Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "delete" argument is that this article makes scientific claims not supported by reliable academic sources. The "keep" argument is that while that may be so, the claims have been reported in reliable sources. I'm inclined to give the "keep" opinions a bit more weight (we do cover notable pseudoscience), but the "delete" arguments are not baseless, and the "delete" opinions are much more numerous.  Sandstein  20:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Mount Ebal curse tablet

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

See Talk:Mount Ebal‎ - there has been no peer review for this yet and if you read it's clear that virtually everything about it is or will be challenged including the language, date, inscriptions, etc. Note that  it was found in Canaan before the creation of Israel, that it was found without any context by a Creationist. WP:NOTNEWS applies and this sort of extraordinary archaeological claim should not be based on media reports. The fact of the media reports is IMHO not sufficient reason for an article or even its mention in other articles. Also note that at the date claimed that the inscription would not have been about the Jewish God but about the deity Yahweh, who became one of the gods worshiped by the early Israelites before they became monotheistic. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SENSATION. The story could be mentioned when competent independent experts publish enough about the supposed artifact to properly contextualize it. Until then, WP's hands are tied. jps (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article you cite is prima facie evidence that Haaretz is not a reliable source for such matters. The problem of conducting science by press release is well-known, and in this case it looks like Haaretz has been hoodwinked. It isn't the first time. jps (talk) 12:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sensationalist media reports aren't WP:RS for archaeological content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep What exactly are the grounds for deletion? The lengthy blog post by Christopher Rollston which Doug has very helpfully produced surely, along with the respectable Israeli press stories, disposes of any claim of non-notability or WP:SENSATION. Rollston is exactly the right sort of specialist RS one wants in this field, and should be the main source.  The press stories are actually not bad in clearly indicating there will be controversy over this when the thing is published.  It has indeed not yet received a proper academic paper, but when it does, we can be sure it will be back, generating plenty of RS even if the the claims are adjusted/discounted by most.  Even if it were a hoax (which no one has yet suggested) it would probably become notable. jps's gutting of the article, while at Afd, and introducing a mispelling of Stripling's name, is most unhelpful, & I have reverted it.  Johnbod (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability". A 'Keep' argument based around assumptions that suitable sources will become available at a future date is less than convincing, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rollston + 2 longish press stories = notability, imo, even if the basic facts/conclusions are not firmly established (as for very many subjects from similar dates). Johnbod (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If basic facts are not "firmly" established, how do you write an article? I'm happy to consider an example of how to write an article based on a blogpost and a few shoddily done press-releases-cum-articles, but in my experience this is just not something that I've ever seen competently executed. jps (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Conclusion at talk page of Mount Ebal. Since usage of the "LOL" and the term "worse" on Jpost. As if something over here is "bad." And googling who ... is active here... 1. Fanacism and extremism are not limited to one side. 2. An indirect admission that the objection is motivated by one political side and not a moderate one at that.Truth3v3r (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What conclusion? Doug Weller  talk 16:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The notability of the object is dependent on the sensationalist interpretation of ambiguous material as reported by non-academic sources. - Donald Albury 13:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication.
 * Moreover it is not that extraordinary; the artefact is dated 1200 BC; the term Yahweh was found in Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh#Late_Bronze_Age_origins_(1550%E2%80%931200_BCE) Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against recreation at a later date when sourcing is actually, well, there. Sensationalist near-churnalism plus a blog post trying to hold back said sensationalism are not a good foundation to build an article upon. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have said, for now. Per the above, the extraordinary claims being made in association with this tablet require vetting beyond that done by the general media.  I don't think Wikipedia will be harmed by waiting for better sources, while I think it could be if we print huge claims which are later retracted.  As ever, reasonable minds may differ on the question.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the properly "extraordinary claims" have ever been mentioned in the article; Rowland does not seem to see the claims the article actually mentions as very far-fetched, though properly scholarly process is needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am betraying my nerdish side a bit much, but even the claim of the earliest usage of the tetragrammaton strikes me as pretty extraordinary. But, as I said, reasonable people can reach very different conclusions on  this.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From memory (of Rowland), even if their dating is correct it would only push this back 3 centuries was it. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually not that sensationalist; the term is older and was found in Egyptians inscriptions : The oldest plausible occurrence of Yahweh is in the phrase "Shasu of Yhw" (Egyptian: 𓇌𓉔𓍯𓅱 yhwꜣw) in an Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE). The fact that it appears 150-200 years later in Hebrew inscriptions does not change the timeline of the existence of the term; just that Israelites adopted the term from Shasu earlier than previously documented. Considering that both Shasu tribes and Israelites are from the Levantine region, it seems reasonable that cultural diffusion could occur between the two groups especially during the chaos of the bronze age collapse. Patrick.N.L (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We're getting into quite a can of worms here! And though I generally agree with you, the relationship (or perhaps identification?) of the Shasu and the Israelites is a fraught problem at best.  