text:
Talk:Postpartum depression

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hbhat3, Ghuynh, Chang2021, Jsodhi1. Peer reviewers: Soondubuson, BenTang2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aschabel10, Aschabel101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janeenrose.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amm567, Jane4dc, Hadleyggeorgetown, Ashiannaj.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 1 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Arblanks. Peer reviewers: Gadishu, Speka3, Jessrose96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emilia.boleyn. Peer reviewers: SpiderBrooke..

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 5 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Escadar Alemayehu, Laurencox1, Cek78. Peer reviewers: Sophianunn, TeakHo, Cnoellec49, Siena1018, Rbullied, Meghanmcq, Kmg121, Kfreda, Amyzhou314, Rka77.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdanthony6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gentryvest.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fannnypack, Wrd530, Alicewu95, Jessicabee55.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ashley's Peer Review, Foundations 2 2019
1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? -- Yes, definitely. The group has expanded and has added relevant information about medications for post-partum depression.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? -- Yes, the group has added new 2019 data about a different type of medication that can be given intravenously for post-partum depression.

3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? -- Yes, the group's edits has maintained a neutral point of view throughout the article.

Ashleyher (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sara's Peer Review 2019
1. The group's addition to the medication section specifically brexanolone definitely improved the article by giving light to a medication that was not addressed in the page previously.

2. Yes, the group has achieved its overall goals for improvement and even added additional information.

3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? All statements were supported with a cited source

Sara.F.Shaikh (talk)Sara S.

Manuel's Peer Review, 2019
Group 7B did an awesome job making edits to this wikipedia page by making it more fluid and smooth with the transitions to read by the layman's audience. One of the most important contributions was including a whole new medication used as part of postpartum depression treatment, going so much as including the REMS program and side effects.

The group maintained neutrality throughout the article, so it was not biased towards one side.

ManuelSeraydarian (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 7B response to Peer Reviews
1. Thank you for your evaluation of our contributions to this Wikipedia page.Wrd530 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael's Review- Foundations 2019
Goals

1. The information added about the drug "allopregnalone" is substantial and provides more clarity

2. Therapies and medications relating to postpartum depression were explored and supplemented through the edits made.

3. Many hyperlinks were added, and these serve to encourage further reading.

This groups edits significantly improve the article, their sources and edits pose a neutral point of view. Michaelfashola (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add treatment risks vs. benefits sub-section
I am currently updating the article for maternity blues and was reading the postpartum depression article for additional background. Bravo to previous editors -- this article is well-developed and has lots of interesting information! I propose adding a treatment sub-section to this article that discusses risks vs. benefits of medications compared to untreated depression. There is some interesting literature that discusses the risks to both mother and baby of untreated postpartum depression. I believe this would be a useful addition given the lack of complete knowledge on safety of these medications.

Looking forward to comments and suggestions from others interested in this topic!

Mlshulk (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

CP133 2019 Group 18 proposed edits
Ghuynh (talk) 04:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC) User: Harini Bhat

Proposed edits:
 * add a new section in regards to bills/policies that will help support postpartum depression
 * provide information regarding the bill specific in California and the importance for this bill
 * continue to update as new information is available as the discussion is still in progressChang2021 (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Bills and Policies In February of 2019, an amendment was proposed to section 14005.18 of the Welfare and Institutions Code as it relates to Medi-Cal in the state of California. The purpose of this bill is to extend postpartum coverage by Medi-Cal from 60 days up to 1 year postpartum for maternal mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression.

Per the AB 577 bill text, the government defines "maternal mental health condition" as any condition that occurs during the pregnancy or after birth and includes a number of mental health diagnoses, including postpartum depression. Prior to this proposed amendment, all services covered by Medi-Cal for low-income pregnant women would terminate 60 days after giving birth. Postpartum depression and mood disorders are common health-related issues that can arise within the first year after giving birth. With the proposal of AB 577, Medi-Cal will continue its coverage for maternal mood disorders and facilitating access to treatment beyond the 60-day coverage limit to provide uninterrupted care. The amendment was widely well-received and awaits discussion on the assembly floor.

CP 133 2019 Group 17 Peer Edits
Michelle:

I've noticed that unfortunately, all edits that you've made have been removed since the edits. I am referencing the versions with your edits, as well as the notes from the user who removed the edits.

1. I do believe that Group 17 improved this article with the addition of Health Coverage. This is a topic that does affect the management and treatment of postpartum depression. However, I do understand Doc James' concern that the information only applied to California, and thus can be considered irrelevant. Your goals for edits on the talk page revolve primarily around new bills/policies that support postpartum depression, which I do believe is a valuable addition to this article. I believe the best way to address Doc James' concern is to speak on not just California's policy but any other states/countries as well. In addition, adding information on how the bill has will actually affect treatment/management of postpartum depression can tie that information into treatment/management. The statement on barriers to mothers receiving care was removed since it was citing a primary source. It is something that does improve the article, so perhaps using CDC/WHO guidelines or statements on these barriers might be a better source for your information. Perhaps there will also be some more information on if these barriers are addressed at all. It might be a great way to tie in your goals of informing on legislation surrounding postpartum depression and how that care is supported by policies.

2. The edits submitted represent a fairly neutral point of view. The language was very matter of fact, in using government definitions, and not expressing personal approval/disapproval of the amendment, despite acknowledging that the amendment was "well-received". Similarly, the statement on barriers to care is also listing without providing an opinion on each barrier. Great work! Michellelzhao (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Benjamin:

I also noticed that your edits have been removed! I'll read and comment on the revisions with your edits ("Revision as of 05:50, 23 October 2019" and "Revision as of 19:59, 30 October 2019").

1. I think the group edits improved the article. The earlier edit created a section with the intent to expand on health coverage options for mothers experiencing postpartum depression. The group cited a bill introduced in California to expand postpartum mental health disorder coverage, described the necessity for such a bill, and explained the reception to the bill. I think the entry can be improved by providing a more comprehensive view of similar bills and policies worldwide. Perhaps a similar analysis of policies for postpartum health can be provided for other countries. The later edit also listed obstacles that mothers had to overcome before seeking help for their postpartum depression. This edit better explained how difficult it is to seek help and reasons why some mothers can't seek help.

2. The first edit concerning the bill introduced in California cited text directly from the official California Legislative Information government website, but the edit also cited third party websites. If possible, I believe it would be better to cite the primary source (the California Legislative Information website). For the second edit, a primary literature study was cited. The article is available in certain libraries (e.g. the UCSF library) or for purchase. While it isn't a secondary literature source (like a systematic or literature review), I don't know if the same information is available elsewhere.

BenTang2019 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Connie:

1. Even though the groups’ addition was deleted by Doc James, I do believe that the group’s edits could have substantially improved the article. The groups’ new edits were adding a section on Health Coverage and how a new bill can extend postpartum coverage from 60 days to up to 1 year by Medi-Cal. Since their edits got deleted, overall they haven’t been able to achieve their goals yet, but hopefully with some more revisions by maybe even adding a historical timeline of health coverage of postpartum depression in different states could help them improve this article.

2. The edits are formatted correctly because they had a main heading of “Health Coverage,” subheading of “Bills and Policies”, and then the body text. I didn’t see anything wrong with the formating, but all they really needed to do was provide more examples of more bills and policies from another state or country and provide a better source so that it doesn’t get deleted next time. Connie.chen2 (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Connie Chen

Stephanie:

1. Like my group members, I also referenced the removed edits. Yes, I found that the group’s edits substantially improved the article with the addition of the Health Coverage section because this was relevant to the topic, citations and links work, references are reliable, information is up to date, and the article is neutral. However, I do understand that the health coverage section could benefit from being more comprehensive by including bills and policies from other states and/or countries. Based on the previous edit I believe that the group achieved their overall goals of adding a bills and policies section, providing information specific to California, and ensuring that the information is up to date. However, this group’s edit has since been deleted.

2. I found no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. I referenced the removed edits in the Bills and Policies section that was added by this group and compared the wording and content to the cited bill text on legiscan. I think the group did a great job summarizing and making the bill succinct and easy to read. Soondubuson (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Risk of formula feeding rather than breastfeeding
Hello, I wanted to draw attention to a bullet point under "risk factors" that could be problematic that reads "formula feeding rather than breastfeeding". While there is undeniably a relationship between breastfeeding and postpartum depression, then nature and directionality of this relationships are not well understood and likely varies from person to person i.e. I have heard testimony from a woman who has said her PPD started when she stopped breastfeeding, and one who said it ended when she stopped breastfeeding. The research surrounding this question is preliminary and inconclusive, and I worry that presenting one piece of the puzzle as a bullet point under "risk factors" may impact a woman's decision in a way that may not be positive. The ability to breastfeed is extremely important to many women and I am worried that the way this information is conveyed may function to limit that decision without the backing of comprehensive and validated research.

