on Wikipedia but I can’t because they are copyright protected. So despite his translations being well supported with every letter included in the translation, Wikipedia is punishing an author with the same vision.

SalamisDragon (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Self-published sources are questionable because they don't undergo reviewing by a publisher and because too many times self published sources end up unreliable for other reasons as well - for example, pushing ill-supported WP:FRINGE viewpoints. While the rationale is honourable it still means that the book didn't undergo vetting. Also, keep in mind that posting books here is not what Wikipedia is for. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We really don't care why the author self-published, we can't take motivation into account when deciding what's suitable for inclusion. We also have WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS which you might want to read. If at some point this author's translation is discussed in reliable academic sources we might be able to use those sources. See also WP:FORUM - we aren't a publisher of new ideas. Doug Weller (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation was a copyright violation

I've deleted it and am discussing what part of it, if any, we can restore. Meanwhile, please don't revert me anyone, it's inclusion was a violation of our copyright policy. Doug Weller (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Only four

Drsmoo there really are only four. The Lemche quote in reference 3 is crystal clear. Your source is almost certainly referring to the references to Omri (see a table I created at: Omrides#List_of_proposed_Assyrian_references_to_the_House_of_Omri). Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The issue is the use of the qualifier "only", while the 18 year old old opinions of the "society for promoting Christian knowledge" are interesting, the qualifier is of course non-encyclopedic and has no place in this or other articles. Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

In case English is not your first language, you can see here that it is functioning as "an adjective [stating]... that there are no other things or people of the same kind as the ones that [are being] mention[ed]".

And the exact word is used by Lemche. If there were others found since Lemche was published, it is certain that such discoveries would have been very high profile and you wouldn't struggle to find evidence of them with a quick google search. But there are none, and "only" is an accurate, important and properly sourced word.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• I lean towards removing it. The sentence reads perfectly well without it ("one of four know..."), and the Lemche quote doesn't actually use the word anyway (though he does say "very limited"). The word "only" carries too much weight with respect to how many inscriptions we would expect. I wonder, for example, how many inscriptions mention Moab? StAnselm (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I have been mulling over the same and I struggle to get worked up about it for exactly the reason that St.Anselm describes - i.e. that it reads perfectly well either way. It's a question of style, and personally I like the emphasis because it highlights the notability of the subject(s), per WP:LEAD. I also continue to struggle to WP:AGF with respect to Drsmoo, given the context of a long running problem between us which has reached an extreme of obsession I have never seen before.

@StAnselm: A couple of points on your post - Lemche does use the word ("The name of Israel was found in only a very limited number of inscriptions"), and the question of what we might expect can be related to the equivalent number of contemporary references to "Canaan" (there are dozens - see Canaan#Archaeology) or "Palestine" and cognates (there are about 12 - see Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Ancient_period).

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I did miss Lemche's use of "only". StAnselm (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any support for keeping "only". @Monochrome Monitor: removed it, and Oncenawhile reverted, I removed it and Oncenawhile reverted @Zero0000: kept it and Oncenawhile reverted, and @StAnselm: leans towards removing it as well. With regard to Lemche, there is no shortage of sources discussing these inscriptions. The current source (Lemche) is essentially a spokesperson for minimalism and is presenting his opinion, Ledes should not be presenting the opinion of an author towards a subject in a neutral voice when describing the subject, especially when there are plenty of sources available and unused Drsmoo (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The word "only" adds correct information that is absent without it. I don't see the point of this discussion. Zero^talk 22:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The point of the discussion is that the word only exists in the sentence to present a POV. Lemche is a curious source as well, it's interesting Zero0000, that you removed Dever, claiming he was a "maximalist" who should be attributed, while Lemche is described as a "spokesperson" for minimalism. Neither "minimalism" nor "maximalism" should have their opinions presented in a neutral voice on wikipedia. Four is a fact, "only four" is an opinion.

