This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
An information about an ancient deity in Kemet has surfaced where the goddess Neith is described by ancient egyptians as 'Libyan Neith' shows the origins of this deity, user A. Parrot argues that this information is false and that Neith has purely egyptian origins while user Potymkin claims that Libyan Neith as described by ancient egyptians is the case, user A. Parrot presents Wilkinson and Lesko two egyptologists as proof that the deity is purely egyptian but after much reading reading on their works and presenting their books and page numbers in the talk page, even these egyptologists disagree with the point that Neith is purely egyptian and solemnly agree with Libyan Neith. after contacting Lesko via email she appears to be on board with Libyan Neith. the matter requires final settlement as neither party wants to concede.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Neith was worshipped in Egypt for more than 3,000 years, and the earliest evidence about her dates to the very murky Protodynastic Period. The sources describe her origins as uncertain; Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE by Susan Tower Hollis says (p. 115) that Neith "presents the biggest puzzle of these goddesses".
At particular issue are two passages from books in the article's source list. Lesko 1999 says (p. 47) "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian." Wilkinson 2003 says (p. 157) "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the western Delta."
Potymkin insists the article should describe Neith as Libyan or "Egypto-Libyan" and regards these passages in the sources as supporting that position. I believe the article should say scholars are uncertain about Neith's origins but describe a Libyan origin for her as a viable hypothesis—not a certainty. Potymkin continues to mischaracterize me as insisting Neith was "purely Egyptian". A. Parrot (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am ready to conduct moderated discussion about the Neith article .
Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to follow these rules and whether you want moderated discussion.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you agree to moderated discussion, please state concisely what you want to change in the article, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Robert McClenon for offering to help to make wikipedia articles more comprehensive I am happy that you are able to provide some of your time for this issue, in the Neith article I would like to keep the following statement in the lead of the article: "was an early Libyan deity worshipped by Libyans and ancient Egyptians. She was adopted from Libya (or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located). Her worship is attested as early as Predynastic Egypt, around 6000 BC." along with all of its relevant sources, this is due to sources I provided from UNESCO library, World History Encyclopedia which their publications are recommended by many educational institutions including:
Each editor has stated briefly what they want to say about the origin of Neith. One editor says that she was a Libyan deity whose worship spread to Egypt. Another editor says that her origin is uncertain, but that the hypotheses include a Libyan origin. Is either editor willing to try to craft a compromise wording that will be acceptable to both editors?
DRN Rule A states that each editor is expecting to participate in discussion at least every 48 hours. If either of you will need longer wikibreaks, please let me know and we will see what alternate rule we can set up. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon thank you for taking the necessary time to analyze both view points correctly, I have crafted the terminology Egyptian-Libyan Deity that is acceptable which I suggested on the talk pageTalk:Neith#Claimed Berber origin to try to resolve the issue. I am also open to suggestions of terminology that indicate the Libyan roots of Neith. the terminology already present at the article "she was adopted from Libya or was a divinity of the local Libyan population in Sais in Egypt, where her oracle was located" is sufficient to describe multiple viewpoints in my honest opinion. Potymkin (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon: My apologies for not responding. I haven't participated at DRN before and am a bit confused by the instructions and the format. E.g., I'm not even sure if I'm putting this comment in the right place—please relocate it if I've gotten it wrong.
My problem is that I don't know what compromise Potymkin would be open to that reflects what the sources actually say. Potymkin's argument is built on synthesis, ably summed up in this comment by User:Lone-078 (who is a party to this dispute but hasn't been notified to discuss here). It is an Egyptological hypothesis, but not one that is universally held, that Neith originated among the Libyan peoples of the Protodynastic Period. It is a certainty that Libyan peoples 2,000 years later worshipped her. But that does not mean she is certain to have been Libyan or Egypto-Libyan at her origin. Any claim to the contrary is a misrepresentation of the sources. A. Parrot (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The next step is that I will ask each editor to propose a revised version of the lede paragraph presenting what they think should be the introduction to the article. Since the issue is her origin, any statement about her origin should be clearly attributed to a source. That is, if you propose to say that she is of Libyan origin, the source must state that she is of Libyan origin. Then we can look at any issues of the reliability of sources, but first we need to compare revised drafts of the lede paragraph.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your consideration @Robert McClenon, the following is my suggested lead paragraph where sources show her clear libyan origin down to the book and the page:
This is imperfect, but I think it better reflects the relative weight given by the sources. They don't usually spend much time on her possible Libyan origins and pay more attention to other aspects of Neith, so our article lead should do the same. A. Parrot (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neith/ˈniː.ɪθ/ (Koinē Greek: Νηΐθ, a borrowing of the Demotic form Ancient Egyptian: nt, also spelled Nit, Net, or Neit) was an ancient Egyptian deity. She was connected with warfare, as indicated by her emblem of two crossed bows, and with motherhood, as shown by texts that call her the mother of particular deities, such as the sun god Ra and the crocodile god Sobek. As a mother goddess, she was sometimes said to be the creator of the world. She also had a presence in funerary religion, and this aspect of her character grew over time: she became one of the four goddesses who protected the coffin and internal organs of the deceased.[17]
Neith is one of the earliest Egyptian deities to appear in the archaeological record; the earliest signs of her worship date to the Naqada II period (c. 3600–3350 BC).[18][19] Her main cult center was the city of Sais in Lower Egypt, near the western edge of the Nile Delta, and some Egyptologists have suggested that she originated among the Libyan peoples who lived nearby.[20][21] She was the most important goddess in the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3100–2686 BC) and had a significant shrine at the capital, Memphis. In subsequent eras she lost her preeminence to other goddesses, such as Hathor, but she remained important, particularly during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (664–525 BC), when Sais was Egypt's capital. She was worshipped in many temples during the Greek and Roman periods of Egyptian history, most significantly Esna in Upper Egypt, and the Greeks identified her with their goddess Athena.[22]
I have looked over the draft versions of the lede sentence. The first conflict between the two versions has to do with the nationality of Neith, in the first sentence. I suggest that the first sentence be written to compromise between calling her Egyptian and calling her Libyan. I suggest that the opening sentence be rewritten to something like:
Neith [followed by discussion of the origin of the name] was a North African goddess who was worshiped in ancient Egypt beginning in Predynastic Egypt and in Libya..
