Talk:Isaiah

Older threads
'''The Prophets Hosea and Isaiah were (near) contemporaries. Moreover, the High Priest at this time was Hoshaiah. (See Wikipedia's List of the High Priests of Israel entry.) Could Hoshaiah the High Priest, Hosea the Prophet, and Isaiah the Prophet all have been the same person???'''

Hi All, I have just made some major additions to this page of Isaiah and have preserved some original material as well. Comments are welcome! - Nathan Hill

This page seems to overlap badly with Book of Isaiah. I think the idea of this page was to be mainly about the prophet, not about the book.

Our intentions were to talk about both the book and the prophet. Perhaps this page would be better incorporated into "book or Isaiah" and this page reverted to its previous content? -Nathan Hill

I don't think "Christianity" regards Isaiah as a Saint. Prophet yes, saint no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.139.204 (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, Christianity regards anyone who has been redeemed to be a saint, as it comes from Latin "sanctus" meaning holy. Anyone who is redeemed by Christ's gift of salvation, past or present, is a saint.  Those who are officially proclaimed saints, as by the Roman Catholic or Greek Orthodox Churches are those who they believed have been "proven" to be true believers.  Thus, Isaiah can be said to be a saint.  Anyone not falling into this category, but who may be a saint is regarded as an unknown saint, whose feast day would then be celebrated on November 1, "All Saints Day." Danwaggoner (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the revision and switch-Nathan Hill

Nathan,

Rastafari, the Jamaican sect which believes Blacks are the chosen people, has many roots within this chapter. I would suggest bridging the two pages to facilitate an easier guide.

Hey! Isn't the main reason for Isaiah's importance his prophesies of the Messiah? Why isn't that mentioned??? Brutannica 01:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered that. Certainly for Christians that's his chief importance, although the Jews might take issue with that. I would like to know where to find Isaiah's prophecies to do with the Messiah are to be found. Can anyone help? ThePeg 15:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ThePeg, there are numerous parts within Isaiah which deal directly with haMoshiach. Isaiah 53, for example, is entirely about haMoshiach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.80.69 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no messianic prophecies in Isaiah 53. The suffering servant is a personification of the people of Israel. Sources:


 * Professor Bart D. Ehrman, The Historical Jesus. Part I. The Teaching Company, 2000, p. 36.
 * Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Isaiah's prophecy of the Messiah.
In reference to Isaiah's reference to the Messiah (otherwise known as Jesus Christ), I have only scratched the surface to find Isaiah 9:1 - 7; Isaiah 7:13 - 14; and Isaiah 52:13 - 53 (whole chapter). These are simply a few of the overt prophecies of the Christ; their are many more subtle references. I'm unsure of the qualifications needed to edit/comment, so I'll leave it there. I'm no professor; just a Minister. Hope this at least gets someone on the track. As for Jews being offended by these references, I fail to see how this could be. Surely the Jewish understanding of these references would be quite plausible... hence the debate about whether or not they are reference to Christ Himself or someone else entirely.

144.135.136.210 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Neil.144.135.136.210 05:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.135.136.210 (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Isaiah
Moved from Fayenatic_london talk page

I'm sure your intentions for your recent edits of Isaiah were good but...


 * The Hebrew word for Isaiah is already included within the article
 * The link is too general for the article.

WikiJonathanpeter 18:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi WJP, in that case I suggest you go further and delete the whole external link to the Tanakh Profiles site. Two or three of us who cannot read Hebrew agreed to let Rambamfan's edits remain, on condition that the transliteration link should be added to help non-Hebrew-readers work out the names.  OK? - Fayenatic london (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - I see - done. Thanks.  WikiJonathanpeter 07:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"Commonly considered"
The opening paragraph says that the prophet Isaiah is "commonly considered" to be the author of the entire book. In fact, he is not so considered by the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars.

