View source for Talk:Solomon's Temple

{{Talk header|search=no|noarchives=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|importance=high}}
}}
{{contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}
{{controversial}}
{{Annual readership|days=90}}
{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Solomon's Temple|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=8|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Solomon's Temple/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 3
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 19:19 August 12, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added [[Template:Oca]] -->

==Factual accuracy in the lead ==

The first para says "It was built during Solomon's reign over the United Kingdom of Israel and was fully constructed by c. 957 BCE.[citation needed]" - but although citations can be found, the 4th paragraph clearly says "Although most scholars today agree that a temple existed on the Temple Mount by the time of Nebuchadnezzar II's siege of Jerusalem, its construction date and the identity of its builder are debated.[8]...Since the 1980s, skeptical approaches to the Biblical text and the archaeological record led some scholars to doubt whether any temple at all was constructed in Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE.[9] Others suggested that Solomon's original temple was modest, and was later rebuilt in a larger scale during the late-monarchical period.[10] No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found,[11][12] nonetheless, no real archaeological excavations have ever been conducted on the Temple Mount due to the extreme political sensitivity of the site." The alleged date of construction is also in the infobox. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

:I hope I'm not taking liberties, but it seems the entire slant of this post is about factual accuracy, which is a very specific concern. I've tweaked the title and maintenance tag accordingly. As with many biblically linked pages, there seems to have been a cumulative blurring of biblical story and historical fact in the editing of this page. It will need careful teasing apart. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 14:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:The lead was a bit of an abomination - too long objectively, five paragraphs and bouncing all over the place in terms of contents. I've attempted a bit of a trim. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::I very  much agree, thanks.@[[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::Minor detail, but IMO a [[WP:LEAD]] like this should almost never include ''names'' of specific scholars (Fabio Porzia and Corinne Bonnet), but their ''ideas'' is fine if "lead-worthy". [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 16:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Seems like we also have a bit of the old 'in-the-lead-but-not-in-the-body-problem' there too - so the question of leadworthiness is a pertinent one. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 16:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Two birds with one stone - I just lobbed both rather granular statements on a single piece of archaeological evidence back to where they belong. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 16:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::Thank you! [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

== The red image, again ==

[[File:Jerusalem temple3.jpg|thumb|Image under discussion]]
[[File:Image of the beast.jpg|thumb|By the same artist]]
I've removed it 3 times from the article since yesterday, so I'm getting close to [[WP:EW]]. It's an "own work", uploaded to Commons in 2010. In short, it's fan art. It looks impressive, a bit like the [[Holyland Model of Jerusalem]], and has colors, but it's only the artistic vision/[[WP:OR]] of the anonymous uploader. So my view is that it shouldn't be used here.

Opinions, editors? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 08:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

: The article has way too many imaginary images and this is far down the list of significance. So I don't think we should have it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