The remainder of the lede paragraph can then be reworked to follow and expand on
@Robert McClenon I am very happy with your suggestion calling her a north african goddess and expanding on her origins later on in the article. I suggest instead of saying
Neith [followed by discussion of the origin of the name] was a North African goddess who was worshiped in Predynastic Egypt and in Ancient Libya as far back as 3200 BC.
I think my suggestion of calling her Egyptian-Libyan goddess is not bad either, since its more specific about north africa but it doesn't cause problem to owing to one origin of hers or another.
I hope you find my comment helpful
My problem with that is that is that Neith is specifically known, and usually referred to in the sources, as an Egyptian goddess. The Libyan peoples of this period did not use writing, so the evidence about Neith's worship comes almost entirely from Egyptian sources. It's not clear if she was worshipped by Libyans outside the Nile Delta at all periods, or if she was only worshipped by those Libyans who periodically settled in the Delta and adopted Egyptian customs. I don't see anything in Potymkin's sources that contradicts the latter possibility.
That doesn't mean she wasn't a Libyan deity, only that we don't know enough to say how extensive her presence in Libya was. Her presence in Egypt is the presence we can see in the evidence, and therefore it's the emphasis we find in the sources. A. Parrot (talk) 04:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of focusing on finding a solution to the issue @Robert McClenon you can probably note the stubborn approach to the issue of considering Neith a purely Egyptian deity by the other arguing party, this renders any ability to reach a fair and team oriented 2 party solution like beating against a wall.
All in all my arguing party is bent on putting Neith as an Egyptian deity despite Ancient Egyptians themselves and UNESCO and all other archeologists calling her a Libyan deity. therefore the concession Egyptian-Libyan is more than a huge step on my part to resolve the issue that is clearly closed which is that the population concerned with the deity called her libyan and this is well confirmed by UNESCO and World History Encyclopedia which is sourced by institutuions like oxford university and other show the clear Libyan Origins of the deity. Potymkin (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^'Western Delta was considered 'Ament(the west)' = 'Libya' by ancient egyptians
^Scholar Richard H. Wilkinson comments on this:
"Neith is one of the most ancient deities known from Egypt. There is ample evidence that she was one of the most important deities of the prehistoric and Early Dynastic periods and, impressively, her veneration persisted to the very end of the pharaonic age. Her character was complex as her mythology continued to grow over this great span of time and, although many early myths of the goddess are undoubtably lost to us, the picture we are able to recover is still one of a powerful deity whose roles encompassed aspects of this life and the beyond"
References
^ ab"Neith". worldhistory.org. Retrieved 6 July 2024.
