|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Text from this version of Yahweh was copied or moved into Documentary hypothesis with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists.|
|Threads older than 1 months may be archived by.|
|It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality.
Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)
The lead section (also known as the introduction, lead, or lede) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points— including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences.
While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, must be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.
I thought that this article was biased. It talks about Yahweh entirely from the pagan god perspective, and is completely delirious from the common usage of Yahweh, which means Lord (God) or Jehovah. The article should begin from that perspective, and then may talk about Yahweh is also a name for pagan Canaanite god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
- delirious? don't understand. please note that WP is a scholarly project, not a religious one. Jytdog (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups - As well, we believe, it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests. Our relationship and responsibility is to maintain our core principles in the name of and to serve individual users of our projects. That relationship should be maintained at all costs.
- This article is inevitably controversial, since it involves matters of deeply held belief. Just to clarify for the OP, who seems to want a discussion of Yahweh from a theological perspective, there probably will be something on that, when I can find it, but it will be about the theology of Yahweh in Iron Age Judah and Israel, not as seen today - Wikipedia already has plenty of articles on modern theology. (By the way, I think the article makes clear that was no Canaanite god called Yahweh).PiCo (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Every couple of years I come across this article again, and every time it surprises me. While I do understand that the author(s) intend for it to be an article on the Iron Age god and not on the god of Judaism/Christianity/etc., I question that decision, or at least question the seeming avoidance of that topic altogether in this article. I think that if we agree to stick with the current approach, there should at least be a section on this god's influence on/connection to the Jewish god - even if just from the perspective of "this god's name/characteristics/etc. are thought to be an influence on the modern-day Abrahamic god, they use his name, etc, etc." Second, I think we should have a discussion about the appropriate use of this page and try to reach a consensus - if this has already been done, can someone link to it/can we keep it on the present page? It seems to be that there is an ongoing debate about the appropriate use of this page and that primarily one person is arguing for the focus on the Iron Age god exclusively. I think most of us are open to that idea but think this article may benefit from being a bit broader. I do like the addition of the link to the disambiguation page/other related pages at the top; that's new since the last time I was here and is very helpful. -KaJunl (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I find the article to come off with a biased tone, regardless of what exactly we make the topic. It reads like a persuasive argument rather than like a neutral article. It presents evidence, which is good, but does so in a way that sounds like it's trying to convince or persuade an audience, rather just stating facts. Hard to explain - does anyone agree? Almost more like a thesis than an encyclopedia article. This is a good example: "The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the temple in Jerusalem was the most important or even sole temple of Yahweh, but this was not the case." Really, I think this is in need of a major re-write. -KaJunl (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
- There are articles God, God in Judaism, God in Christianity, etc., so there has to be an article about the ancient version of Yahweh. The very name Yahweh is scholarly parlance, so we use it in its most common academic usage. What matters in writing such articles are WP:RNPOV, WP:VER, WP:SOURCES. I explained it at WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Monochrome, you deleted:
- (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel).
> Sourced from Chalmers, and entirely uncontroversial.
- The phrase "meant to be" from this: The Hebrew Bible gives the impression that the temple in Jerusalem was always meant to be the central or even sole temple of Yahweh, but this was not the case,
> Sourced from Davies, changes the meaning by omitting the intentionality of the Deuteronomist authors.
- (A number of scholars have also drawn the conclusion that infant sacrifice, whether to the underworld deity Molech or to Yahweh himself, was a part of Israelite/Judahite religion until the reforms of King Josiah in the late 7th century BCE).
> Sourced from Gnuse, correctly qualified as the conclusion of "a number of scholars", deleted on no better grounds than your personal, unprofessional, opinion (as the line edit summary says ,"in my opinion...")
- Replaced a concise statement of the late beginnings of exclusive monotheism ("Pre-exilic Israel, like its neighbours, was polytheistic; the worship of Yahweh alone began at the earliest with Elijah in the 9th century BCE, but more likely with the prophet Hosea in the 8th" with something misleading in context.
> You appear not understand what your source is saying: it's saying that the bible paints a picture of Israel as monotheistic from the beginning, but this is misleading. It's not saying that ancient Israel was monotheistic at any point before the Exile.
- You inserted this: El (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel), not Yahweh, was likely the original "God of Israel" - this is a misreading of the sources.
>It was not El who was el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, it was Yahweh - it's a proposed origin of Yahweh's name, though the minority position.
- You deleted the word "invented" from the line "the invented national history of Israel"
> On what grounds? This was in the source. Presumably it offended your sensibilities, but that's not a valid reason.
- No, I believe much of the national history was invented. I don't think we can make that kind of blanket statement though, ie the article Exodus says "most scholars think it was a myth" not "it was a myth". --Monochrome_Monitor 08:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- I used "national mythos" rather than "invented history", since invented hisotry has the connotation of deliberate fabrication. From there we can compromise. My only remaining complaint is the infant sacrifice bit, I would really like to see the source for its specific wording. I'm going to try an find it. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- MM, "invented history" is the phrase used in the source, therefore we use it. Our source is certainly aware of the implication of deliberate fabrication and intends it. "National mythos" is your own gloss, and alters the meaning of the source.
- On infant sacrfice, again, you can check the source to see that it's being used accurately, but you can't delete it just because you don't like it. We must respect sources.
- By the way, the article on the exodus doesn't say that most scholars call it a myth, it says it is a myth - but myth in the scholarly sense, not the popular one - what you're calling "mythos", which is the Greek.PiCo (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Why are we even calling it Yaweh? The name originates from an attempted pronunciation of a word that is not meant to be literal. His actual name is Adonai. Can someone explain to me why we've made this mistake? If we wanted, we should just do a redirect from Yaweh to Adonai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C302:4982:FCB0:791E:A603:3AB7 (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)