Talk:Siege of Tyre (586–573 BC)

DYK nomination
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)