^ abLesko, Barbara S. (1999). The great goddesses of Egypt. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press. ISBN978-0-8061-3202-0. Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being, at the beginning of history, inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya
^Lesko, Barbara S. (1999). The great goddesses of Egypt. Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press. p. 58. ISBN978-0-8061-3202-0. the Libyan Neith is her ka
^Hollis, Susan T. (2019). Five Egyptian goddesses: their possible beginnings, actions, and relationships in the third millennium BCE. Bloomsbury Egyptology. London: Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN978-1-4742-3425-2. About Neith : "It is also commonly thought that her origins lie in Libya to the west"
^The Complete Gods And Goddesses Of Ancient Egypt. p. 32,97,291,369. "Neith the patroness of the Libyans" Page 97 "the Libyan population of the delta was invaded during the 5th dynasty and elements of the Libyan captive local population of the Nile Delta being taken was portrayed in Ancient Egyptian Papyrus" page 231 "Sais the city is the culture centre of the worship of the goddess Neith" Page 369
^ abCamps, G. (1989-01-01). "Athéna". Encyclopédie berbère (in French) (7): 1011–1013. doi:10.4000/encyclopedieberbere.1211. ISSN1015-7344. Il faut citer en premier lieu la déesse égypto-libyque Nît, très ancienne mais particulièrement adorée durant l'époque saïte, au moment où la Basse-Egypte est soumise à une forte influence libyenne et où règne une dynastie de même origine. Nît [We must first mention the Egyptian-Libyan goddess Nit, very ancient but particularly worshiped during the Saite era, when Lower Egypt was subject to a strong Libyan influence and where a dynasty of the same origin reigned. Nit]
^Mark, Joshua J. "Neith". World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2024-08-01. Neith may have originally been a fertility deity corresponding to the goddess Tanit who was later worshipped in North Africa at Carthage
^"Libyco-Berber relations with ancient Egypt: the Tehenu in Egyptian records". unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 2024-08-03. The temple of Sais, in the western delta, the chief centre of Libyan influence in Egypt, bore the name of 'House of the king of Lower Egypt'. The chief goddess of this temple was Neith ('the terrible with her bows and arrows') and she was 'living in the west'. The Libyans of north-west Egypt, especially in Sais, tattooed the emblem of Neith upon their arms. It seems that Sais was the residence of a Libyan king of the delta at a certain time. The origin of the uraeus, the royal serpent of the Pharaohs, is said to be traced to an early Libyan king of the delta, as shown from the reliefs discovered in Sahure's pyramid-temple at Abusir bearing the drawing of four Libyan chiefs wearing on their brows this royal emblem. It is worth noting that the Tehenu was the principal Libyan tribe who used to infiltrate into Egypt before the Libyan invasions, which will be dealt with later.
^"The Grand Egyptian Museum". web.archive.org. 2021-10-25. Retrieved 2024-08-18. a toponym of Libya or Western Delta
^Mark, Joshua J. "Neith". World History Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2024-07-27. was worshipped early in the Pre-Dynastic Period (c. 6000 - 3150 BCE)
^"Neith". brooklynmuseum.org. Retrieved 6 July 2024.
^Wilkinson, Richard H. (2003). The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. pp. 156–157
^Hollis, Susan Tower (2020). Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE. Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 8–9
^Hendrickx, Stan (1996). "Two Protodynastic Objects in Brussels and the Origin of the Bilobate Cult-Sign of Neith". The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology (82). p. 39
^Lesko, Barbara S. (1999) The Great Goddesses of Egypt. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 47
^Hollis, Susan Tower (2020). Five Egyptian Goddesses: Their Possible Beginnings, Actions, and Relationships in the Third Millennium BCE. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 20
^Wilkinson, Richard H. (2003). The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. pp. 158–159
Instead of focusing on finding a solution to the issue, Robert McClenon, you can probably note the stubborn approach to the issue of considering Neith a purely Egyptian deity by the other arguing party, this renders any ability to reach a fair and team oriented 2 party solution like beating against a wall.
I don't understand. Please reread DRN Rule A.3.1, which says: Comment on content, not contributors. … The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors. I am not assessing complaints about other editors, because I am trying to find a way around any impasse. So, yes, I am focusing on finding a solution to the issue. If either editor wishes to withdraw from moderated dispute resolution, they may do so, because it is voluntary. However, any editor should read the boomerang essay before filing a report at a conduct forum.
I have suggested that the lede sentence describe Neith as a North African goddess who was worshiped in Egypt and Libya. The body of the article can discuss how scholars differ as to where her worship originated.
The key question for me is: is there an RS that says Neith was worshipped by Libyans outside the Nile Delta, not just Egyptianized Libyans living in it? If there is, I'd be entirely willing to describe her as an "Egyptian and Libyan" deity, regardless of where she may have originated. A. Parrot (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two possible areas of content issues. The first is what the lede sentence should say. The second is what should be in the body of the article. The lede should summarize the most important points as stated by reliable sources, and any disagreements or uncertainties should either also be summarized in the lede, or should be avoided, so that details can be explored in the body of the article. If I understand correctly, the main issue in dispute is the lede. I think that this is a case where we can avoid making contentious statements in the lede. Does anyone disagree that she was a North African goddess? If there is any disagreement as to her origin, is there any need to raise that disagreement in the lede, as opposed to discussing it in the body of the article?
I am inviting each editor to provide their own second proposed version of the lede sentence to see if we can find something to agree on. I have proposed what I think should be a compromise, but would like to see any other proposals.
I believe that the suggestion Neith is a north African goddess is an acceptable way of putting her origins, but please to take the time to reflect on the suggestion Egyptian-Libyan as an alternative to North African, my intentions as well as my counterpart's I believe are to make wikipedia articles as less ambiguous as possible and reflecting on it further. it seems we are stuck on whether attributing Neith's origins to Libya, or the Libyan population of Sais. My counterpart's argument likes to call her Egyptian per her origins in Ancient Kemet is not misleading but simply ignores the information provided from my sources that both egyptologists and ancient egyptians consider Sais which was not yet part of Kemet as Libya and they referred to the place as Libya, calling her egyptian takes away from the contributions of the Libyans which I find unnecessary especially when both ancient Egyptians referred to her as "Libyan Neith" and Egyptologists talk extensively of her Libyan origins.
the issue is most certainly settled when greek historians such as Hesiod, Appolodorus and Also herodotus who travelled to Ancient egypt also refer to Athena and Neith's origins from Libya, that which is born from Lake tritonis in North africa which is goddess of the libyans as goddess of wisedom, warfare and weaving.