Adding a Section on the History of Postpartum Depression
Would like to add a section on the evolving understanding and construction of postpartum depression over the centuries. Noticed the history and evolution of ideas/medical understanding of PPD could benefit this page. Please let us know if there are any thoughts/concerns with this.Hadleyggeorgetown (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

More recent stats
Hi, throughout reading the article I kept on wondering if some of the stats included have changed over the years. For example "Moreover, this mood disorder is estimated to affect 1% to 26% of new fathers" I would think this percent would have changed from 2014. Aroub Jamal (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Aroub Jamal

Adding New Section
Hey Guys!! I want to add a section that focuses on PPD in fathers since it is briefly mentioned throughout the article but it would be more organized to have the information compiled in one section. Below I will attach my proposed rough draft edit:

Postpartum Depression in Fathers: Paternal postpartum depression has not been studied as intently has its maternal counterpart. In men, postpartum depression is typically defined as "an episode of major depressive disorder (MDD) occurring soon after the birth of a child" [1]. Postpartum depression in men is most likely to occur 3-6 months after delivery, and is correlated with maternal depression, meaning that if the mother is experiencing postpartum depression, then the father is at a higher risk of developing the illness as well [2]. Postpartum depression in men leads to an increase risk of suicide, while also limiting healthy infant-father attachment. Men who experience PPD can exhibit poor parenting behaviors, distress, and reduce infant interaction [3].

Sources:

1. Scarff, A. (2019). Postpartum Depression in Men. Innovation in Clinical Neuroscience.16(5-6): 11–14. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.ezproxy3.lhl.uab.edu/pmc/articles/PMC6659987/

2. Paulson JF, Bazemore SD. Prenatal and Postpartum Depression in Fathers and Its Association With Maternal Depression: A Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(19):1961–1969. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.605.

3. Suto, M., Isogai, E., Kakee, N., Misago, C., Takehara, K. (2016). Prevalence and Factors Associated With Postpartum Depression in Fathers: A Regional, Longitudinal Study in Japan. Research in Nursing and Health., 39(4), 253-262.

Pammul (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I added information to the screening section of this article discussing postpartum depression. I found it important to discuss what different numbers scored on the test meant and how often mothers should be getting screening done when in the neonatal intensive care unit. Mdanthony6 (talk) 03:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

New Section
Hi Everyone!

My group and I wanted to add a new section on resources for women and men experiencing PPD symptoms. The page mentions how more resources need to be directed towards women and men experiencing PPD, but does not currently have a section or sub-section discussing specific resources. We were thinking about having two separate sub-sections titled “General” and “United States” under the main section “Resources.” There are several types of resources including education, psychiatric medical care, support groups, web-based resources (talk pages, blogs, and community forums), and helplines.

The general sub-section would include international resources and the United States sub-section would include resources specific to the U.S. We are hoping that the United States sub-section can be used as a template for future editors to structure their respective sub-sections on resources from other areas of the world.

One resource that is available internationally is the “Postpartum Support International,” which raises awareness and provides support to women and men experiencing symptoms of PPD [1]. For the United States sub-section, there are many resources we found. For example, a website with general education provided by the US Government [2] and a website that separates support groups by state [3].

Rennoelle (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Postpartum
What is it 41.246.29.238 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Adult Development Spring 2022
— Assignment last updated by Jordyn.jones0902 (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Wikipedia for the Medical Editor
— Assignment last updated by Adelat8 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating the Fundamentals of Epidemiology
— Assignment last updated by Cjun5 (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources, Inconsistency, and Visual Aid
Hello, I would like to suggest a few improvements to the page.

I have noticed that there are a few information and sources that may be a bit outdated and need changing. For example, "A 2010 review found few studies of medications for treating PPD noting small sample sizes and generally weak evidence." I would advise changing some of the information–including statistics like "In 2018, 24% of areas in the UK have no access to perinatal mental health specialist services"–to more recent ones or specifying the change over the years in each case of outdated information use.

This Wikipedia page would also benefit from a couple of visual aids for readers. For example, images of brain scans under the Neurobiology section showing the differences in the brains of mothers with postpartum depression could illustrate what the text is describing or, to cite another example, images of the medications mentioned in the treatment section. This is simple but will help the readers follow along with what the text is explaining.

The article could also benefit from including additional data when making a statement such as: "Most antidepressants are excreted in breast milk in low quantities, which can have adverse effect on babies" or "In most of these countries PPD is not considered a serious condition for women, and therefore there is an absence of support programs for prevention and treatment in health systems." Giving exact numbers/percentages will leave no room for confusion.

There also seems to be a bit of inconsistency in the balance of information. For example, the breastfeeding subsection has very little information compared to medication and therapy in the treatment section. Another example is the Epidemiology section, in which North America's information exceeds the other continents. Additionally, only the United States and Canada are covered under North America, showing a lack of diverse coverage. Ketchupandmayyonaise (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: MIT 398 Intercultural International Communication
— Assignment last updated by Ketchupandmayyonaise (talk) 09:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC198
— Assignment last updated by Lbatesro (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm new editor
Hi, Im student from Uskudar University. I edit this article (postpartum deprsesion) as an assignment for my course (Biotechnology in Neurosciences (NEU547/1)). I already completed Wikipedia training modules to be proficient in Wikipedia editing. I would appreciate any support. Best wishes, lenah al dalati. Lenah aldalati (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Postpartum depression


text:
User talk:Bryan Nguyen

USS Experiment
I appreciate your attempt to "clean up" the article USS Experiment (1832). However, numerous ship articles are written the way this one was (e.g., "the second..." and "See also" for other ships). I'll revert your changes, but wanted to let you know why. Thanks again. Jinian 12:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

re: stop adding "nonsense"
dude, im just tryin to help wikipedia. i also removed an edit in which some one said "i hate this site"

sorry
sorry i was ranting on the ie article.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Bryan Nguyen


text:
Romance Dance

Romance Dance is the fifth studio album by American singer-songwriter Kim Carnes. It was released on June 2, 1980, by EMI America. It became Carnes' first charting album, peaking at no. 57 on the Billboard 200. Nine tracks were produced by George Tobin in association with Mike Piccirillo, and one track was produced by Daniel Moore, who worked with Carnes on her previous album, St. Vincent's Court.

The album features hit singles "More Love" and "Cry Like a Baby", which reached no. 10 and no. 44 on the Billboard Hot 100.

Background
The album was produced by George Tobin in association with Mike Piccirillo. Carnes had originally intended to record "Bette Davis Eyes" for Romance Dance. Ahead of the album's release, Carnes stated that Romance Dance would be more upbeat than her previous albums, with less of a country influence.

Release and promotion
Romance Dance was released on June 2, 1980, by EMI America. Promotion began with Carnes embarking on a tour of American radio stations before joining James Taylor as the support act for a North American concert tour in August 1980. In a review of their concert at the Nashville Municipal Auditorium, Billboard noted Carnes' "mesmirizing sandpaper vocals" and described her as an "unforgettable performer".

Carnes made a cameo appearance on episode 24 of the fourth season of Sha Na Na to perform "More Love".

Critical reception
Writing for The StarPhoenix, Don Perkins commended the album and compared Carnes' vocals to Maggie Bell and Melissa Manchester. In the Los Angeles Times, Robert Hilburn described Romance Dance as "one of the best mainstream pop albums" since Carole Bayer Sager's 1977 self-titled debut album.

Track listing

 * 1) "Swept Me Off My Feet (The Part of the Fool)" (Kim Carnes) – 3:21
 * 2) "Cry Like a Baby" (Dan Penn, Spooner Oldham) – 3:05
 * 3) "Will You Remember Me" (Carnes) – 4:42
 * 4) "Tear Me Apart" (Nicky Chinn, Mike Chapman) – 3:31 (Originally performed by Suzi Quatro in 1976.)
 * 5) "Changin'" (Carnes, Dave Ellingson) – 3:54
 * 6) "More Love" (William Robinson) – 3:38
 * 7) "In the Chill of the Night" (Carnes, Ellingson) – 4:22
 * 8) "Where Is Your Heart" (Carnes, Ellingson) – 3:45
 * 9) "And Still Be Loving You" (Carnes, Ellingson) – 3:42

Personnel

 * Kim Carnes – lead vocals, backing vocals (1, 2, 3, 7, 8), acoustic piano (5)
 * Bill Cuomo – keyboards (1, 2, 3, 6-9), organ (1, 7), ARP String Ensemble (6, 9), string arrangements (9)
 * Mike Thompson – keyboards (4)
 * Mike Piccirillo – guitars (1, 2, 4, 6), mandolin (1), arrangements (2, 4, 6), backing vocals (2, 4, 8), electric guitar (3, 7), percussion (4), acoustic guitar (7)
 * Steve Geyer – acoustic guitar (3), electric guitar (7)
 * John Beland – mandolin (5), dobro (5)
 * Eric Nelson – bass (1, 3, 4, 7)
 * Scott Edwards – bass (2, 6, 8, 9)
 * David Hungate – bass (5)
 * Craig Krampf – drums (1, 2, 3, 6-9)
 * Joel Peskin – saxophone
 * Raphael Ravenscroft – saxophone (6)
 * Jim Ed Norman – string arrangements (5)
 * Julia Waters Tillman – backing vocals (1, 3, 7)
 * Maxine Waters Willard – backing vocals (1, 3, 7)
 * Patrick Bolen – backing vocals (2, 4)
 * Dave Ellingson – backing vocals (2, 8)
 * Herb Pedersen – backing vocals (5)
 * Kin Vassy – backing vocals (5)
 * Darlene Love – backing vocals (6)
 * Edna Wright – backing vocals (6)

