Talk:600s BC (decade)

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment moved here from article space:

600 BC - Lehi and his family set out for the Americas as recorded in the Book of Mormon (approximate date) Should this line be in an article that purorts to deal with history? Unsigned comment from User:88.105.222.158

Agreed, this fictional entry does not belong, deleted. -- Egil 10:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it but write that it is a legend. Igor Skoglund.

The account of Lehi taking his family from the land of Jerusalem, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, is taken as a matter of faith by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Is its inclusion in the time line merely an opportunity for detractors to create comment? Or, should it be excluded because the veracity of the claim cannot presently be verified objectively or other than as an expression of faith? I propose the latter and argue that the historicity of the event is yet to be proven exclusive of faith. Eliminating the event from this timeline does not propose that it is either fiction or legend, but suggests that a more appropriate catagory for this content is the Book of Mormon, Mormons, Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and so on.

If it agreed that Lehi leaving Jerusalem is not fact why does it remain. Fictional people and events do not belong in a factual document unless you can say, "Fact, Lehi left Jerusalem,(source)."fitzgerw.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus against move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

609–600 BC → 600s BC — As other articles about decades — butko (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose - per current disambiguation at 600s BC re reference to that century.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the current title is in accordance with other articles about decades (see 509-500 BC, 1100-1109 and all the others like it). We had a discussion about this whole issue some time ago - while it would certainly be neater to call these decades xx00s, we can't reinvent the English language, and English generally uses xx00s to refer to a century, not a decade.--Kotniski (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the suggested name could just as easily refer to 699-600BC 76.66.196.218 (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kotniski. Although I didn't think it necessarily a good idea then, the discussion needs to be in the same place: WT:YEARS or some other appropriate subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.