It would still strike me as remarkable if, indeed, the tetragrammaton itself were verified on this item (as distinct from cognates, related terms, etc.)   That said, I understand both your position on why the article should be kept and why the claims are not sensationalist: I just come down slightly differently on both.  Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Reliable source argument is not relevant as Haaretz newspaper are reliable sources : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources . The article is not a blog, and so it is properly sourced. There are plenty of articles with sources from newspaper articles without any peer-reviewed scientific articles; the discovery of an item can have a wikipedia page at its announcement. Patrick.N.L (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please take note of what Reliable sources has to say regarding the use of newspapers etc s academic sources: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics". Archaeology is unquestionably an academic topic, and not one on which Haaretz (or any other general newspaper) is likely to have much expertise. And if one were to ignore that, and nevertheless take Haaretz content as reliable, the source would have to be used in a balanced manner: making it very clear that they are reporting Stripling's claims as claims, rather than fact, and noting the doubts raised by the experts they consulted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Haaretz is a reliable mainstream publication. Patrick.N.L (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to claim it is reliable for this material, you need to explain why it wasn't also cited for its reporting regarding the 'scholarly issues' raised by the qualified scholars it consulted regarding Stripling's claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment? That Haaretz was cited by who? Can you make your point clearer? Haaretz is considered a reliable source by wikipedia list of sources. I don't understand how not citing something suddenly makes Haaretz not a reliable source. Patrick.N.L (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cite in the Wikipedia article for the issues raised by scholars responding to Stripling. The article fails to note any of that. And please read WP:RS. There is no such thing as an abstract 'reliable source': Haaretz can be used for general news reporting, but nothing suggests that it has any specific expertise on archaeological subjects. For such matters we need sources with appropriate expertise, rather than ones merely repeating unverified claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You want me to cite in the wiki article the issues raised by scholars; i have no problem with that also we could cite the fact that no research paper exists yet; which gives some context.
 * Do you have an article or a source that discusses, summarize or points out one or more of those issues. I was looking for it.
 * I agree Haaretz has no expertise on archeological studies, but it can still report a press conference on an archeological find where scientists from 5 different academic/research institutions have worked on. For example, no scientific article exist for the apollo of gaza but just the fact of its discovery and the reporting by mainstream media is enough to make a Wikipedia article on it : "To their great frustration, archaeologists have not been able to get their hands on the Apollo, and instead must pore over a few blurred photographs of the intact deity"
 * I don't see why the discovery and announcement of the tablet in mainstream media, which scientists from USA, Israel and Czech republic have analyzed (and many from non-religious institutions), cannot be treated as a possible discovery but the Apollo of Gaza, which has not been analyzed by scientists, can have its page. Patrick.N.L (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair; if this article is to be deleted because there is no scientific paper on it; so should be the wikipedia page on the Apollo of Gaza. Patrick.N.L (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFF. And yes, there is no scientific paper on the tablet. Which is why we shouldn't be reporting unverified claims as to its significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I see that a peer reviewed article is planned for later this year. The team that will produce the peer reviewed report includes Peter Van der Veen, who seems to be a follower of David Rohl's chronology..  Doug Weller  talk 07:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The lead archaeologist is Scott Stripling. He received his PhD from Veritas International University, which "has an evangelical doctrinal statement that emphasizes 'three legs' of biblical authority: inspiration, infallibility, and biblical inerrancy". See . A starting point of biblical inerrancy does not give confidence that he is looking at the evidence impartially. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ’’’Comment’’’ See Talk:Mount Ebal. Doug Weller  talk 19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See his FB page. for an extended critique. Doug Weller  talk 09:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. An interesting point is that the researchers claim that the text is the name YHW in "proto-alphabetic" letters, but a comparison of the photo which they published to actual Proto-Sinaitic script shows that the letters look like Lamed-Heh-Tsade, not Yad-Heh-Waw. Strange. איתמראשפר (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I confess, I has the same thought -- especially as that last letter bears a striking resemblance to modern tsade. ButI have not the foggiest what or who "lahatz" might be!  As my days of intensive epigraphy are behind me,  I will wait for more expert opinions.  Cheers, and thanks for bringing this up! Dumuzid (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am nowhere near being competent but after review; it seems the translators considered the leftmost letters to be yud, the middle one being heh a praising man and the last one a vav; taken from this source https://omniglot.com/writing/protosinaitc.htm; which is not even the tetragammaton really but maybe in the context of cursed by god YHW, it is not a far stretch. Patrick.N.L (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The table in omniglot.com to which you referred above shows clearly that in the photo published by the researchers, the leftmost letter is Sad, the middle letter is Haw and the rightmost is Lamed, spelling Ts-H-L - not Y-H-W. איתמראשפר (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After some more research, a good source of the proto-sinaitic symbols is page 8 of this article : http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2019/19299-revisiting-proto-sinaitic.pdf Patrick.N.L (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * What you are looking at is a drawing by one of the protagonists, not a photo. When the actual scans are