Template:Did you know nominations/Jonah

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 Yoninah (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Jonah

(

)

Jonah and the Whale (1621) by Pieter Lastman

... that many modern Bible scholars consider the story of the prophet Jonah (pictured) to be a work of satire against ultra-nationalistic members of Jewish society at the time it was written? Source: "Mainstream Biblical historians generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional and at least partially satirical... The views expressed by Jonah in the Book of Jonah are a parody of views held by members of Jewish society at the time when it was written. The primary target of the satire may have been a faction whom Morton Smith calls "Separationists",[41] who believed that Yahweh would destroy those who disobeyed him, that sinful cities would be obliterated,[27] and that Yahweh's mercy did not extend to those outside the Abrahamic covenant."
- ALT1: ~~... that, in the late nineteenth century, Edward Bouverie Pusey, a professor at Oxford University, attempted to scientifically catalogue the giant fish that allegedly swallowed the prophet Jonah?~~ Source: "In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, naturalists, interpreting the Jonah story as a historical account, became obsessed with trying to identify the exact species of the fish that swallowed Jonah. In the late nineteenth century, Edward Bouverie Pusey, a professor at Oxford University, claimed that the Book of Jonah must have been authored by Jonah himself and argued that the fish story must be historically true, or else it would not have been included in the Bible. Pusey attempted to scientifically catalogue the fish, hoping to "shame those who speak of the miracle of Jonah's preservation in the fish as a thing less credible than any of God's other miraculous doings"."

Comment: This article became a GA on January 30, 2017, which was four days ago if my math is correct, which means this article is still eligible for DYK. I apologize if I have done anything wrong with my nomination; I am not very experienced at this. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by Katolophyromai (talk). Self-nominated at 17:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC).

Interesting substantial article, on excellent sources, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed, but a bit hard to decipher in stamp size. I'd shorten the hook, feeling that the end is redundant and no highlight ;)

ALT2: ... that many modern Bible scholars consider the story of the prophet Jonah (episode pictured) to be a work of satire against ultra-nationalistic members of Jewish society?

ALT1 is cute, but far from our time. - I don't know why you use external links for Bible sources when we have our own, example Jonah 4:9–11. The "See also" section has some (at least for me) arbitrary entries, which were linked before, - I could do without. I believe that this could become a featured article, - just write alternate text for all images and get the refs sorted numerically ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I was not aware that directly wikiquoting the Bible had ever received any recommendation by community consensus. Having contributed and reviewed many Buddhist articles, I have found that in general any article directly quoting scripture is bound to dwell in the start class purgatory.--Farang Rak Tham (talk)

@Farang Rak Tham: I think what Gerda Arendt is referring to is that, when referring to a specific verse, I use a link to the text on another website rather than the text on WikiSource. (The reason why I do it that way, by the way, is because the other website has the original Hebrew text next to the English translation, which I figured was better.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I got that part, but my point is that quoting primary religious sources is never a good thing to do if you aim for a high quality article. There are secondary sources that do that job for us.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You have your reasons, which is fine. - The "purgatory" assumption is wrong, though, see several FAs that I wrote such as this. I prefer the clean looks of an internal link to external, that's my reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

You know how to use primary sources, which is not surprising considering your writing experience. But I think you are an exception: in about 99 % of articles that I have seen (that are about religion) primary sources are used in the wrong way. Anyway, let's not let Katolophyromai wait too long and continue with the review.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I was waiting for a reply regarding ALT2, but don't have to.

preferring ALT2. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I concur, but I wonder whether leaving out the last clause against ultra-nationalistic members of Jewish society would make the hook more attractive and readable.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Write ALT3, please ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that many modern Bible scholars consider the story of the prophet Jonah (passage pictured) a work of satire?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I would personally prefer ALT2, but I am not especially picky and, if everyone else would rather ALT3, I will not protest. I do not really care that much which one we ultimately go with, since I think all of them are acceptable. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

ALT3 also, - let the prep builder decide, depending on less or more text, for Main page balance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)