Template:Did you know nominations/Masada myth

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 22:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Masada myth

(

)

1969 Masada state funeral

... that although Israel honored 27 ancient Masada skeletons with a state funeral in 1969, the story of "freedom fighters' patriotic last stand" is now known to be a myth?

Source: Ben-Yehuda, Nachman (1996). Masada Myth: Collective Memory and Mythmaking in Israel. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 978-0-299-14833-1, p. xxi: "The bones of twenty-seven humans found on Masada are brought to burial in an official state ceremony."; pages 241-243: "The affair began in October 1963… Immediately, there were newspaper reports to the effect that the remains were probably of the fighters of Masada, and a state burial ceremony was called for. This issue was raised in March 1967, once again, by the same Shlomo Lorentz of the ultra-Orthodox party Agudat Israel. In a blazing speech in the Knesset he demanded that the remains of the skeletons found on Masada should be given a Jewish burial. Mr. Aharon Yadlin, then the minister of culture and education, pointed out that the Jewish identity of the skeletons had not been established and suggested passing the whole issue on to one of the Knesset’s committees. His suggestion was accepted. In fact, the Knesset’s Committee on Culture and Education held a discussion with Yadin on this particular issue in February and March of 1968… On March 12, 1969, Yigael Yadin told Haaretz that he was opposed to a public burial ceremony. He stated that the evidence of the identity of the skeletons was not conclusive enough. He also stated that he believed that the bones were those of the people of Masada but that he lacked definitive proof. In response to this, the spokesman for the Ministry of Religious Affairs stated the next day, also in Haaretz, that “the heroes of Masada came there from Jerusalem and fought the war of the holy city; therefore, it is only natural that their bones would find their final resting place on the Mount of Olives, which was a Jewish cemetery during the days of the Second Temple…. on July 7, 1969, the skeletons that had been uncovered by Yadin’s excavations about five years earlier were brought to burial in a full and formal military ceremony near Masada, at a place called “the hill of the defenders… An impressive array of dignitaries (including Menachem Begin, Yigael Yadin, and Rabbi Shlomo Goren) were present at the burial ceremonies."

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Chinese in America

Created by Onceinawhile (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 77 past nominations.

Onceinawhile (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing: - Not sufficiently
Neutral: - This hook states as fact that which the sources do not state as fact
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - the cite fails to support the hook
Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A91E:FA5D:EAB2:D6B0 (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is that bad to deserve a cross, but you'll definitely want to add a cite to the first paragraph of Yadin's executions at minimum, and that's before interrogating any of the sources.--Laun chba ller 14:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Launchballer: I have added a cross-ref (it had been referenced at the end of the paragraph, but the paragraph was then split in to two). Re the IP's comments, the citation quote gives all the info about the funeral, and the rest of his book is about the myth. I guess the IP is referring to the latter question. I can bring some more quotes if helpful.

For context, all the sources in the article say essentially the same thing – there is only one known original source for this event, Josephus. The Israeli national myth version differs from that story in a number of significant ways. We can add some nuance to the words "is now known to be a myth" if that is helpful, but the underlying point is beyond doubt.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not a question of "nuance." There is no consensus - as incorrectly and blatantly stated - in RS refs that it "is now known to be a myth." That's simply fake news. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:A91E:FA5D:EAB2:D6B0 (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The wording that it "is now known to be a myth" is simply not supported by the source provided. Perhaps "believed by some to be a myth" or even better "described by one scholar as a myth" could be supported by the citation, but "is now known to be a myth" embellishes the source far beyond any justifiable limit. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What is the “it” you are referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Alansohn: regarding your comment from a few weeks ago, a new section (Masada_myth#Decline) has now been added to the article as suggested by User:Uppagus. It includes a list of the notable scholars which published on this topic between 1975 and Nachman Ben-Yehuda's book in 1996, as given by Ben-Yehuda.

I have read widely on this topic, including the most recent work by Jodi Magness, and can firmly confirm that there is no scholarly debate as to whether this specific narrative is a myth. Not a single dissenting voice. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Once -- the statement is simply not supported by any of the refs. It's really that simple. Actually, this brings the entire article into question now that I consider it. Plus, it doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article at all. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6043:6D87:AEA7:B5C8 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Belatedly noting that the article is at a (particularly bad-tempered) AfD, and this should go on hold until this is kept.--Laun chba ller 12:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. This does still sport a {{neutrality}} tag @Onceinawhile:, and I suggest this is actioned.--Laun chba ller 11:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Launchballer. The tag was added without explanation, and the editor who added it was asked to share their concerns on the talk page 10 days ago. I have pinged them again at Talk:Masada_myth#Ensuring_balance, so hopefully we should have clarity soon. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: it looks like there was no objection to removing the tag, as the pinged editors declined to comment. My sense is that enough people have now read the article and sources, and have come to understand the topic and its context. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

There are POV issues with the article as it currently stands. I wrote a detailed, and yet partial explanation on the article's talk page.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uppagus (talk • contribs) 07:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Uppagus. I have responded on the talk page with proposed solutions. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the status of this nomination @Onceinawhile:?--Laun chba ller 07:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Launchballer: it would be great to have a new reviewer look at this now. There was an initial aversion to the article by some editors - hence the AfD and subsequent talk page discussions. But these challenges have petered out as concerned editors found the time to read the underlying sourcing in detail, and it seems now to be clear to all that this is a well-covered subject with many decades of academic work underpinning it. The article has benefited from the additional scrutiny, which has made it even stronger. There is more work to do to continue to improve the article, but nothing that should impede us proceeding with the DYK review. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You have my sympathy, I had similar snorts when I brought Matty Healy here. (They even nixed my P05 article.) I'm looking at this now for the first time; it's certainly strongly worded but all its claims are backed up, so this should be fine. However, you do need an end-of-sentence citation for the hook.--Laun chba ller 10:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Should probably ping.--Laun chba ller 12:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Launchballer: I enjoyed reading those articles you linked to. I am genuinely amazed that an article that has had almost 5 million views since you recreated it last year had all those delete votes.

