Talk:Tel Dan stele

message: It appears to me that what should be a short article summarizing an archaeological find has become platform for two or three capricious dissenters. Mainstream experts have considered these dissenting opinions and rejected them, and they therefore have no place in this article.
Anyone can make up a crack-pot theory, but they do not make it into wikipedia. By all means, we can have another article on "paranoid theories of archaeological fraud", and the Thompsen crowd can have their pathetic attention seeking theories repeated ad nauseum.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pioneeranomoly (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire article is a disgrace

message: I made a couple of additions to the article, including commentary by Kenneth Kitchen on Thomas L. Thompson's assessment of the Stela, and Dever's comments also.  I also corrected the quote from Davies - he is Philip R Davies, not Paul Davies.  --Taiwan boi 08:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent additions

message: I've been struggling to understand why Philip R Davies' opinions are mentioned in this article, since he is neither an archaeologist nor an epigrapher.  He is a professor in Biblical studies and a historian, without qualifications in either of the aforementioned fields, yet he is given place here alongside professional archaeologists and epigraphers.  Actually the same goes for Thompson and Athas.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Philip R Davies

message: This facsimile needs to be replaced by a scientific one. SCHREIBER is evidently not aware that Semitic languages have 2 to 3 h's. So his reconstructions of both kings'  names, Ah`ab and AHazyahu, are wrong - as any Israeli will immediately perceive.
Please delete it - from all Wikipedias, not only from the English one.   García  27/07/2008  84.148.103.149 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: THE FACSIMILE INSERTED FROM THE GERMAN WIKIPEDIA, BY SCHREIBER

message: PiCo, your recent edit was unfounded on two primary grounds:
*  You claimed '"Professional" archaeolgists makes it sound as if the others aren't professional', which isn't true.  You did not read the edit.  The contrast was not between 'professional archaeologists' and other archaeologists who (it is implied), are not professional.  The contrast was explicitly between 'professional archaeologists' and 'Biblical scholars who have no formal qualifications in the relevant fields'.  This is an entirely accurate description.  Both Kitchen and Dever are professional archaeologists, and recognized as such.  Both of them have considerable professional experience in epigraphy.  They object to armchair Biblical scholars who have no formal qualifications or professional standing in the relevant fields, making claims which are in direct contradiction to what Dever describes as 'most of the world's leading epigraphers'.
*  The objection has been made not only by Kenneth Kitchen, but also by William Dever.  I invite you to explain to us why you insist on describing William Dever as a 'conservative archaeologist', given that he views Kitchen as a conservative and places himself directly in the middle position between the conservatives (or 'Maximalists'), and the radicals (or 'Minimalists').  Dever doesn't believe the Bible is the work of God, doesn't believe in the historicity of Genesis through to Judges (though he believes Joshua and Judges preserve some historical facts), doesn't believe in the Exodus, and believes that the Jews originated as a Canaanite separatist socio-religious group.  None of this is remotely 'conservative', and Dever distinguishes himself from conservative archaeology at every opportunity.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might surprise you, but personally I agree with Kitchen on this one: the Tel Dan stele is pretty good proof of a Judahite dynasty which saw itself as descended from someone named David. (Or more accurately, was seen by an Aramaean king in this way, since he wrote the inscription). I'm just trying to make sure we have a fair and impartial description of the dispute. I've now reverted the article to an earlier version by Lawrence Mykytiuk, a name you'll no doubt recognise - he was kind enough to edit this page some time ago, and I think his version is better than the present one. PiCo (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about whether you agree with Kitchen (and I note you ignore Dever).  This is about identifying the fact that those who criticize the reading are typically non-archaeologists and non-epigraphers, whose views are contradicted by the overwhelming majority of professional archaeologists and epigraphers.  If this concerned a dispute in another article on another subject, and the majority view was held by secular critical Bible scholars and the minority was held by conservative evangelicals with no professional training in the relevant fields, you wouldn't be acting like this.  You'd insist that the minority view be identified as exactly that, and you would resist any attempts to obscure the fact that the critics were only those without professional training in the subject at hand.  You have thus far failed completely to explain why you do not want those quotes from Kitchen and Dever in the article, along with an explanation as to exactly why they object to the non-professional opinions of Thompson and others.  Nor have you explained why you think this edit is 'better'.    --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: To answer your question, by convention, in early 1st millennium Aramaic, the way of referring to an existing political entity was to say "the house of [name of founder]."  For example, the northern kingdom of Israel was referred to as "the house of Omri"--who was, by the way, viewed as an actual king of the northern kingdom of Israel according to the Hebrew Bible, the Mesha Inscription, and Assyrian annals that were decidedly reality-based, not off into mythology. Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Believe it or not, that question isn't within our purview to answer - as mere Wikipedia editors, we're just drudges, we can look for already-published viewpoints and that's about it... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We're desert dry librarians that just points out dusty books for questions like that. We even don't care about the scientific debates, except as neutral spectators. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: PiCo versus the scholarship, as usual