Other sources:

“The earliest certain mention of the ethnonym Israel occurs in a victory inscription of the Egyptian king MERENPTAH, his well-known “Israel Stela” (ca. 1210 BCE); recently, a possible earlier reference has been identified in a text from the reign of Rameses II (see RAMESES I–XI). Thereafter, no reference to either Judah or Israel appears until the ninth century. The pharaoh Sheshonq I (biblical Shishak; see SHESHONQ I–VI) mentions neither entity by name in the inscription recording his campaign in the southern Levant during the late tenth century. In the ninth century, Israelite kings, and possibly a Judaean king, are mentioned in several sources: the Aramaean stele from Tel Dan, inscriptions of SHALMANESER III of Assyria, and the stela of Mesha of Moab. From the early eighth century onward, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are both mentioned somewhat regularly in Assyrian and subsequently Babylonian sources, and from this point on there is relatively good agreement between the biblical accounts on the one hand and the archaeological evidence and extra-biblical texts on the other.” - Aren Maeir

"The existence of pre-state Israel, while disputed, is attested in the identification of the southern stale (sic) with David (Tel Dan, Mesha), the northern with Omri (Mesha and neo-Assyrian sources), plus Shalmaneser's identification of Ahab as "the Israelite" - Baruch Halpern/Matthew J. Adams

"The order of the Israelite and Judahite monarchs with their length of reign and cross-information between the two kingdoms is supported by the mention of some of them (all but Omri later than the first kings listed above) in extrabiblical texts. Regarding the norther kingdom, one should note the mention of Omri in the Mesha Stela, Ahab in the Kurkh Inscription describing the battle of Qarqar between a coalition of Levantine kingdoms and Shalmaneser III king of Assyria in 853 B.C.E., the killing of Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah in the Tel Dan Stela (842 B.C.E.), and Jehu as a vassal of Shalmaneser III in the Black Obelisk." - Israel Finkelstein

Two peer reviews of the current source, the first from Jewish Quarterly Review:

"Lemche ignores all views that are not convenient for his interpretation. The Mesha stele is another case in point. Lemche cites a few references to those who deprecate or minimize the weight of this inscriptional testimony. He embraces the ridiculous suggestion that not David, but some fictitious deity named Daudo (Na'aman 1997), is mentioned in the allusion to an "ariel of David." Lemche's limited linguistic knowledge is apparent when he insists that DWDH in that phrase cannot be a personal name (plus possessive suffix). The argument showing that the phrase means "his (Gad's) Davidic altar hearth" have been elucidated recently (Rainey 1998b, 1998b). Na'aman (2001: 8) has demonstrated once again that he is incapable of understanding the syntax of the Mesha stele. The Tel Dan inscription is deprecated by Lemche in a series of false arguments. He claims that the fragments come from two different texts and rejects the allusions to two kings of the 9th century, viz. [Jeho]ram,king of Israel and [Ahaza]iah, king of "The House of David." In fact, the fragments clearly come from one text and make reference to the two above named kings."

And from the Journal of Semitic Studies: "What we predominantly find as we read on, however, is not analysis, but assumption and assertion mixed in with the by-now-familiar disparagements of scholars who do not agree with the author's approach."

So basically, we're currently using a source which claims that these documents aren't references to ancient Israel, as the source for the statement that they are, simply so we can include the POV term "only four" despite there being multiple other sources, with this source receiving negative peer-reviews. Drsmoo (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I deleted "only" because it subjectively implies that "four" generally accepted references in different languages are inadequate. The fact is Egyptian sources are largely lost because they used papyrus, therefore it would be natural for any reference to Israel to exist on a stele. We have far more records from the Assyrians who wrote with styluses on stone tablets and because of that the "one reference to Israel" may seem lacking, but the Assyrians made numerous references to the "House of Omri", aka the northern kingdom.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is biased towards minimalism. While it uses Lemche for "only" without mentioning the source, it attributes the basic fact that tel dan is considered authentic to a single scholar in quotes, as if it were mere opinion.--Monochrome_Monitor 02:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "only" is Lemche's opinion, and it probably shouldn't be in WP voice. I think the footnote is adequate to explain the situation. However, @Drsmoo: it is not a recent addition and should stay until there is consensus to remove it. StAnselm (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm:I totally agree, and I wasn't saying Lemche should be removed, just that other sources should be added as well. Drsmoo (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: why have removed "only" again? As StAnselm said in the comment immediately above this, it "should stay until there is consensus to remove it". We may not be far from getting consensus, but please let's behave properly.