Shouldn't this be changed? Jhobson1 13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Find a good source, change the page, cite the source. Easy-peasy. --130.243.208.12 08:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose that regular Christians who are not Biblical scholars are pretty "common"... I'll change it to "traditionally". Hopefully there's no controversy about that. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Critical Scholarship"
I see that virtually the entire "Critical Scholarship" section was removed on September 19th in an unexplained deletion by an anonymous user with a track record of vandalism (see here for another example of this user's "contribution"). I see no reason to suppose that this edit was made in good faith, and what's left has since been tagged as "confusing", so I'm restoring the section. --Robert Stevens 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The 12 May, 2008 version was fine. It could use some touch ups, but I don't see why the whole thing was deleted and turned into a stub without any explanation.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.0.190 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole section should be removed and put into the article Book of Isaiah. That is the place to discuss "critical scholarship" - this article should be about the person, not the book.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted it - the article Book of Isaiah more than covers this topic.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Haircut
This article needs a serious haircut. The request for citations is almost a year old. I think it's time to start trimming out the unreferenced speculations. All in favor? Opposed?--Nowa (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Section: "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon"
This section adds nothing whatsoever to the article. Most of it appears to be an attempt by Mormons to engage in self-promotion. For this reason I propose deletion. Darkman101 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; the content of that section isn't really focused on Isaiah at all. There should be maybe one sentence in this article noting that Isaiah is mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but related details should either go in Book of Mormon or in related subarticles. ...comments? ~B F izz 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will delete it as it doesn't belong on this page. It could be removed to the article on the book of Isaiah if it's author so desired. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * diff for posterity, in case anyone wants to put this content somewhere more appropriate. ...comments? ~B F izz 23:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Prophetess Theories
It currently says "The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title, "Mrs. Prophet" as it were, is likely." and cites Coogan's textbook. I'm reading Coogan right now, and I found the exact sentence, except that Coogan actually says "less likely." I'm not by any means an expert, however, so I'm hesitant to rework a section on the likelihood of different theories. Sir Akroy (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Works of Josephus
More research should be cited from The Works of Josephus. Isaiah, the Prophet is mentioned in Josephus in Antiq. 9.13.3; 10.1.3; 10.2.1, 2; his eulogium, 10.2.2; his prophecy concerning the Assyrians 10.14.1ff; concerning Cyprus 210 years before his reign 11.1.2; the same read by Cyrus, ibid.; his prophcy concerning the temple of Onias, War. 7.10.3 The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged, New Updated Edition, Translated by William Whiston, A.M., Hendricson Publishers, 1987. easeltineEaseltine (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Did Isaiah exist?
The tone of this article is problematic with regards to the biographical aspect as it suggests that Isaiah can be accurately pinpointed to one date in history. In fact, he can't. There is no evidence that he existed as a person, was born, married or died. The only source for Isaiah is the Bible - and that is not in itself a reliable historical source. Can we amend the article please to make clear that there is no evidence that Isaiah was a real historical person? His only purpose is religious. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The book of Isaiah contains both prophecies and historical narrative. The bible is an important historical source, used by secular historians, although opinions differ about how reliable different parts are. Nearly all scholars agree that Isaiah 1-39 is (mainly) the work of a 8th century BCE prophet called Isaiah. As to the period in which Isaiah lived, three of the four kings of Judah (Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah) named in Isaiah are known from contemporary extra-biblical sources (and also Assyrian kings like Sennacherib and Sargon II). In the books of Kings and Chronicles, Isaiah is also mentioned in the same historical context and period. So in short, your suggestion is contrary to the consensus of scholars. Both religious and secular historians agree that there was an 8th century BCE prophet called Isaiah and they conclude this based on the biblical documents. -- Lindert (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The secular academic consensus is not as you suggest. Isaiah is only found in the Bible - that is an accepted fact. The Bible is an ok source for historians but it is clear that large parts of it have been proven to be untrue - so its reliability is questionable. As to whether one person wrote the book of Iasiah - scholarly consensus is that the book of Isaiah is a collection of the work of a number of prophets and other writers. Incidentally you've added a reference to the Anglican Dean of Winchester - did you intend this as an independent academic scholarly source? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Isaiah is found only in the Bible. However, it is a mistake to think of the Bible as one source or book. It is a collection of ancient documents that were put together only centuries after they were written. Thus, there are actually several sources for the life of Isaiah by different authors.
 * Yes, most scholars agree that the book of Isaiah was written by multiple authors in different periods. However, one of those authors, called Proto-Isaiah, is usually identified with an 8th century prophet called Isaiah, son of Amos, or Isaiah of Jerusalem. The reason is of course that the prophesies are closely connected with the period in which he lived.
 * "you've added a reference to the Anglican Dean of Winchester - did you intend this as an independent academic scholarly source?"