==Present-day location associations in the infobox==
The lines in the infobox implying that the location of Solomon's temple is A) known, B) where the Dome of the Rock stands, and C) that its "public access" is the same as the [[Temple Mount]] are counter-factual. Solomon's temple remains a thing of myth whose precise location is fundamentally unknown. Setting aside the completely unevidenced claims that the Dome of the Rock is where it stood (this is not even known for the Second Temple), there is even debate over whether Mount Moriah was actually the same thing as the Temple Mount. The "public access" line is meanwhile obviously intended for extant religious buildings (like the actual [[Temple Mount]] space), and not something that should just be copied across to articles on things presumed to have existed there. The map and coordinates are likewise tenuous. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 12:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:Moons of Io|Moons of Io]]: Given [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon%27s_Temple&diff=1131501092&oldid=1131500812&diffmode=source this edit], in which you restored this seemingly counter-factual information, this thread is primarily for you. What am I missing here? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::The location of the temple is widely sourced: Here is one from a couple of days ago [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64150409] [[User:Moons of Io|Moons of Io]] ([[User talk:Moons of Io|talk]]) 13:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::"It is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, site of two Biblical temples" reads like "in Jewish faith", doesn't it? Also, while BBC and other news-orgs are often good sources, a WP-article like this should focus on [[WP:RS]] books and scholarly articles. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 13:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::Almost any of the 200 sources used for the [[Western Wall]] would cover that stonework as being built by Herod, rebuilding on the site of Solomon's original temple. [[User:Moons of Io|Moons of Io]] ([[User talk:Moons of Io|talk]]) 15:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::Herod was involved in building the wall, yes, that is a historical fact, but that bears absolutely no relation to the unevidenced assertions above. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
::::::Virtually all scholars accept that a Yawhist temple existed on the Temple Mount by the time of the Babylonian destruction; the debate is mostly surrounding its construction date and the identity of the builder. Moreover, the majority of scholars agree that the Second Temple was built at exactly the same location as the first one, so Herod's walls do support the mainstream academic view that the First Temple was located on the Temple Mount. Let's steer away from [[Temple Denial|conspiracy theories]] please. The Temple's precise location on the Temple Mount and identification with the (platform of the) Dome of the Rock are less certain, but it is the prevalent view in literature. One recent debate, for example, was whether the Holy of Holies was located above what is today known as the Foundation Stone, or the temple's altar, but both views concur that both Temples were situated in this precise region of the Mount. [[User:Tombah|Tombah]] ([[User talk:Tombah|talk]]) 07:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::: Such debate has been going on for centuries. It is characterised by reliance on tradition and argumentation rather than actual evidence. Both scholars and crackpots engage in it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 10:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::My main problem here is certain features of the religious building infobox template that are clearly aimed at contemporary structures: I'm not sure if the template is even meant to be used for historic structures, let alone a non-extant 3,000-year-old one that is indeed the stuff of hypothesis and debate, hence why details such as access are inappropriate, along with, one might argue, a map pin maintaining the pretence that an exact location is known. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, there was a temple. I don't think it was Solomon's. I don't think it was big. I don't think it was monotheistic.
::::::::If the real Temple "of Solomon" ever gets excavated, I guess Orthodox Jews and Conservative Evangelicals would not be delighted and would have vehement reactions. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  03:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

===Map and geographical coordinates in infobox===
Given that the location of the original temple is unknown, as even the likes of Finkelstein admit, is there an particular reason why there should be a mildly POV-ish map and coordinates giving it a precise location? (Especially when this feature is clearly actually designed to locate modern buildings (hence the modern map), not ancient ones.) As it stands, it appears to be simple providing unsubstantiated information than comes more from the realm of religious and political fantasy than it does the realm of evidence, and is largely serving simply to bloat the infobox. If readers want to know where the temple mount is, as the presumed location of Solomon's temple, they can click on its link. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

== Unnecessary tag ==

:<nowiki>{{Update inline|date=April 2024|reason=The source is from like a 100 years ago.}}</nowiki>

Hi {{u|CycoMa1}}. I took the freedom to remove the tag. I find it irrelevant, once it's been made clear that it's all exclusively based on the Bible. They could understand biblical prose perfectly well 120 years ago, functional illiteracy among apparently educated people is rather our problem today than it was back then. What can be challenged is the Bible text, but that A. has nothing to do with the JE being pre-WWI, and B. for the period in question the biblical compilation was proven to be rather factual, the authors likely had royal and Temple archives to work from. [[User:Arminden|Arminden]] ([[User talk:Arminden|talk]]) 09:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

== "Model of the First Temple" ==

"Model of the First Temple, included in a Bible manual for teachers (1922)"

Accordung to the book where the picture is taken from (and by the look of it) I think it's a model of the Herodian Temple and not of Solomon's. [[Special:Contributions/2003:E4:AF1D:6778:BD89:A2F5:809B:F794|2003:E4:AF1D:6778:BD89:A2F5:809B:F794]] ([[User talk:2003:E4:AF1D:6778:BD89:A2F5:809B:F794|talk]]) 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:Corrected, thanks. [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]] ([[User talk:GordonGlottal|talk]]) 03:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