Separately, can you explain your view as to how many Assyrian or Babylonian documents refer to the name "Israel"? The two quotes you added seem to suggest that you think there is more than one. Whereas Lemche (above) and Grabbe (at Kurkh_Monoliths#cite_note-books.google.co.uk-4) are clear that there is only one. We should reach agreement on this point of fact before proceeding.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm: appears to be referring to Lemche as a source, I did not remove him, and never had any intention of doing so, I believe we have consensus in any case. Regarding quotes added, both are reliable sources, not sure what point you're trying to make, Lemche is specifically referring to Ahab as well. Drsmoo (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

You sidestepped both points. I will repeat: (1) what was your rationale for ignoring what StAnselm said re getting consensus?; and (2) what are the two sources you added trying to do? It seems to me that you think there may be other inscriptions referring to "Israel"? Do you think these scholars are disagreeing with each other? I think that we are misreading ambiguously worded quotes, and should not be muddying the waters.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The additional sources are fact-based descriptions, rather than the polemic put out by Lemche, hence it's good to have those as sources in the article. I believe StAnselm was referring to Lemche's opinion not being in Wikipedia's neutral voice, which is why I did not remove Lemche as a source, which is the same as I said a week ago. In any case, I haven't seen anyone other than you work to keep "only" in the article, so it seems we have consensus. I find your question "what are your sources trying to do" strange, they are both reliable sources. Drsmoo (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I see you and MM strongly for removing only, StAnselm leaning towards removing, and Zero and me for retaining it. So 3 for and 2 against, at best. That is not consensus.

On the two sources, it feels to me like you are actively trying to confuse the issue. Can you please answer my question - do you think these sources are undermining Lemche and Grabbe's statements that there is only one reference to the name Israel in the Assyrian and Babylonian corpus? Oncenawhile (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Zero doesn't seem strong for retaining it, in fact you reverted him to remove it. I literally have no idea what you're talking about, or why you think reliable sources are somehow my ideas. In any case Maeir is specifically referring to "Kingdoms of Israel", ie "Bit Humri/Omri" and "Land of Samaria". In fact, I'm looking at a paper now from Brad E. Kelle that has the different mentions laid out in a table. Fleming is referring to the Kurkh Monoliths. Drsmoo (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow that is quite a nuance. We have a clear dispute, you were advised to get consensus by a neutral editor, and you just thought that you'd ignore their good intentions and push through.

To be more specific on my objection to your two sources - neither of them directly support the sentence they are being used to cite. The Aren Maeir source is confusing insofar as the first half of the quote is focused on the ethnonym Israel, but after the words "In the ninth century" it suddenly becomes more general and is no longer focused on the specific name Israel. And the Daniel E. Fleming source is totally irrelevant - the only reference to the name Israel is referring to a combination of three sources at the same time. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, both sources support the sentence they are citations for, your objection is incorrect and nonsensical. Drsmoo (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Since your comment contains no explanation, I will ignore it. As to Kelle, I know the paper you are referring to (https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-279023531/what-s-in-a-name-neo-assyrian-designations-for-the): it states explictly that the Kurkh Monolith is the only possible Assyrian reference to "Israel".

In the absence of constructive responses to my objections, we cannot keep irrelevant sources in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol, there's no explanation to be provided, the sources clearly back up the sentence, and what you're saying simply doesn't reflect reality. Though it's funny seeing how after you were revealed to have been misreading them, you just changed tactics and claimed, for some reason, that they were "irrelevant". If you remove the sources they'll be restored. Again, you still seem to be quite unclear, neither of the sources say that there are other references to "Israel", Maier says they contain regular references to the kingdoms of Israel, which is factually correct. Drsmoo (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Our conversations always seem to fall into this pattern. To avoid this spiralling downward any further, let's go for the easy route:

• The sentence being sourced in the four articles states that there are "four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel", being the Tel Dan Stele, the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith.
• Please explain where Maeir and Fleming support or oppose this statement. If you answer with more general bullshit I will have no choice but to remove your sources.

