Talk:Crossing the Red Sea

message: There was no reason to have this in the opening. On a most basic level, there is no identifiable crossing point at which to look for archaeological evidence. Moreover the realistic expectations of finding evidence remaining of a one-night camp out are slim to say the least. If you want to find drowned Egyptians at the bottom of lakes and seas, that is not a practical search to perform over truly vast areas of water. Thus, making any judgement on whether or not the event occurred on the basis of archaeological evidence is pointless.
More controversially, I have removed the "historicity" section. In principle such a section would be extremely useful, however what was included did not refer to the crossing of the Red Sea, which is what this article is about. Information pertinent to the Exodus story broadly should be included in the relevant article. If the particular comments are especially relevant to the Red Sea crossing, this should be reflected in the written content.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.216.50.234 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of archaeological points 

message: I removed the map of the entire Exodus (i.e. from the Land of Goshen to the Plains of Moab) because it's only marginally useful - what's needed is a map of the Red Sea area itself (i.e., the area around the modern Suez Canal). I see one of the posts on this Talk page has a map that might be useful, and maybe it could be put in? PiCo (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The Land That I Will Show You: Essays in History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller
apparently Some one finds this unreliable source, i have restored it for now as a look through Jstor shows a very positive review in Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. If this user disagrees, i ask him/her to remember we are about verifiability not truth Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The academic consensus about the location of biblical Ramses is Pi-Ramesses. That is not in the Wadi Tumilat. Your fringe ideas have no merit. ≡ CUSH ≡ 12:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  i advise yo to take it up at the RSN then or fringe board which ever it stays for now Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cush is right, I interpreted the source wrongly. Have fixed it now. PiCo (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Source Discussion

message: I have restored well-sourced text deleted in December 2010 with the quip "This is more than anyone wants to read". Please watch this article for such edits.--Wetman (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Restored it again. rossnixon 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crossing the Red Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040113013247/http://www.etana.org/abzu/ to http://www.etana.org/abzu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crossing the Red Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502185851/http://archnet.asu.edu/regions/neareast/general.php to http://archnet.asu.edu/regions/neareast/general.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't think this claim belongs to lead. Archaeology is constantly making new discoveries, and not every event in ancient history can or has been proven by finding artifacts. Besides, such claim is disputed because apparently some people found evidence of an Egyptian army drowned in the Red Sea.--יניב הורון (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the lead summarises the article and it is sourced in the article. By the way, if you read fake news you're going to be very confused. If you'd bothered to check you'd see several media sources saying it was a hoax. No such professor, the university didn't carry out such an excavation, the underwater photo was from Mexico in 2014. And the story said it was all found on dry land, so the divers were a clue that it was a hoax. Doug Weller talk 22:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. Apparently I fell for fake news. Thanks for letting me know. Mea culpa.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Up. tgeorgescu (talk)  14:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: @IP: there is no way objective evidence can be supernatural in nature. WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk)  16:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaeological evidence 

message: The historicity section heavily relies on news articles as sources. As per WP:NEWSORG, even the most reliable ones contain errors.
I don't know I think there should be a lot more scholarly sources.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity section has too many News sources