-Neith is portrayed wearing a shuttle on her head as the goddess of weaving from Libya or wearing the Libyan feather on her head or both. the Libyan feather in ancient egypt is the symbol in reference for Libyans (people) and Libya.
-Ancient egyptians refer to Neith as Libyan Neith and goddess of the West
-Greeks Refer to Neith as Libyan
-Greeks refer to Athena as Neith as Also Libyan
-UNESCO confirms her Libyan origins
-Egyptologists refer to her as Libyan and also talk of her Libyan origins extensively. the inscription 'Libyan Neith in her Ka' (Ka = Soul) is used in multiple egyptologist articles.
-World History encyclopedia affirms Libyan Origins
therefore its undoubtable that Neith is Libyan in origin.
the egyptians however understood this very well and they themselves made an Egyptian variation of Neith that had Egyptian instead of Libyan characteristics and they called this new goddess Nut. I accept Nut the variation of Neith that is Egyptian made, But Neith herself is Libyan par excellence !
Neith's Appearance: Neith is portrayed as a regal and powerful goddess, with an elegant and imposing stature. Her skin might have a golden or sun-kissed tone, reflecting the desert environment of Libya.
Libyan Feather Headdress: Neith wears a tall, feathered headdress characteristic of Libyan iconography. The feathers are elongated and vibrant, with intricate patterns and details that symbolize the culture's connection to nature and the divine. The feathers may be depicted in colors such as gold, green, and blue, representing fertility, life, and the sky.
Hieroglyphs: Surrounding Neith, hieroglyphs are engraved or painted onto the headdress or her garments. These symbols represent war, protection, wisdom, and weaving—elements associated with Neith's divine role. The hieroglyphs are delicate yet prominent, ensuring they are a focal point of the imagery.
Traditional Garb: Neith is dressed in flowing garments made of linen, adorned with intricate patterns that blend Egyptian and Libyan designs. The fabric is rich in texture and color, with decorative elements that emphasize her divine status.
Symbols of Power: Neith holds a scepter or ankh, symbols of power and life, further reinforcing her status as a goddess of both war and wisdom.
This visual representation merges the cultural aspects of both Egypt and Libya, showcasing Neith as a goddess honored in both traditions.
Potymkin (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's trivially true that Neith was a North African goddess, because Egypt and Libya are both in North Africa, but North Africa is a lot bigger than Egypt and Libya, so that level of generality is unhelpful. Any other encyclopedia would call her "an Egyptian goddess"—that is where she was undeniably worshipped and where the overwhelming majority of the evidence is from.
Throughout this dispute, I have been open to compromise on the wording if if I see either of two things: a source that clearly indicates that a Libyan origin for Neith is the consensus view in the field of Egyptology; or a source establishing that Neith was worshipped by Libyans in Libya, not Egypt. I have not seen either. (The assertion above that Sais was considered to be part of Libya at some point in Egyptian history is not sourced. I have no doubt that SAis was a point of contact between the two cultures, like the First Cataract region was a point of contact between Egyptian and Nubian culture, but I don't think that is enough to justify calling Neith Libyan.) A. Parrot (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that one editor wants to describe Neith as a Libyan goddess, and another editor wants to describe her as an Egyptian goddess. Is that correct?
An article about a goddess who was worshiped two thousand years ago or six thousand years ago is a historical article, and should be based on reliable historical sources. It is at this time more important how her origin has been described by twentieth-century scholars than by ancient scholars. It is true that the ancient sources were Egyptian and characterized her as Egyptian because the ancient written records are Egyptian. What do modern scholars say her origin was? I am now asking each editor to identify two reliable historical sources that support their view as to the origin of Neith.
@Robert McClenon thank you for the follow up on Neith's origins.
Publications on the certainty of the Libyan origins of Neith are so numerous that the already provided sources of UNESCO and World History Encyclopedia have adopted it without question, indeed it is extremely important to show that 20th century and 21st century scholars have now agreed on her Libyan origins as a known fact, here, on top of the previously given sources, some more of the most well known and well cited publications on Neith (in English):
2020: Here the authors from this publication in 2020 exploring [1] Lindsey Jackson an Egyptologist from the University of California, San Diego, Rovik, Patricia from the journal in Mediterranean Archeology unveils the origins of Neith and Athena from Libya as a goddess whose origins are of Libya [2]
1987 : the official Catalogue of the Museum of Cairo [3] also shows that the Delta in page 42 included Libya and hence Neith the Saite Deity is considered Libyan in that regard.