message: The lead piece in this article is saying that the stele says house of David when that is obviously in dispute.The other article about it on the wikipedia page about David is much more on the neutral side.This lead piece is a bit biased and should be changed to a more neutral piece which reflects the actual reality.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the dispute is covered in the article's main body. As the lead says, the consensus among archaeologists is that the inscription does refer to 'House of David', so the minority viewpoint does not belong in the lead, but where it is right now. Jennifer Worth (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in the whole article there are more references to people who agree with the house of david piece than disagree and the lead does not reflect at all the people who disagree. The lead basically states that it says the house of david when there is a lot of disagreement about it and as this is suppose to be a neutral article it should reflect that, it does not in the lead or the actual article.The only reference to a majority believing it is from a guy who is on that side of the argument so not neutral at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:LEAD: "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the lead does not do what is stated in the WP:LEAD,it basically just gives one side of the debate and is backed up by one link to a reference by a guy on that side of the debate.So it is not neutral at all and leaves out any controversies.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Lol, your last sentence is hilariously ignorant.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I am unable to parse the quote from Biran in Tel Dan Stele#Dispute over the phrase "House of David" because it starts with a double quote, contains double quotes and does not appear to end with a double quote. It would be helpful if someone with access to the source could fix it. Jojalozzo 19:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  quotation difficulty 

message: Look at the picture. There are dots separating words. There is the WORD "dwdtyb" (BYTDWD as in BYTLHM, Bethlehem) which is plain for all to see. A word is not a phrase, period. BYT means only something like "dwelling place." Its translation into English depends upon who or what dwells. Thus we have BYTYHWH as both TEMPLE of Yahweh and the poetic HOUSE of the Lord. Anyone wishing to translate BYTLHM as the Dynasty of Bread please feel free to do so. I prefer a town famous for its bread if you please. 
Besides that House as in dynasty first appears in history in Renaissance Italy. For those not well versed in history that is more than two millennia after this inscription. Dynasty never means dwelling place or vice versa. The word is well known in all of its forms in all semitic languages. The meaning is consistent. 
The best that can be said for this is a new meaning for the word was discovered but only when connected to DWD. So inserted beloved land for the single word on the inscription. 
On top of that it is sort of incredible that a victory inscription is in a form barely at the quality level of a learner's exercise by a dimwitted learner. IOW forgery is most likely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWIIWT (talk • contribs) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum for such a discussion. We can't use our own views in the article, and if want to discuss this you need to find, for instance, a forum. Dougweller (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) Doug is right, we can only report on what published sources have to say on the subject 2) "House as in dynasty first appears in history in Renaissance Italy." - oh, really? The "Teachings of Merykare" refer to the Egyptian 9th Dynasty as the "House of Kheti (Akhtoy)", so you might want to check that again... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

