Talk:Yahweh

Regarding "was an ancient Levantine diety"

Why is this message composed in past tense? Yahweh is still worshiped today. I think it should be changed something along the lines of "Yahweh is a diety, worshiped in Abrahamic religions, coming from the Levantine region." KeymasterOne (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yahweh is not worshipped today. There are no Yahwists who worship a storm god. There are merely religions with derivative symbolism and mythology. The tetragrammaton continues to hold residual significance in Judaism and Christianity, but in its patchy usage in the old testament it is not even rendered into a name, while Christians later rendered it as "Jehovah" – both mere homages to the earlier Yahwist cult. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that the change should be made to a different tense (although the sentence in general I don't think reads well for a concept like a deity rather than a historical person). But, Yahweh was still used in many contexts far after 332BC; for example in popular catholic hymns (Yahweh, I know you are near; I will bless Yahweh; Rise, O Yahweh; ect. https://www.archbalt.org/no-yahweh-in-songs-prayers-at-catholic-masses-vatican-rules/) until a papal letter in 2008 ('Letter to the Bishops' Conferences on "The Name of God"') discussing the tetragrammaton. Its a bit hard to reconcile with your assertion and the article which seems to suggest no one referred to Yahweh post-332BC. And it is certainly inaccurate to suggest Christianity only used 'Jehovah'. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

There is rare and sporadic usage yes, but it is not used as a liturgical standard in any faith. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Just stopping by to say I also agree with the past tense, as I think it is fair to say the concept has evolved a fair bit in the past three or so millennia. But Iskandar323, I confess you have piqued my curiosity! What do you mean the tetragrammaton is not 'rendered into a name'? Do you mean it doesn't have masoretic vowels attached? Or do you mean the tradition of "Ketiv/Qere"? Inquiring minds want to know! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with the terms, but yes, the name of God was only written down as YHWH out of respect, with the pronunciation only preserved in oral tradition, and in time that too was forgotten.[1] The upshot of this is that no one actually knows how to pronounce YHWH, and "Yahweh" is just a guess that has served well enough for academic purposes when discussing the ancient deity. But anyone worshipping Yahweh, per se, knows not the name of their god. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

So, forgive my nitpickery--you are largely correct, though the timeline is a bit off. When the Torah was written down, it was entirely vowel-less (aside from matres lectionis). It was not until the 10th century or so that the masoretic vowels were added (and they are still not printed on Torah scrolls). So, sure, while the tetragrammaton does not have vowels (or is voiced with the vowels from adonai), that's simply the original form of the language, and much of ancient pronunciation is similarly on a bit of an unsteady footing. Cheers. 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC) Dumuzid (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

It was commonly used in English language Catholic hymns (at least in the United States; I am not sure there are any statistical studies done on hymn usage in Catholic mass but 'Yahweh, I know you are near' was particularly common) prior to 2008, which is why sources do exist discussing its discontinuation as a spoken phrase. This is also discussed in the tetragrammaton page. I think an argument could be made for merging the two pages or providing a final paragraph with more context for the link between the two, but I am very open to hearing opposing arguments. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

This page is about the god as an archaeological and anthropological curiosity: the other page is about the name/acronym. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but the similar article on the anthropological and archaeological curiosity of Yahwism for example includes a section on the transition to modern Judaism. It feels disjointed that the only reference in this article to the modern usage is in the disambiguation. 128.249.96.51 (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The name YHWH is used over 6,800 times in the Old Testament, of which numerous instances are phrases akin to “I am YHWH”, “YHWH is His name”, “my god is YHWH”, etc. I fail to see how this could be considered “patchy”, let alone not a name. Likewise, while I understand and agree that much has changed in the interpretation of the deity in the intervening millennia, your assertion that Yahweh is somehow not the god invoked by modern Abrahamic religions is just patently false - I can’t speak for Christianity and Islam as confidently, but I can tell you that all major Jewish liturgies invoke the name YHWH in practically every prayer, and YHWH has always been held as the utmost sacred name of God. This is hardly “residual significance” so much as it is a direct continuation of the ancient practice, albeit with some obvious theological changes and amendments. Sinclairian (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

