Talk:AqBurkitt

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Egypt Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects 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.Ancient EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list:

Needed articles.

We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have.

Cleanup.

To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates?

Standardize the Chronology.

A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563)

Stub sorting

Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Wikipedia, but if you believe it needs to be done . . .

Data sorting.

This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Wikipedia than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library.

Citation in reference with AqBurkitt

It is very surprising for me to read some citation of Gallagher, Hurtado or Howard under the tetragrammaton section which are not concerning directly and even indirectly the AqBurkitt rendering of the tetragrammaton.--Amargor (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each scholar can be discussed at a time.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have understand my point, you have inserted general information that scholars provided that are not specific to this manuscript. You will not make the history of the tetragrammaton in the biblical manuscrits in each manuscrit's article containing the tetragrammaton ? Have you understand my point ?Amargor (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get the message, but you're overreaching. If you make a concise question, it is easier to reach an agreement.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian or jewish mss ?

I think that the whole controversy could be sum-up by a sentence saying that the origin of the mss is discuted. The different citations of scholar,s too unclassified to be clear, must be avoided ?Amargor (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is complex, because it includes the place of provenance, the date and the use of YHWH and nomina sacra. It does not seem encyclopedic to limit oneself to give information without going deeper, thus approaching a stub.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A list of quotes has not made a good encyclopedic article. There is no reasoning between your several quotes of scholars. I have reagence the segment, and suppress the Hurtado quote, he has changed his mind to have the same opinion as Gallagher. See here --Amargor (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How about AqTaylor?

For improving this (@Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, Amargor, and Wiklol:. Could the editors involved in rescuing it also consider improving AqTaylor, which in the current form also doesn't indicate the significance/notability of the topic presented there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, I have a videoconference to prepare for tomorrow, so there's nothing I can do today. --Wiklol (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wiklol, Take your time, we are in no hurry. I am just asking if interested editors could try to improve this other sister article over the coming days or weeks, so it doesn't end up at AfD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, thank you for your consideration.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]