Talk:Stations of the Exodus

message: I've reverted a number of place-names to their more common English spellings, since 1) these spelling are more common, 2) the existing sub-articles are spelled that way, and 3) Sephardic pronunciation was probably the original anyway.  Many thanks to whoever completed the references and place-names for the table, nonetheless.  I suspect most Jewish readers will be pleased with the progress of scholarship in the Wikipedia on this subject, even so.
I've added "- -" to all the cells of the table that do not have information as yet, since otherwise only half the table would display.  If a place is investigated, and its location is found to be uncertain, it should be given a "?" instead, at that time.
--ThaThinker 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats not very helpful in identifying their locations. The names provide huge amounts of information when read in context in the languages that named them. Unless you think English was the original language of the Exodus and best preserves ancient Egyptian, Greek, Phoenician etc; it makes no sense to use English names rather than ancient Egyptian, Greek, Phoenician Rktect 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work On The Table 

message: There are two wrinkles in the story that I plan to add, as I get time.  First, it seems that part of the itenerary recap given in Nu. when it is recapped repeats part of the journey, perhaps from another source, as per the Documentary Hypothesis.  Second, the itenerary recap seems to have the Israelites going back through Edom, whereas the narrative text is quite explicit that they went around it.
--ThaThinker 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intended additions 

message: This article is a joke. It has obviously been dragged away from anything like a sound documentary and archaeological treatment into a POV-pushing screed. "Ramesses" is Thebes? Nonsense. Pi-rameses in Lower Egypt is the nearly universal consensus. The only reason one might select Thebes -- which had various names in Egyptian, but never Ramesses or anything like it -- is because it accords with someone's pet theory. Citing a deluge of references, some of obviously little to no relevance, doesn't help. For all intents and purposes, this article is completely unreferenced. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the page to how it was on June 7. The current version is significantly worse than that version. Although it was not sourced, it discussed the relevant documentary hypothesis issues and did not present conjectures as fact. Feel free, of course, to re-add details from the previous version. Please remember to mark conjectures as such. --Eliyak T·C 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry- I failed to notice that the documentary hypothesis section had simply been moved to below the list. I stand by the revert, however. --Eliyak T·C 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Total agreement with Csernica. The article does not even get the biblical narrative straight, let alone being consistent with the generally used interpretation (in all its variations, of course). Cush (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally disputed 

message: The stations of the Exodus have been studied for centuries. Many 19th century archaeologists made speculative claims based on a combination of religious belief and assumption which have gradually
been disproven by more recent work. Thats the reason for listing footnotes and references.
False assumption No. 1. The People of the Exodus were Hebrews and spoke Hebrew. At the time the story claims the People of the Exodus left Egypt there were no Hebrews and Hebrew didn't exist as a language.
False assumption No. 2. The story refers to people crossing the Yam Suph or Reed Sea. Actually the
phrase originally used was Red Sea which comes from the Greek term Erythrian Sea. It would be good if people thought things through or had some basic familiarity with the languages involved. The language of the Exodus would have been Egyptian because according to the story the people involved had lived in Egypt for close to half a millenia
False ssumption No. 3. The wanderings in the desert take place in Sinai. The identification of the stations places them in three sets. Egypt, the stations related to crossing the Red Sea from Elim to Elat. The circumnavigation of Edom. Starting at Elat they go north to the mediterranian, then east to Moab, then south to Petra and return to Elat. The evidence for this is cited in the stations with references and footnotes.
False assumption No. 4 The capital of Egypt is in the Delta. The capital of Egypt at the time in question is at Thebes. 
There are a long list of further false assumptions addressed in the stations list. It would be good if people discussed some of the things they don't understand on the discussion page before deleting the references and footnotes again Rktect 00:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of an article talk page is the content of the article, not to present editors' personal views on or discuss the underlying subject. See the talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: What does the list of "false assumptions" mean? Especially False assumption No. 4 The capital of Egypt is in the Delta. The capital of Egypt at the time in question is at Thebes. What does this mean? What is the time in question? Cush (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies of the Stations of the Exodus