1945: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland describes neith as the "Libyan Delta Goddess"[4]
2011:this publication in the famous Ancient Egypt Magazine, 2011, Vol 11, Issue 6, p30 quotes Five Egyptian goddesses: their possible beginnings, actions, and relationships in the third millennium BCE by Susan Hollis [5] mentions the Libyan Origins of this deity
1945 :"at Esna he had as consort the great Libyan goddess, Neith: a close likeness between Egyptians and Libyans"[6]
2016: "There seems little reason to doubt that Neith was the same deity as the Libyan goddess whom Herodotus equates with Athene; and likely the same deity as Tanit who would become the principal goddess in later Carthage."[7] - University of Manchester
here you note that the consideration of Neith as Libyan goddess is consistent throughout the 20th and 21st century, whether it is the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland publishing this in 1945, the Official Catalogue of Museum of Cairo in Egypt in 1987 or even *UNESCO* and the *Journal in Mediterranean Archeology* today. hereby confirming that Neith being considered Libyan isn't new age revisionism, but an already well-established concept backed up by high trust, high research institutes in each era. It is without doubt that modern scholars consider Neith as Libyan.Potymkin (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara S. Lesko in The Great Goddesses of Egypt, University of Oklahoma Press, 1999 (p. 47): "Hermann Kees describes the northwestern part of the delta as being inhabited primarily by Libyans and points out that during the Old Kingdom Neith was characterized by Egyptians as Neith from Libya, 'as if she was the chieftainess of the neighboring people with whom the inhabitants of the Nile valley were at all times at war.' Other Egyptologists dispute this connection, however, and the first appearance of Neith is purely Egyptian."
Richard H. Wilkinson in The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, 2003 (p. 157): "Although she was sometimes called 'Neith of Libya', this reference may simply refer to the proximity of the Libyan region to the goddess's chief province in the western Delta." A. Parrot (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there are sources that characterize her as Libyan and sources that characterize her as Egyptian. Is either editor willing to compromise either by calling her North African or by calling her Libyan-Egyptian? Does anyone have another idea? If there is an impasse, we will use an RFC to determine rough consensus of the community.
hello @Robert McClenon , sorry for being inactive for a while I was a little busy, I would like to say that I am happy with @BrocadeRiverPoems 's final revision on the Neith page, he has demonstrated excellent ability to moderate in between. his statement that Neith is worshipped by both egyptians and Libyans without infringing on either sources or relevence of the publications is excellent. this would put the matter at rest. Please consult with the other side of the debate agrees or disagrees with the final revision to see if the matter could be put to rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potymkin (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are not sources that call her Libyan. As User:BrocadeRiverPoems has demonstrated extensively on the talk page, there are sources that say she may have originated among Libyans in prehistoric times, and there are sources that say Libyans who lived in Egypt worshipped her in historic times. This is an important distinction: ancient polytheists worshipped whichever deity was relevant to them. Because polytheistic deities were closely tied to places (they were effectively considered to be members of the community that worshipped them), people who settled in a place would adopt the deities of that community, whether or not their ancestors had any connection to that deity. Calling Neith "Libyan" because some Libyan groups who settled around Sais worshipped her would be a bit like calling Set a Canaanite god because the Hyksos who settled at Avaris worshipped him, or calling Sobek a Greek god because the Greek colonists at Karanis worshipped him.
I'm more interested in the possibility that — setting aside the question of how she originated — Neith was worshipped in historic times by Libyans in Libya, i.e., the Western Desert. If sources say that she was, then I would be happy to describe Neith as an "Egyptian and Libyan goddess". But the sources Potymkin has produced don't seem to say that. A. Parrot (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the rules. One thing I have learned in reading the multitude of sources provided on the matter is that there seems to be a confusion in what some of the sources are saying. For instance, one source speaks of a possible connection of this rainsender of the Auseans, and the Dea Coelestis of the Libyans in general, with a goddess of the western Egyptian Delta when discussing similarities between deities, specifically the similarities between Athena, Tanit and Neith, with Tanit being a Libyan Goddess, and thus a possible connection. The implication here is that Athena is also potentially derived from this Libyan Goddess, do we now go and refer to Athena as an ancient Libyan Goddess as well? A Greco-North-African Deity?
There seems to be some matter of debate in the scholarship itself about the theory that Neith originated from the Libyans as most sources that I've seen describe the theory as contested or lacking in evidence. Most, if not all, of the reliable sources which are provided to say Neith is of Libyan origin note that it is a theory and one which is not universally agreed upon.
Describing Neith as a North African deity is marginally acceptable, but I fear that this change is giving undue weight to what is appearing more and more like a WP:FRINGETHEORY.