text: 1 Kings 12:19, 1 Kings 12:20, 1 Kings 12:26, 1 Kings 13:2, 1 Kings 14:8, 2 Samuel 3:1, 2 Samuel 3:6, 1 Samuel 19:11, 1 Samuel 20:16, 2 Kings 17:21, Isaiah 7:2, Isaiah 7:13, Isaiah 22:22, Jeremiah 21:12, Zechariah 12:7, Zechariah 12:8, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 12:12, Zechariah 13:1, Nehemiah 12:37, Psalms 30:1, Psalms 122:5, 1 Chronicles 17:24, 2 Chronicles 10:19, 2 Chronicles 21:7
AnonMoos (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The PHRASE House of David does not exist 

message: I came across "Those who deny there was a David... " in the text. This topic is hard core zionist, and out of 3 letters they make a torch procession out of a fart (Fackelzug aus Furz, as a Nazi would say). Denying would imply that the denier had witnessed the stele with its intended meaning why it was erected but pretends to not have observed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.77.218.249 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Deny' is indeed the appropriate term, because 'those who deny (xyz)...' does not solely imply the nuance you infer, but it is also the correct English term used in regular scholarly discourse to describe any group of people who does not agree with, or subscribe to, any other school of thought, regardless of who may be "right" or wrong". One suspects that you know this full well, but are only here looking for any excuse to soapbox, chest thump, and be a cheerleader with side comments resembling "Bully for my POV, and pshaw on those who would disagree!" -- which usually doesn't prove too helpful for anyone in the long run. In addition, this, your second ever edit to wikipedia, when coupled with your first, makes you look like a definite troll. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow that is a textbook case of bad faith if I ever saw one. Ultra Venia (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet sometimes bad faith really is bad faith :) PiCo (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the term "deny" appropriate? 

message: Neils Peter Lemche, for a start. He hasn't changed his mind from when he wrote (In Thompson and Jayyusi, Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition, Continuum, 2003, pp. 46-68, saying (p. 66) "that all arguments put forward against the genuineness of the Tel Dan inscription (including a letter at the top that continues down the broken side) are hardly strong enough to win over persons who are convinced that the inscription is genuine." (quote is from him in an email, not the book). Russell Gmirkin is another. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Who disputes that it is genuine?

message: George Athas says  BYTDWD should not be understood as a dynastic name ('House of David'), but as another name for Jerusalem, comparable to (YR-DWD (City of David)..
If we are serious about a good article, why aren't we using (besides Lemche's article) sources such as The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction by George Athas,[http://books.google.co.uk/books?
id=OPqpzmYBOxgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=George+Athas+%22house+of+david%22+Jerusalaem&source=bl&ots=bxRdqVhLDS&sig=_a7_rXmmZmDeJ9Dp5gmA46-meVs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1UFHUIiqIMOh0QXNyYEg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=George%20Athas%20%22house%20of%20david%22%20Jerusalaem&f=false and more]  Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I added a citation of Athas' book, pages on the interpretation of bytdwd.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Right.  Incidentally, in response to criticism of his book, Athas published a very clear restatement of his positions in this paper. Zerotalk 12:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I added a bibliographic citation of Athas' article, "Setting the Record Straight" in JSS. There is not yet a reference to it in the articleLawrencemykytiuk (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Personally I'd prefer to avoid this level of detail, but we could if you think it's necessary. We could also ask Lawrence Mykytiuk to come back and give us an opinion. PiCo (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Athas was unfortunately misunderstood as advocating minimalism, so this article clears the way for a fair reading of his book. It's better to leave it in the bibliography, even though it might not rise to the level of a necessary inclusion in the article.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Please pardon my long-delayed response, PiCo et al.  Dougweiler has very appropriately brought up--thank you!--the question of including discussion of George Athas' published dissertation, The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Introduction,  It appeared too late (2003) for me to do anything but mention it before my 2004 book went to press (long story).  I have not noticed anyone else advocating or agreeing with his interpretation of bytdwd as a term for Jerusalem, but I have not at all researched others' publications regarding Athas' interpretation of this term.  It is probably worth mentioning but not belaboring.  I did not happen to mention it in my 2009 "Corrections and Updates" article in Maarav (which I have made freely available online).  Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I quoted and cited Athas, "Setting the Record Straight . . ." in my book chapter "Sixteen Strong Identifications . . ." in Lubetski & Lubetski, eds., New Inscriptions and Seals Relating to the Biblical World (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013), p. 42, note 20---now freely available online at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/lib_research/150/.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Today I made changes in the section "House of David," deleting a footnote containing and inaccurate citation and then briefly clarifying why I rejected certain interpretations which were possibilities (as opposed to rejecting the possibility of these interpretations). I also made Francesca Stavrakopoulou's statement penultimate in that paragraph and put the likely interpretation last. Doing this further avoids giving undue prominence to her single statement while keeping it in readers' awareness.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Today I added a citation of Rainey's 1994 BAR article and a footnote that refers to it.Lawrencemykytiuk (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "House of David"?

