Talk:Nehushtan

Nehustan and the dual

The ending -an is not the dual ending. The dual ending is -aiim. Refer to the article on Hebrew grammar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RavMikha'el (talk • contribs) 23:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The "Elohist source" (Lol)

I have another source that tells me Wikipedia's over-reliance on nebulous "hypotheses" is full of it. J.D.

Cognate

to Nachash Bare'ach?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion

The source listed as unreliable meets all the reliability requirements. wp: rs read this and point to the line that says old histories are invalid, you'll not find it because its not there. please read wp: verify also particularly the opening that says wikipedia's requirement for inclusion is verifiablity not truth. An opinion that a source is unreliable is not sufficient to tag it as such unless you can point to a specific reason that is within a wikipedia policy. Do not put tags on a source without justification and discusion on this talk page. If you still persist in believing the source invalid (i'm taking not postion meerly being a wiki-lawyer about the rules regarding it) then post your arguements on the reliable sources noticeboard Smitty1337 (talk) 06:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If this old source were against WP policy, we'd delete it outright. Instead, we're just asking for verification from a more recent source. I'd sure like to know whether contemporary scholars agree with this 120 YO source. Leadwind (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

if you acknowledge it is not a violation of policy why are you tagging the article page with a tag linking to a policy that it is not in violation of? stop reverting this, your edit war is against policy, if you wish to dispute this source i've told you the proper method. You may discuss it here, and if no result is reached then you may take that source to the reliable sources noticeboard and dispute its reliablity. That tag is not used for personal opinion on credibilty of a source, thats what a talk page is for; that tag is for pointing out the current source may be a violation of the policy which the tag links too. your actions constitute a violation of wp: 3rr. Explain to me how this source is any less valid (using a wiki policy), then for instance Plutarch or Seutonis who are constantly used on a great many of other pages, and are substantially older histories then this, yet they are not tagged. Smitty1337 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Asking for verification is a good idea. I side with Leadwind on this. Rwflammang (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Verification is always good. However, Smitty1337 is correct here, and has provided the right avenue to discuss sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.147.188 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the real source of "Nehushtan"

It derived from Sumerian Ningishzida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.131.153 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 4 July 2013‎

Do you have a reliable source for that? It may have been the source of Caduceus or Rod of Asclepius, but just because it pre-dates Moses does not make it the source of Nehushtan. – Fayenatic London 12:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Variant transliterations

So Editor2020 says that variant spellings do not go in the lede. Fine. But WP:NAME says the exact opposite. So who is right? Rwflammang (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My point was that if we include every variant spelling from every Bible translation we are going to have a really odd looking lead. If you find confirmation that it is a significant spelling, please place it in the lead. Editor2020, Talk 04:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies for not making that clear. Editor2020, Talk 04:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nohestan

Is "Nohestan" a significant enough variant spelling to be included in the wp:Lead section. Editor2020, Talk 15:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, obviously, I think so, for several reasons. Since I'm short of time right now, I'll just mention a few by cutting and pasting what I already wrote at User talk:Jytdog:

I have a fondness for the new-fangled King James Old Testament transliterations; they certainly have their place. But in many cases I prefer the old classical Greco-Latin transliterations found in the Vulgate derived translations (and the KJV New Testament and Apocrypha), not because they are more accurate (They are not!), but because they are dignified by age, and because their classical endings are cool. So I prefer Elias to Elijah, Tobias to Tobit, Core to Korah, Jesus to Yeshua (or Joshua). To say nothing of Cyclops for Kuklops, Cyrus to Kuros, Dinosaur to Deinosauros, etc. ad nauseam.

But my preference is neither here or there. It is important to have the classical transliterations, even when they have fallen out use in modern English, because they are used in the older pre-KJV translations of the Bible, as well as in current translations in the Romance languages, where the classical transliterations have never gone out of fashion. The fact that they are obscure now, makes it more necessary, not less, to include them, so that readers who stumble across these mystifying names can find them on Wikipedia. There is now a page called Nohestan that redirects to Nehushtan, and a pet peeve of mine is to get redirected to a page and find nothing about the actual term I typed in. I will grant you that in this case, it will be clear to any educated reader than Nehushtan must be a variant of Nohestan, but not all readers are educated, and anyway, what's the harm?

A few more points to follow soon. Rwflammang (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You just created the redirect at Nohestan on 25 August, 2014. Anyone else?Editor2020, Talk 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The transliteration used in English bibles printed since 1611 follows use either Nehushtan following the KJV or Nohestan following the Vulgate. (I am not aware of any English version using Nehustan without the H, although the Spanish bibles use that transliteration.) The split inevitably falls along confessional lines, with Protestant bibles using Nehushtan and Catholic bibles before 1966 following the Vulgate transliteration. Starting with the Jerusalem Bible, Catholic versions began using the more common KJV-Old-Testament-style transliterations.

Given that these two transliterations, Nohestan and Nehushtan make up virtually all of the transliterations used in English, I'd say that they are the two most significant. Other articles using Biblical proper names on Wikipedia also include the Catholic transliteration in their articles, like Eliseus for Elisha, although Elias inexplicably gets its own article, which is certainly an error. These other articles put the alternative translations in the lede, per WP:NAME.

As you can see, I have added a section to the article which includes "Nohestan". Since nobody else seems to care, I'll put it back in the Lead. Editor2020, Talk 03:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of the term

According to http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/nehushtan/ , and at least one footnote I remember reading in a Bible,

"The lapse of nearly one thousand years had invested the 'brazen serpent' with a mysterious sanctity; and in order to deliver the people from their infatuation, and impress them with the idea of its worthlessness, Hezekiah called it, in contempt, 'Nehushtan,' a brazen thing, a mere piece of brass" (direct quote from http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/nehushtan/) -186.84.7.117 (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Request to Use Reliable Sources

I spent some time yesterday reorganizing the article and improving it in a variety of ways. In response, all of my edits were reverted with a request to "use reliable sources reflecting contemporary scholarship" (which was a bit ironic, although presumably unintentionally, since the only scholarly source that was being cited in the sections of the article I worked on before I got here was from 1897). Regardless the vast majority of my editing either was sourced (the article had more citations when I was done editing than it had had before I had stared) or did not require (additional) sourcing. As a result, I have restored the edits I had made along with the addition of some sources for the one claim I had introduced which was not clearly sourced. If there are further aspects of my recent editing which require sourcing, please bring them up here or tag them with {{cn}}, and I will be happy to work on providing reliable sourcing for them. Or if there are questions or concerns about the way I have reorganized the article, I am happy to discuss those things also, but I would appreciate at least some benefit of the doubt to the extent of not having everything I did mass reverted with a simplistic explanation which does not address the majority of the work that I have done. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You expanded the article using mostly citations from the bible and the very old sources available through biblegateway. Please don't edit that way about ANE topics. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Um, guys...

Got distracted with something else but meant to point out that I already range-blocked the IP edit warrior.

I'm not going to wheel-war the protection but I'm not sure how necessary it is at this point. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

What source is "Joiner 1968"? Who is Joiner?

The footnotes sections refers to "Joiner 1968" in three places (and "Joines" in a fourth), yet there's no corresponding source in the references and I can't find any such text. Asdjk48 (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I went back through the revision history and found it, incorrectly cited back in 2011 and then lost in some shuffle or other. It was Joines: Karen Randolp Joines, The Bronze Serpent in the Israelite Cult, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 245-256 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3263536 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdjk48 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Destruction of Images

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tuq44473 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Llgilpin03 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)