== Lede & Infobox ==

Hi {{ping|Sinclairian}} you reverted my edit based on [[WP:DUE]]. Could you please clarify what you meant? The whole point of the edit was to make it more NPOV. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 11:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:NPOV does not override [[WP:REL]]. There is no reason for adding the Arabic name for a structure existing more than a thousand years before the inception of Arabic and having no relevance to the Arabic language or Arabic culture. [[User:Sinclairian|Sinclairian]] ([[User talk:Sinclairian|talk]]) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|Sinclairian}} The Solomon's Temple isn't merely restricted to Judeo-Christian beliefs. It's also relevant to Muslims, hence why there's a section on the article dedicated to the Islamic POV. The Arabic name in the lede would and should reflect this. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 14:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Solomon’s Temple is liminally relevant to the tradition of Islam, whereas it is a ''centerpiece'' of Jewish and Christian traditions and history. It’s not even directly mentioned in the Quran. There is no equivalency here. [[User:Sinclairian|Sinclairian]] ([[User talk:Sinclairian|talk]]) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{re|Sinclairian}} That would assume that Islamic beliefs are solely based on the Qur'an which they aren't, and just because there's more emphasis on it in Judeo-Christian beliefs, doesn't mean it has no emphasis in Islam. It does. It has been indirectly mentioned in Quran (while directly mentioned by Caliphs and scholars in Islam). [[Solomon]] is also considered a Prophet in Islam. Along with Hekel Sulayman, it's also known as {{langx|ar|البيت المقدس}} – al-bayt al-muqaddis / ''the Sacred House''. Being the basis of the [[al-Aqsa Mosque]], it definitely has emphasis in Islam, which is why it's fair to include the Arabic names, along with the Hebrew names. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 18:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Look, the Temple was a Jewish holy site which remains of primary significance to Judaism. There is a reason we don’t include Hebrew, Latin, or Greek terms in the ledes for pages like Al-Aqsa or Al-Quds – if the primary significance lends to one group, that group tends to use what would be considered COMMONNAME. [[User:Sinclairian|Sinclairian]] ([[User talk:Sinclairian|talk]]) 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Respectfully, the reason why [[al-Aqsa]] doesn't have any Hebrew terminology, is because it has no relevance to Judaism – it is a mosque, just as the [[Second Temple]] has no Arabic terminology, because it has no relevance to Islam (to my knowledge anyway), but the [[Solomon's Temple]] has basis in both Judaism and Islam. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:Generally we restrict foreign names to original/native ones. Even the Hebrew is questionable because there's no specific term for Solomon's Temple until the Herodian period, as far as I know, but the idea is appropriate. Sometimes we also include local or politically important names, even if they aren't historical (so Arabic at [[Western Wall]], [[Temple Mount]]) but this site no longer exists. [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]] ([[User talk:GordonGlottal|talk]]) 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::{{re|GordonGlottal}} It's why I removed any foreign names from the infobox and confined it to the lede of the article. I didn't think it was appropriate to include names in other languages in the infobox, but since there are multiple variants/names in different languages, it should have been included in the lede. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
:::But do you realize that, by extension, the Arabic terminology is a foreign name as well? [[User:Sinclairian|Sinclairian]] ([[User talk:Sinclairian|talk]]) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand that – I don't have any issue with the Hebrew names and would like to keep them in the lede. I just think that for this article the infobox shouldn't have names in other languages apart from English. My point was that the lede should contain both the Hebrew and Arabic names. I do also understand [[User:GordonGlottal|GordonGlottal]]'s point about removing foreign names in the lede, but I'm inclined to disagree with it, respectfully. [[User:نعم البدل|نعم البدل]] ([[User talk:نعم البدل|talk]]) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There is no reason whatsoever to include the Arabic name, just as there is no reason to include the Latin or Greek name (despite both having controlled Jerusalem, and despite it being important in Christianity). If this temple existed (for which there is no direct proof), it was a temple of a small Hebrew kingdom/chiefdom. That makes the Hebrew name relevant, and other languages irrelevant. This is standard WP naming policy. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