message: This is the paragraph on "House of David" the way Tritomex wants it:
In the early/mid 1990s, when the inscription was discovered, the world of biblical scholarship was being rocked by the strand of thought called by its detractors "biblical minimalism". The minimalists argued that the bible was not a reliable guide to the history of ancient Israel, and, specifically, that its story of a united kingdom of Israel ruled by David and Solomon could not be taken at face value. The Tel Dan stele therefore found great favour among those who wished to defend the biblical version of Israel's ancient past. Its significance for this argument lay particularly in lines 8 and 9, which mention a "king of Israel" and a "house of David". The latter is generally understood to refer to the ruling dynasty of Judah, the descendants of the biblical David. However, although the "king of Israel" is generally accepted, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed by Francesca Stavrakopoulou, not least because it appears without a word-divider between the two parts. Other possible meanings have been suggested by Stavrakopoulou : it may be a place-name, or the name of a god, or an epithet. Stavrakopoulou also suggested that even if the correct translation is "House of David", it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure.[11] Analyzing other proposed suggestion, Associate Professor of Library Science Lawrence J. Mykytiuk argues against the possibility that the term bytdwd could refer to the name of a god, cultic object, epithet or a place and concludes that in line with ancient Aramaic and Assyrian patterns for geopolitical terms, the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty. [12] Brian B. Schmidt states that the reading of "House of David" in Tel Dan inscription "is now widely accepted" [13] Hallvard believes that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls [14]
The problem is that it ascribes to Stavrakopoulou views which are not hers alone, and thereby makes them seem less significant than they really are. I'll list these:
# "[A]lthough the "king of Israel" is generally accepted, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "house of David" is disputed by Francesca Stavrakopoulou". But also by George Athas, N.P. Lemche, and others. In addition, the points Stavrakopoulou mentions - lack of word dividers etc - are objective facts, not suppositions.
# "Other possible meanings have been suggested by Stavrakopoulou". Not true - Stavrakopoulou is simply repeating suggestions made by Athas and others, none of them are hers.
# "Stavrakopoulou also suggested that even if the correct translation is "House of David", it does not logically support the assumption that the Bible's David was an historical figure." Misleading - this is a point that ALL scholars involved in the study of the stele agree with.
#. "Associate Professor of Library Science Lawrence J. Mykytiuk..." Irrelevant. Yes, he is a professional librarian, but Lawrence has published a widely consulted book on Biblical names in ANE inscriptions, and THAT is why he's mentioned here, not because he's a librarian.
# "Mykytiuk argues [that] the phrase "House of David" refers to a Davidic dynasty or to the land ruled by a Davidic dynasty." Very true - but Stavrakopoulou says the same, so why repeat it?
# "Brian B. Schmidt states that the reading of "House of David" in Tel Dan inscription "is now widely accepted". Yes - but this just repeats what Stavrakopoulou says, yet again.
# "Hallvard believes that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls". This is trivial - sort of thing you get on National Geographic, not in an encyclopedia.
So, for these excellent reasons, I'm going to revert tomorrow. I have no objection, by the way, to using a different source instead of Stavrakopoulou - they all say the same thing. PiCo (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Tritomex's paragraph