Production

 * Mike Piccirillo – producer (1-4, 6-9), engineer (1-4, 6-9)
 * George Tobin – producer (1-4, 6-9)
 * Daniel Moore – producer (5)
 * Ryan Ulyate – engineer (1-4, 6-9)
 * Howard Wolen – engineer (1-4, 6-9)
 * Mark Wolfson – engineer (1-4, 6-9)
 * Larry Hirsch – engineer (5)
 * Ron Evans – second engineer (1-4, 6-9)
 * Val Garay – mixing
 * Niko Bolas – mix assistant
 * Mike Reese – mastering
 * Doug Sax – mastering
 * The Mastering Lab (Hollywood, California) – mastering location
 * Gary Goetzman – production manager for George Tobin Productions
 * Lisa Marie – session coordinator
 * Bill Burks – art direction, design
 * Norman Seeff – photography
 * Stan Evenson – lettering

Studios
 * Recorded at Studio Sound Recorders (North Hollywood, California).
 * Mixed at Record One (Los Angeles, California).
 * Mastered at The Mastering Lab (Hollywood, California).

title: Romance Dance


text:
Kat-5 (vehicle)

Kat-5 is an autonomous vehicle created by Team Gray, an organization comprising employees from The Gray Insurance Company and students from Tulane University's School of Engineering, for the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge.

The vehicle
Kat-5 is a 2005 Ford Escape Hybrid modified with the sensors and actuators needed for autonomous operation. It has an INS/GPS (Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System) from Oxford Technical Solutions and LIDAR units from SICK and Riegl. Kat-5 finished the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge and placed fourth with a time of 7 hours, 30 minutes, only 37 minutes behind Stanley, the winner of the competition. Kat-5 is powered by almost 100% pure Java and runs both the Mac OS X and Linux operating systems.

Kat-5 uses oscillating LIDARs and information from the INS/GPS unit to create a picture of the surrounding environment. This information is then used to build a path for the vehicle to follow. Kat-5's primary electrical system, used to run the computers and drive-by-wire system, is powered by the standard electrical system of the vehicle while the 24-volt system, used to power the LIDAR sensors, is powered by six solar panels on the roof platform of the vehicle.

During the National Qualification Event of the Grand Challenge, Kat-5 suffered 2 major crashes and one stall (due to a faulty circuit breaker) before finally completing three runs. The last run completed was done flawlessly with Kat-5 avoiding every obstacle and passing through all 50 required gates. The vehicle was given a pole position of 16 going into the Grand Challenge Event in Primm, NV.

On the morning of October 8, 2005, Kat-5 left the starting line without a hitch and began the 132-mile journey through the surrounding desert. Although given the opportunity to stop at sunset and continue the race the following morning, the team chose to allow their vehicle to finish that night since darkness would have no effect on the vehicle's performance.

After crossing the finish line, it was found that Kat-5 had completed the entire race using only 7 gallons of fuel, averaging a little less than 19 miles per gallon. The vehicle averaged 17.5 miles per hour throughout the course of the race. It was later discovered that a small software bug had caused the vehicle to slow to a crawl in the wider segments of the race.

The team
Team Gray was made up of IT professionals from within the company and students from Tulane University’s Computer Science, Biomedical Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering departments. Eric Gray, President and Director of The Gray Exploration Company and The Gray Oil & Gas Company, was the leader of the team. The primary development team consisted of six people:

 * Matt Dooner — Junior in Tulane University's Computer Science department
 * Keith Goeller — CIO of Gray & Company, Inc. and MBA from Tulane University's A.B. Freeman School of Business
 * Powell Kinney — Senior in Tulane University's Biomedical Engineering department
 * Jorge Nagel — Master's student in Tulane University's Mechanical Engineering department
 * Carl Schneider — Manager of Information Systems for Gray & Company, Inc. and MBA candidate in Tulane University's A.B. Freeman School of Business
 * Paul Trepagnier — Software Development Manager for Gray & Company, Inc. and Ph.D. student in Tulane University's Computer Science department

Development
The team developed Kat-5 in a period of six actual months (three weeks were lost to Hurricane Katrina) at a total cost of approximately $650,000. The physical value of the vehicle when it ran on October 8 was estimated to be $150,000.

title: Kat-5 (vehicle)


text:
Amedeo Guillet

Baron Amedeo Guillet (7 February 1909 – 16 June 2010) was an officer of the Italian Army and an Italian Diplomat. Dying at the age of 101, he was one of the last men to have commanded cavalry in war. He was nicknamed Devil Commander and was famous during the Italian guerrilla war in Ethiopia in 1941, 1942 and 1943 because of his courage.

Early life
He was born in Piacenza, Italy. Descended from a noble family from Piedmont and Capua. His parents were Franca Gandolfo and Baron Alfredo Guillet, a colonel in the Royal Carabinieri. Following his family tradition of military service, he enrolled in the Academy of Infantry and Cavalry of Modena at the age of 18, thus beginning his career in the Royal Italian Army.

He served in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, which prevented him from competing in equestrian events in the Berlin 1936 Summer Olympics. Guillet was wounded and decorated for bravery as commander of an indigenous cavalry unit.

Guillet next fought in the Spanish Civil War serving with the 2nd CCNN Division "Fiamme Nere" at the Battle of Santander and the Battle of Teruel.

World War II
In the buildup to World War II, Prince Amedeo, Duke of Aosta gave Guillet command of the 2,500-strong Gruppo Bande Amhara, made up of recruits from throughout Italian East Africa, with six European officers and Eritrean NCOs. The core was cavalry, but the force also included camel corps and mainly Yemeni infantry. For Guillet to be given command of such a force while still only a lieutenant was a singular honour.

In 1940, he was tasked to form a "Gruppo Bande a Cavallo". The "Bande a Cavallo" were native units commanded by Italian officers. Amedeo Guillet succeeded in recruiting thousands of Eritreans. His "Band", already named in the history books as "Gruppo Bande Guillet" or "Gruppo Bande Amahara a Cavallo", was distinguished for its absolute "fair play" with the local populations. Amedeo Guillet could boast of having never been betrayed, despite the fact that 5,000 Eritreans knew perfectly well who he was and where he lived. It was during this time, in the Horn of Africa that the legend of a group of Eritreans with excellent fighting qualities, commanded by a notorious "Devil Commander", was born.

"The "Gruppo Bande Amahara" has suffered 826 deaths and more than 600 injured from the beginning of WW2; it had no deserters and received the gold medal in the memory of the heroic Togni, and high praise from our enemies, written in the official reports of the British High CommandIl Gruppo Bande Amahara ha avuto 826 morti e più di 600 feriti dall'inizio della guerra, nessun disertore e la medaglia d'oro alla memoria dell'eroico Togni e gli ammirati elogi del nemico, nelle relazioni ufficiali dello Stato Maggiore Britannico."

- Amedeo Guillet

Guillet's most important battle happened towards the end of January 1941 at Cherù when he attacked enemy armoured units. At the end of 1940, the Allied forces faced Guillet on the road to Amba Alagi, and specifically, in the proximity of Cherù. He had been entrusted, by Amedeo Duca d'Aosta, with the task of delaying the Allied advance from the north-west. The battles and skirmishes in which this young lieutenant was a protagonist (Guillet commanded an entire brigade, notwithstanding his low rank) are highlighted in the British bulletins of war. The "devilries" that he created from day to day, almost seen as a game, explains why the British called him not only "Knight from other times" but also the Italian "Lawrence of Arabia". Horse charges with unsheathed swords, guns, and incendiary grenades against the armoured troops had a daily cadence.

Official documents show that in January 1941 at Cherù "with the task of protecting the withdrawal of the battalions ... with skillful maneuver and intuition of a commander ... In an entire day of furious combats on foot and horseback, he charged many times while leading his units, assaulting the preponderant adversary (in number and means) soldiers of an enemy regiment, setting tanks on fire, reaching the flank of the enemy's artilleries ... although huge losses of men, ... Capt. Guillet, ... in a particularly difficult moment of this hard fight, guided with disregard of danger, an attack against enemy tanks with hand bombs and benzine bottles setting two on fire while a third managed to escape while in flames." In those months many proud Italians died, including many brave Eritreans who fought without fear for a king and a people whom they never saw or knew. To the end of his life, the "Devil Commander" used words of deep respect and admiration for that proud population to whom he felt indebted as a soldier, Italian, and man. He never failed to repeat that "the Eritreans are the Prussians of Africa without the defects of the Prussians". His actions served their intended purpose and saved the lives of thousands of Italians and Eritreans who withdrew into the territory better known as the Amba Alagi. At dawn, Gulliet charged against steel weapons with only swords, guns and hand bombs at a column of tanks. He passed unhurt through the British forces who were caught unaware. Amedeo then returned to the steps in order to recharge. In the meantime, the British artillery battery, under the command of Lieutenant Kenneth Simonds, succeeded in organizing themselves and firing at raised zero with their howitzers. The shells that actually exploded, and the extreme noise of the guns firing at point-blank range, successfully disrupted the cavalry attack and dispersed Guillet's troopers, ending the attack. He himself had his horse shot from underneath him by Lt Simonds' orderly with a Boys anti-tank rifle.