I also wonder is it necessary to even declare Neith "of Egyptian origin" or "of Libyan origin" and why is it not acceptable to simply describe her as I have presently done so in the lead? That Neith is a Goddess that was worshipped by ancient Egyptians and Libyans? It is factually true and represented in the sources. Other articles such as Lamia stipulate what mythology they originated in, but do not declare an originating ethnic/national group, it focuses instead on the mythology, Tinjis says berber and greek mythology, Amunet, Hathor and Anput all just say "in ancient Egyptian Religion..." without saying specifically where it originated from. Likewise, Bastet uses the language a goddess of ancient Egyptian religion possibly of Nubian origin
I would propose as an alternative we adopt some of the language of the Bastet article, and write instead that Neith is:
This would represent that Neith's status in the Egyptian religion and note that there is a possible Libyan origin. This seems to be perfectly neutral language that provides due weight to both claims. This, to me, feels like a reasonable compromise. Brocade River Poems11:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a compromise, reflected a statement of what the present-day reliable sources say about Neith. It appears that one editor agrees with the compromise. If the other editor also agrees, or does not disagree within 48 hours, I will close this dispute as resolved. If there is disagreement, we will use a Request for Comments.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not followed up by one editor. Wahreit has not responded to my request to state what they think the article content issues are, because they have not edited in September 2024. They appear to have taken a wikibreak, which is their right. The other editor may edit the article, being ready to discuss their edits on the article talk page. If either the other editor or another editor objects to their edits, they should discuss on the article talk page, and may file another request for dispute resolution here, if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. Edit the article, and be ready to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Article originally said since 2005 that the IJA 3rd Division was engaged in the battle with no source. Japanese sources including official war monographs and contemporary military reports disproved this, noting the IJA 3rd Division and its subordinate forces were already outside Shanghai where the battle occurred.
Article was updated around 2022 to reflect correct participating Japanese forces but user has been continually re-adding disproven force due to assumed "consensus." Almost all of their sources used to assert this are unable to verify the claim of IJA 3rd Division's involvement. There has only been one source where I could not check the cited work to verify.
Main and one of the oldest sources used is Eric Niderost's "Chinese Alamo" article (which has no citations) published in December 2007. Niderost's article appears to have re-worded the false and at the time un-cited claim of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement from the 9 Aug 2007 or later revision of the wiki article:
"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."
Niderost, Dec 2007
"The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."
07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article.
This seems to be a case of citogenesis given the works cited to assert IJA 3rd Division's involvement all came after the IJA 3rd Division's inclusion in the wiki article in 2005 and some such as Stephen Robinson's 800 Heroes also cite Niderost's extremely suspicious article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Citogenesis or not, low quality articles and publications such as the writeup from Niderost which cannot verify their claims should not be given equal weight to Japanese war monographs and contemporary military reports. It is evident the IJA 3rd Division was not involved and as such should not be credited as participating on the article. Niderost's article and others with the false claim of the IJA 3rd Divisions involvement should be marked as unreliable sources.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - There has been extensive discussion on the article talk page, but none within the past three weeks. Resume discussion on the article talk page to see if agreement can be reached. I will leave this case request alone for 48 hours for resumed discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Sihang Warehouse)
Do the editors want moderated discussion? Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you want moderated discussion in accordance with these rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is the same as the purpose of discussion on an article talk page, which is to improve the content of the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I would greatly appreciate a moderated discussion in accordance with the rules.
My hope is to undo the recent changes by @Wahreit to the Japanese OOB as their sources not only contradict all of the Japanese-language reference material on the subject presented so far but also appear to be of questionable quality (web articles without citations etc). Adachi1939 (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i would appreciate a moderated discussion too. what i want to maintain is an unbiased balanced weight across sources without original research in line with wikipedia's policies. i have taken the advice of other editors in delivering a fair representation of all sources at hand, including Japanese-language materials. i do not want an entire perspective of the battle eliminated because editor @Adachi1939 has personal grievances with the sources at hand (published peer-reviewed books, theses by military institutions). Wahreit (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your summary or follow-up could you please indicate (with a source) which of the works you've presented are peer-reviewed? A work being published does not necessarily mean it underwent the peer-review process. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Be Specific at DRN. Then please be specific in one of two ways. First, you may be specific about paragraphs in the article. Please identify one or two paragraphs in the article that you want to change, and how you want to change them, or one or two paragraphs that you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, you may be specific about questioning sources. If another editor is relying on sources that you think are unreliable, please identify the source, and we will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard asking about the source.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of sources record that the Warehouse was attacked by the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd "Lucky" Division,[1][2] including Western historians Eric Niderost,[3] Stephen Robinson,[4] and James Paulose.[5] Historian Rana Mitter, one of the leading pioneers in Chinese historiography, has stated the Sihang Warehouse was assaulted by "thousands" of Japanese soldiers.[6] British journalist Keane Arundel, who personally witnessed and reported on the battle, estimated over 40,000 Japanese soldiers were engaged in the combat around Sihang Warehouse.[7]
There is some contention with Japanese sources, as the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 notes the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation as its primary focus at the time.[8] Period Japanese military reports record the IJA 3rd Division was positioned just west of the Warehouse (although not far away), with the SNLF (Japanese marine force) instead listed as the primary attackers on Sihang Warehouse.[9][10]Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies— credit the Special Naval Landing Forces as the main participating force in the attack on the warehouse.[11][12]
The issue with the second paragraph is how it has been rewritten, compared with what it stated earlier:
"...the IJA 3rd Division's unit history published in 1967 makes no mention of their involvement at Sihang Warehouse, instead noting the Division was in engaged in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation at the time. Period Japanese military reports similarly record the IJA 3rd DIvision as outside of Shanghai at the time (although not far away), with only SNLF listed in the attack. Senshi Sosho—the official war monographs of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy authored by the Japanese National Institute for Defense Studies—have no mention of IJA forces attacking Sihang Warehouse in their volumes covering the Second Sino-Japanese War, crediting naval landing forces as the sole participating force in the attack on the warehouse."
