Talk:Moses/GA2

GA Review

1. Well written?:

(a) Quality of Prose

• Much of the writing, particularly in the life of Moses, is almost at a picturebook story level, and definitely sub-encyclopedic: "Apparently Pharaoh eventually got annoyed by the frogs", etc has no place here. Needs to be much terser and tighter. Jheald (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(b) MOS Compliance

2. Factually accurate?:

1. Citation needed:Many parts of the article are based on the primary sources or don't have any source. I clarify them by adding tags.

   All of the marked statements have either been referenced or removed, with the exception of two. I have left a message at WikiProject Judaism asking if anyone knows of references for the remaining two. In the meantime, let's proceed with the review, please. L'Aquatique[review] 05:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Spam filter considered "www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/920412/posts" as a spam link. Thus I remove it.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2. Primary sources: I think Antiquities of the Jews, Exodus and Numbers are primary sources which should be verified by secondary ones. Thus I added tags on the article. Please tell me, if you disagree.

   I think you can use authentic commentaries to verify them.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

   Working on it... L'Aquatique[review] 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   My G-d, if this doesn't pass I'm going to be very disappointed after all the work I've put into it! Scrounging up these sources is a ton of work, and while I'm finding it very spiritually enlightening (reading all these different interpretations of the various Torah passages, etc) it's also exhausting. I'm going on a trip for one or two days starting tomorrow and I will be without internet connection. I would be very appreciative if we could sort of put this on pause until I get back so that nothing major happens and I don't get a chance to respond in time. Thanks- L'Aquatique[review] 08:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Don't bother yourself. I'm not in a hurry. I also asked some other wikipedians to help us. However even if it failed, you can renominate it later.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   I disagree. The Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says. We add nothing by citing secondary sources that merely repeat what the Bible says. Where secondary sources are needed is in discussing the theology, significance, literary style, composition, historicity, etc, etc, of what the Bible says. On this basis, I will be removing the "primary source" tags, and I think the refs to parashah glosses should probably be cut too, unless these add significant value over and above the Biblical text. Jheald (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?:

(a) Coverage of main aspects

1. Life on the basis of Quran: Due to the fact that Qur'an has a lot of information about Moses, I think it's good idea to replace Bible section with Sacred texts, Abrahamic texts, etc. I guess this helps to have a more complete article.

    Done

(b) Focus, without unnecessary detail

• The "life" section is far too long, and discursive. The detail of the material about Balaam seems entirely unnecessary. The rest need to be much tighter, summarising events and running themes, rather than re-telling everything. Use summary style to hand off to detailed accounts of stories that have their own WP articles. Consider grouping similar events (particularly in the desert) by theme, rather than slavish chronology. Jheald (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
• It needs to be much clearer what material is Biblical, and what material is later Jewish commentary/legend (midrash). Subsection by subsection, the presentation should probably summarise the bare bones of the Biblical story first, and then consider - for the whole subsection - how later Jewish commentators and the Qur'an aggregate or differ from it, plus relevant current commentary.
• The names section is excessive. The midrashic material should be moved out of the main article. Jheald (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Neutral point of view?:

1. The story is based on Judaism. Quran describes another viewpoint. The main contradictions are:

   1. Lead:he disobeyed God when God instructed him on how to bring forth water from a rock in the desert. While Quran explains that the reason was disobedience of Israelites.(Quran Surah 5 verses 20-26)

    Done

   1. Leader of the Hebrews:Moses and Aaron gained a second hearing with Pharaoh and changed Moses' rod into a serpent, but Pharaoh's magicians did the same with their rods. According to Quran, magicians defeated and worshiped Moses's God, then punished and killed by Pharaoh. So the magicians were thrown down to prostration: they said, "We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses". (Quran Surah 20 verses 65-73)

   I'm sorry, can you clarify this? I'm not very familiar with the Qur'an, so you'll have to be patient with me. Are you saying, [according to the Qur'an] that the Egyptian magicians were defeated by God, and then they converted and turned against the Pharaoh? As soon as I get clarification I'll merge this bit into the article. L'Aquatique[review] 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   Yes. You understood it correctly.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   1. Golden calf: Aaron had received golden earrings from the people, he made a golden calf and said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." According to Quran, The people of Moses made, in his absence, out of their ornaments, the image of calf, (for worship): it seemed to low: did they not see that it could neither speak to them, nor show them the way? They took it for worship and they did wrong... When Moses came back to his people, angry and grieved, he said: "Evil it is that ye have done in my place in my absence: did ye make haste to bring on the judgment of your Lord?" He put down the tablets, seized his brother by (the hair of) his head, and dragged him to him. Aaron said: "Son of my mother! the people did indeed reckon me as naught, and went near to slaying me! Make not the enemies rejoice over my misfortune, nor count thou me amongst the people of sin." Moses prayed: "O my Lord! forgive me and my brother! admit us to Thy mercy! for Thou art the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!" (Quran Surah 7 verses 148-153)