This action was the last cavalry charge that British forces ever faced, but it was not the final cavalry charge in Italian military history. A little more than a year later a friend of Guillet, Colonel Bettoni, launched the men and horses of the "Savoia Cavalry" against Soviet troops at Isbuchenskij.

Guillet's Eritrean troops paid a high price in terms of human losses. Approximately 800 died in little more than two years and, in March 1941, his forces found themselves stranded outside the Italian lines. Guillet, faithful until death to the oath to the House of Savoy, began a private war against the Allies. Hiding his uniform near an Italian farm, he set the region on fire at night for almost eight months. He was one of the most famous Italian "guerrilla officers" in Eritrea and northern Ethiopia during the Italian guerrilla war against the Allies occupation of the Italian East Africa.

Later (in early 1942) for security reasons he changed his name to Ahmed Abdallah Al Redai, studied the Koran and looked like an authentic Arab: so when British soldiers came to capture him, he fooled them with his new identity and escaped on two occasions. That's where he gained the nickname of "Devil Commander", as his men held that he seemed immortal.

After numerous adventures, including working as a water seller, Guillet was finally able to reach Yemen, where for about one year he trained soldiers and cavalrymen for Imam Yahya's army, whose son Ahmad became a close friend. Despite the opposition of the Yemenite royal house, he succeeded in embarking incognito on a Red Cross ship repatriating sick and injured Italians and finally returned to Italy a few days before the armistice in September 1943.

As soon as Guillet reached Italy he asked for gold sovereigns, men and weapons to aid Eritrean forces. The aid would be delivered by aeroplane and enable a guerrilla campaign to be staged. But with the Italy's surrender and the birth of the RSI, times had changed. Guilet was promoted to major for his war accomplishments and worked with Major Max Harari of the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars who was the commander of the British special unit services that tried to capture Guillet in Italian East Africa. On 25 April 1945, he was entrusted as a secret agent with the mission to recover the crown of the Ethiopian negus from the "Garibaldi" partisan brigade, which had stolen it from the Social Republic. It was later given back to Emperor Haile Selassie. This was the first step towards reconciliation between Italy and Ethiopia.

At the end of the war, the Italian monarchy was abolished. Guillet expressed a deep desire to leave Italy. He informed King Umberto II of his intentions, but the King urged him to keep serving his country, whatever form its government might take. Concluding that he could not disobey his King's command, Guillet expressed his desire to teach anthropology at university.

Later life
Following the war, Guillet entered the Italian diplomatic service where he represented Italy in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco, and finally as ambassador to India until 1975. In 1971, he was in Morocco during an assassination attempt on the King.

On 20 June 2000, he was awarded honorary citizenship by the city of Capua, which he defined as "highly coveted".

On 4 November 2000, the day of the Festivity of the Armed Forces, Guillet was presented with the Knight Grand Cross of the Military Order of Italy by President Carlo Azeglio Ciampi. This is the highest military decoration in Italy. Guillet is one of the most highly decorated (both civil and military) people in Italian history. In 2001, Gulliet visited Eritrea and was met by thousands of supporters. The group included men who previously served with him as horsemen in the Italian Cavalry known as Gruppo Bande a Cavallo. The Eritrean people remembered Gulliet's efforts to help Eritrea remain independent of Ethiopia.

Since 1974, Guillet had been living in retirement in Kentstown, County Meath, Ireland although latterly he had spent his winters in Italy. For some years he was a member of and hunted with the Tara Harriers and the Meath Hounds.

In 2003, Amedeo reunited with one of his old wartime adversaries when he invited Lt Kenneth Simonds, the British officer who had faced his cavalry charge in command of an artillery battery, to his farm in County Meath. The two men were friends for the rest of their lives.

In 2009, his 100th birthday was celebrated with a special concert at the Palazzo Barberini in Rome.

Amedeo married Beatrice Gandolfo in 1944. The couple subsequently had two sons; Paolo and Alfredo. Beatrice died in 1990.

Amedeo Guillet died on 16 June 2010 in Rome.

Documentary film
In 2007 Guillet's life story was the subject of a film made by Elisabetta Castana for RAI.

Honors
Order of Merit of the Italian Republic 1st Class / Knight Grand Cross – 2 June 1975

title: Amedeo Guillet


text:
Wikipedia:CheckUser policy

The CheckUser policy is a policy which governs the use of the CheckUser tool on Wikimedia projects. It may refer to:

 * The global CheckUser policy on the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, which applies to all Wikimedia projects
 * The local CheckUser policy governing the use of CheckUser on the English Wikipedia