Oncenawhile (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how describing another editor's contribution as "general bullshit" is in any way helpful, or is this one of those "constructive responses" everyone's talking about? Seems like a lot of WP:OWN to me. As for the subject at hand, I'm totally with Drsmoo, Monitor and StAnselm. "Four" is a statement of fact, "Only four" is an attempt at minimization, a POV-statement. It's central to Lemche's arguements against an Iron-age "Kingdom of Israel", but has nothing to do with this article (WP:COATRACK?). I'm glad it was removed. I have yet to see a single arguement for its inclusion except for it's appearance in the original text which is meaningless as we're actually discouraged from quoting verbatim from a source, especially one which is far from concensual. BTW, any recent source for the claim the the Tel Dan stele is a forgery? Haven't seen one for over a decade. Poliocretes (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

On your last question, perhaps you don't understand how scholarship works? Claims do not get republished unless there is new evidence, but new evidence is not needed to keep old claims alive unless they have been disproven beyond doubt. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not quite right. Archaeology is an evidence-based science. Claims of forgery which go unproven while the debate goes on unabated on the (implicit and often explicit) assumption that the article is genuine, are dead horses which just fade into obscurity. Except on Wikipedia, of course, where someone can cherry pick a 100-year old reference to generate a non-existent controversy out of thin air. Poliocretes (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

It is this closed-minded and defensive attitude which scholars like Oscar White Muscarella have been working hard to stamp out. Near Eastern archaeology has been riddled with forgeries for more than 150 years, because the financial and ideological incentives are so high. Eternal vigilance must be incumbent on all of us with an interest in this field. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@Poliocretes: brings up a good point. It's not only Grabbe who describes the Tel Dan Stele as considered genuine. Regarding defensiveness, I don't see any from Poliocretes whatsoever. The Tel Dan Stele is widely viewed as authentic. For example we have the following sources, all of which describe it as genuine.

"The finding of the inscription caused a major sensation and was published on the front page of the New York Times and in Time magazine. It continued to make news when Niels Peter Lemche, one of the most prominent members of the Copenhagen School, suggested that the inscription might be a forgery planted by the excavator, Avraham Biran. However, Biran was one of the oldest, most distinguished, and most trusted archaeologists working in the state of Israel—he was Albright's first PhD student at Johns Hopkins University and the longtime director of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in Jerusalem–and no serious scholar doubted the authenticity of the fragments. Nor did they question the interpretation of the inscription when other minimalists suggested that Beit David might not mean the "House of David" but something else entirely (such as the word "house" connected with the word "beloved," "uncle," or "kettle"). Today, after much further discussion in academic journals, it is accepted by most archaeologists that inscription is not only genuine but that the reference is indeed to the House of David, thus representing the first allusion found anywhere outside the Bible to the biblical David." - Eric H, Cline

"(3.5) Question 1: reliability of the inscriptional data

Access: 1) Excavated under controlled conditions

Provenance: 1) At Tel Dan, the three exact findspots are known.

Authenticity: 1) Regarded as authentic, because excavated. (43)

(43) Some unfounded accusations of forgery have had little or no effect on the scholarly acceptance of this inscription as genuine.” - Lawrence J. Mykytiuk I'm adding these sources and amending the text to no longer strictly attribute it to Grabbe/Dever Drsmoo (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with other users on that matter Drsmoo provided reliable sources discussing the matter of article."Only" is not a correct qualifier and not supported by multiple sources--Shrike (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Shrike, you have exposed yourself as a fraud. Your statement "I agree with other users on that matter Drsmoo provided reliable sources discussing the matter of article" is nonsense, is not possible, and is plainly a very poor attempt at a partisan vote, having read too quickly the last few comments in this thread. We all know these things go on, but I hadn't seen you behave like this so obviously before. You should be ashamed.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Striking my comment. I was too hasty here. I hadn't noticed that Shrike had in fact been careful to answer a question which noone was debating by writing "discussing the matter of article", rather than "relevant to the sentence being cited". Although Shrike's introduction "agree with other users" was factually incorrect as noone other than Drsmoo had made supportive comments on this topic. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Unrelated sources

As discussed above, this edit by Drsmoo added two sources which are unrelated to the specific statement they are being used to source. The sentence being sourced in the four articles states that there are "four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel", being the Tel Dan Stele, the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith. Maeir and Fleming neither support or oppose this statement.