Wahreit has rewritten this section to make it seem Japanese sources at least suggest or leave room for the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division. However, this is not true, they are specific in mentioning the IJA 3rd Division was outside of Shanghai engaging in the Suzhou River Operation and that it was IJN SNLF troops who attacked and captured the Sihang Warehouse.
As for the first paragraph, the issue are the poor quality sources. I had already opened an RfC regarding them over a month ago but received zero responses. It should not be hard to go through these sources and see almost none include citations to back up their claims. Two of the sources, "Niderost, Eric (December 2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse"" and "Chen, Peter (2012). "Second Battle of Shanghai". World War II Database" are web articles with no citations at all. Perhaps Wikipedia has a lower standard, but from an academic standpoint an uncited web article with conflicting information should not be used to the allege the IJA 3rd Division was involved when all Japanese sources state they were not. The source "Kubacki, Marta (2014). On The Precipice Of Change. University of Waterloo. p. 166." has a chart noting the IJA 3rd Division's involvement at Shanghai, however the author notes the data was "compiled from Wikipedia and Simon Goodenough’s War Maps." Circular references generally cannot be used. One of the few actual books used is "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. p. 66." Not only does this work almost have no citations for the IJA 3rd Division's participation at Sihang Warehouse, the work even contradicts itself. On one page it cites "Hattori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China." Hattori's essay actually states the IJA 3rd Division had already left Shanghai by October 26, 1937 (a day before the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in Shanghai occurred. Robinson also cites the aforementioned "Niderost, Eric (December 2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse"" as well. So in short it relies on an uncited web article just like Wahreit has and misinterprets a scholarly essay which actually contradicts it.
All of these sources brought to question above have failed to verify their claims, not once did they link back to a Japanese primary source or reliable official history/monograph. The only source used by Wahreit which could possibly be reliable is "Paulose, James (2012). Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai. United States Military Academy West Point." Page 18 (frame 10) states the involvement of the IJA 3rd Division and cites "O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75." I have not been able to read O’Connor's work and verify if this work actually mentions the IJA 3rd Division. The volume is not available at any libraries in Japan as far as I know and it is too expensive to buy. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes. Exisle Publishing. p. 66.
^Paulose, James (2012). Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai. United States Military Academy West Point. p. 18.
^防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 編 (1975). 支那事変陸軍作戦＜1＞昭和十三年一月まで. 朝雲新聞社. pp. 380, 381.
^防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 編 (1974). 中国方面海軍作戦〈1〉昭和十三年三月まで. 朝雲新聞社. pp. 401, 402.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
New Mexico State University and University of New Mexico
There is discussion over official flagship status has is now verging on bullying.
Good faith efforts, to note the lack of official flagship status in the state (a fact) and lack of consensus, are being consistently ignored by ElKevbo without any sense of community.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The article prominently contains certain conclusions of critical scholarship which are stated in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution to show that they originate in the perspective of critical scholarship. On the 30th of August, I edited attribution to critical scholarship for these statements on the grounds of WP:NPOV. The same day, Bishonen undid my edit, with the summary 'Undo unsourced POV additions', and tgeorgescu posted on my talk page stating that my edit did not conform to WP:NPOV. I undid Bishonen's edit, because I did not make any unsourced POV additions. I raised this point to tgeorgescu who replied that the policies which are relevant to this dispute; WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:GEVAL. I stated that critical vs. non-critical scholarship is not a case of mainstream vs. fringe. Tgeorgescu responded with quotes from critical scholars outlining the fundamentals of critical scholarship. I responded that not all biblical scholars would accept these points (and further they actually represented controversial and contested theses, in the terminology of WP:WIKIVOICE, therefore they should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice). I gave a quote from a critical scholar, Bart Ehrman, who speaks on this issue. Doug Weller let me know that I should make a talk page post about this, which I did (linked in 'Resolving the dispute'). ViolanteMD expressed agreement with my proposed NPOV edits, and also gave some further argumentation which I also agree with, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Bishonen, tgeorgescu and Doug Weller are convinced that we misunderstand WP:NPOV. We allege that the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would appreciate if my original argument, the first post in the topic, could be evaluated, which I do not believe has occurred so far despite so much debate unfortunately. Especially the views of Ehrman should be addressed, whose practice I believe we should conform to in applying WP:NPOV. In addition, a review of the dispute in general and the quality of the arguments, to determine the course of action going forward regarding the article.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic—ridiculous: nobody in the mainstream academia (i.e. mainstream historians) believes that the Mosaic authorship is an even remotely tenable view of the Bible. Mosaic authorship falls under WP:FRINGE as patent pseudohistory. I'm not saying that JEDP is the only scholarly way of making sense of the Bible, but the Mosaic authorship isn't a plausible way. It's dead in the water in the mainstream academia. That is, the consensus that the Pentateuch was compiled from four large documents, each coherent on its own, is crumbling, but no historian worth his salt believes that Moses wrote a jot of the Bible.