message: Is this some sort of joke? This 'alternative unreferenced version' is just a copy of the actual version without the table.
As for references, Z. Sitchin's books have huge lists of references, most of which is good, solid, stuff, he just doesn't use it in his books. The reference section of this article just makes it look good, it isn't useful in verifying the article. The article needs inline citations. I am considering removing all the location bits shortly if they aren't given citations. dougweller (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative unreferenced version 

message: If there was an Exodus, we don't know the exact route, right? So why are there navboxes on some articles taking you from one station to the next? dougweller (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't we know the exact route? I mean, more or less, we do. Most of the stations have been identified a long time ago. Only certain religious groups offer alternative interpretations for whatever purposes. Or folks like  Rktect who want their "own" Exodus. But after all, the Sinai peninsula is not that big. What I find strange is that there are articles for the stations at all. Isn't the stations list sufficient?? Cush (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we did, then saw  p. 248. But I shouldn't have said 'route', we don't know that for sure (northern, southern, middle, aren't these still being argued)?. Of course I don't think there ever was a real route/Exodus, but that's a different issue. Some of the stations are more notable then others. dougweller (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the route is given in the bible by naming its stations. What's uncertain is the location of some of the stations, and thus the identification with modern sites. On, and I do think that there was a real Exodus under king Dudimose as recorded by ancient historians. Just without any magic from the biblical deity.  Cush (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route and Navbox on some station articles 

message: The academic consensus is that the Exodus never happened. The list of stations of the travel route of a fictional group of ancient people is of no encyclopedic use to anybody, especially since the actual geographic locations of the individual stations are heavily contested. The history of this article is its use as the dumping ground for fringe interpretations put forward by pseudoscientists and religionists. The article is assembled via WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and provides information not based in history or archaeology. An article entirely based on religious writings, yet presenting its subject in an in-universe style, is unencyclopedic. It must go. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do a WP:Afd then. But it will be a genuine miracle if it succeeds. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article must be deleted. 

message: I think the first sentence should read "According to Numbers 33, the Stations of the Exodus are the 42 locations visited by the Israelites following their exodus from Egypt, with variations in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy."
Shouldn't we use "literally" instead of "Lit."?  Doug Weller talk 15:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: your first suggestion, I think it's better for the lead sentence to begin with the title of the article. If the idea is to make it sound less like historical fact, perhaps it could be amended to "supposedly visited". I've got no objection to "literally" instead of "lit". Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other issues - first sentence, desert, "lit." 

message: A lot of these stations have tiny stub articles which are unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. The most hopeless cases appear to be the following: Rissah, Kehelathah, Mount Shapher, Haradah, Makheloth, Tahath, Terah (Exodus), Mithcah, Hashmonah, Iye Abarim, Hazeroth, Red Sea – Exodus station, Alush, Rithmah.
I propose turning these articles into redirects to the "List of the Stations of the Exodus" section of this page. They provide no additional information beyond what already exists on this page, except that some of them give interpretations of the Hebrew names of the stations. This is information that could be included in the table, if good sources could be found; however, in the articles listed above, these interpretations are either unsourced or sourced only to the 19thC Easton's Bible Dictionary, so it wouldn't be appropriate to merge this information over here. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Don't seem to be notable for anything else. Editor2020 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I also redirected Jotbathah, Hor Haggidgad and Abronah on the same grounds as the above. Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect proposal for minor stations 

message: Following on from the above, I think these stations should also be turned into redirects: Etham, Dophkah, Rimmon Perez, Moseroth, Be'eroth Bene-Jaakan, Zalmonah, Punon, Oboth. These aren't quite as obviously hopeless as the last lot, but the same argument applies: they are unlikely to ever be expanded, and contain no meaningful information beyond what is present in this article. Some of them include speculation about locations, but these are poorly-sourced and unsuitable for merging. I'll carry through this proposal in a week or so if nobody objects. Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I also redirected Jotbathah, Hor Haggidgad and Abronah on the same grounds as the above. Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: More stations