== Serial erasures ==

Iskandar323 has removed long-standing material from the article under arguments which I consider spurious.  He has then proceeded to serially revert<br>(1) {{u|Sinclairian}}, <br>(2) {{u|Boksi}} and <br>(3) myself.  <br>Observe this user was recently topic banned from certain topics. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 18:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, because of [[WP:OR]]. No one restoring this content is even trying to support it with secondary sources. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 19:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
::Fully agree with @[[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]]. Claiming any reference to ancient sources on an article the subject of which is only recorded by ancient writings is [[WP:OR]] is extremely dubious. The repeated removal attempts escalate this behavior to barely-disguised vandalism. [[User:Weliviewf|Weliviewf]] ([[User talk:Weliviewf|talk]]) 05:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It's not "extremely dubious", it's one of the better understood ideas whatsoever by researchers: ancient sources are primary, the context and intended meaning of which not being transparent to untrained readers from later eras, and thus must generally be interpreted anew by experts, which make secondary statements we can then cite at face value. Applying our own interpretations is center-cut OR. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 06:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::: Iskandar is correct. This text is just an account of the bible according to wikipedia editors, with no use at all of sources that meet [[WP:RS]]. The 19th century commentary is not reliable by our standards. This is a violation of the [[WP:PRIMARY|policy]] of interpreting primary sources. I agree that the bible story has a place here, but it has to be presented via reliable secondary sources. Once the skeleton is supported by secondary sources, a limited amount of biblical quotation is ok. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 06:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Ancient sources is a bit rich - it's the bible. It's not a history text and it ''is'' a primary source. There are plenty of secondary sources for this subject. Go to Wikipedia Library and find some. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Subject is "biblical narrative".  It may be fiction, it may be history, it may be biased, it may be ''opaque to untrained readers from later eras''.  It says what it says.  Have you seen the first section on most if not all films on this here en.wikipedia? ''Plot''.  Most people need interpretation to understand a Fellini or an Éric Rohmer work —works which were commercial in their time only 5 or 6 decades ago.  Should we delete those sections on the basis of "untrained readers from later eras"? [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 21:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Were there a film with a corpus of critical and interpretive academic secondary sources equivalent to those of the bible I would be just as opposed to the over-use of primary sources there. This isn't a movie. It's material from a religious text. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Also it would have been funnier if you went with [[Pier Paolo Passolini]] rather than Felini. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 21:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::First of all, "other articles are potentially bad" is not an argument for why you should be allowed to do bad things to this article. "It says what it says" is a useless tautology—no, it does not. We don't need more people eager to lower our standards for biblical hermeneutics to that of WatchMojo because anything more would be a pretentious waste of time. You have volunteered what it says, as the final link in a 25-century-long game of telephone which likely passed through at least two languages that you don't speak. The confidence in your own ability to authoritatively transmit what the text says—having successfully grasped the necessary context of how and why it was said—is unearned and amounts to hubris in the extreme. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::You mean tens of thousands of articles on this Wikipedia with the section "plot" and "summary" and zero refs for the plot section are bad? (''Cf.'' "Summary" ''[[Don Quixote|Don Quijote]]'').   That's an ambitious statement.<br>The cited [[WP:RS]] '''say what they say'''; for example this one, '''serially deleted by Iskandar''':<ref name="PComm">[http://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/1_kings/8.htm Pulpit Commentary on 1 Kings 8 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220307094043/https://biblehub.com/commentaries/pulpit/1_kings/8.htm |date=7 March 2022 }}, accessed 2 October 2017</ref>.    That's ''The Pulpit Commentary'', in 23 volumes, edited by [[Donald Spence Jones]] and Joseph S. Exell.  If you don't think that's a [[WP:RS]], you are welcome to replace it.  This is the en.wikipedia, not the paleo.he.wikipedia.  Nobody here needs speak Paleo-Hebrew; monolinolinguals are welcome to consult the cited references for verification ''of the cited source''. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, I'm saying it makes no damn sense to point to the mistakes other editors made on other articles as a justification for the mistakes you want to make. Good grief. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 22:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::These sections are not akin to a plot section for a specific literary work. Bible book pages may have plot summary sections. This page is not a bible book page, but a page about a biblical subject, information on which is being extracted from multiple books. The process of determining which information is relevant and valuable is entirely interpretive, and so when we sit down to the business of writing up an encyclopedic entry on the topic, we need to reference secondary sources to determine what merits inclusion per due weight. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 04:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::So to summarize:
:::::::# The bible is ''not'' the same as [[Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker]]
:::::::# For the core texts of world religions ample interpretive academic secondary sources exist
:::::::# Academic secondary sources are preferred over primary sources
:::::::# No editors in favour of secondary sources have conceded that movie pages ''should'' depend on primary sources. Most assert ubiquitous plot summaries represent a mistake. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 14:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Per [[MOS:PLOTSOURCE]], it's quite alright on WP to write a plot-section for a film etc based on the primary source.
::::::::On having a "Biblical narrative" section in an article like this, I do think there should be one, it's part of the topic. Per [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]], I'd say it's not unthinkable even with, at least to some extent, primary sources (not without inline citations). ''Some'' of this stuff should be uncontroversial, in the meaning "yep, that's what the Bible says." Yes, translations may somewhat disagree at times, but often they're pretty much the same. However, this requires consensus, and secondary sources shouldn't be that hard to find. To have something to compare to, [[The_Exodus#In_the_Bible]] seems generally well-sourced, but there's [[MOS:PLOT]] paragraphs in there too. 
::::::::[[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_327#Scriptural_texts_(WP:RSPSCRIPTURE)]] might be of interest. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::The Bible has been so ridiculously intensively studied that there shouldn't be ''any'' reason not to find secondary sources. Most Western universities have had entire theology departments largely devoted to sifting through the Bible in detail for the best part of half a century. We don't need random editorial hot takes straight from the source. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::But looking for secondary sources is ''hard'' and can be ''boring''.{{fbdb}} [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 15:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Parallel discussion here [[Talk:Temple_in_Jerusalem#Restoring_removed_sections]] [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I think that Iskandar323 does have a legitimate reason for removing. The only reason I know that is because this template exists: {{Religious text primary|date=January 2025}} Maybe it’s not bad that the source is a religious text as long as the Wikipedia edit is accurately representing the source, but it definitely seems to be best practice to supplement the material with some secondary analysis if it exists. I am ok with either keeping or removing the deleted content. Maybe if the primary religious text thing is an issue, the primary religious text template can be added to those sections. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 00:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I 100% agree with Wafflefrites that if any instances are found where the supplied biblical or other source for the narrative does not accurately support the text, it should be stricken —immediately.  Also, agree with Gråbergs that the the article should include a "Biblical Narrative" plot section, and without the mass serial nuking of most it that rendered it —frankly— meaningless, as if you had deleted 80% of the existing Wikipedia narrative of ''[[Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker]]'' by indiscriminately cutting out all the middle paragraphs.<br><br>Finally, some of the comments seem unaware that many of the mass-deleted [[WP:RS]] references are not from the Bible, but from the aforementioned ''[[Pulpit Commentary]]'' (in 23 volumes) and from the ''[[Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges]]'' (in 56 volumes) and The ''Oxford Bible Commentary'' (2007) from [[Oxford University Press]].  ''These are not Bibles'', people! [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 02:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Despite the humor, the  comparison to Star wars is still a flawed analogy. This is not a page on a specific work or book, so there is no discrete plot to summarize. This is about a topic variously and vaguely alluded to across multiple religious texts composed across centuries, and secondary sources are needed to aggregate that information, otherwise it is just synth. Sources more than a century old are not modern analysis and no longer functionally RS, per [[WP:AGEMATTERS]]. In most domains, sources more than a few decades old tend to be outdated, but a century is really kicking the bucket. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 03:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::From WP:AGEMATTERS, it seems old sources are still reliable unless they have been superseded by new information, laws or discoveries. The guideline says old sources MAY be used, but just double check. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 04:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I assure you that there has been biblical scholarship in the last 100 years. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 05:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Do they contradict the old sources/content that you removed? Also Newton wrote his theory on gravity in 1684 and gravitational theory is still the established concept today. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 05:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::What fresh hell is this that we're now comparing biblical babble to scientific theory? But no, the theory of gravity today is not the same as Newton's, and science teachers would be aghast to hear that statement expressed. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (1915) replaced Newton's concept by describing gravity not as a force but as a curvature of spacetime caused by mass. This explained phenomena that Newton's law could not, such as the precession of Mercury's orbit. The modern understanding of gravity then builds on Einstein's General Relativity, which has been successful in many contexts, but also faced challenges, particularly at the extreme scale of black holes and the Big Bang, where singularities occur. Current research is aimed at exploring modifications to GR to include quantum effects and scalar fields, aiming to unify gravity with quantum mechanics. The theory is not stuck in 1684. As for the present subject, even if we were to be incredibly generous and take 1918 works hosted on biblehub.com as relevant referencing, this would still only cover a small minority of the content currently under discussion. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 06:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}You repeatedly mass-deleted long-term stable content on a topic which you are banned from editing, including material supported by [[WP:RS]] The ''Oxford Bible Commentary'' ('''2007''') from [[Oxford University Press]] and much else.  May want to cool off. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 07:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm perfectly cool, and that one statement didn't work in isolation from the biblical fancruft that was surrounding it. And none of this is part of a contentious topic area, unless you are conflating religious myth with modern politics. All I'm hearing here are objections to removing the parts that have some other sourcing than the Bible, whatever it is. Should I take it that there are no remaining objections to the removal of the purely primary religious text-sourced [[WP:SYNTH]] content? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 08:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
:Biblehub.com doesn’t seem to a particularly impressive sounding source, but Oxford Bible Commentary is better (we''' should keep that one and replace/delete the biblehub sources'''). Honestly I was not a great student, I barely remember anything from school, and my grade school teachers didn’t cover the history of science theory. Anyways, Iskandar323 first called it biblical scholarship then called it biblical babble, and I was trying to understand the wp:agematters guideline which doesn’t differentiate between religious scholarship (or babble) and scientific theory. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
::To be clear, I distinguish between scholarship and babble. I think anything produced in the last 50 years at major centres of scholarship is scholarship. I think pre-contemporary works of the ilk hosted only on sites like biblehub are generally outdated or babble, alongside editor-created OR "plot summaries" synthed from multiple divergent texts from across the bible. Works of this era are often overly polemical or lack the academic rigor of later scholarship. The [[Pulpit Commentary]] is a case in point. It is a [[homiletic]] (preacher's) guide to the bible written for preachers. It is not work of modern textual analysis or critique. See [https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-pulpit-commentary-volume-4-henry-spence/1122528443 this overview]: {{tq|When reading this commentary, it is not difficult to see why it has remained a favorite amongst pastors for more than 100 years.}} And as the Evangelical Magazine and Missionary Chronicle notes: {{tq|it offers special assistance to the preacher ... providing him with succinct and helpful directions as to the preachable aspects}}. Not our need. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 03:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::As for [[WP:AGEMATTERS]], I hadn't realised that the guideline was quite so Spartan and sparsely fleshed out, but from discussions with editors across multiple topic areas, there appears to be a general community rule of thumb that works that are more than a century old tend to be outdated relative to modern scholarship beyond the point of utility. In highly active disciplines, the threshold of senescence is much closer. Due to advancement in science in areas such as genetics, studies in the last decade are typically preferred, and anything older than two decades is often quite outdated and best to reference only if referred back to in more recent review works. Compared to this, a century is quite generous, and while some works in the early 20th century might have some use, I'm sure anyone can see that they're becoming marginal as sources. And most editors wouldn't touch 19th century, or Victorian sources, with a bargepole. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 03:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
::::The Bible was written a long time ago.  Hasn't changed much.  You three times mass-deleted three different editor's restorations of long-term stable content with references as recent as 2007. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 08:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::It was two times and then I hit pause. It's unclear what your point is. Stable content isn't good content. A couple of references within two decades supporting a couple of statements still does not support the remaining vast swathes of primary sourced OR. The age of the bible is largely irrelevant, although if anything, it's age and its foreign language provenance are the two things standing most in favour of its interpretation requiring expert secondary sourcing. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 14:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::There is no policy that old content must remain. Presumed consensus ends when content is challenged. In fact, all content that is not in conformity with policy has to be removed or modified so that it conforms. This is an encyclopedia that should rely on modern scholarship, not on editors' selection of primary material or 19th century interpretation. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::I suggest, as a compromise, we delete everything that was not directly sourced to the Oxford Bible Companion (2007) and retain anything that is directly sourced to that. An 18 year old book on bible commentary is probably still current enough - unlike sources from the 1800s. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I added a source from 1988, which is later than Einstein’s theory of relativity! And Iskandar323 never answered my question about whether the new biblical scholarship contradicts the old scholarship, which is the point of wp:agematters. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 17:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]]: It rather depends on what "biblical scholarship" we're talking about. I've noted the pulpit commentary is not really scholarship at all in the normative sense, so much as a preaching aid. Which other sources did you have in mind? [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 18:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I recently added BBC, Britannica and  The Holy Land in History and Thought.