message: I have already told Tritomex, but sources do NOT have to be on the web. You might have to pay for them, you might have to get them from inter-library loan, you might even have to go see them if they are records you can't see any other way. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be a good idea to discuss your changes here first. I've reverted you again - you were told that you were using an author's first name (and I can't see a reason for that bit anyway), Bible is spelled with a capital B, etc. And please don't use sources that are self-published, Creationist, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: You've used at least one creationist source elsewhere. We shouldn't need a source for every sentence when they are in a sequence, but I've provided it. I've added some earlier stuff that was removed. How is Lawrence J. Mykytiuk a reliable source? You might be able to convince me and I see he's been used before and I went ahead and put him back when I restored the earlier edit, but it needs discussion, and as you seem to think Creationists are reliable sources I'm not sure if you understand WP:RS. Some of your edits elsewhere have failed WP:NPOV. I don't know what a tickler is. I removed the unbalanced tag as it  doesn't seem appropriate, it's a statement by a scholar and I've attributed it now.
The next thing you need to do is justify the NPOV tag. How does this section fail WP:NPOV. Please be specific. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

text: That's nothing to do with NPOV. Why haven't you used Athos? Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accessibility 

message: I just first-rated the article in its current form, with a '2' for objectivity (moderate bias) on the Article Feedback Tool, because of the final sentence, which is poorly written - it sounds like an unattributed stance on what is 'likely' and 'logical'.  If this is improved to sound less like pushing, I'll re-rate it higher. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attributed it. I've also moved your post to the bottom as an editor had duplicated mine under yours and then replied to it, I think this makes more sense. Dougweller (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Til, at the moment I don't think there's much point in rating the article - it's too unstable, and even I don't know what the "final sentence" that you read, actually was. But please, do come and do it when things have settled down. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objectivity 

message: Thank you for rewriting the section. The only thing I suggest is the inclusion of Hagelia opinion about  importance of this artifact. 
"Hagelia considers that the Tel Dan inscription is the most important archeological finding in Israel/Palestine since the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls "
and , if it is possible I think it is important  to name the scholars who suggested other meaning for HD and who disputed the phrase bytdwd as the House of David.Because "Others" is very wide term
However, thank you for correcting this article.Tritomex (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2012 
:if it is possible I think it is important  to name the scholars who suggested other meaning for HD and who disputed the phrase bytdwd as the House of David.Because "Others" is very wide term 
: It's certainly possible - I can give you about 20 names - but it would make the article look pretty ugly. PiCo (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tritomex, why should the article cite Hagelia? And the reason really can't be "because it shows someone thinks it's extremely important", the reason has to be about Hagelia. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

text: A footnote on page 86 of Stavrakopoulou gives the following list of alternative interpretations of bytdwd and associated scholars: (1) DWD as a toponym (i.e., a placename): e.g. Cryer, Davies, Lemche; (2) Dive name or epithet (i.e., name or title of a god): Knauf, de Pury, Romer, Lehman/Reichel. All this means is that the reading House of David is controverted; as Stavrakopoulou says, the reading House of David is generally accepted as correct.PiCo (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I still do not understand why we should use Hagelia to say 'this is important'. What makes him so special? And why would that belong in that section? Use Hegalia for something more substantive. His (not hers) books are described at Amazon in relationship to Athas - " In particular Hagelia's two books offer an notable exchange of views with George Athas's The Tel Dan Inscription: A Reappraisal and a New Interpretation (2003)." So if we use Hegalia it should be to mention that exchange. And we can use Athas's review. I keep saying there should be more here from Athas. Finkelstein and Silberman are not minimalists, they do not deny David's existence. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version