You're sort of missing the point, which is that the statement "YHWH = Yahweh" is not strictly known to be true. The "Yahweh" vowelization is an academic reconstruction based on Greek texts, and there is consensus that it is probably correct, but also that it is ultimately unknown. This might appear to be a subtle or rather academic distinction, but it still echoes through scholarship to this day. The 2021 Brill work The “God of Israel” in History and Tradition, for example, expressly introduces the "God of Israel" as "YHWH" (without even mentioning "Yahweh"), and continues to refer to the deity in the un-vowelled format precisely for this reason. By contrast, academic literature about the Canaanite pantheon and the emergence of ancient Israelite religion far more routinely throws around "Yahweh" as the default go-to because the acronym is awkward and could convey a sense of partiality or undue respect. The deity is the same in the sense that modern Abrahamic monotheists believe it the same, and in so much as a deity exists in the first place depending on people's beliefs, but the acronym and the vowelled name have different literary uses and applications – hence the divergent subjects and pages here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This makes as much sense as saying we should separate the entries for Jesus as a deity, from Jesus the actual guy, but keep it named "Jesus".

After all, much has been written about Him, but we don't know that He is actually him, right?

YHWH IS Yahweh.

Yahweh is just how the consonantal name YHWH is rendered in English.

Nor Hebrew or Arabic require vowel letters, this is just a rendering accommodating for Greek's, English's foreign writing systems.

Imagine saying Christopher Columbus is a different person than Cristobal Colon.

It is not the case that there could be another, separate deity named Yahweh - because almost all sources we have referring to Yahweh actually refer to YHWH, originally.

The scant Greek, Latin sources are hardly primary, and are obvious transliterations.

This is not El, the epithet, El the Phoenician, El the Canaanite, this is a very rare deity, with a distinct, longer name, attested only in the area of then Judah & Edom.

Even the academic papers referring "far more" to Yahweh NOT YHWH do it because, "the acronym is awkward and could convey a sense of partiality".

So it's not a deliberate distinction, just a matter of convenience for English speakers, whis is not even kept across the board.

Should we do three entries for Abraham (Christanity), Avraham (Judaism), and Ibrahim (Islam)? because some scholars (Islamic) use one name "far more" and attach certain qualities to the totally different Abraham? 62.113.194.88 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... no! We actually have the article historical Jesus. So that's a thing, different from "the Christ of faith".

Our task is to report mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP for what it is, not to change it. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Many books have been written about Jesus the man, not the deity, and we already have articles such as Abraham in Islam, etc., so yes, that's what we do. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This would have made sense if the article had been named "Yahweh in Canaanite religion"

Or "Yahweh in Yahwism", even.

Is it?

If you read the article "Jesus", do you get only an Islamic view of the guy?

Because right now, the article about a deity central to the Abrahamic religions, worshipped by countless monotheists, says that deity "was an ancient Levantine deity". It's plainly lacking.

You cannot show with any certainty that YHWH is the God of Judaism - while Yahweh is a completely distinct god of the Edomites, not even in scholarly research. They're the same.

This distinction really doesn't exist, it's an English rendering of the same word YHWH with vowels.