Unless Drsmoo can show how these sources are relevant to support the statement, they will be removed in a few days.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

They were confirmed as appropriate in the talk page discussion here via consensus, while Fleming was confirmed on the reliable sources noticeboard here. If you remove them, you will be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: that is not a valid explanation. Re discussion above, Wikipedia is not about votes, but about content and strength of argument. Re RSN, that noticeboard is about reliability of sources - that is not being questioned here. This is a question of relevance. If you cannot support your edit with a sensible rationale, it cannot remain. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile:It is a reliable source for the text as confirmed in the talk page here and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. What you stated about the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is incorrect. The Reliable Sources Noticeboard is for determining "whether particular sources are reliable in context." In addition, you have personally attacked multiple editors on this talk page, which is unacceptable. If you remove it, you will be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: noone here or anywhere else has been able to show that the sources support the statement they are being used to cite. Vague aspersions of other editor support count for nothing without actual substance. And re your RSN point, "reliable in context" means "are they reliable, given the context" not "are they relevant to the context".

You and I have danced this absurd dance numerous times before - wasting time going back and forth until you are actually willing to engage on the question at hand. Unless you can actually answer the challenge with actual substance, your edit cannot remain.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no dancing. Your argument was ridiculous, and has no support from anyone else. Your claim about the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is also incorrect, it's about whether the source is "reliable for the statement being made." Both the talk page here and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard affirm that the source is appropriate. If you remove it, you will be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No. If this was true, why on earth would you have evaded this question for more than two weeks? The question is very simple - show us how the two sources you have added actually support (or oppose) the actual sentence they are being used for. Your continued sidestepping of this question is becoming absurd. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing was evaded, I took the question to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Drsmoo (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems you misunderstand how consensus works. You are unable to explain how these sources support the sentence, yet you believe that if you keep referring to a noticeboard discussion about a different question you can muddle people into letting the edit stand. This behaviour is damaging to Wikipedia and cannot be tolerated. If you can support your edit with a rational explanation to the challenge posed, please do. If you cannot, then grow up and admit it. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Drsmoo that these sources are not only appropriate, but required per NPOV. We can't quote only Lemche knowing he does not necessarily represent scholarly consensus. Count me as supporting the removal of "only" as well. Experience tells me there is no point in arguing with Oncenawhile when he comes back and threatens to make edits he knows he has no consensus for, so I will not be participating in this discussion further unless another editors shows up to support Once's proposals. I may revert and report edits that go against an explicit consensus, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: your comment does not address the actual problem - that the two sources added DO NOT support (or oppose) the actual sentence they are being used for. So your first two sentences make no sense. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

To summarize the above threads, it has now been two weeks since Drsmoo was challenged on his proposed inclusion of two sources which do neither support nor oppose the sentence they have been placed against. None of his comments above have yet addressed this concern, despite being asked six times. If Drsmoo continues to refuse to provide a rationale here, I will revert his edit in the next few days. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It has now been a further 19 days without justification for the citation being provided. They will now be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources are reliable per reliable sources noticeboard and overwhelming consensus on talk page. "Ottawagalz" has only made 18 edits and is editing from behind a proxy. Obviously suspicious. Meanwhile myself, @No More Mr Nice Guy:, @Shrike: and @Itsmejudith: have all supported the sources. While @Monochrome Monitor: and @Poliocretes: have supported the changes and removal of "only". Oncenawhile, you have thus far shown complete disdain for the foundation of wikipedia, which is good faith editing, respecting consensus, not making personal attacks and respecting reliable sources. If you refuse to accept consensus, and refuse to accept noticeboards, then you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is his regular MO. He will come back every few weeks threatening to make an edit he knows he has no consensus for. If by chance nobody pays attention and objects, he goes ahead and makes the edit, hoping again nobody will notice. Ping me if he does it here and I will provide you with several past examples for an AE report.

Also, Ottawagalz is an obvious sock. I suppose all the "sockhunters" are too busy to deal with him, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mister Nice Guy: If you have examples, feel free to file the report yourself. To me it's clear at this point he has no interest in upholding wikipolicy. Drsmoo (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mister Nice Guy: He may well be a sock, but you need to make a credible case identifying the likely sockmaster. Doug Weller talk 06:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to add that once you have that you should take it to spi. Doug Weller talk 06:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

it is very obviously yet another sock of Dalai Lama Ding Dong. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dalai_lama_ding_dong/Archive#16_June_2016 and the contribution history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.55.19 (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep. I'll deal today sometime. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Break