title: Wikipedia:CheckUser policy


text:
Talk:The Exodus

Exodus: Myth or Fact?
The disclaimer should read: This article is about a story related in the Bible. The lead needs to address this point. The "founding myth" misdirection is not encyclopaedic.Absolutely Certainly (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is a founding myth and depicts fictional characters, like Moses. Dimadick (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The absolute lack of independent mention of the story's events or consequences, from any contemporary culture... the lack of any archaeological evidence that anything happened, and the established historical fact that no quantity of Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt at all (writings of the time say they were in Babylon, never Egypt)... this strains any credibility of this story to the shattering point. An epic tale, sure, but demonstrably pure fiction. --Terminator484 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Now, there are good and bad arguments for the Exodus being unhistorical. The Normand conquest is not archaeologically corroborated, we just know about it from writings. There is nothing unusual with Canaanites enslaved in Egypt, just there weren't two millions of them. Yup, that would mean that the majority of Egyptians were in reality Canaanites. That is what is impossible, not that Canaanites sought refuge next to the Nile during droughts and famines. And Egyptians would not have reported about being vanquished by Canaanites, but they would have needed paperwork for the most daunting economic and demographic crisis in their history. And most scholars would grant that some elusive real event is behind the Exodus myth, but the numbers are way out of proportion. Even the Roman Empire, at the peak of its power, did not have 600 thousands soldiers. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not actually true that the Norman conquest lacks archaeological evidence - Norman coins, Norman-style castles, Norman-style weapons, and more, begin from 1066. Achar Sva (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bayeux Tapestry, though not exactly archeological. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it is part of the material culture that archaeology studies. But as has been pointed out, besides the accounts not being written centuries later, there is a huge amount of archaeological evidence anyway. Maybe not for individual battles, but for the conquest. Also see . Doug Weller  talk 09:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this different than the resurrection of Jesus? There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that Christ was resurrected. See Resurrection of Jesus page, which describes that as a "belief". Inconsistently, labeling this a myth, appears purely anti-semetic. Furthermore, to call the Exodus story a myth is to call the entire Torah a myth. To call the Torah a myth is to call all of Christianity a myth. In the end, the Wikipedia pages (and its editors) need to be neutral and unbaised and not choose empowering language for one religion, while choosing damaging language for another religion. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Take it up over there. Scholars refer to the Exodus as a myth.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Scholars refer to the Exodus as a myth" is deceiving. You should say, "Some scholars..." Or to be completely honest, you should say, "SOME hand selected, biased scholars refer to Exodus as a myth." 67.221.133.45 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Every person is biased in one way or another, I don't know why you cite that as an argument. Every mainstream Bible scholar agrees that the story of the Exodus from the Bible is largely inaccurate, although some mainstream Bible scholars concede that there might be some grain of truth behind it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream" is an arbitrary term. It is also poisoning the well before considering "non-mainstream" arguments from scholars that have largely equal credentials through reputable publishers about the same evidence that "mainstream" scholars have written about. KevinT24 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the jargon of the Wikipedia Community, "mainstream" is not opposed to "minority view, but credible"; it is opposed to WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "Furthermore, to call the Exodus story a myth is to call the entire Torah a myth." I would endorse that statement. Nothing historical in that narrative. Dimadick (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I wish that all Wikipedia articles reinforced this basic concept, i.e. that the Biblical narrative is NOT history as the study of history is understood and undertaken in the post-17th-century non-religious, enlightenment rationalistic approach to it in Western society. Unfortunately, that is far from being the case. And furthermore, we also seem to be entering a period where the enlightenment rationalistic approach to the study of societies is being finally overwhelmed and overrun by conservative, reactionary forces. That is my own feeling, at least. warshy (¥¥) 16:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you read the Torah? 75.99.91.246 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have. warshy (¥¥) 19:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why then is this a "myth" and not a belief? The resurrection of Christ is listed as a belief. The specifics of language matter. The language you are choosing is favoring one religion over the other. This is and has always been anti-semitic. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You can fill a library with mainstream academic books which call Exodus a myth, yup, this includes books written by Jewish professors, including practicing Rabbis. Resurrection of Jesus as a founding myth, while technically true, does not get the same amount of space from scholars, being them Christian or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @tgeorgescu: I am sure Egyptologist Manfred Bietak would disagree with what you states, since he supports the historicity of much of the Biblical narrative. Check his publications: [1 ][2 ]. Potatín5 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You got something wrong: as said, Wikipedia does not render the truth, but the balance of scholarly opinion. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @tgeorgescu: Since Manfred Bietak's opinions are scholarly opinions, I think it is important to take his views into account in order to establish a fair balance of overall scholarly opinions. That's all I say. Potatín5 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We have statements of scholarly consensus already in the article. You are not characterizing Bietak correctly:
 * We therefore posit that the biblical tradition arose out of the various movements (into and out of Egypt, as noted above), presum-ably at diﬀerent times and under diﬀerent circumstances. As we noted earlier, history is always more complicated than a single episode or a single account, but the tradition frequently memorializes, commem-orates, and indeed celebrates only one main narrative. Such is what occurred in ancient Israel: the story is stylized as the descent to Egypt by a single extended family, Jacob and his children; the slavery of the main group engaged in brickmaking for the building of Pithom and Ra’amses; the miraculous hand of God bringing plagues against Egypt; and, ﬁnally, the Exodus from Egypt of the core group, which would traverse the Sinai and settle in Canaan.
 * If the Exodus is based on "various movements" in "different times and under different circumstances," its obviously not the biblical account. Even if you were characterizing Bietak correctly, the fact remains that we have statements of WP:RS/AC that the vast majority of scholars no longer hold the biblical narrative to be historically accurate. A majority of scholars believe that the exodus has a historical basis, another large group believes that there is no historical basis, and a third, very small group (characterized by fringe per the AC cited in the article) believe it happened more or less like in the Bible.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidently, Bietak is not arguing for a literalist reading of the account, but he contends that the main elements of the narrative were real or had some historial basis in a group of enslaved [proto-]israelites in the Late Bronze Age. And he does never use the word "myth" to describe the Biblical narrative. Potatín5 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why the most accurate description for the Exodus is "mythologized history" instead of "myth". But to most traditionalist Christians this is not an important distinction. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't written just for traditionalist Christians. Mythologized history is has a very different connotation that myth. If Mythologized History is the most accurate description then that is what the article should state. 67.80.112.24 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All Bietak admits above is that there were movements into and out of Egypt - the rest he says is styalized. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Beliefs are held in specific concepts. A long mythological narrative does not entail a single belief, but a whole collection of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your contention sounds more Foucauldian vs. actual historiography. Cameronferguson81 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "See Resurrection of Jesus page, which describes that as a "belief". Inconsistently, labeling this a myth, appears purely anti-semetic."
 * "Belief " and "myth" are — one could say — synonyms. To quote Wiktionary: A myth is...
 * "A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc."
 * (emphasis added by me)
 * Or to quote the Wikipedia disambiguation page on "Myth":
 * "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in society"
 * So, what's the problem with calling it a "myth"? Where do you see an inconsistency? And how is talking about mythology "anti-semitic"? Nakonana (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Isn't your contention just a classical argument from silence (or ignorance)? See Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([[User:Cameronferguson81|Cameronferguson81] (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't your contention evidence for the existence of Bigfoot? We have about as much evidence for his existence as for the existence of Moses: None at all. Dimadick (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You would have to establish that analogy before it would be convincing. Ty. Cameronferguson81 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be true if it were his contention. We render the academic consensus for what it is, we do not second guess it. Our own arguments are futile, we render what mainstream WP:RS say. When even scholars who do not deny that Moses existed affirm that he is irretrievably lost to history/archaeology, that should give you pause. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: According to this source published by Harvard University Press, Moses was in all likelihood a historical figure. Potatín5 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First read the rest of that paragraph, to understand what these authors are actually saying about any alleged historical Moses, and the Exodus he allegedly lead. Second, use a dictionary to comprehend what the word "consensus" actually means. Then look up "proverbs, stories and songs", and reconsider why experts use the label "Mythologized history". Wdford (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * " We render the academic consensus for what it is, we do not second guess it. Our own arguments are futile, we render what mainstream WP:RS say. " The peer-reviewed literature suggests you are wrong here and logicians would conclude you have made a fallacious statement. See Douglas Walton Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press, 1997), 239-242. KevinT24 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To claify, are you saying on the talk page we cannot discuss different views? Or question the philosophical assumptions in the discussion on the talk page? Cameronferguson81 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is simply a system for churning WP:SOURCES. Not for indulging in WP:OR. That is: my opinion does not matter, your opinion does not matter, only the opinions of mainstream full professors matter. We may discuss assumptions in so far this helps distinguishing between mainstream sources and WP:FRINGE sources. We are not called to produce research based upon our own assumptions. Nor to challenge the assumptions of Bible scholars from WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk)  14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If individuals cite the approved university presses, then you can talk about those subjects in the "talk" section? Cameronferguson81 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussions in the talk page are usually meant for solving problems with the article. If there are newer WP:V mainstream insights, just add them to the article or request an edit to the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a Wikipedia source I can look at to see what the policy is for the talk page? Its explicit limitations and purposes?
 * Back to the appeal to authority. Individuals viewing any page on Wikipedia should know that they should come to any conclusion on their own in dialogue with a wide array of reputable experts. This is the logical way to approach these subjects and appeal to expert arguments (including consensus). See Douglas Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd Edition (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 209-245; John Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 126. KevinT24 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk page guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The frank statements in the Wiki article and by many readers saying there is zero evidence confuse me. Why so desperate to make the story of Jewish slavery in 13th c. BCE Egypt a lie?
 * Arrogance and fear clearly don't pair well with true curiosity and common sense.
 * Please pick apart this interesting article for me.
 * https://armstronginstitute.org/238-evidence-of-the-exodus#:~:text=Evidence%20of%20such%20migration%20is,in%20the%20Nile%20Delta%20area. 152.208.21.62 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * https://armstronginstitute.org/238-evidence-of-the-exodus#:~:text=Evidence%20of%20such%20migration%20is,in%20the%20Nile%20Delta%20area. 152.208.21.62 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

 * The article does not say there's evidence, but there are many maybe and probably.
 * Also, there is no evidence that Yahweh worship existed in 1446 BCE. Or that Israelites existed in 1446 BCE. Or that Hebrew language existed in 1446 BCE. If an Exodus happened around that time, it wasn't Yahwistic and it wasn't Israelite. While we can't deny that it was the Exodus, it wasn't Jewish in any form or shape. In this case, it was an exodus of Pagan Canaanites, not of any Jew, Hebrew, or Israelite. So, it were part of the "national" history of the Pagan Canaanite ancestors of the Israelites, but not a part of history of the Israelite ethnic group. Even if we admit that Osarseph was a monotheist, he wasn't an Yahwistic monotheist. If Osarseph's only existing god is a real god, then the Abrahamic god is a fake god. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how the existence of Yahweh' cult is relevant to the historicity of the Exodus. Whoever invented Yahweh could have added his name in old legends. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The point being: maybe it was a legend Israelites inherited from their ancestors, but there is no reason to think that a 1446 BCE Exodus included Israelites. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead contains no summary of account
Why does the lead contain no summary of the Exodus? Also, its historicity is quite secondary to its religious significance, so I think that paragraph should be last. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi,, there is Book of Exodus for the story, The Exodus is about its historicity (mainly). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sources and parallels of the Exodus is the article about the myth’s origins—but even that article should have a brief overview of the narrative. This article is about the narrative called the Exodus, whose content spans a number of books besides the Book of Exodus. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 19:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever. I'm not the decision maker in that respect. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Uh, okay! I’ll work on the lead. Open to thoughts from anyone with input. ꧁ Zanahary ꧂ 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Out of Date
The information in the "Origins and Historicity" is way out of date. It is obvious that the contributors and editors have not kept up with the results of archaeological excavations in the Nile Delta over the past few decades, especially the work by James Hoffmeier and Manfred Bietak. This material is now readily available in archaeological publications and has been much discussed at conferences such as those of ASOR and the SBL. This is not the fault of the editors and contributors alone -- in general, the Biblical studies community has fallen behind on absorbing and integrating this data.

One thing has not changed: there is still no evidence for a mass revolt of Israelite slaves at any time during the New Kingdom. However, we now know that much of the population of the Delta during the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom was West Semitic (the broader ethnic group to which Israel belongs) and that the geographic descriptions found in the Bible accurately reflect conditions during the 15th to 11th centuries BCE.

