Talk:Siege of Tyre (586–573 BC)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that the Book of Ezekiel prophesied Nebuchadnezzar II's 13-year long Siege of Tyre? Source: Vogelstein, Max (1950–1951). "Nebuchadnezzar's Reconquest of Phoenicia and Palestine and the Oracles of Ezekiel". Hebrew Union College Annual. 23 (2). New York: Hebrew Union College Press: 197–220. JSTOR 23506631.
  • Reviewed: N/A, this is my second nomination

Created by Pizzaking13 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Dear User:Pizzaking13, the article has just been recently created, is long enough, and is within policy; in addition the hook is interesting and is fewer than two-hundred characters. There is currently no image to review for this hook. As this is your second nomination, you do not need to fulfill any requirements with respect to QPQ. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination[edit]

why does both the DYK and the article talk about the connection between the prophecy and the siege as if prophecies are genuine, accurate things? This reads like something out of an amateur Bible encyclopedia, not an account of a historical event. Why is someone who aligns with Prager University being permitted to add in nonsense like this? What were User:Yoninah and User:Anupam thinking? 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:ADC1:36C:22CF:C2BA (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia relies on independent, reliable sourcing to verify all text. In this case, the article is suitably sourced to academic journals and reliable online references. The fact that you think the Bible is a fairy tale does not really apply here. Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the relevant section or the DYK? At the very least, it should be something like "is said to have prophesied" or "claimed to have prophesied". Right now it presents the prophecy as being objectively related, when theological interpretation is a purely subjective matter. Wikipedia can't present any kind of prophecy as actually predicting future events, because prophecies are by definition supernatural and any evidence of validity is contentious (if not missing altogether). They also frequently contradict each other, or inspire contradictory interpretations. Both that section of the article and the DYK need to be rewritten to be encyclopedic. More than that, nobody should have approved of them in the first place. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:6D7B:90D:E223:A52A (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]