I have done some more work to the article,[1] including adding a further source which works neatly as an end-of-sentence citation for the hook (Sheldon 1998, p. 448: "The belief system he refers to is a myth created around the story of Masada and the Jewish fighters who committed suicide there at the end of the Great Jewish War against Rome in A.D. 73. The story, as Josephus tells it, is not one of heroism. The sicarii on Masada were simply an extremist group of terrorists who had never participated in the Jewish Revolt to begin with and had spent more time killing other Jews than fighting the Romans. Modern twentieth-century Zionists, however, took the original story, eliminated the more embarrassing parts (like the massacre of Jews at Ein Gedi by the sicarii), then used the remaining core to construct a "mythical narrative" of heroism, sacrifice, and national pride for modern Israelis." Every one of the 38 citations in the article contains a version of this statement, but this is a particularly direct one. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

(It's because it used to look like this and the 1975 Reddit didn't like it very much.) Hook now checks out - let's roll.--Laun chba ller 07:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I see that my cutting of excessive quotations in the citations per WP:FOOTQUOTE was reverted by Nishidani who said "The main editor is high experienced in both content and wiki norms". I don't believe this is a very good argument so I won't promote this nomination Onceinawhile, but other promoters may disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: to be fair to Nishidani, his comment – one week ago – politely invited you to explain your position at the talk page.

To try to explain Nishidani's comment: Our guideline has been consistent for many years: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea... Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." An ANI thread interpreting this for a WP:FA from a few years ago includes comments such as: "de minimis refers to each individual source; we never use more than a paragraph" and "We do not have extensive quotation from one source--the longest quote is 365 words long." That same ANI discussion identified why quotations in footnotes are beneficial in articles in controversial topic areas like Israeli history – it saves a lot of time because it allows both experienced and inexperienced editors to verify and contextualize our articles' key claims quickly. In this article, the longest footnote quote (citation #5) is 348 words long, shorter than that mentioned above. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I try to not get more into PIA than I have to, unless I notice something especially egregious. As that ANI thread reached no conclusion at all, I remain confident in my interpretation of WP:FOOTQUOTE. I noted above that other promoters may disagree, but I am unwilling to endorse what I regard as copyright violations on the Main Page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Understood. For the record, a conclusion was reached – the article (Balfour Declaration) was promoted to WP:FA, and subsequently featured on the main page as WP:TFA. Having surveyed this in the past, I can confirm there are a number of featured articles which contain a significant amount of academic quotations in footnotes.

If consensus here requires them to be removed, I will accept that and remove them. But personally I believe that this is the exact situation that WP:FOOTQUOTE was written for, and our articles, readers and the academics who wrote the underlying sources all benefit from it. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

No, ANI does not adjudicate content and so no conclusion was reached—see the close. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean that a conclusion was reached in the parallel discussion at WP:FA and WP:TFA, as the article was subsequently promoted and then featured in the highest profile part of the main page. This is one of many such examples – in my experience consensus holds across our project more broadly, as 100% of my Good Articles and Featured Articles have detailed quotations in footnotes to aid verification on complex topics or offline sources. See for example: Mandate for Palestine, Palestinian enclaves, Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II, Cartography of Jerusalem, McMahon–Hussein correspondence. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the actual reviews of those articles, it seems to be an issue continually brought up which you wave aside. For Mandate for Palestine, see this comment at GAN and this comment at the archived FAC; for Palestinian enclaves, see the first and second GA reviews. Seeing the quality of the editors who believe the quotes to be problematic, my view is if anything stronger than before. (Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar II and Cartography of Jerusalem don't have anything similar, so I'm uncertain why you brought them up, and I haven't checked the last). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Those editors who brought up the topic discussed collaboratively, we found middle grounds where needed, and consensus was gained. The current version of those articles, which reflects that consensus, have all since been recognized amongst the best 0.1% and 0.6% articles in our encyclopedia, and held that status for many years. Similarly, the Sarcophagus and Cartography articles have equivalent examples of detailed quotes in footnotes. All these FA and GA promotions would simply not have happened if the community felt that the interpretation of the right to quote being used was wrong.

I respect that you have a different view, albeit it’s the first time I have seen it raised in this forum in my 79 DYK nominations.

If you had opened a discussion at the talk page when invited to two weeks ago, we could have worked out a middle ground collaboratively. This feels more like coercion. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

This seems a bit unreasonable, if all these prior articles somehow are a copyright breach, Diannaa would have been down on it a long time ago, surely? Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe ask at WT:DYK?--Laun chba ller 05:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)