I recently tried adding references to a few recent studies that attempt to integrate this material. They were rejected by an editor who claimed that TheTorah.com is not a reliable source. The editor in question is a specialist in Eastern European affairs whom, as far as I know, has no expertise in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology or Biblical History. I used those sources only because they are the most readily available to readers who do not have the time or energy to comb through piles of research papers. I question how one defines a "reliable source" on a topic as contentious as biblical studies; is a source "unreliable" simply because it expresses an opinion different from that of the editor? Archaeobuf (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

 * First, Wikipedians are not supposed to be experts, they just have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES, see WP:CITIZENDIUM for details.
 * I can grant you the point that there were Semites in Ancient Egypt. There just weren't millions of them, and there weren't any Israelites until 1210s BCE (that's technically when Israelites have been shown to exist). Let me spell it out clearly: before 13th century BCE there couldn't be any Israelite in Egypt, since according to the known evidence they did not exist yet. And yup, in the 13th century BCE and earlier, there were Semitic temples in Egypt, just there were no Yahwistic temples. Those Semites were polytheists and they did not worship Yahweh. What's the evidence for any Yahwist being in Egypt before 1250 BCE? I bet there is none. There's is a mention of "Ywh in the land of Shasu", but the Shasu were not Israelites. And saying that Yhw=Yahweh is not completely supported by evidence. Redford speculated that Yhw is the ancestor of Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Two of the articles that I cited were written by leading experts in the field: Gary Rendsburg of Rutgers University and Israel Knohl of Hebrew University. The citations themselves were rejected as "unreliable" by an editor simply because they were published on the website of thetorah.com. Isn't that "citing sources"?
 * Incidentally, neither of those papers claim that there were Yahweistic temples in Egypt, or even that the West Semites of the Delta would have identified themselves as Israelite. Certainly it is true that the first reference by name to Israelites by the title "Israelite" comes from the 13th century! What makes you think the articles in question claim differently? Archaeobuf (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Those two scholars seem to be at the maximalist/conservative extreme of the scholarly spectrum. Wikipedia usually renders mainstream Bible scholarship. While conservative scholars may be WP:CITED, their arguments should be rendered with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What difference does that make? I added those citations to a section on "Possible Historical Origins" which explicitly notes that is presenting controversial and uncertain hypotheses! How can one possibly discuss "possible historical origins" if one categorically rejects the work of scholars working in that area as "unreliable"?
 * Besides, they are not "maximalists". If you want to understand what a maximalist is, look at the web-site of the Associates for Biblical Research (https://biblearchaeology.org/).
 * I will, however, review the policies concerning WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to see if there is some other way they can be cited. They should be. Archaeobuf (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What I think is not relevant. What are the WP:RULES and customs at Wikipedia, that's relevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if those are the rules, then this entire article violates them far more aggregiously!
 * Talk about unattributed points-of-view, consider this far more opinionated and completely unattributed statement for the article: "Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons." Archaeobuf (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We actually have WP:RULES for that, too, see WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Those rules read "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." This article doesn't follow them!
 * I don't disagree with the statement; I think it is true that "Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons.". I'm just wondering why that statement is treated as an exception to the rules! Archaeobuf (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Such sourcing is cited in the article, in the lead, in footnotes 4 and 5 and arguably also in 1 through 3. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Having had a chance to review the "WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" rules, it seems to me that adding a citation to a statement that already reads "with some instead dating it to the twelfth century BCE under Ramses III (20th dynasty)." to an opinion which does indeed date it to the twelfth century BCE complies with the rules. Ditto with the statement "The 17th dynasty expulsion of the Hyksos, a group of Semitic invaders, is also frequently discussed as a potential historical parallel or origin for the story.". So why were the added citations rejected?
 * Don't get me wrong: I understand the underlying problem here of maintaining neutrality on a controversial subject such as this. But rejecting references to scholars whose viewpoints are identified as controversial only adds to bias! Archaeobuf (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The citations were rejected because we need to use high quality academic sources. Not a popularizing website, even if it is written by academics. It is not peer-reviewed. Also, most of the things you added citations to already had citations that were better.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, the existing citations are way out of date; and TheTorah.com is peer-reviewed, although not to the extent that, say, JNES or JBL is peer reviewed. Furthermore, the existing citations are way out of date. If you prefer, I can cite Israel Knohl's original book; but since it is in Hebrew I doubt most wikipedia readers could understand it. I could also cite Rendsburg's original article in Vetus Testamentum from 1992 (out-of-date) or his more recent article written jointly with Manfred Bietak from 2021. Would that meet Wikipedia's standards?
 * Also, I notice that the article refers under "see also" to Simcha Jacobovici's 2006 documentary "The Exodus Decoded". Hardly a peer-reviewed source!
 * Please don't get me wrong: I really do understand the problems of maintaining neutrality in a topic such as this, where there is absolutely no concensus. Archaeobuf (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm... no. In the mainstream academia the consensus is that the Exodus is either totally bunk or very dissimilar from the events related in the Bible. We have WP:RS for that. Evangelical colleges and universities will disagree, but we don't consider them "mainstream". Orthodox Jews will disagree, idem ditto. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, why is that relevant to a section that is explicitly discussing theories that try to make historical sense out of the exodus? Should that entire section be deleted because it does not comply with what you call "mainstream concensus"? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Minority views are not banned from Wikipedia, but they don't get lion's share. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But don't they have to be represented accurately and in an up-to-date fashion?
 * Incidentally, I've heard Rutgers and Hebrew University called many things, but "Evangelical" is not one of them. And I think most Orthodox Jews would be horrified by the theories which Knohl and Rendsburg expound. Archaeobuf (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not opposed to briefly mentioning there are other opinions. But the consensus/most scholars claim is pretty well sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So what does that have to do with citations added to a section which is explicitly discussing alternative viewpoints? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In other words, there are multiple views about how the Exodus really happened, but what all mainstream views have in common is positing that the story from the Bible is inaccurate. And Joel S. Baden claimed on YouTube that, wait, there is not one story of the Exodus, there are at least four in the Pentateuch, and they differ very much from each other. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Archaeobuf -- if you'd like to draft something, it might help us to understand exactly what you're proposing. Like tgeorgescu, I would not be opposed to brief mentions of alternative theories like Knohl's.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK; how do I draft something and to whom should it be submitted? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What I am suggesting is you simply present it here on the talk page for comment, to see if it gains a consensus of editors. I think in the abstract what you suggest is fine, but as they say, the devil is in the details.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Will do.
 * I started out just trying to add a few citations, but I would like now to think the whole problem through and try to get it right. Give me time. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All true; but what does that have to do with the rejected citations?
 * I might also add that all three articles that I tried to cite agree that what really happened is very different from the story in the Bible (at least as commonly interpreted). So by your definition, these are all mainstream! Archaeobuf (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For Baden's argument see . Check the transcript, search for "pentagonal" (i.e. Pentateuchal). The argument starts at 0:03:55. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What's that got to do with citations added to a section dealing with alternative theories?
 * I have to confess that I have not read Baden's magnum opus, "The Exodus; A Biography". The amount of material written on this subject is voluminous, and it is impossible to digest it all. My understanding, however, is that Baden's position is basically an upgraded version of a theory first proposed several decades ago by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald, holding that Israelites emerged from Canaanites. It is one of several such models currently used in the archaeological and biblical studies communities to understand the origins of Israel, all of which are considered hypothetical and unproven. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Israelites emerged from Canaanites is not Baden's theory by a long shot, not even as him reviving the work of scholars deceased long ago. It it THE consensus view in the mainstream academia. Mainstream Bible scholars have various views about how Israelites emerged from Canaanites, but they all agree that the Israelites did emerge from Canaanites. That is, indeed, the only game in town, except for WP:FRINGE scholars. And of course, several sources to that extent are cited in our article. I advise you to read this (it is not a long article). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh? What about the Shasu theory? The Syrian immigration theory? The re-sedentarizing nomad theory? Why do you keep trying to equate me and the scholars whose work I was trying to cite to Biblical inerrantists?
 * There is NO concensus about any of this among archaeologists and biblical scholars trying to understand the origins of Israel -- only questions. And that is the way scientific research proceeds. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're barking at the wrong tree. I'm not in charge of the Bible scholars from WP:CHOPSY. There are enough sources which clearly make the point that all other theories about the origins of the Israelites have been relegated to the academic dust bin. Of course, tiny groups did flock to Israel, and brought with them stories about Yahweh and escapes from Egypt. But the Israelite conquest of Canaan has been thoroughly debunked, no scholar worth his salt believes it.
 * "The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view. In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given."
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, the idea of a massive conquest of Canaan by Israelites arriving in mass from Egypt at the end of the Late Bronze is not consistent with the currently available archaeological or documentary evidence. But the stories do exist, and that raises the question, "how did these stories arise"? On that, there is no concensus. Furthermore, Israelites clearly inhabited Israel and Judah during the Iron Age, and that raises the question, "where did they come from"? On that, too, there is no concensus.
 * Besides, what does that have to do with the core question here: citing the work of scholars who are attempting to figure out the answers to those questions in a section dealing with such issues? Archaeobuf (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I take mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP at face value. It is not any of my business to second-guess it. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's go to bed; we are going around in circles. I will do as Dumizid suggested and try to put together an update to this section that brings it up-to-date with current research, and post it to the talk section for review. That will take me a while, and even then I am not certain that an unbiased review is possible. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To spell it out, yes, we are biased for mainstream scholarship, and we are biased against WP:FRINGE scholarship. These words have Wikipedically shared meanings which are explained in WP:RULES.
 * Baden is known as a champion of the Neo-Documentary Hypothesis, but of course he does not claim to have invented NDH, and in fact NDH is a return to the old (initial) ways of DH, meaning plot threads only. I don't think his take upon the origin of the Israelites amounts to original research, rather than restating stock knowledge. There is a trend in the academia that when one is lower on the pecking order, they are mostly busy with summarizing and evaluating the points made by more important scholars. Because somebody still has to teach the basics to the students. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What does Baden's opinion on the New Documentary Hypothesis have to do with properly citing sources in a section dealing with theories about the Exodus? Archaeobuf (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

An Egregious Misquote
According to the article, "the Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, dating the exodus to the 2666th year after creation (Exodus 12:40-41), the construction of the tabernacle to year 2667 (Exodus 40:1-2, 17) ..." It attributes this statement to Dozeman & Schechtman 2016.

