Talk:Amraphel

message: This article should be identified by a template and related to other Biblical articles. Otherwise it appears as an orphan entry.Ineuw 00:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing identification & relation 

message: An unidentified editor has demanded that the Old Testament not be described as a religious text.  The claims of this unidentified editor are that 
* it is "unnecessary"; 
* it is "not how WP does it"; 
* the article "seems more neutral without it"; 
* other articles don't use this descriptive term; 
* there is a "longstanding consensus".
===Necessity===
There is no established standard as to what is or is not necessary.  There is no WP policy that only necessary facts be included in articles (probably for the reason that no emprical standard can be established).  Even if there were such a standard, the unidentified editor, firstly, has never challenged the truth of the fact sought to be included in the article, and, secondly, if WP is to be regarded as a source of information to people who do not know, it is desirable to include this descriptive term in the page to provide some sense to the lede which relies entirely on that text for its factual assertion of notability of the subject.  Very few articles on a subject commence with a a single textual source of information as the foundation of notability; something factual and descriptive to explain may be described as essential.  Most important, though, is that it is a fact not challenged by the unidentified editor. 
===How WP does it===
Who is this enigmatic "WP"?  What is "it"?  The unidentified editor's claim can only mean that he/she has not seen WP articles where the Old Testament is attended by the descriptive term "religious text".  Is this relevant?  Is there a special WP exception applying to the Old Testament which says it shall not be attended by factually-accurate descriptive terms?  It behoves the unidentified editor to explain the basis for this assertion because it is that editor who is attempting to suppress the uncontested fact from WP.  
===More neutral without it===
To an observer who is a believer and reveres the text, this is an easily understood assertion:  it's all too obvious.  WP is not a forum for the exclusive use of believers, though; it is a World Encyclopaedia for all readers of all faiths and no faith at all.  If a special rule is to be applied to the Old Testament excluding its being described for readers who have never heard of it (and there are countless millions of such people), then WP is adopting a POV.  
===Not the same as other WP articles===
That other treatments by other editors can be seen elsewhere in WP is no basis on which it determine whether text in any given article is factually sound and helpful to readers.  Practices adopted must be subjected to inspection applying WP objects irrespective of how often or prevalent certain informal (and biased) practices may be.  If this were not so, progress and improvement could never be achieved on WP; everything would be written in rock.
===Longstanding consensus===
I am unable to find any trace of the consensus alleged by the unidentified editor but will be intrigued to be directed to where such a debate has been conducted and consensus arrived at.
The main point here is that the unidentified editor objects to an uncontroversial factual description being used on a WP page.  That is a highly controversial position to adopt and it is suggested that that position is grounded in faith, thus strongly biased and POV-driven.  WP is agnostic, inclusive and written for the benefit of all readers. sirlanz 00:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Old Testament a religious text 

message: I am unable to find any trace of the consensus alleged by the unidentified editor but will be intrigued to be directed to where such a debate has been conducted and consensus arrived at.
The main point here is that the unidentified editor objects to an uncontroversial factual description being used on a WP page.  That is a highly controversial position to adopt and it is suggested that that position is grounded in faith, thus strongly biased and POV-driven.  WP is agnostic, inclusive and written for the benefit of all readers. sirlanz 00:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Longstanding consensus

message: Recently,  added a book by fringe scholar David Rohl (Lords of Avaris) to the Bibliography section of this article. Unfortunately, David Rohl is a scholar out on the fringes of Ancient Near Eastern history. Mainstream scholars all ignore him -- I haven't been able to find a single academic review of Lords of Avaris. Therefore, according to the WP:FRINGE policy, David Rohl and his book should not be cited as an authority in articles. Alephb (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Rohl 

message: This is misusing the WP:FRINGE policy for censorship, when it merely states that alternative ideas that are not mainstream should be stated as such and not given undue weight in the article. Rohl's research is cited in numerous wikipedia articles this way. Therefore, restore the section and stop wasting my time.
:Censorship? We're not burning books here, or prosecuting David Rohl. The question is whether Lords of Avaris should be one of two items in a bibliography on Amraphel. It shouldn't for several reasons. Simply listing it that way in the bibliography passes it off as if its a normal, reliable source (in the sense of WP:RELIABLE), which it isn't. Though in this case the heading is "bibliography," in this case we're talking about the kind of section covered under WP:FURTHER, which contains further books "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." It makes no sense to avoid basing a Wikipedia article on fringe sources, but then to stick them, without notice, into a "further reading" section. Lords of Avaris is an unembiguous fringe source, and it isn't even about Amraphel. It just mentions him. 
:If there are other articles promoting Roh's works as if they were recommended general-references sources, and which do so without pointing out the fringe status of these works, I'd be interested to know what those articles are. Alephb (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Rohl