This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Assyria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Assyrian-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.AssyriaWikipedia:WikiProject AssyriaTemplate:WikiProject AssyriaAssyrian
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Miller, F. P., Vandome, A. F., & McBrewster, J. (2010), Mythical origins of language: Origin of language, mythology, oral tradition, deluge myth, creator deity, creation myth, confusion of tonges, Tower of Babel, VDM Publishing House{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The consensus achieved in this discussion favors describing the topic of this article as a myth. If you've come here to decry its use or suggest it be changed, you should read the discussion first.
Declined... - Dude, the word "Myth" appears several times in the article. You need to be a lot more specific about the change you want making. Otherwise, the change you want to be made will never be made by anyone. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should the full text be kept, or replaced with a synopsis, or should both be included? I can't find any guidelines for this situation, nor any featured articles about a myth so short that the full text could be included. I am currently leaning towards including both, because I think they would both aid understanding in the article, but I think the full text would be better in a sidebar block quote. Thoughts?
The other question is whether to include the original Hebrew text, as in Psalm 51. This has the disadvantage of breaking up the text though, making it less readable, so I am currently leaning against including this. Thoughts? It is a wonderful world (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My very strong preference is that if a copyrighted passage is to be considered "self-contained" (e.g. it is the subject of the article), then including it in its entirely in an article is completely unacceptable, no matter how short the passage is. See also Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir and Lion-Eating Poet in the Stone Den. We should remove the complete translation, which is ofc NRSV and under copyright, and not feel compelled to replace it—it's not what Wikipedia is for, as an encyclopedia, not a repository for primary sources! Remsense ‥ 论12:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with that, I actually assumed the translation would be public domain, but clearly not. Assuming there is a relatively modern translation that is copyright free, would you be oppose to adding that as a sidebar block quote? I think since the story is so short, and the literature so plentiful that it would add more than enough context to be added. It is a wonderful world (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we would want a well-respected translation that's accurate as well as directly relevant to the article's commentary and analysis. From what I understand, a supermajority of scholars who work with the English-language Bible in whichever discipline prefer the NRSV or ESV (themselves being almost identical to one another as two "forks" of RSV that differ in the broadest strokes according to the fickle divide between modernity's liberal and conservative worldviews, though I am intentionally oversimplifying and gratuitously obscuring the genuine diversity of intellectually honest positions there)
That is to say, I almost wrote out a joke here about how the Bible is unfortunately one of the most difficult books for the intrepid reader to get their hands on, no one makes it available ad-free in thousands of locations or leaves it in your hotel room—but then I remembered that plenty of people live in places that aren't so amenable. That's the one nuance I can think of, but really I think not bothering is the ideal way to go here unless there's a PD translation that's respected and hews close to RSV I'm not able to recall at the moment. Remsense ‥ 论15:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change all instances of “Yahweh” to either “the Lord” or “God.”
The name “Yahweh” is a novel, modern invention that has no history is the Christian tradition before a couple hundred years ago.
It is a combination of the Tetragrammaton and the names of other so-called gods from the region around the Old Testament was written. This combination is not present anywhere in the original texts of Scripture.
A change was reverted, removing "some" however, the correct statement should be "Biblica scholars from the Jewish Publication Society (Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi; Fishbane, Michael A). Otherwise, it is misleading/vague and suggests all biblical scholars think exactly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippypink (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be appropriate to lie to Wikipedia's readers by implying that it is only scholars from the Jewish Publication Society who hold the mainstream, non-fringe view. Besides, where did you get that claim from? It's not supported by the source. --bonadeacontributionstalk16:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
Declined... - Dude, the word "Myth" appears several times in the article. You need to be a lot more specific about the change you want making. Otherwise, the change you want to be made will never be made by anyone. MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 