 * What do you mean by independent? Independent of what? Do you think that the fact that James Atwell is an anglican somehow disqualifies him? He has a MA, and studied at Harvard and Oxford universities. More importantly, the book I cited was published by Continuum International, a respected academic publisher with no religious affiliation. Nevertheless, there are many other authors I could have quoted, because this is the common view. For example, Matthijs J. De Jong in a BRILL publication (link) states: "For a great scholarly majority, Isaiah is the author of an early version of Isa 6-8". In fact, I will replace the reference I added with this one, in order to prevent a suspicion of bias, even though the source I added certainly qualifies as a reliable source. -- Lindert (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably better you do. Atwell isn't a professional historian; he's a professional clergyman. I take the point about the Bible being a collection of books but could you clarify the different "sources" dealing with Isaiah? There is the Book of Isaiah and then he's also only mentioned in Kings and Chronicles if I think rightly (which are simply derivative of the main Isaiah text rather than independent and new sources). I think the conclusion we can reach is that there may have been someone living (who was or was maybe not called Isaiah, and possibly a "prophet"), and who wrote only a portion of the Book of Isaiah. This is very different to the way Isaiah is presented in the article. Why not bring the nuances out?Contaldo80 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * With different 'sources' I mean different authors. It is not possible to determine whether there are actually independent sources. That is mostly guesswork. The conclusion you 'can reach' is far too weak. It is not: "there may have been", but "the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that there was" an 8th century prophet called Isaiah whose writings form the oldest part of the Book of Isaiah. -- Lindert (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok - but the article doesn't say this. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "Isaiah is not mentioned except in the Bible" is confusing inasmuch as a few lines later mentioned is made of The Martyrdom of Isaiah and Lives of the Prophets. Should the sentence be re-worked to indicate either (1) not mentioned in contemporary extra-Biblical sources; or 2) Only mentioned in material that is related or dependent on 2 Kings / 2 Chronicles / Isaiah? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.228.233 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Probably it should be deleted. I think that what it's trying to say is that no 8th century record of Isaiah exists outside the book of Isaiah itself. This is true but rather pointless - most of the book of Isiah itself was not written in the 8th century and is not a contemporary record. Nevertheless, the traditions of Isaiah are pretty extensive and interesting in their own right - the articloe should, for example, mention the Talmudic tradition that makes Hezekiah the first editor of the book, and describes his rather gruesome death. PiCo (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is also relevant to the birthplace orf Isaiah that has cropped up in a few recent edits. Mtpaley (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mtpaley most people won't even notice this addition to a 10 year old thread. If you want to pursue this, I suggest your start a new thread at the bottom referring to this one. Doug Weller  talk 12:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What's this about?
Anyone know who Isiah means by "the virgin" in this passage (quoted in our article)? "The virgin the daughter of Zion hath despised thee, and laughed thee to scorn; the daughter of Jerusalem hath shaken her head at thee." (God is telling Senacherib off - but who is this virgin?)PiCo (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Daughter (Bath) in Biblical Hebrew is often used as a personification of a city or land as you can find in any lexicon (e.g. in Jeremiah 48:18, Moab is personified as "daughter of Dibon", which was the capital of Moab). The accompanying feminine terminology is an expansion of this metaphor. So in this context, the bethulah spoken of refers to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (or in a wider sense of Judah). The same terminology is used in Isaiah 47:1,5 which talks about the downfall of Babylon:
 * "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans; (...) Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans; for thou shalt no more be called the mistress of kingdoms."
 * I don't think the word bethulah is used to specifically denote virginity in this context, because in Isaiah 47:9 this 'virgin daughter of Babylon' is told: "But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood". - Lindert (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the word bethulah is used to specifically denote virginity in this context, because in Isaiah 47:9 this 'virgin daughter of Babylon' is told: "But these two things shall come to thee in a moment in one day, the loss of children, and widowhood". - Lindert (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lindert, that's very informative :) PiCo (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The correct translation (see source) is "the virgin daughter of Zion", in other words, the Jewish people. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The virgin is Jerusalem. Bethulia means virginity. Jerusalem was not despoiled by Sennacherib’s army. The daughter of Jerusalem is Judith; literally, daughter of Judah. And the head she shook at Sennacherib presumably once belonged to Holofernes. Sennacherib’s army (of 185,000 men) was demoralised (“shown death”) in the graphic and shocking fate of its until-then undefeated commander (unnamed in any record except the Book of Judith) and Sennacherib had no choice but to withdraw. This suits both the historical and scriptural records. (Re-signing after adding to my existing comment.) Imahd (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Biography section is flagged: "This section improperly uses one or more religious texts as primary sources"
I agree with this assessment, the section is a mess, but I don't have time to fix it. I can however provide several references to start with for someone who wants to take this on. There's the Jewish Encyclopedia's entry for Isaiah here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8235-isaiah; the Catholic Encyclopedia entry here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08179b.htm (with the Latin spelling "Isaias"; Britannica Online here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/295133/Isaiah; the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Isaiah.html.