message: It is quite surreal to have Richard Freund calling doubters "extreme minimalists" when Freund is the one who is extreme.  Lemche and Athas are mainstream, not extreme, but Freund on the other hand...his theory that Atlantis and Tarshish were the same and can be identified as a place in Spain is an example to go on with. Even if that wasn't true, it is ridiculous (not to mention, contrary to NPOV) to cite a person on one side of an argument as being a source of unattributed truth about people on the other side of the argument. Zerotalk 02:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The source used as reference refer to those who question the  accepted reading as "extreme minimalists". It also explains that not all biblical minimalists question the accepted reading. So the current wording does not reflect what the source tells. Eighter the source, or the text have to be changed because the current wording does not reflect the reference provided and represents WP:OR. Most of the scholars today accept the proposed reading and only a very small group of them have doubts like those mentioned in the lead. I did not proposed using  Richard Freund as a source, however those who added him must cite him correctly. --Tritomex (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

text: The source says "Extreme minimalist look at the inscription "Bet David" (House of David) and ask: Which house of which David? They even question whether or not it really says  "house of David" since the text has no vowels and can be red with different vowels. In this case using  different Hebrew vowels the text can be red as "Bet Dod" (House of Beloved or House of uncle) if you wish to make a case against the reading of House of David. Extreme minimalist say litle can be learned even from very specific reference like this. But unfortunately extreme minimalist  create more from the discovery than the scientific method can accommodate." 
The text says: "However, Biblical minimalists continue to question "which house of which David" as well as whether it says David at all "since the text has no vowels and can be read with different vowels"
Personally I believe that the source itself is not sufficient for the lead for the same reasons as stated by Zero0000, however, if it is used it has to be used correctly per WP:V  and without WP:OR . "extreme minimalists" can not be redefined to all biblical minimalists, without any source. --Tritomex (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme minimalists 

message: What is the problem with "House of David" that it requires a tag from 2012? I do not know the topic, but the section represents a diverse spectrum of attitudes and opinions.--Inayity (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me that the discussion died out but no one bothered to remove it. I don't see anything above since 2012, do you? Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone should mention the specifics to the House of David in the lead, because its implications are pretty important to the Abrahamic religions.--Inayity (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "House of David" Tag 

message: On p.43 of his 1998 work, Lemche writes: “In this way the short history of the reception of the Tel Dan inscriptions constitutes a classic example of how biblical scholars are moved not so much by evidence from the inscription itself as by the wish to create links between the inscription and the biblical narrative.”
This seems like an interesting quote to add into the article, but it clearly needs to be done in a sensitive fashion. Any ideas would be appreciated.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemche and biblical scholars' "wish to create links" 

message: My post from questioned source was suddenly deleted with no prior discussion by Doug Weller. I posted a well supported translation of the Dan Stele from this website which I found online which is in turn from a self-published book on Amazon which I now have. I did not delete anything from the Wikipedia article itself. My aim was to post a well supported alternative translation of the inscription. Any quality encyclopedia article about controversial subjects will provide the dominant viewpoint but they always mention the minority viewpoints in order to avoid the appearance of bias.
The author of this book (Olmsted) is suggesting that these texts were composed in a different language (Akkadian, the language of Babylon and Assyria) than what has been assumed (some form of early Hebrew). This is revolutionary! People need to know about this alternative approach since it seems to allow for the translation of All the early alphabetic inscriptions. 
I have been following these inscriptions for a long time in the popular magazine “Biblical Archaeology Review” and with the exception of the Dan Stele and inscriptions found prior to 1940, they have not been translatable using Hebrew. Even the first inscriptions, Proto-Sinaitic found in the Sinai desert, have not been translated. Of course this make the existing Dan Stele translation very suspect in my eyes. How could this be translated when all others cannot be?  Olmsted critiques these Hebrew language derived translations and finds them to be severely flawed with letters ignored or inserted to make the desired words. In the case of the Dan stele no letter by letter translation was actually provided. Instead it is a “connect the dot” translation (Olmsted’s term) in which some isolated words are recognized and then phrases are invented to connect them. So Olmsted’s translations are actually a better quality than any existing ones.
I think we need to take the author’s explanation about why his book was self-published to heart. He wanted to make these inscriptions available to everyone without copyright restriction so he published these under the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia which no commercial publisher would do. I have lots of books with ancient inscription translations which I would love to post on Wikipedia but I can’t because they are copyright protected. So despite his translations being well supported with every letter included in the translation, Wikipedia is punishing an author with the same vision.
SalamisDragon (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Self-published sources are questionable because they don't undergo reviewing by a publisher and because too many times self published sources end up unreliable for other reasons as well - for example, pushing ill-supported WP:FRINGE viewpoints. While the rationale is honourable it still means that the book didn't undergo vetting. Also, keep in mind that posting books here is not what Wikipedia is for. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We really don't care why the author self-published, we can't take motivation into account when deciding what's suitable for inclusion. We also have WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASPS which you might want to read. If at some point this author's translation is discussed in reliable academic sources we might be able to use those sources. See also WP:FORUM - we aren't a publisher of new ideas. Doug Weller (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Quality Source or Religious Censorship of Alternative Views Regarding the World’s First Alphabetic Inscriptions In and Near Israel? 