   Once again, I'm a little confused. That seems similar enough to the traditional Jewish account of the golden calf incident to not merit mention of a theological difference between Quran and Torah. Perhaps I misread? L'Aquatique[review] 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   This may clarify the issue. Acoording to Qur'an Aaron was innocent. --Seyyed(t-c) 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   1. It's written Moses turned down the opportunity to have the Israelites completely destroyed and a great nation made from his own offspring, and instead he told the people that they would wander the wilderness for forty years until all those twenty years or older who had refused to enter Canaan had died, and that their children would then enter and possess Canaan. Early the next morning, the Israelites said they had sinned and now wanted to take possession of Canaan. Moses told them not to attempt it, but the Israelites chose to disobey Moses and invade Canaan, but were repulsed by the Amalekites and Canaanites...However, because Moses and Aaron had not shown the Lord's holiness, they were not permitted to enter the land to be given to the Israelites. Quran says "O my people! Enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin." They said: "O Moses! In this land are a people of exceeding strength: Never shall we enter it until they leave it: if (once) they leave, then shall we enter." (But) among (their) Allah-fearing men were two on whom Allah had bestowed His grace: They said: "Assault them at the (proper) Gate: when once ye are in, victory will be yours; But on Allah put your trust if ye have faith." They said: "O Moses! while they remain there, never shall we be able to enter, to the end of time. Go thou, and thy Lord, and fight ye two, while we sit here." He said: "O my Lord! I have power only over myself and my brother: so separate us from this rebellious people!" Allah said: "Therefore will the land be out of their reach for forty years: In distraction will they wander through the land: But sorrow thou not over these rebellious people. (Quran Surah 5 verses 20-26)

    Done but you might want to check to make sure I interpreted it correctly. L'Aquatique[review] 07:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

   1. In brief, there are some contradictions in a few issues which should be mentioned. You can use Biblical_narratives_and_the_Qur'an#Moses_.28M.C5.ABs.C4.81_.D9.85.D9.88.D8.B3.D9.89.29 and

Biblical_narratives_and_the_Qur'an#Idol_calf_and_Samaritan.

1. As noted on the talk page, there are issues with the handling of the "Academic view" section, which should incorporate the discussion of the historicity question. This issue should also be noted with a sentence in the Lead. Jheald (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?:

1. 1. Image:VictoryOLord.JPG doesn't have any copyright tag.
   2. In some cases such as Image:Hatemimoses.jpg, the uploader has claimed who is the copyright holder. Don't we need any official document or permission to support this claim?
   3. The fair use rational of Image:309 big mo.gif doesn't satisfy me. it allows for identification of the character: moses!!! it shows how Moses was parodied in this particular episode!!! I don't think this suitable for the article.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

POV review - "Academic view" and "Historicity"

I got a request to come and look at this because it's up for GA, and opinions were wanted about POV balance.

I should disclaim, that despite having made some edits a while back to rehabilitate Biblical narratives and the Qur'an, I am not an expert on Islam, or Islamic perspectives. So I am not going to comment on that angle.

What I would say is that the most serious balance issue I see currently with the article is how it addresses the question of whether the Exodus happened, and Moses existed, at all.

As I understand it, mainstream academic archaeologists in universities tend now to be very, very skeptical of the Biblical narratives of the conquest of Canaan, the period in the wilderness, and the Exodus from Egypt. Of course, there are apologists for the Biblical view, such as Kenneth Kitchen or James Hoffmeier. But these tend to reflect a committed evangelical faith-based agenda. As I understand it, Kitchen's 2003 book on Old Testament historicity, for example, was pretty negatively reviewed outside the faith community.

It's important to remember that William F. Albright and Martin Noth, as presented in the "academic view" section, represent the academic consensus of the 1930s to 1950s -- the "Bible and Spade" period of Biblical Archaeology -- not current scholarship. At that time archaeology was seen as broadly confirming at least a basic background to Biblical narratives; and very many archaeologists approached it with that as a significant intention. But as the article Biblical Archaeology touches on, that is no longer the position, and since the 1970s the archaeological community has become more and more convinced the Biblical accounts simply don't add up.

So, I would suggest that it's a nonsense for the "academic view" to simply wallow in the cosy acceptance of the 1950s; and it's a nonsense to separate it from the question of historicity currently tacked on much further down the article. Instead, IMO the "academic view" section needs first to introduce the current debate about historicity head on. And only then, having set out the landscape, should it get into the views of those academics who think that there is a historical core at the heart of the story.