YoMenashe (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Prophetess for sure, perhaps his epiteth was a honorary title????
"The second interpretation, that it was simply an honorary title is likely"

And WHY is that, pray tell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.113.41 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess because there is nowhere any mention of her prophesying, and it would be quite a coincidence if Isaiah happened to marry a prophetess, considering that they are quite rare in the Bible. Anyway, what matters is that the statement is properly sourced. This is not the opinion of Wikipedia editors, but of biblical scholars. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the paragraph in question? - Lindert (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The name Isaiah
Shouldn't we have an article on this name? There's currently a few abysmally minimal stubs/disambig pages&mdash;Isaias (given name), Izaiaš&mdash;that would probably do better to be merged into such a page. We should probably also make note of people named Yeshaya(h(u)) somewhere. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:D935:CCD3:910B:1262 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulla
See https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/prophet-isaiah-jerusalem-seal-archaeology-bible/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source. Seriously, they've gone downhill over the years and promotional. Use her article.

There's also some criticism of the claim at Eilat Mazar. Doug Weller talk 19:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In any case, the National Geographic article above is mostly quoting Eilat Mazar concerning her discoveries. Mazar is quite famous, but has repeatedly been accused of jumping into conclusions when it comes to evaluating her findings. When she discovered the Large Stone Structure, she proclaimed it to be the palace of David. Despite the fact that there is no reliable dating method for this building, nothing connects it to David or mentions his name, and that the pottery and iron objects found indicate that it was built in the 1st millennium BC, but do not even confirm whether it predates the Hellenistic period.Dimadick (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit war about the bulla
I have reverted at. It is original research: the source does not even mention Sennacherib, so it does not verify the claim made. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Isaiah seal
What do we think about the idea of writing something about the supposed Isaiah seal in the article?

https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2018/february/isaiah-seal-more-evidence-of-biblical-narrative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieflagfan (talk • contribs) 11:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not "supposed". It's described as "maybe", by an archaeologist who, in her article in Wikipedia is described as using a religious rather than a scientific approach to archaeology. In her own words - "I work with the Bible in one hand and the tools of excavation in the other". So we have a very soft claim from a self-admitted, biased source. Hmmmmm. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Isaiah in Context
Hello everyone I recently added a small line that shows that Isaiah existed around 700 years before Jesus Christ under the Christianity section. I think we can also focus more on Isaiah's relation/context historically to help people get a better understanding of his place in history.

