Talk:The Bible Unearthed

message: I deleted the phrase "but thoughtful" in the first sentence because while I agree with this characterization of the book, I think its presence in this article violates NPOV.
This article needs to cite its sources.Rec Specz 01:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article is so much about the book but has become a shortened summary of the book.  This should be reverted back to something like the version of June 14, 2007 that actually has some commentary about the book, and is not just a summary of it.  Granted that version isn't perfect as there's no references, but as is the current article is rather unacceptable.  The two external links from the current version could be maintained (although they might be considered reviews from polar opposite points of view).  --Craw-daddy | T | 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely a book article should have a summary of the book as its core. PiCo (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all it is at the moment.  Where's the reviews and critical commentary by the secondary sources?  There seems to be a lot of uncited quotations from the book.  Probably too much for "fair use" but I'm no expert on these matter.  --Craw-daddy | T | 16:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%: an Assessments section is needed. Why don't you do it? (Look at scholarly reviews rather than popular ones - it's a popular book, but about a scholarly subject). PiCo (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too much summary

message: In the interest of fairness, and in being mindful of the effort that PiCo put into expanding this article last year, I have pasted below his/her chapter summary so that one/many of us may convert this into a plot summary in line with these book articles. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary to Plot

message: The first two anachronisms are contradictied by our own articles. Edomite society has recently been found and Arameans are mentioned before the time that this book says. Check the wikipedia pages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.66.130 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use Wikipedia as reference, provide some reliable sources. dougweller (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even before I edited it, the article on the Edomites only said there was some controversial evidence. I've added a link to the discussion about it. And it doesn't matter, this is an article on the book, not whether it is wrong or right. And this page is to discuss the article, not whether it is wrong or right. If you have some reliable sources that discuss the book, great, otherwise this is basically off-topic. dougweller (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong on two points

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Cyrus cilinder.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Asherah.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I don't know how common this is in the article, but after coming to it fresh, within  few minutes I found several OR, emotive phrases and some incorrect page numbers. I have removed "pious fiction", "mere village", "insignificant existence", and "touted". Also, all the supposed references to the book will need to be checked. It does not say anything about Tel Dan on page 143. I've replaced that with stuff from p. 129. Myrvin (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emotive words and lazy citations 

message: 'There is little to suggest that Jerusalem, called by the Bible David's capital, was "perhaps not more than a typical hill country village"'  This implies that there is much to suggest that Jerusalem was "more than a typical hill country village," which I think is not what the writer(s) intended to say.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.184.247 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow - that was quick!  Thank you. 71.235.184.247 (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village? 

message: I had to read this in order to gain experience on what it was like to see an article in wiki for a class assignment. I do not know much about the topic, but I was disappointed that there was literally only the book source. I get this is most likely a summary and background information about this book, but would it not also help to provide context about the people, places and current political state of the time to incorporate into the information about this book? That way it can not only be more rich in sources, but gain context to a topic that might be new to people who are not aware of this religious text. Also, after reading a few other comments, there are some parts that are not cited properly, which needs to be changed and hopefull has been. Biancaneff (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2022 --Biancaneff (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review for class 

message: If they drank the Kool-Aid of evangelical Bible scholarship, I assume them to be WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk)  21:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "evangelical Bible scholarship" The terms "evangelical" and "scholarship" do not really fit together. Evangelicals are incapable of using the scientific method. Dimadick (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias matters