Secondly, at the moment the first 50% of the article presents the Biblical perspective, without any hint of reservation. I think therefore it's also important to add a line to the lead, noting that the archaeological evidence is very limited to non-existent, leading to debate as to whether the events could have been anything like what the Bible describes. -- Jheald (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The Academic view section does not in any way represent the current academic view and should be removed. 'Date of the Exodus' should also be removed, it is not at all necessary in this article. But the worst bit is the huge lack of balance, this article does NOT meat NPOV requirements that "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." This is basic policy, right? Taking out the references, etc the article is about 10,000 words, of which less than 400 (about half of which I added fairly recently I think) represent current scholarship. No way can that meet NPOV requirements. It needs to be considerably increased and should replace the current 'Academic views' section so that it appropriately placed, and the lead should also say something about these views. Doug Weller (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so are you suggesting we remove the academic section or improve it? L'Aquatique[review] 04:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the current content and replace it with an expanded version of the stuff in the historicity section. Doug Weller (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily chop Noth and Albright altogether, but they need to be identified as older views. Jheald (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream academic interest in the story of Exodus as in good archaeological and historical agreement with the artifacts discovered at Timnah has led to several reconsiderations of assumptions since 1980.

The date of the Exodus is now thought by Bimson and others to agree well with the 18th dynasty of Egypt in that its a time of war, there is the historic expulsion of a people known as the Hyksos and the Egyptian chronology agrees with the dating of the story. The date is 970 BC for the fourth year of Solomon plus 480 years or 1450 BC. The date of 1450 BC plus 430 years agrees also with the first entrance of Abraham into Egypt, c 1880 BC. Abraham is said to be 99 at the time of the events of Genesis 14 so that would be c 1781 BC which agrees with the period in which the coalition of Rim Sin I and Shamsi Adad of mari with Hammurabbi matches that story.

In the 18th dynasty of Egypt the capital of Egypt is at Thebes where there is a well known trading route from Egypts Red Sea port of Elim across the Red Sea to Elat where Mt Horeb (hr(y)ib (middle) in Egyptian is the boundary between Edom and Middian and the focus of most of the events in the story of the Exodus.

No sites have been found in the Sinai which would make a passage across it possible. There are Egyptian mines at Serabit el-Khadem but there is no source of water between there and Paran (Feiran) going east toward Elat and the passage north along the kings highway into Canaan is guarded by a series of fortified and garrisoned wells controlled by the Egyptians.

Most 18th dynasty Egyptian campaigns have amphibious components so the idea of using boats to cross the Red Sea where trading by sea has been documented back to the fourth dynasty of Egypt should not seem too miraculous.

The Egyptian campaigns against the king of Kadesh agree with the account in Judges IV and the song of Deborah and Barack even to the detail of the attack of Thutmosis III coming by way of the narrower route from the south across the Kishon.

The accounts of the Conquest agree with the events mentioned in the Amarna letters.

The drawback noted by archaeologists that the destruction sequences in Canaan are two early for the time of Rameses II c 1285 BC agrees well with their dating to the 18th dynasty of Egypt and the ursuit of the Hyksos into Canaan. The purpose of the Exodus is to return from Egypt to a place where there are relatives living and these are in place in the Seir between Mt Horab and Mt hermon from genesis 14 onwards. Rktect (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Primary sources

Sa.vakilian writes:

The bible and Quran are original sources and we should add secondary source. Please pay attention to these :

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic...religious scripture[1]
• The sacred or original text(s) of the religion will always be primary sources[2]
• The Qur'an and the Hadith are considered to be primary sources, as defined in WP:NOR[3]

--Seyyed(t-c) 11:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very true, but read on to what WP:PRIMARY has to say next:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

* only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and

* make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

As I wrote on the GA page, the Bible is a reliable source for what the Bible says.

We add nothing by citing secondary sources that merely repeat what the Bible says. Where secondary sources are needed is in discussing the theology, significance, literary style, composition, historicity, etc, etc, of what the Bible says. That is the basis on which I removed the "primary source" tags.

I think the refs to parashah glosses should probably be cut too, unless these add significant value over and above just saying "the Biblical text says this".

2. The real problem, as I tried to flag with my edit summary, is presentation in the article as fact rather than text.

The added refs to parashah glosses don't help with this problem one little bit.

Instead, it needs to be much, much better distinguished in the main text, rather than the footnotes, of the article: what is from the Biblical story; what has been added from Josephus, writing at least six centuries later; and what has been interpolated from Jewish midrash, or taken from the Qur'an, both still further centuries later.

It's fine to say "this is what the primary source says", referenced only by the primary source. But it does have to be absolutely clear, even to the casual reader who doesn't read footnotes, that what you are doing is relaying the account of a primary source; and which primary source it is that you are describing. Jheald (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Result

This article hasn't improve since one week ago. Thus I decide to declare its failure to reach GA criteria. :

1. Well written?: Fail.

2. Factually accurate?:Fail.

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail.

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Fail

I think the second reviewer, Jheald, agrees with this decision. However every body can ask for reassessment if he/she opposes with my decision.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)