If my edit is incorrect or if you find a more accurate year please do change it. I am a new editor and I'm still familiarizing myself with Wikipedia.

Best Wishes. Sabaybayin (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed change from BC to BCE
The established era style on this page was 'BC'. It was changed to 'BCE' without discussion in November 2019. Therefore, the era style should be 'BC' unless and until there is consensus for the change to 'BCE'. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support BCE but I agree that would need consensus here. Doug Weller  talk 11:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style actually says: ‘An article’s established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content….’ Anyone who wants to change the style must give their reason - specific to the article’s content.
 * I support BC.
 * I think we may take it that the IP who has recently been changing the style back to the established style is in favour of BC, but has, perhaps, been misled into thinking that ‘BCE’ is the only style permitted on Wikipedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right about needing a reason. But you haven't given one. Mine is that it's my opinion that Christian articles should use AD/BC, non-Christian religious articles CE/BCE, most history and all archaeology articles CE/BCE. Others depend more on context. Doug Weller  talk 19:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not saying I am ‘right’ about needing a reason for a change in era style: I was quoting the Wikipedia guideline on this matter. And, I repeat, the Manual of Style actually says: ‘An article’s established era style should not be changed without reasons specific to its content….’. This means it is for the person advocating a change in style to give a reason for the change, specific to the article’s content. The guideline on retaining existing styles says: ‘ Where either of two styles are acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.’
 * You have given an opinion, but without any reason on which it is based. As per the guideline, you need a substantial reason for the change.
 * And I don’t see how your ‘system’ could apply to this article. The article mentions the Christian, Mormon, Islamic, and Jewish religions, and also history and archaeology.
 * In addition, I don’t know what it would mean for an article on Wikipedia to be ‘Christian’. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, not engaged in evangelising for any religion.
 * According to the Wikipedia MOS which I have quoted above I don’t have to give a reason for keeping the established style. If I did, I would be giving my opinion on the two styles, and my opinion is not relevant, since there is a guideline in existence which covers the matter. It is my impression that the guideline was drafted in order to avoid the kind of wrangling which we are now engaged in.   Sweet6970 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Concur with Sweet6970, there's no need to give a reason to keep an existing style, the fact that it is the established style in the article is reason enough. It seems that you (Doug Weller) have a categorical preference for BCE/CE for anything other than 'Christian' articles (since articles unrelated to history/archaeology are unlikely to need any era notation). I don't share this preference, but besides, I suspect that the audience that is interested in this article consists mainly of Christians. Considering the prominent status of Isaiah's prophecies in Christianity, I think it's far from clear that this is a 'non-Christian' topic. In short, I don't see any good reason for the proposed change. - Lindert (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't need a reason to keep a style, but if a discussion is started over whether it should be kept or changed, then reasons clearly come in. I don't think that we ever meant in writing the guideline to say that someone who didn't want the style changed only had to say "I like it". I also don't think that it's reasonable to suggest that if any article basically on another religion is also related in some way to Christianity to say that's a reason to use Christian era notation. The issue here for me is whether this is predominantly a Jewish -related article. I thought that when I said Christian it was obvious that I meant "mainly related to the Christian religion", not one pushing it. Doug Weller  talk 14:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Stability/precedent seems an adequate reason to me. As you may recall, I think there is a strong general accessibility argument in favour of BC, which is no doubt why the big museums still use it. This is an article with very broad appeal.  But we don't want to have this argument every time. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * To User: Doug Weller (1) Regarding your edit summary- who are you going to ask? (2) Are you saying that the guideline somehow doesn’t say what it says? The guideline says quite clearly that it is for the person advocating change to provide a substantial reason for the change, and to obtain consensus for the change.  You have not provided any reasons for your views, other than your personal preference. (3) No religion ‘owns’ any article on Wikipedia. (4) I do not accept the idea that the era style should be influenced by any reference to religion in the article, but in any event your argument fails because the article on Isaiah mentions Christianity first, and this paragraph is longer than the paragraph on Judaism.   Sweet6970 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

