User talk:Jahuah

December 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Uzziah, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 22:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m trying to be good faith here, I don’t understand why he’s listed as people who’s existence is disputed

Then please peruse the sources the article cites before editing the article to say something different. Thanks. Remsense ‥ 论 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it because the Wikipedia page says that both ends of the ‘minimalist’ end and the ‘maximalist’ end agree that he existed. I do not see a good reason to deceive people that Solomon’s existence is in doubt because Wikipedia has an ideological bent towards minimalist revisionism. Jahuah (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire Solomon § Historicity section. It likely explains better than I can, so let me know if it answers your questions? Unfortunately, I can't really help you if you've already concluded our intent or tendency is to blatantly deceive.Remsense ‥ 论 22:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and it agrees that he existed and that archaeological data corresponds to his time. I’m simply left puzzled as to why Wikipedia lists him as “people whose existence is disputed” and then says “Current consensus allows for a historical Solomon’ and then “minimalist and maximalists agree that he existed”. That’s all. Jahuah (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. It makes very clear that there are multifold arguments against a figure fitting his description and corresponding to the attestation in the historical record. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure what to say if you come away from reading that thinking "no one disputes this person's historical existence". That's the category, to reiterate—disputed, not rejected. Remsense ‥ 论 22:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmph. Whatever. I think there’s a bias here in the editor staff, so I’ll just leave it as is. Jahuah (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone has bias, but if I can ask you to take me at my word for a moment, we do try to be aware of it and we do listen to people who challenge us. It's not a perfectly enlightened process, but we do okay I think. Thanks for listening in good faith, anyway. I appreciate it, even if I couldn't answer all your questions to the degree you wanted. Remsense ‥ 论 22:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I just hope that biblical minimalism doesn’t permeate as a bias in the Wikipedia mod staff. I’m sorry if my edits came off as weird, this is my first time editing Wikipedia and I just don’t like how outdated some of the pages seem to be. Jahuah (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any good reason why the Uzziah seals are not authentic? Dr. Mykytiuk lists them as authentic contemporary sources on Uzziah in the https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/. Jahuah (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's right there in the sentence: they're unprovenanced. There's no reason to assume they are or aren't—we don't know, as far as I understand. Remsense ‥ 论 22:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen any academics journal dispute them, though. Jahuah (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert here, I will admit. Maybe ask on Talk:Uzziah? Remsense ‥ 论 22:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I gave a link earlier by a reputable expert who agrees the seals are authentic, even if unprovenanced in origin. Jahuah (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That might be worth asking about then! That's how better articles are written. Remsense ‥ 论 22:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.. I’ll add it then. Jahuah (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to add edits to List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources? Jahuah (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to be bold, but of course that involves communicating and working to establish consensus in case people have questions or disputes about your changes, but I'm sure you get that. Remsense ‥ 论 23:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are all my edits acceptable by the Wikipedia mod staff or should they be reversed?? Jahuah (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have moderators in that sense: editors all have equal standing to discuss and establish consensus according to our policies—as long as you act in good faith with others, you're fine! Remsense ‥ 论 02:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have the mod staff seen my edits? If so, do they approve of them? Jahuah (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean it! We don't operate that way—we have editors that care about certain pages, and they might ask you about edits you make and you about theirs, but we do not have moderators. Remsense ‥ 论 02:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About "unprovenanced": bona fide archaeologists knee-jerk reject discussing unprovenanced objects. That's a taboo of their profession. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's a problem if the objects are authentic. Jahuah (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jahuah! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Tel Dan stele that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How? The stele was written in 841. Hazael is the author of it, and he talks about killing Jehoram and Ahaziah in recent times. I don't see how he could of written it much later than the 9th century BC. Jahuah (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Tel Dan stele, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify to me how the stele could of been written as early as 870 BC or as late as 750 BC? It literally says it’s from the 9th century BC. Jahuah (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify to me how the stele could of been written as early as 870 BC or as late as 750 BC? It literally says it’s from the 9th century BC. Jahuah (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures are available in the body of the article (and presumably WP:CITED, but don't take my word for it). But I could not find 841 BCE anywhere in the article. See WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaziah and Jehoram did not exist in 750 BC or 870 BC. Neither did Hazael. I don't need articles to tell me this basic fact. Jahuah (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Merneptah Stele. Lone-078 (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? For what? Repeating academic consensus? You guys want minimalism to be true so hard. Jahuah (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes the reading as Israel. Literally no archaeologist or Egyptologist does. There’s no way to read it as anything other than Israel. Jahuah (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t just sow doubt in the article by claiming the stele’s translation is somehow in dispute, and then have the article go on to state the fact that it does say Israel. Why not just be upfront from the beginning with it saying Israel? Jahuah (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jehoash of Israel, you may be blocked from editing. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell does it not say Jehoash? Him? Tell me that. Jahuah (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell does it not say Jehoash? Nobody disputes it. Your own sources in the article don't even dispute it. I don't need to provide sources because everyone is certain that he's on that stele. Jahuah (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey jackass, why don't you tell me why the stele doesn’t say Jehoash huh? Jahuah (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:RULES for saying "most", "many", "virtually all". The essence: we do not peddle our own opinions, but it has to be WP:V in WP:RS, see WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stele says Jehoash the Samarian. Jeboash is clearlh talked about as a king paying tribute.

You don't know what you're talking about. You guyx just hate ghat I don't cite the specific line. Do what? There's cited articles on it already that talk about the translation. You guys are being assholes for no reason to me. Jahuah (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way for the Jotham seal, there's already a citation there that days the majority opinion is that it's authentic. Why should Wikipedia lie to people coming over to the article? You can't list Jotham as someone identified in a contemporary extrabiblical source and then push naive skepticism.

It's the same thing with thr Jehu page. You giys legit quoted outdated scholarship from 50 years ago disputing the Black Obelisk mentioning Jehu, when 0 Archaeologists today dispute the mention. You're just elitist scumlords who act like asshats to newciming editors who just want to update pages to give the actual scholarly opinions. Jahuah (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS for all your claims if you want your edits to stick. Wikipedia isn't based upon the opinions of its editors, it is based upon WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t 'my opinion' that it mentuons Jehoash. It is a fact that it does, and all scholars agree on that.

Doesn't change anything that I said about you guys. Jahuah (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just your own opinion, unless you WP:CITE a mainstream WP:RS explicitly stating that all scholars agree thereupon. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Who in the hell translate the stele as anything other than Jehoash the Samarian? You're just being bitchy about me not citing anything, even though there's a citation from Livius.org that translates it as Jehoash.

I have never seen anyone say it doesn't say Jehoash. Everything I've read about the inscription tells me it says Jehoash. Therefore, I conclude that that all scholars agree upon the translation. Don't be a bitchy prick to me about technicalities. Jahuah (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, you may be blocked from editing. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TEll me how the HELL ARCHAEOLOGY IS WRONG FOR SAYING ITS JEHU. YOU CANT PUT DOUBT IT THE STELE SAYING JEHU AND THEN LATE IN THE ARTICLE STATE IT AS A FACT. Jahuah (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Jehu. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about you answer my questions instead of trying to push your agenda? Jahuah (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]