If you need scholarly voices to that extent, watch the series Patterns of Evidence. I enjoyed it very much, but I kept in my mind that:
it's fundie propaganda;
it overtly seeks to give the lie to mainstream history, mainstream archaeology, mainstream linguistics, and so on.
The film opposes every Bible expert who knows what he/she is talking about. The film is worth seeing because it very clearly and honestly defines what it is opposing.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think I will take part. For one thing, I'm not any too interested in theology nor in Biblical criticism, and for another, it's a bit of a mistake to list me here, since the DRN rules above state that the preliminary talkpage discussion should normally have "more than one post by each editor". That's not the case for me; I've posted one time on talk. But I do believe Joshua Jonathan, who has now posted extensively on talk and has also edited the article quite substantially, should be listed here. (Their absence from the list is no fault of Violoncello10104's, since JJ only just turned up at the article. But they could surely help.) I thought of adding JJ myself to "Users involved", but I'm not sure that would be permitted. This noticeboard calls itself "an informal place", but the vibe it gives off is actually quite rules-heavy and bureaucratic IMO. Instruction creep? Anyway, JJ, whether or not you get listed, I hope you will take part. Bishonen | tålk14:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
On the one hand, I am ready to act as a moderator if at least two editors agree to moderated discussion. On the other hand, I am not sure that there will be moderated discussion, because I am not sure that two editors will agree. Please read DRN Rule D . If you are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that the topic is a contentious topic because the Genesis creation narrative is considered pseudoscience if taken as a historical account. If you agree to the rules, please also read the ArbCom ruling that pseudoscience is a contentious topic.
One editor appears to have declined to take part in moderated discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Notification is required, except for the editor who has already replied.
Any editor who wants to take part in dispute resolution is also asked to answer one question. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
I agree to DRN Rule D. I have notified the other three editors. I understand that the Genesis creation narrative is a contentious topic because as a historical account, it would be considered pseudoscience by the majority of the scientific community (in the wording of the ArbCom ruling). While Genesis as history may be considered pseudoscience by Wikipedia's voice solely on the basis of WP:MAINSTREAM with respect to the current scientific community, authorship and consistency are an entirely different question, and to do with history and literary analysis.
Statement of article content dispute:WP:WIKIVOICE states that 'Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice'. According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree. Please see my original post in the talk page for the full quote (source: [1]). For reference, traditional scholars universally say that Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 are not inconsistent and often deny the conception of composite authorship. Therefore, we propose that Wikipedia should not state the critical claims in its voice, but attribute them to critical scholarship (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). Furthermore, the current article misleads readers into believing that critical claims have widespread acceptance among Christians and Jews, when the opposite is the case.
According to Bishonen, tgeorgescu and presumably Doug Weller, this would give false balance to pseudohistory (WP:GEVAL), since non-critical views are fringe. However, this is not how mainstream academics such as Ehrman regard non-critical views; 'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats [sic] of NT writings) or not' (Ibid.). Here Ehrman states that it is possible for a non-critical scholar to make an argument in support of a traditional/non-critical Christian view which must then be accepted by a critical scholar. Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to be the only editor on "my" side. So, my acceptance depends upon whether either Bishonen or Doug Weller will join DRN.
Also, the belief that the Pentateuch has only one author is pseudohistory, see e.g. Friedman, Richard Elliott; Dolansky Overton, Shawna (2007). "Pentateuch". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 15 (2nd ed.). p. 734. ISBN0-02-865943-0. OCLC774684287. From the 11th to the 21st centuries, however, scholars have been expressing doubts about Mosaic authorship. At present, except for Ortychodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians who believe in Mosaic authorship as a matter of faith, no scholar on earth holds that Moses – or any one person – was the recorder of the Torah. You'll find the full article at encyclopedia.com .
I think that the talkpage-discussion is not exhausted yet, nor are the options available at the page itself. I've created a section Genesis creation narrative#Interpretation of the creation narrative where alternative interpretationd couls be added; alternatively, relevant alternative views could also be added to the subsections on "Authorship and dating" and "Two stories." Yet, it's not clear to me what content is contested; from these edits by Violoncello10104, and their summary of the dispute, I gather the following:
Authorship and dating:
the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ("Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic")
the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;
Mesopotamian influence:
borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;
Sixth day:
the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."
I'm wondering, though, about the statement the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. Controversial according to whom? This has not been explained yet at the talkpage, not have alternative views been proposed; so there has been no option yet to evaluate what exactly is "controversial and contested," and if such alternative views have to receive due weight. So maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt Ehrman is an academic authority. But is he an authority about the WP:RULES of Wikipedia?
While JEDP are somewhat contested in the mainstream academia, scholars agree that we can at least speak of a difference between Priestly and non-Priestly, with the Deutoronomistic History added to the book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.