The bible does not advance such claim at the cited locations (or anywhere). I do not have a copy of Dozeman & Schechtman in front of me, but I doubt very, very much that they said it did. Someone needs to recheck the source.

Quite possibly Dozeman & Schechtman quoted some medieval or early modern computation of the biblical chronology, and their statement was either misunderstood by a contributor to wikipedia or else simplified down to the point where it was no longer correct. The modern concensus is that the biblical chronology of events before the reign of Rehoboam is too vague and inconsistent to reconstruct what the biblical authors thought, although there is some evidence for symbolic patterning in P. Archaeobuf (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

 * You can't claim consensus without offering a source. In any case, the "egregious misquote" is exactly what Dozeman and Schechtman say in the section on historical context:
 * A central question in the modern interpretation of Exodus is what historical events may have given rise to the elaborate narrative of the book of Exodus. The biblical writers certainly wish to anchor the exodus from Egypt firmly in history. They date the event to the 2666th year (Exod. 12:40-41) from the creation of the world, or year 1 (Gen. 1:26-27). The construction of the tabernacle takes place in the 2667th year (Exod. 40:1-2, 17). Biblical writers state further that the Israelite period of enslavement is 430 years (Exod. 12:40-41), making their arrival in Egypt the 2236th year (Gen. 47:9). Jacob and his family settle in a specific land within Egypt, Goshen (Gen. 46:28; Exod. 8:22; 9:26), also known as the “land of Rameses” (Gen. 47:11). (Dozeman and Schechtman p. 138)
 * I trust Dozeman and Schechtman's citation of these Bible verses for these dates over your interpretation that they don't support it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, I did not have a copy of Dozeman and Schechtman in front of me. It appears, however, from your quote of what they said, that they are not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not responsible for their error, but it is responsible for choosing reliable sources and propagating misinformation.
 * These are the actual biblical quotes (JPS translation; all others are substantially similar):
 * Ex. 12:40    	The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; 41 at the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the LORD departed from the land of Egypt.
 * Ex. 40:1    	And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:
 * Ex. 40:2    	On the first day of the first month you shall set up the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.
 * Ex. 40:17    	In the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, the Tabernacle was set up. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So because you don't like how they add up the numbers for the creation, they aren't a reliable source? That's not how WP:RS work. You can find these numbers in many sources, in particular the 2666 is a symbolic number and is related to the foundation of Solomon's Temple. Not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's certainly not the consensus. The Bible can't be cited for itself, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE - we rely on secondary sources like Dozeman and Schechtman, not editor's interpretations of what the verses mean.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They are making a claim about what they say the Bible says, not what someone computes from the bible.
 * I don't disagree that many fundamentalists claim 2556 to be the year since creation in which the bible places the Exodus. That is not the same thing as saying that the Bible says that.It doesn't. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2666, not whatever you said. And Dozeman and Schechtman are not fundamentalists. The specific dates for the exodus, along with the careful numbering of the people, encourage a historical interpretation of the story. But the vague references to geography and the unrealistic number of the group indicate that the book of Exodus is not history. (Dozeman and Schechtman p. 139) What's your source for the consensus that "The Fortress Commentary on the Bible" is not correct? Both Dozeman and Schectman are respected scholars, and Schectman even has a profile at "the Torah.com", which is evidently your preferred source of information.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not say they were fundamentalists; they certainly are not. But they misrepresented a fundamentalist computation as being what the Bible says.
 * Are you saying that when someone grossly misquotes the biblical text, their error has to stand because one is not allowed to cite the relevant biblical text itself? How does that make sense?
 * The issue here is not whether the Exodus is real history, it is the accuracy of a supposed biblical quote.
 * May I suggest rephrasing the statement in the article to read "Dozeman and Schechtman claim that the Book of Exodus itself ...". That way it will be clear that wikipedia is simply quoting their opinion without confirming the accuracy of the biblical quote. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you going to provide a source or keep relying on your own interpretation of the biblical text?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can find the same numbers cited here (preprint for a chapter in a volume we use elsewhere in the article "Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective" 2015: The narrative of the exodus story plays out in the second half of the second millennium BCE—to be precise: in the year 2666 anno mundi, according to the chronology of the biblical text, which is 480 years before the dedication of the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1). The chapter cites "Hughes 1990" "For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions". That refers to this book: Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement series 66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Perhaps you should take up your objections with Hughes. This number is very commonly cited, as a simple search on Google Scholar will show.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Schmid does say the date is "according to the chronology of the biblical text", but nowhere does he claim the bible says so explicitly. Instead, he cites Hughes as follows: "For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions, see Hughes 1990"
 * Hughes himself makes it clear that he is attempting to reconstruct the chronology of the Priestly source, and spends several hundred pages doing that. I haven't read the whole book, or indeed had time to do more than glance through it. However, i doubt very much that he claims the bible SAYS the exodus occurred 2666 years after creation. If he does, please provide the source.
 * So it looks like your backup sources themselves do not support the claim made in the wikipedia article that Ex. 12:40 and 40:1-2, 7 say the Exodus took place in the year 2666 AM. And upon rereading your quote from Dozeman and Schechtman, I'm not sure that is what they claim, either.
 * Slight changes of wording have crept in during the process of citation and recitation that have changed a correct statement (namely, that according to some reconstructions of the Priestly chronology the Exodus took place in the year 2666 AM) to an incorrect statement that the bible SAYS the Exodus took place in that year. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We cite reliable sources that interpret the text as indicating that. I trust them more than I trust you - you’ve yet to cite any scholarship for your position.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Archaeobuf, insofar as I feel like I am missing an inferential leap somewhere along the chain here, but it seems plain to me that the current text is not a misquote of Dozeman and Shectman, whatever else it is. And yet again, you're just giving us your take on the matter "I doubt Hughes says that, so prove it to me" is not how things work.  I tend to think you're right, that there's a better way to put this, but your arguments to this point have been unpersuasive from a Wikipedia standpoint.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestion for how you would reword it? My issue with a simple fix at the moment is that the main point, that the Bible tries to locate the Exodus as a historical event with dates and locations, is not in question. Just the chronology.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your unease, we have a reliable source that says one thing, and you (and me, to some extent!) saying "doesn't seem right to me." In the absence of something more than that, however, I think the best policy is to retain the current wording unless and until we can find sourcing that sheds more light.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me think about that for a day or two.
 * I still think you are missing the point, though. My issue is with the accuracy of a biblical quotation, not the validity or invalidity of the chronology. The secondary source quotes a primary source (Ex. 12:40, 40:1-2, 7) which simply does not say what the secondary source claims. At the same time, it fails to quote the actual source for its chronological data (plagiarism). That combination would be an "F" on any school paper. Archaeobuf (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Plagiarism? That's quite an accusation - Dozeman and Schectman have a list of sources at the end of the chapter. As for saying "it doesn't say what it says" - maybe it doesn't literally say "2,666 years after creation," but it is easy to arrive at that date just by following the chronology as it is laid out in the Pentateuch. I'm beginning to wonder if you're WP:here to build an encyclopedia or are just trying to stir up muck with these sorts of accusations. We don't care about your opinion on academic reliable sources here, and your attitude suggests that you don't understand that we don't get to make calls about scholarship ourselves. As I've told you many times, if you have sources that disagree, you need to cite them.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right; I got too worked up. Just because Dozeman and Schechtman did not cite their source in the little snippet semi-quoted by wikipedia does not mean they did not cite it elsewhere.
 * I've been trying to avoid getting into the Biblical Chronology debate, because that is not what I think the issue is. Discussions concerning the Biblical chronology for the Exodus were quite common in the earlier half of the 1900s, before they were largely abandoned as hopeless.
 * Consider, for example, the following quote from H. H. Rowley, "From Joseph to Joshua: The Biblical Traditions in the light of Archaeology", The Schweich Lectures, 1948, pages 77ff:
 * "Once again we find that genealogical and other similar information preserved in the Old Testament does not accord with I Kgs. vi.1. For we are told that Nahshon, who belonged to the period of the Exodus, was separated from Solomon by six generations. This is quite inadequate to cover a period of 480 years ...".
 * Then on pp. 86 ff: "That the 480 years of this verse are not easily reconciled with the framework of the book of Judges and the supplementary figures found elsewhere to cover the rest of the period between theExodus and founding of the Temple is well known ..."