@Drsmoo: @No More Mr Nice Guy: if you think these sources should be in this article, the WP:ONUS is on you to explain how they support the sentence they are being used to cite. Discussions about reliability, or ad hominem attacks, bear no relevance to the question. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ONUS - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". This ONUS has been met. Your personal stamp of approval is not required. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

How can the onus have been met if noone is able to explain how these cites support the sentence? Oncenawhile (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Per @No More Mr Nice Guy:, the onus is not on those who have consensus and approval from the reliable sources noticeboard. The sources are clearly reliable and your viewpoint that you personally are the arbiter of what goes in articles is ridiculous. I'll also add that your rationale for why the sources "aren't relevant" is nonsensical and laughable. The sources have consensus on the talk page as well as a non-involved editor on the reliable-sources noticeboard. I'll also add that your statement about what constitutes a reliable source and what the role of the reliable-sources noticeboard is is factually incorrect. Reliable sources are identified as sources that are reliable for the specific text they are serving as references for. You appear to have no interest in wikipolicy. Drsmoo (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: please stop ignoring the point. Noone has claimed the sources are not reliable. I could add a perfectly reliable citation stating that limestone is a sedimentary rock, which would be reliable but not relevant. The is no consensus here, and there cannot logically be consensus until someone is able to explain how the sources support the sentence. The onus is on you to answer this challenge. Oncenawhile (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Amazing, over five years of editing and you still "don't know" what a reliable source is. "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." "Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard. This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." And so on. Not interested in going in circles with you since you "don't understand" wikipolicy. Drsmoo (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: there was only one comment at the RSN (you didn't even notify me of it, which makes it invalid anyway). That comment said "Yes this is a good source for the article".

The dispute here is whether the sources are directly supportive of the sentence they are being used to cite - which they clearly are not, since you have continually evaded my request to show this direct support.

I have no problem with these sources being in the article, if you can draft a sentence which they support which is relevant here.

In the absence of this, it is clear that you have no support for the current position which you are trying to edit war into the article without proper thought and consideration.

I will wait to give you time to figure this out. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy: Per your message above, Oncenawhile has made it clear that he has no interest in following wikipolicy and is determined to continue edit-warring/disruptive editing, Given that you have experienced him engaging in this behavior before, I'l support you in an AE report Drsmoo (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for advice

Hi @TransporterMan: ever since I first saw your essay WP:DISCFAIL, I have used your suggested modus operandi whenever a situation arises where the opposing editor refuses to engage but consistently reverts. The situation in the short thread above is similar but perhaps a little more complex, for reasons I won't explain in order not to lead the witness.

I'd be very grateful for any advice on the right next step here, or if you have the time it would be great if you could mediate this for us? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no "opposing editor", there is an overwhelming consensus on both the talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard that the source is appropriate. There is no failure of discussion, you have simply refused to accept the result of that discussion, ie., calling the reliable sources noticeboard "invalid". You are the one who has been disrupting, refusing to accept consensus, and personally attacking other editors. This includes cursing me out, calling another editor "a fraud", and another editor "close-minded". Seven editors have opposed your edits, and no one has sided with you. You are the editor "refusing to engage." Drsmoo (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I've not looked behind what's been said above, so I don't have an opinion about who's right and who's wrong, so this response is entirely a comment on procedure, not whether or not you should use the procedure. There's probably been enough discussion to satisfy the discussion requirements at DRN or MEDCOM. Of course, participation at either venue is voluntary so the others may decline to participate. In that situation, about all that's left is RFC. Finally, I'm afraid that I do not mediate disputes on article talk pages: There's not enough control there since the controls given to mediators at the mediation policy do not apply to mediations on article talk pages. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Break

@Drsmoo: On WT:CITE you wrote "The source is in fact directly and clearly appropriate for the text it's being used to cite". I consider this progress, as you have avoided being this explicit so far. If would please explain where these two sources make the claim they are being used to cite, we might be able to move on? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Um, no. As I said, I'm not going in circles with you. The sources are clearly relevant, as is self-evident, confirmed by consensus, and confirmed by the reliable sources noticeboard. This is my final response. If you believe the sources are not relevant then find a consensus that supports your view. If you believe that I or any of the other six editors who disagree with you are violating a wikipolicy, than go to a noticeboard and report us. If you ignore consensus again, you will be reverted. Drsmoo (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I have now reviewed this entire thread, and on related pages, since 26 December and confirm the following:

