Template:Did you know nominations/Mount Ebal site
- 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: rejected by Theleekycauldron (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mount Ebal site
Aerial view of the Mount Ebal site
- ... that the Mount Ebal site, an archaeological site on Mount Ebal dated to the Iron Age, was believed by its excavator Adam Zertal to be Joshua's Altar, as described in the Bible? Source: https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-243-3.html: "In 1985, Zertal published an article in which he suggested that the structure on Ebal may have been the altar of Josh 8:30–35."
- ... that the Mount Ebal site, an archaeological site on Mount Ebal, has been suggested by contemporary archeologists to comprise the remains of Joshua's altar, an Israelite cultic site described in the Bible? Source: https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-243-3.html: "In 1985, Zertal published an article in which he suggested that the structure on Ebal may have been the altar of Josh 8:30–35."
Created by Tombah (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC).
- I'm not clear whether the fact that this is basically old material copied from Mt. Ebal makes a difference. However I am clear that the identification as Joshua's altar is very disputed among archaeologists who just see it as some sort of cultic structure and unlikely for various reasons, including probably being the wrong mountain for the altar. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Tombah, according to Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria, a new article "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article", so this nomination does not appear to be eligible, please can you explain if you think it is eligible. TSventon (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that this article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that probably should be merged back into Mount Ebal. There is plenty of room in the parent article to explain the context of the archaeological site. Havradim leaf a message 01:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
TSventon, that particular criterion means that you can't copy text from an existing article into a new one and submit that as new. You can, however, start a new article with text from an existing one and then expand on it so the pre-existing text is a modest part of the whole. WP:DYKSG#A5 notes that the pre-existing text must be expanded fivefold to qualify for DYK, and I don't believe that level of expansion has been done: the article started with 3481 prose characters copied in, and while some of the material hasn't survived, with the article currently at 11041 prose characters, only 2209 original prose characters need to remain. It looks like more than that does, so this does not qualify regardless of whether it's a fork or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, that was what I was trying to say, thank you for explaining it more clearly. TSventon (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
