Talk:Lot's wife

Orphaned references in Lot's wife

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lot's wife's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

• From Mishnah: Ronald L. Eisenberg, "Rabbinic Literature," in The JPS Guide to Jewish Traditions" (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2004), pp. 499–500.
• From Prophets in Islam: A-Z of Prophets in Islam, B M. Wheeler, Khidr
• From David in Islam: Stories of the Prophets, Ibn Kathir, Story of David the King
• From Idris (prophet): Encyclopedia of Islam, G. Vajda, Idris
• From Noah in Islam: Lives of the Prophets, Leila Azzam, Noah and The Ark
• From John the Baptist: A-Z of Prophets in Islam and Judaism, B. M. Wheeler, John the Baptist
• From Lot in Islam: Wheeler, "Lot", A–Z of Prophets in Islam and Judaism
• From Abu Bakr: Nahj al-Balagha Sermon 71, Letter 27, Letter 34, Letter 35

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem reference was part of a section of text imported from Lot in Islam. The problem text has been removed, and the name only reference was changed to a full reference on the source page.
Have a nice day. —Telpardec  TALK  03:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced content

The following is unsourced, and is not about the biblical character but "other uses" or the like. The geologic details are also WP:UNDUE

A sea-stack formation in Marsden Bay, UK, is also called 'Lot's wife' because of the shape and location of the feature. Large amounts of salts were deposited in the shallow tropical Zechstein Sea that extended from the Pennines over to Germany and Poland in Europe during the Permian period. Subsequent dissolution of these salts caused collapse (brecciation) of the overlying Magnesian Limestone rock layers that predominantly make up the cliffs today, providing much of their distinctive appearance and properties.

Do not restore without finding a reliable source, checking the content against it, and of course citing it, per WP:BURDEN Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I just found this reference:

Melvin Adams (26 March 2015). Terrain of Salt: Finding the Numinous in Nature. AuthorHouse. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-5049-0253-3.

But I don't know if it's really important enough to include here. Jimw338 (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New section

The following, added here, restored here and again here:

New Testament

One main reason that it is believed that the looking back by Lot's wife was punishment by God due to a selfish longing or missing for the former way of life or material possessions in Sodom is the words of Jesus in Luke 17:32, where he said as a warning: "Remember the wife of Lot". And this was in context of not looking back or worrying so much about material property, but about obedience and holiness, during the tribulation before the end of the world-age.

References

This is: a) framed as objective ("it is believed...") but is clearly Christian. b) bibletools.org is dubious as a reliable source; should take this to WP:RSN

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like the source, find a better one then. That's the recommended (and strongly so) course of Wikipedia, as a policy, rather than wholesale removing of valid and accurate information, for obvious "I don't like" reasons, but with front excuses of "original research". This is a wiki. You don't own article. Yet you're rudely disrespectfully acting like you do. (Something I would never put up with, nor should any WP conributor.) This article was sorely lacking on the words of Christ, which was mentioned briefly in the lede. There was no elaboration anywhere in the article regarding it. It was arguably needed, as the article was missing it. Instead of appreciating my work and contribution, YOU RUDELY DISGUSTINGLY SPAT ON IT, and threw it way, with your own edit warring nonsense.

This is not OR, but COPIOUSLY SOURCED AND REFERENCED...whether you like the sources or not. Frankly speaking, you're the one edit-warring by blatantly disrespecting someone's contribution for non-valid non-WP kosher non-applicable I don't like reasons. Refrain from my page please. The paragraph is sourced, accurate, and article was lacking NT elaboration from NT) The WP policy is modify, not remove. Find better source if necessary, not remove whole paragraph or sentence. YOU are the one who began "edit warring" completely dissing and deleting someone's hard work, for not nonsense won't-hold-up cop-out reasons. So I restored unwarranted disrespectful removal of entire accurate good-faith and sourced edits for blatant I DON'T LIKE excuses and reasons. Won't fly. Again, to repeat: This is a wiki. You don't own article. Look up "No Own". There was nothing wrong with the contribution, in reality, but just the opposite. The article lacked a whole thing and source on the NT reference to Lot's wife. Again, though, if you're that uptight with the source I used, there are others, but removing the whole paragraph becuase of that excuse is not really the way to go. The WP policy is to find another one. But the paragraph in itself was not just valid, but very very warranted in context, of traditions and also what the very lede briefly mentioned. Namarly (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe that bibletools.org is a reliable source. Will open a thread at RSN. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, even if you're right that that is not the best source or a "reliable source", what was my point again? That does NOT give you the right to remove the whole paragraph, and that WP policy is to THEN FIND A BETTER SOURCE, or to modify paragraph, not wholesale delete. Regards. Namarly (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, WP content needs to be based on reliable sources. I have replaced it with reliably sourced content. Looking for something decent about the apocaplytic bit.... and found it and added here. Since we have better sources I have not filed at RSN yet. Let me know if you still want to use bibletools.org and of so, i will. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah

this change from "God" to "Jehovah" is a) not supported by the source provided; and b) replacing the general term with a ... how shall we say, confessional name (see Jehovah) that is not standard in scholarly works. You will need consensus for this change to stick. Jytdog (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It is used by some scholars, just not all...and the only reason I varied it up there (again this is a wiki, and you don't own any article to undo valid things like this because YOU DON'T LIKE), is because of the Jewish context, and to make it clear the God of the Jews, Yehowah or Jehovah. Again, I can cite you a number of "scholarly sources" that use the Anglicized form Jehovah. It's not always "Yahweh" that you see. Mostly, but not always. So your excuse is not totally valid. It really boils down to your rude "I don't like" reasons, and that your arrogance in thinking you own an article, when you do not. The rule is you're supposed to leave edits alone, whether you like them or not, agree with them or not, on Wikipedia, if it's sourced or used or accurate. Period. Your hang-up against the form "Jehovah" doesn't carry, if there are plenty of scholarly reputable works (past and present) that use that form. All your excuses for disrespecting me and my edits, and your attempted bullying here, are weak and vapid, and non-WP kosher. And YOU started the edit warring here with your nonsense, not I. I'm merely responding (not being a door mat) to your disrespect and undue unwarranted total removing of whole things. Namarly (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's give this some time for others to weigh in on. As I said I don't believe you will get consensus for this. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The Anglicized form of the name is not that big a deal to me. I was simply making the point that the form "Jehovah" is also used sometimes by very scholarly sources, past and present. Maybe not all, and maybe not the majority, but definitely by some. That was all. And because of that, no real valid reason to remove or diss someone's edit, because (again) this is a wiki, and you don't own any article, and other contributors' edits should generally always be left alone and respected, unless blatantly (truly) inaccurate or true vandalism...or at the most MODIFY, but not totally remove. Namarly (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't edit WP to make a point; see WP:POINTY. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding edits

I do appreciate that later the editor Jytdog made an excellent modification, and found an agreeably better and more solid source for my section and paragraph. If he had done that to begin with, I swear I would NOT have undone it or fought it, as I respect people’s meaningful modifications, adjustments, or better source referencing. You see though that that’s not what he did at first, nor later on even. We both edit-warred, obviously, with 3RR violation, though he a bit worse, and yes I a bit worse with a more combative tone (though not every statement of mine). But I was rightly and understandably both hurt and annoyed, at what was disrespectful and overly hasty, and it came across as "Own" and "I don't like", rather than totally valid reasons to completely delete. Yes, admittedly the source I put in was not the best, or the most reliable, in WP policy, but I hope you can see that WP policy is not necessarily to wholesale remove everything just because the source used is not the most reliable by WP standards.

Now, as far as another thing that’s been said by both Jytdog and others, that is actually a misunderstanding, and NOT what I did, regarding “pointy” about the name of God matter. No, that’s not what I meant. The edit itself (in that small matter of putting the Anglicized form “Jehovah” instead of what was there “God”) was to NOT “make a point” but for valid varying and clarity, in the Jewish context, of the God of Jews, and elaboration etc. When I said “my point” that was only in my comment on the TALK page, in response to Jytdog’s objection that that form “Jehovah” (the tri-syllabic English Latin form) is somehow not used by “scholarly sources” even though it clearly is, past and present...in various reputable works, by various scholars and theologians...though maybe not as much as the less-accurate two-syllable form “Yahweh”. When I said “it was not that big a deal to me” I meant if consensus (which is what Jytdog was later calling for on that specific matter) went against having that form there in that specific place. I would not fight against that so much, because it’s overall minor...though my EDIT on the actual article was NOT “pointy” but simply clarity and varying and elaboration. The edit itself was not meant as “to make a point”, but rather my comment to Jytdog on the talk page about “scholarly sources” and that the motive to remove that form was not really warranted given the fact that it’s a long-established form and found in a number of scholarly books, sermons, and references, as well as in a number of reputable Bible versions. THAT was my “point” about “point”. Not the actual original edit itself in the article. That was just for clarity in context.

Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate everyone's thoughts to all this, although I do not think it was all that necessary for Jytdog to even go to the board to report me, since he was (though unintentionally) also ipso facto reporting himself. But his subsequent modification and compromise and collaboration and better source that he found I do appreciate and have no problem with. It’s cool. I appreciate also Jytdog’s diligence for good sourcing on Wikipedia, though I don’t agree that he handled it originally in the best way or in line really with WP recommendation or policy. And that was my argument with all of that. Regards. Namarly (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Likely cause of Lot's wife becoming a piller of salt

If the theory of the meteorite air burst in the dead Sea region is true than it explains how Lot's wife became a piller of salt as she was looking back at the city she was probably standing close to the shore of the dead sea to get an unobstructed view of her home and hence was unprotected from the heat blast from the exploding meteor and was turned to charcoal or killed and quickly mummified in the heat since she was not close enough to the epicenter of the explosion & blown up, same as what happened in the Japanese nuclear bombings at the end of WWII. The explosion would have caused the dead sea to slosh about & blown into the air causing anything close to shore to be splashed with salty water waves & rain that quickly evaporates in the heat of the burning landscape (Genesis 19:28) leaving behind the salt so Lot's wife would become encrusted in salt looking like a piller & only identified by her jewelry she would have been wearing as it would leave her hands free for carrying other things like all refugees do when fleeing to another place. Lot would have gone back over the path he fled on the way out when it was safe enough to do so & found her by looking at any bodies found along the path recognizing her only by her jewelry as the bodies would be unrecognizable due to the heat & only metal wouldn't be significantly changed in the outer regions of the blast radius. TrueSpace-r (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)