 * Overall, Rowley devotes about 20 pages to the question of the Biblical cronology.
 * I could cite additional examples from Albright, Bright, Wright, and others from that era, all of which came to the same conclusion: The biblical data is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.
 * I fear you will simply reject these sources as "unreliable", since despite what you say you do indeed pick and choose which scholarship you quote and what you do not. So I would suggest we return to Hughes, whom you yourself quote. He is quite specific that he was attempting to reconstruct the chronology of the Priestly source; since when is the Priestly source the sum total of the Bible? And why did it take him 300 pages to reach his conclusions? Archaeobuf (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this seems a mismatch to me: what the chronology actually was is not the same inquiry as how it was presented. We are talking about how the author(s) of Exodus chose to relate the historicity of the story they were telling; the actual historicity thereof is a different inquiry.  Do you have any sources that would go more specifically to that?  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment. The sources I cited all dealt with the internal chronology of the biblical account and what its authors meant, before they addressed the question as to the actual date of the Exodus. Archaeobuf (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about the internal logic of the Book of Exodus and its author(s), then discrepancies that arise in comparison to Kings or Judges are quite beside the point, it would seem to me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously, you are not familiar with the structure of arguments as to the internal chronology of Exodus. They start with Kings and work backwards. And yes, that is a large part of the problem. Archaeobuf (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You were right after all. See my response to Ermenrich below. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, for a more recent source concerning the difficulties of reconstructing biblical chronology, you might want to take a look at William Propp's comment on Ex. 12:40 in The Anchor Bible Commentary: Exodus. Archaeobuf (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that the exodus is not dated to 2,666 anno mundi? You can’t point us to other problems with biblical chronology and not address the subject at hand.—-Ermenrich (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anno Mundi is a mythological concept, anyway. Or, if you prefer, a theological concept. And it seems that different books of the Bible have different chronologies. That isn't a problem so long as it's specified which of those chronologies is meant. Wikipedia makes no claim that that chronology would be accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me take the simplest possible approach. The Wikipedia article "Seder Olam Rabbah" reports a calculation according to which the Exodus took place in 2448 AM or 2450 AM.
 * Most of the difference is due to textual variants and different interpretations of Ex. 12:40, the very text which Dozeman and Shechtman cite as proof for their date of 2666 AM. Here is what Propp had to say about it (Exodus, Anchor Bible Series, p. 365 Textual Note to Ex. 12:40), which I cited above:
 * "4QExodb and some Syr MSS have "in the land of Egypt", while other Syr MSS support MSS. This is a minor matter. More serious is the LXX variant "in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan", paralleled by Sam's more logical "in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt" (cf. also Kenn 651, "in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in the land of Goshen") see also previous TEXTUAL NOTE. The tradition that 430 years is the duration from Abraham to Moses also appears in Jubilees; Bib. Ant. 9.3; Demetrious the hronographer; the Qumran Testaments of Levi and Qohat; the vision of Amram (Grelot 1975); Josephus Ant. 2.318 (contrast Ap. 1.299); Gal. 3:17; Tg. Ps. Jonathan; Exod Rab. 18:11, and various early church historians (see Dillman 1880: 120-21). The opinion of some commentators notwithstanding (e.g., Johnson 1969), the shorter MT is preferable. On ecn easily envision the pristine text undergoing progressive expansion, while it is harder to account for the MT as abbreviated (Kreuzer 1991). See further under NOTE.
 * "thirty ... and four hundred. Here and in v41, LXXB as a variant "four hundred, thirty five," perhaps reflecting a particular scribe's or group's understanding of biblical chronology (see Kreuzer 1991:258)."
 * From Rowley, I should probably have cited pp. 66-73, which deals with the same issue. My mind was racing ahead.
 * Besides the issues in the text and interpretation of Ex. 12:40, there are significant differences between MT, LXX, and Samaritan in the chronology of the anti-deluvial and post-deluvial patriarchs in Genesis, which significantly affect the calculation.
 * So no, it is not accurate to claim the Bible says that the Exodus took place in 2666 AM. That is simply one interpretation of the Bible. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is that a problem? We all know that 2666 AM is fiction. So it's not like we claim it were true. And that's the problem with the Bible, in general: we have absolutely no idea what the original text was. That implies there isn't any version of the Bible which is accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You think it is OK for wikipedia to present incorrect information on the grounds that "we all know ... it is a fiction"? Who is "we"? Have you forgotten that at least some of your readers are fundamentalists who honestly believe the universe is approximately 6,000 years old?
 * My suggestion is that you turn the passage in question into a direct quote from Dozeman and Schechtman. That way it will be clear that its contents represent their interpretation. That is not the impression which a reader currently receives.
 * Incidentally, I have since noticed that the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible" also claims the Exodus occurred in 2666 AM. At least it makes it clear that it is quoting the work of Thomas Thompson. I'm not sure why he gets (near) exclusive billing in that article. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Archaeobuf, please review our policy on original research. What you've put together is all very erudite and convincing, but not for Wikipedia purposes.  Our sources may rely on the Peshitta. the Septuagint, the Targumim, Josephus etc.  We rely on them to interpret these for us because they are reliable.  Saying "I think this is how they got to their conclusion, therefore it is wrong" is simply beyond our remit.  I would not be opposed to attributing that particular piece of information, but I am also pretty okay with it staying as it is.  So I guess the onus is on you to form a consensus around your proposal.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is getting very frustrating. Much of the public relies upon wikipedia to provide them with accurate, correct information. That is a big responsibility.
 * It is up to you to choose which sources you consider to be reliable. I have given you evidence that, in this case, the source which you chose is not reliable. As a compromise, I suggested putting its statement in quotes so as to make it apparent that the entire statement represents that source's opinion. Yet you insist on propagating information that is demonstrably incorrect? And since when is another wikipedia article someone's "original research"? Archaeobuf (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You should perhaps look at WP:OTHERCONTENT as well. I am sincerely sorry if you're frustrated by Wikipedia processes, but we are after verifiability, not truth.  If you'd like to make the case that the source is not reliable, you could certainly seek other opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The way the article is written, it appears to be quoting Ex. 12:40-41 directly, not Dozeman and Schechtman. That is a direct violation of wikipedia policy. Archaeobuf (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am done here. When you have a consensus supporting your change, by all means make it.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My impression that 2666 is in fact the scholarly consensus hasn’t been shaken at all by anything brought here. On the contrary. So the information is not “incorrect” and I see no reason to change it. At best, we can link to biblical chronology. That article includes multiple sources that all agree on that dating (despite the claim above that it only uses Thompson). We would have no difficulty replacing the citation to Schectman and Dozeman even if they were for whatever reason not considered reliable (and to be clear, the sole basis for claiming they aren’t reliable is that they use the 2666 dating that is also found in all these other sources on biblical chronology. So not a very persuasive argument).—-Ermenrich (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How long did it take the four of us to figure out that Dozeman and Schechtman were relying upon Thompson's reconstruction of the biblical chronology? At the very least, an additional footnote is needed here, either to Thompson, to Hughes, or the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible".
 * A typical Wikipedia user would first encounter what appears to be a direct quote of Ex. 12:40-41. If he were familiar with the Hebrew text or cautious enough to recheck the citation, he would become very perplexed, because the plain text of those verses in isolation does not support what Wikipedia appears to claim it means. A sufficiently sophisticated user would then return to the Wikipedia text, note the citation to Dozeman and Schechtman, and conclude that Wikipedia was actually citing Dozeman and Schechtman's interpretation of Ex. 12:40-41. If he or she was sufficiently sophisticated, he or she would then check Dozeman and Schechtman itself. At that point, he or she would become even more perplexed, because Dozeman and Schechtman apparently do not cite at that point the source for their interpretation (at least, they did not do so in the snippet which you quoted for me). Now the user has a personal research project on his hands to figure out what is going on -- or more likely, he or she would just dismiss the quote as unreliable, as I did.
 * I would suggest keeping the quote, but taking two steps to fix it:
 * 1). Add a footnote to Thompson, Hughes, or the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible", preferably attached directly to the citation of Ex. 12:40-41.
 * 2). Turn the passage into a direct quote from Dozeman and Schechtman, or at least begin the whole sentence with the phrase "According to Dozeman and Schechtman ..."
 * Incidentally, I greatly appreciate all the time which you editors have spent with me on this issue. I have learned a great deal about Wikipedia's procedures, its strategy for verification, etc. Had I known at the start what I know now, I would have started off with a very different complaint: namely, that the passage appeared to be quoting 12:40-41 directly and thereby misled the reader. Archaeobuf (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Exodus