message: I've deleted it and am discussing what part of it, if any, we can restore. Meanwhile, please don't revert me anyone, it's inclusion was a violation of our copyright policy. Doug Weller (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation was a copyright violation 

message: Hi  ever since I first saw your essay WP:DISCFAIL, I have used your suggested modus operandi whenever a situation arises where the opposing editor refuses to engage but consistently reverts. The situation in the short thread above is similar but perhaps a little more complex, for reasons I won't explain in order not to lead the witness. 
I'd be very grateful for any advice on the right next step here, or if you have the time it would be great if you could mediate this for us? Oncenawhile (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "opposing editor", there is an overwhelming consensus on both the talk page and the reliable sources noticeboard that the source is appropriate. There is no failure of discussion, you have simply refused to accept the result of that discussion, ie., calling the reliable sources noticeboard "invalid". You are the one who has been disrupting, refusing to accept consensus, and personally attacking other editors. This includes cursing me out, calling another editor "a fraud", and another editor "close-minded". Seven editors have opposed your edits, and no one has sided with you. You are the editor "refusing to engage." Drsmoo (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not looked behind what's been said above, so I don't have an opinion about who's right and who's wrong, so this response is entirely a comment on procedure, not whether or not you should use the procedure. There's probably been enough discussion to satisfy the discussion requirements at DRN or MEDCOM. Of course, participation at either venue is voluntary so the others may decline to participate. In that situation, about all that's left is RFC. Finally, I'm afraid that I do not mediate disputes on article talk pages: There's not enough control there since the controls given to mediators at the mediation policy do not apply to mediations on article talk pages. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for advice

message: The DRN close stated "Closed. The editors are engaging in dialogue here. They should take their dialogue back to the article talk page and resume it there. Discuss content, not contributors. If discussion there is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. In the meantime, go back to the talk page." 
 as I mentioned in my last post before the close, ad hominem attacks and claims of consensus on straw man issues have not and will not result in progress. If you can point me to where the citations support the sentence, the discussion will be over.
Are you willing to do this?
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempt to resolve

message: There's been a discussion of this at Talk:Israel#Earlier reference to Israel than the Merneptah Stele. If it's been largely ignored in academia, should it be in the article? I'm not sure it meets WP:UNDUE. Sorry to come in late, I hadn't picked up on this discussion. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read, it doesn't seem to be commonly accepted at the moment. I wouldn't put it in the Israel article until it's more commonly accepted (or until evidence of it being commonly accepted is presented). As for this article (and the other articles that share the sentences being referenced) it's inaccurate/misleading to say there are four references to the "the name of Israel" as there are several other references to Israel as a personal name. So the text should say something to the effect of Israel as a community/placename Drsmoo (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  That earlier reference 

message: It is considered the first widely accepted reference to the name David as the founder of a Judahite polity outside of the Hebrew Bible
Is Finkelstein arguing that this stele was the first extrabiblical text to be created with such a reference to David?  Or is this a poorly written statement that it was the first such text to be discovered, or that it's the oldest such text currently known, or what?  I've tagged it with  because it's really not clear.  Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It means the oldest such text currently known. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finkelstein statement