User talk:ItaloCelt84

Welcome![edit]

Hello, ItaloCelt84, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hyksos into Moses. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Crossing the Red Sea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Crossing the Red Sea, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. This means that you can't use criticism of Hawass to discuss historicity. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The historicity section includes a highlighted quote from Zahi Hawass. I provided cited information about that scholar, and thus is important to note regarding potential bias in his opinion on a key part of Judaism and Jewish history. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, that would be against our policies, please read WP:NOR. If you think I'm interpreting policy incorrectly, mask at WP:NORN. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you most likely are correct. You have a larger knowledge of Wikipedia policy than myself. Hawass does have a massive bias though, and frankly I think his viewpoints are disgraceful to the profession. It's attitudes like that, probably shared by the Egyptian government, which is why we may never be able to fully excavate sites like Avaris and other places in the Sinai. What's worse is that other scholars take this as "no evidence" - which is false - even though we can't even fully excavate the most important locations. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding?[edit]

This is grammatically correct? Debresser (talk) 11:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC+2)

"Is yet to be found" or "has yet been found" or "has yet to be found" are all grammatically correct, yes. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 1:21 am, Today (UTC+2)

"No evidence has yet to be found' is good English? Debresser (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "has yet been found" is the most grammatically correct. You also hear "has yet to be found", but you now have me questioning that. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just consider: "evidence has yet to be found" would be correct. The negation of which is "no evidence has yet to be found", which is therefore the negation of correct. :) Debresser (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can use both, but "has yet been found" is most correct. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You just repeat your argument by assertion, even though I have shown you it is not logical. Debresser (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "No" that's the problem. "Evidence has yet to be found" vs "No evidence has yet to be found". I agree with Debresser. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "repeat my argument" by assertion. I stated that "has yet been found" is most correct, not "has yet to be found". I do not think Debresser has a very solid command of English grammar. Both are gramatically correct in English parlance, but I stated that "has yet been found" is generally what is more accepted as proper. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein and Silberman don't say what you wrote[edit]

I've either deleted or rewritten some of your edits as they have misrepresented the book (which is in front of me right now). Doug Weller talk 12:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book is available online, and my original edit merely paraphrased the original content. I added the part about Redford discussing the Hyksos expulsion being a shared memory of the people of Canaan, including Israel and Judah. ItaloCelt84 (talk) 06:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you've misinterpreted it. Doug Weller talk 06:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that your argument when you disagree ? I'm not misinterpreting anything. That is what the source says between p.68 and p.69, that the Hyksos expulsions were a shared memory for all the people of Canaan according to Egyptologist Donald Redford, and that it may have formed the basis for the Exodus narrative (which in my view it almost certainly did, and the Exodus occurred at that time). ItaloCelt84 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - - And then they question Redford, saying "It is impossible to say whether or not the biblical narrative was an expansion and elaboration of vague memories of the immigration of Canaanites to Egypt and their expulsion from the Delta in the second millennium BCE. Yet it seems clear that the biblical story of the Exodus drew its power not only from ancient traditions and contemporary geographical and demographic details but even more importantly from contemporary political realities." You leave out all their comments about the 7th century -- "all the major places that play a role of the wandering of the Israeliets were inhabited in the seventh century, in some cases they were inhabited only at that time." And their comment about Edom - Moses asked to for permission to pass through Edom, but Edom reached statehood in the 7th century. They don't deny that "images and memories" of the past didn't play a part in the final composition of the Exodus story of course. Doug Weller talk 09:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I wasn't clear. They don't challenge Redford's dating, they say that "Redford has shown just how many details in the Exodus narrative can be explained in this [7th century] setting, which was also Egypt's last period of imperial power..."All 3 of them argue that the main setting of the story is the 7th century. Doug Weller talk 09:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ItaloCelt, if you want to add re the Hyksos connection by all means go ahead - but restrict it to the section that has "Hyksos" in the title (I forget the exact title for now but I remember the word "Hyksos" is in it). Also, begin by explain who the Hyksos were - just a sentence. That should be your first sentence. Also, although the Exodus story might indeed be a faint memory of the Hyksos period told from the Hyksos point of view, there are a lot of problems with saying that it's simply a history of that event. The Hyksos were kings, not slaves, they did not worship Yahweh nor enter into a covenant with him, and they did not have a leader named Moses. Also again, the exodus story in the Bible is only one of several versions: there are interesting variations in the versions found in the Greek historians. Anyway, have a go at writing about the Hyksos, in the proper section. PiCo (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ketef Hinnom, dates were reevaluated , read the article[edit]

"The results confirmed a date immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE.[7] " Please don't lecture me about OT and POV and tell me to read the literature while you seem to be ignoring what the article says. Doug Weller talk 06:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read the actual peer-reviewed article [1]: "Based on our new analysis and reading of these texts, we can reaffirm with confidence that the late preexilic period is the proper chronological context for the artifacts. We can further reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars: that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of texts also found in the Hebrew Bible and that they provide us with the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh" ItaloCelt84 (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586/7 BCE isn't anywhere near 750, which is what you reverted to. And as you told me, you need to read the literature. "The Ketef Hinnom plaques are not only the earliest examples known verses appearing in the biblical text, but they are also important sources study of religious concepts held in Jerusalem in the early post-exilic amulets were probably engraved in the early Second Temple period, many years after the construction of the temple." A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom Author(s): Nadav Na ͗aman Source: Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 61, No. 2 (2011), and challenged in A Rejoinder to Nadav Naʾaman's 'A New Appraisal of the Silver Amulets from Ketef Hinnom' Author(s): Shmuel AḥituvSource: Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2 (2012).

I also see that you added " the most conclusive reexamination of the scrolls" - isn't that original research? Doug Weller talk 09:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2004 discovery of the silver scrolls? It's a mess. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]