Talk:Ebla–biblical controversy

Possible POV fork

I'm sorry, but this article currently reads as a POV fork. It needs a balanced view of the subject. The whole article drags about how there is "no connection" to the Bible with no real arguments backing this, whether it's true or not, it needs to be balanced (highlighting positive and negative views.) --92slim (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, a POV fork is : when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork"

The thing is : we dont have a first article so this is not a second article for the POV.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Attar-Aram of Syria, this is a dishonest and politically propagandistic article that does not belong in Wikipedia - that is the point of 92slim's comment, not whether there was a prior article on this or not. Proof that this was a political polemic is that the actions and heavy pressure of the Syrian government to get all references to Jewish history, Hebrew, the Biblical background, etc., eliminated, and Pettinato fired from his position, are simply not even mentioned. It is all presented as if it were a purely academic agreement. That is simply false.175.39.122.144 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

There was no Jewish religion in 2400 BCE so what you said happened isnt possible. Anyway, I didnt write anything, and the opinions in this article are those of neutral academics who worked on Ebla. If you have better sources from higher academic authorities, bring them here to discuss.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible POV fuck

This article is fucked. I'm reading the sources here, thinking about mending it, but I'm wondering if we should just delete it. The more obscure a topic, the more insidious bias is. This is important comparative evidence that good scholars are still taking seriously, and this article is enough to cause any passerby to dismiss the data completely. Talk about harmful to scholarship, it'll keep people from looking at this stuff entirely. All of the text currently in the article should go.

Temerarius (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"The same is true of unrepentant homosexuals and pedophiles." Shocking hatred from Harris 1989. What bigot thought this was a source? Don't pollute our encyclopedia with this toxic waste.

Temerarius (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)