• Drmsoo and I have agreed that a citation must be directly supportive of the specific text it is being used to cite
• I have stated that I have no objection to the citations per se, but that they do not support the specific sentence they have been placed against and therefore I object to their inclusion in their current form
• No editor, other than Drsmoo, has at any point claimed that the two cites in question are directly supportive of the claim in the sentence they are being used to cite. Shrike and Itsmejudith both referred only to the wider article in their comments, and NMMNG did not provide any specifics regarding what he was supporting.
• Despite being asked the same question of where these two sources make the claim they are being used to cite a total of twelve times over the past six weeks, Drsmoo not once attempted to answer it. That is blatantly obstructive.

Therefore since the inclusion of these two citations, as supporting the specific sentence they are being used to cite, has failed to gain consensus, they cannot remain in the article and the WP:ONUS is on the editor supporting inclusion (Drsmoo) to gain that consensus.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: since you have not responded to this clear assessment of lack of consensus, I will take your silence as agreement. No editor other than you has claimed that the cites support the sentence, and you are unable to provide support for your claim. The cites will be removed until and if you are able to provide that support. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Attempt to resolve

The DRN close stated "Closed. The editors are engaging in dialogue here. They should take their dialogue back to the article talk page and resume it there. Discuss content, not contributors. If discussion there is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. In the meantime, go back to the talk page."

@Drsmoo: as I mentioned in my last post before the close, ad hominem attacks and claims of consensus on straw man issues have not and will not result in progress. If you can point me to where the citations support the sentence, the discussion will be over.

Are you willing to do this?

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Word divider

@No More Mr Nice Guy: my edit was a proposal for summarising the Tel_Dan_Stele#.22House_of_David.22 section of the article in the lede. This section constitutes more than a third of the body of the article (excluding the transcription), so clearly is due space in the lede. Please make a counter proposal or otherwise state constructive feedback so a counterproposal can be made by me or others. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with including this information in general, but starting the sentence with "although" is editorializing, and putting the minority opinion before the majority, without even noting that it's a minority opinion is UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am fine with both those changes. Will you make the change? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm also fine with leaving this out since it's not really important for the lead, so how about you propose some text here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

OK.

So my original proposal was:

• Hazael (or more accurately, the unnamed king) boasts of his victories over Omri, the king of Israel and his ally the king of the "House of David" (bytdwd). Although other translations have been proposed due to the lack of a word divider between byt and dwd, it is considered the first widely accepted reference to the name David as the founder of a Judahite polity outside of the Hebrew Bible,[1] though the earlier Mesha stele contains several possible references with varying acceptance.

Incorporating your comments, I propose:

• According to the majority opinion, Hazael (or more accurately, the unnamed king) boasts of his victories over Omri, the king of Israel and his ally the king of the "House of David" (bytdwd). It is considered the first widely accepted reference to the name David as the founder of a Judahite polity outside of the Hebrew Bible,[1] though the earlier Mesha stele contains several possible references with varying acceptance. A minority of scholars have disputed the reference to David, due to the lack of a word divider between byt and dwd, and other translations have been proposed.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The "According to the majority opinion" in the beginning is unnecessary, otherwise that's fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

OK. I will put it in. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That earlier reference

There's been a discussion of this at Talk:Israel#Earlier reference to Israel than the Merneptah Stele. If it's been largely ignored in academia, should it be in the article? I'm not sure it meets WP:UNDUE. Sorry to come in late, I hadn't picked up on this discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I've read, it doesn't seem to be commonly accepted at the moment. I wouldn't put it in the Israel article until it's more commonly accepted (or until evidence of it being commonly accepted is presented). As for this article (and the other articles that share the sentences being referenced) it's inaccurate/misleading to say there are four references to the "the name of Israel" as there are several other references to Israel as a personal name. So the text should say something to the effect of Israel as a community/placename Drsmoo (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Finkelstein statement

It is considered the first widely accepted reference to the name David as the founder of a Judahite polity outside of the Hebrew Bible

Is Finkelstein arguing that this stele was the first extrabiblical text to be created with such a reference to David? Or is this a poorly written statement that it was the first such text to be discovered, or that it's the oldest such text currently known, or what? I've tagged it with {{Huh}} because it's really not clear. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It means the oldest such text currently known. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)