published, there will be expert challenges to the accuracy and meaning of the drawings, you will see. Zerotalk 03:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete until there is more expert information available. After a paper is published and the experts have had their say on it, it will make a fine article. Zerotalk 05:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The correct way forward is to mention the claim plus doubts very briefly (two sentences max), at Mount Ebal, then to write a separate article if and when enough verifiable information becomes available. This article is premature at the moment. Zerotalk 03:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you phrase the doubts? Patrick.N.L (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as others have said, for now. Experts such as Prof. James R. Davila, specialist in pseudepigrapha writes about this and recommends caution. We should follow the experts. Kershatz (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Continued scholary argument about the object is an argument for keeping the article, not deleting it. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The 'scholarly arguments' appear to consist almost entirely of suggestions that the claims made in the newspaper stories aren't properly supported by evidence. Which in Wikipedia's terms means that the newspapers stories aren't reliable sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, for me, the "argument" thus far is an indication that there will almost certainly be an article at some point. I am just not sure why we would rush to include this; there will undoubtedly be better scholarly sources in (relatively!) short order.  I am of the opinion that we should wait for the subject to be more fully developed, but as ever, I am mindful that others may reach the contrary conclusion in complete good faith.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Having watched the press conference, we should exercise EXTREME caution. These guys' soupçon of credibility should be buried under an impermeable layer of salt until they publish or at least release full scans. The one drawing they've released is not exactly encouraging (the he is ok but the yod and waw need, uh, imagination) and they're an ideological organization by design. I hope it's real -- would be an amazing contribution to our understanding of a hundred other things -- but it doesn't yet deserve a page or even a mention on wiki. GordonGlottal (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Archaeology,  and Palestine. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or Draftify The article is simply not ready, as no quality sources yet exist. We can quickly resurrect it once a formal publication is made, assuming it gets there. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and draft the article. Archaeological items that were not published in an academic, peer-reviewed format, are non-existent.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of the argument seems to be about whether it's authentic.  News sources aren't credible sources as to authenticity, except to the extent that they quote credible sources.  But even if it turns out to be a hoax, which is entirely possible, it's newsworthy because it might be authentic, and is being analyzed or debated by scholars.  An obvious hoax that appears and vanishes in an instant with little publicity might be non-notable.  A widely publicized "find" that requires scholarly analysis to authenticate or refute is likely notable, whether or not it proves to be authentic, and a newspaper is perfectly competent to report about that.  Hoaxes can be notable too!  P Aculeius (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's probably not a hoax. It's a pretty interesting artifact that opportunists are trying to advertise as the sort of massive find that gets a wiki page, with no evidence whatsoever. The bar to getting sensational news coverage of an unexceptional find through misleading press releases is so low that we can't rely on normal sources. We don't want an encyclopedia that you can get your artifact into just by making wild claims and never having to substantiate them. This literally happens dozens of times a year, but most people only see a couple of examples so they aren't disillusioned as anyone who reads them all would be. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A good parallel is the Voynich MS page -- there's a viral story about a decipherment claim in RS every few months but none of them are ever substantiated so the page editors have restricted the wiki page to peer-reviewed publication. We should use the same standard for any susceptible area and biblical archaeology certainly qualifies. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete; yet another "sensational" find; talking about making a mountain out of a molehill. Where to start? First, note that this "find" were made by Associates for Biblical Research, a group associated with several dubious claims (eg about the walls of Jericho); the "find" was made public at a press conferance at Lanier Theological Library. These are groups dedicated to "proving" the historicity of the Bible.
 * And note the widely absurd claims, (“This is a text you find only every 1,000 years,” Haifa University Prof. Gershon Galil; or: 'Artifact is testament to Jewish people's deep connection to Samaria'; Head of the Samaria Regional Council Yossi Dagan said ); while more "sober" experts, like Israel Finkelstein and Christopher Rollston, are quite ......doubtful, to put it diplomatically.


 * As Rollston writes in his blog (linked in the deletion request): "But it’s worth looking even more at some of the dramatic claims. Stripling stated that: “One can no longer argue with a straight face that the Biblical text was not written until the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period, as many higher critics have done when we clearly do have the ability to write the entire text [of the Bible] at a much, much earlier date.” Galil makes the same basic statement: “No one can claim the Bible was written in later periods, the Persian Period or the Hellenistic Period.”  ...this is based on... four words! Rollston: "But to say that based on those four words or roots that somebody could write the whole Bible….well, that’s a bridge (way) too far for me.  After all, there are 8500+ words in the Hebrew Bible",
 * Sensational claims based on the flimsiest of evidence are 13 to the dozen in the field of "Biblical archeology"; until peer-reviewed articles appear: delete, delete, delete. Huldra (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, none of this stuff has ever been in the article. Johnbod (talk) 03:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Has not been in the article yet but pretty sure that Salami slicing tactics will ensue. What's the rush? The find is a couple of thousands years old, surely a few months waiting won't hurt. Kershatz (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.