:::::::::https://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/solomon_qa.shtml
:::::::::https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ark-of-the-Covenant
:::::::::https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Holy_Land_in_History_and_Thought/Ec4UAAAAIAAJ
:::::::::The Holy Land in History and Thought also had a recently published edition in 2023! [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 18:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::While I agree with Weliviewf and Wafflefrites that ancient sources are perfectly valid for the "Biblical Narrative" section , I '''commend''' Wafflefrites for his updates.  We are here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia.<br>I will note Iskdandar hasn't yet answered Wafflefrites regarding [[WP:AGEMATTERS]]: in fact, no-one has pointed to any obsolescence in any of the currently cited sources in the section.<br>Finally, Iskandar wrote: «{{tq|It was two times and then I hit pause}}».  This is '''false'''.  Iskandar deleted the exact same content four times: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon%27s_Temple&diff=1270488592&oldid=1270461883 (1)], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon%27s_Temple&diff=1270489199&oldid=1270488658 (2)], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon%27s_Temple&diff=1271125781&oldid=1271031757 (3)] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon%27s_Temple&diff=1271570360&oldid=1271567749 (4)], thereby rendering the "Biblical Narrative" section meaningless.  Only on the 4th time did Iskandar self-revert.  Cheers, [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 19:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Actually he did answer me. He said it depends on the biblical scholarship, which makes sense. Let’s all assume good faith, everyone, it makes things easier and then we can discuss and focus on content. I can kind of understand @[[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]], because some of the content from the biblehub sources used quotes which doesn’t help the encyclopedic tone: [[wp:quote]] [[wp:tone]]. There are also articles on Wikipedia where I too would like to just delete sections that I think might be wp:or or non encyclopedic in tone/ personal essay like, such as the before the war section on the Gaza Strip famine article which uses sources pre dating 2023 so it is possible original research to connect content from those past sources with a future war, but I am not as bold as him!!!! He probably should be more careful though, as should all the editors who were recently sanctioned. [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 21:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
*As someone who has edited Islam-related articles for a while, I can tell you that simply citing the [[Qur'an]] is a not valid on wikipedia, as it is very much a [[WP:PRIMARYSOURCE]] subject to interpretation (hence a violation of [[WP:NOR]]). See also [[WP:RSPSCRIPTURE]]. Iskandar is on solid policy grounds here.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 16:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
::Like I said above, «some of the comments seem unaware that many of the mass-deleted [[WP:RS]] references are not from the Bible, but from the aforementioned ''[[Pulpit Commentary]]'' (in 23 volumes) and from the ''[[Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges]]'' (in 56 volumes) and The ''Oxford Bible Commentary'' (2007) from [[Oxford University Press]].  ''These are not Bibles''». In any event, many other sources have since been added (see comments above and article history). [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 04:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:::We need 21st century [[WP:RS]]. If needed, we could extend that till the 1980s. But that's as far as we can go, normally speaking.
:::And, yup, I have [[WP:CITED]] [[Edward Gibbon]], but without trying to pass his POV for a current one. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  08:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] Could you please direct me to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says we should only use 21st century sources, or that 21st century sources are required for verifiability? 
::::I think all the recently added sources by @[[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] are great, btw! [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 18:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[Bible scholarship]] advances at a fast pace. Sources older than 20 years could be seen as outdated. [[WP:AGEMATTERS]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  18:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Iskandar deleted The ''Oxford Bible Commentary'' (2007) from [[Oxford University Press]] during Iskandar's repeated mass content deletions.  Is that more than 20 years old?  In any event, many recent sources have now beed added to the article, not that we need to have only 21st century sources, of course. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 18:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Wp:agematters doesn’t specify 21st century, rather it gives specific instances when wp:agematters applies. It seems the interpretations or summaries of primary religious text in this case have not been superseded or replaced. Definitely, though, the new sources are an improvement! [[User:Wafflefrites|Wafflefrites]] ([[User talk:Wafflefrites|talk]]) 19:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist talk}}