it's not clear what sort of argument would be acceptable if you think that the era style shouldn't relate in any way to the religion in an article, could you please give some examples? Since I've asked at the guideline page you can use the same reply at both places. The idea that there's any ownership of articles is an odd one that I've never accepted. I don't know where you got the word "substantial" from either, the guideline says "reasons specific to its content". But you seem to be rejecting the idea that religious content of the article is a specific reason. Doug Weller talk 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Combined reply to User:Doug Weller’s posts of 13 January on the Isaiah and MOS pages
 * (i) On the MOS page, you ask: ‘can you please give us a few examples of arguments you’d find acceptable?’. This sounds as if you are asking me to make your arguments for you. I don’t see that I have any obligation to do this. Also, I am not the only one you have to convince.
 * (ii) ‘If you think that the era style shouldn’t relate in any way to the religion in an article, could you please give some examples?’
 * Sorry – I don’t understand the question. Examples of what? My reasons are given at (v) below.
 * (iii) Re the word ‘substantial’- The guideline on retaining existing styles says: ‘Where either of two styles are acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Retaining_existing_styles
 * (iv) The guideline says that any reason given for change should be specific to the article. This means that any reason should not be a general argument for one era style versus the other. I cannot think of any argument, either way, which would be specific to any article. This has the beneficial result that I do not make proposals for changing the era style of any BCE article to BC, and much time and effort is saved.
 * (v) I get the impression that you consider that if the subject matter of an article relates to a religion, then that should determine the era style, as if the views of the adherents of that particular religion should determine the era style. I don’t agree. (a) Wikipedia articles should not be tailored to the views of any particular group of people, religious or otherwise. (b) In any event, Wikipedia articles are written for readers. I think that the most likely reader of a Wikipedia article on a religious topic is someone who doesn’t know much about it. So an article on Christianity, for instance, is more likely to be read by a non-Christian than by a Christian. A practising Christian is unlikely to come to Wikipedia for information about their religion. If they want to learn more about Christianity, I imagine they would go to a Christian source.  Similarly for other religions. A religious person may come to a Wikipedia article to find out what Wikipedia is saying about their religion, and perhaps to complain about it. Perhaps you think these complainers should be placated. I don’t agree. I think they should be resisted.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I noticed this is continuing at MOS. The current discussion is based on the premise that the existing style for this article is BC and that it was changed to BCE in November 2019. Examining the history at Isaiah shows that is incorrect. I looked at old versions of the article every few months, starting at 13:26, 6 January 2016. At that date, there were two BC and six BCE. In later revisions I found all BCE meaning that someone had made them consistent by changing the two BC. On the principle of WP:SILENCE, given that the article has used BCE from early 2016 to late 2019, the WP:RETAIN argument is that BCE should be used unless there is a compelling reason to change it to BC. Johnuniq (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with that argument would be that January 2016 is a somewhat arbitrary demarcation for applying WP:RETAIN. On the other hand, based on a similar sampling of page versions, the article used "BC" consistently throughout from the articles creation in 2001 until 15 June 2015, without any discussion, when one editor changed almost all to "BCE". Personally, I don't know which side I fall on the current discussion, but imo the application of WP:RETAIN would favor "BC" given its longer history in article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I do know that JohnUniq is a very strong supporter of WP:RETAIN so I take his opinion seriously. I also see that Sweet6970 has said " I cannot think of any argument, either way, which would be specific to any article." which would drive a whole over the statement that a discussion can change the era style. Their comments about me above area misunderstanding of my position.  Doug Weller  talk 09:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To User:Doug Weller (1) That I can’t think of an argument doesn’t prevent someone else from doing so. I see that EEng has come up with a possible argument over at MOS. (2) I am sorry if I have unintentionally misrepresented your position. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To All: re ‘Silence’ implying consensus - At WP:SILENCE Scope of application it says ‘Apply the rule of silence and consensus only when a weak consensus would suffice. Silence and consensus does not apply when either a strong consensus or a mandatory discussion is required. ‘ Since a discussion is required for a change of era style, I think that the argument that the change from BC to BCE was accepted by silence is not applicable in this case. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That page isn't even a guideline. But it also says "This page in a nutshell: Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement." That apparent contradiction is no surprise and was in place for some time when the "mandatory discussion" bit was added by a sockmaster. In fact the page has been heavily edited by two sockmasters and someone blocked multiple times for harassment and editwarring (and finally blocked indefinitely). Not only that there has been virtually no discussion of the content for just over 11 years - ie this archive.. The latest two archives each contain a single argument, one disliking the page, the other thinking it should be policy. That sentence was added by one of the sockmasters and was never discussed - just as a lot of the page has never been discussed although ironically that sentence was added to a section pointing to Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. The long and the short of it is that is one blocked editor's opinion. I don't give much weight to old essays/supplemental material (often just retitled essays) when I find this lack of discussion. Doug Weller  talk 12:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:SILENCE is always a very weak argument imo, and should not be quoted as though it was policy. It has some force for very popular/heavily-edited pages, but none at all for most pages (little-edited or even seen). This article is somewhere in the middle. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, WP:SILENCE is not a policy or guideline. It's a supplement page. Do see this debate about supplement pages. They have no more authority than essays. And regardless, once content has been challenged, WP:SILENCE no longer applies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The argument that silence signifies agreement was being used to argue that when the style was changed from BC to BCE, there were no protests, and so this should be treated as agreement to the change. If the ‘silence’ argument is discarded, then the ‘retain’ argument applies, and this article should use BC. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears this article was BC from 2001 to June 2015, then BCE from 2016 to late 2019, then BC for the last two months. For me, the reasonable interpretation of RETAIN is that the four-year period 2016–2019 is the established style, and people are now reacting to the change two months ago. Of course that argument can be used to suit whichever side one favors but it would be very undesirable if people could hunt for articles which have used a certain style for four years and switch them because originally the style was different. If there is no consensus on that point, an RfC will be required. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an Rfc, just a formal discussion here. But after all this talk, that is probably the best idea. I for one wouldn't agree with this interpretation of "retain". Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't you agree that favoring 2001 to 2015 as the established style would lead to unhelpful behavior such as people changing styles on articles that have been settled for years because the original style was different? Johnuniq (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. People change styles because of personal preference, and often a conviction that one style is "right". I'm sure most are completely unaware of WP:ERA. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any logic in favouring the period 2016-2019 over the much longer period 2001-2015. Also, favouring this period would encourage editors to change the era style from BC to BCE without discussion. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that could encourage undiscussed era changes. Whichever way the style change went, I agree with Johnuniq. And just in case anyone wonders, you will find in my edit summaries me reverting changes from BC to BCE. But it seems to be any change to BCE that gets people more concerned. Doug Weller  talk 14:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, not you Doug, by your own account. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

"Yeshayahu" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Yeshayahu. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian Icon: Ezekiel or Isaiah?
When I was researching about prophets of Judaism, I saw that the same image (Russian icon of the Prophet Ezekiel holding a scroll with his prophecy and pointing to the "closed gate" (18th century, Iconostasis of Kizhi monastery, Russia)) is placed on both the pages for Ezekiel and Isaiah.

I am new in editing Wikipedia pages. So instead of correcting I decided to open a talk about this confusing information. Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isaiah.jpg and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ezekiel-icon.jpg Fatih Keçelioğlu (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)