I suggest either further clarifying by naming this article "Yahweh in Yahwism" or "Canaanite religion",

Or completely changing the wording to reflect the fact, this deity is still relevant/worshipped in an evolved form or manifestation in modern religions (quite mainstream ones, at that). 141.226.93.142 (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is why I insisted on a change. Just by reading the first few sentences of the article, one can probably conclude that Yahweh was a God that was worshiped thousands of years ago and is no longer relevant in modern Abrahamic religions, though I know. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe that YHWH is the same God that created the universe and still exists to this present day. I don't believe using the past tense is correct as for a God that is still worshiped. It could be argued that this is an insult to these religions. We also have the fact that across different languages, people have a different name for God. This doesn't mean that it isn't the same God. Even through a Trinitarian perspective, Christians believe that God the Father is the "maker of Heavan and Earth before all ages" according to the Nicene Creed. KeymasterOne (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mooters 1563, you say "Yahweh is the God of Judaism, Christianity." Yahweh had these characteristics (among others):

*He was a god of storms and wars

*He had a wife, named Asherah

*He was the chief god of a pantheon that included several other gods

*He did not create the world from nothing, but made an existing world habitable

*He lived in a palace located directly above Jerusalem

And much more. In short, he wasn't very like the modern gods of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Nor are these three gods very like each other. For this reason he has a separate article that doesn't trace his story beyond the fall of Jerusalem, which is when he started to turn into the god of Judaism.PiCo (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

He also sometimes lived in a tent ... for weekend trips I suppose. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Islam says God's name is Allah, and that Jews and Christians have erred and been misled somewhat, though not critically so, and retain enough of a kernel of some primal faith that they qualify as people of the book. Islam doesn't say anything Yahweh or storm god-related is correct. Some scholarly readings coincidentally (or not) suggest that El, not Yahweh, was the original Israelite god, which is not surprising given El's role as the head of the local pantheon and presumptive arch deity, and as the eponymous god of the Israelite name – Isra-El. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Iskandar -- totally agree with this, but can't resist adding a slight bit of trivia--Hosea 8:6 is traditionally a tricky verse. The way it has come down to us, it looks like an ungrammatical "for from Israel, it was made..." But, as many scholars have pointed out just by breaking up the letters differently (mysrael becomes my sr el) we get, "For who is the bull El? He was made..." Now, that's not a definitive etymology for the name Israel, but it is suggestive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

"The name YHWH is used over 6,800 times in the Old Testament ..."

This is extremely useful (and fundamental) information. Why is it not included in the article? For example:

"Yahweh was an ancient Levantine deity, the national god of the Israelite kingdoms of Israel and Judah whose name appears more than 6,800 times in the Old Testament." 77.44.48.159 (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If you try to force Jews, Christians, and Muslims to worship Iron Age Yahweh, they will tend to get violent. They don't want that old religion back. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

...huh?? Sinclairian (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Meaning: if they try to preach to a mass of Muslims from Pakistan or Afghanistan that they should return to Ancient Polytheism, they (the IP) might get lynched. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yahweh isnt a storm god. Stop spreading misinformation 70.58.179.30 (talk) 01:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Any WP:RS to that extent? Written by WP:CHOPSY scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, there's some evidence that he started off with different traits, as a god of volcanoes and metallurgy - so as a Hephaestus or Vulcan if you will - and only took on the storm god traits in flattering later theological depictions - notably in the stories in which he bests Baal, the Canaanite-Phoenician storm god, at his own game with lightning. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Yup, the idea that Israelites were preponderantly monotheists since Abraham or Moses, is just a story, it is not historically true. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not historically untrue either.

We have almost zero evidence from back then.

Of course, you could say there never was a Moses and that's fine, but you can't point with certainty to any historic evidence that "shows" Ancient Israel WASN'T monotheistic.

In that regard, the Bible isn't a primary source (nor does it prove your point had it been), and we have about 0 actual evidence from that time.

As always, some caution is welcome when throwing blank statements. 62.113.194.88 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... no! We actually know for sure that monotheism began to spread during the Babylonian exile, and it wasn't a done deal until the 2nd century BCE.

Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true.

— Prof. Dr. Herbert Niehr, Tübingen University, Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God have A Wife, BBC, 2011

So, in the 8th century BCE, monotheism was at an early inchoate stage. David and Solomon were polytheists.

Professors like Shaye J. D. Cohen and Joel S. Baden do not teach the Hebrew Bible as historically accurate. They teach it much like they would teach the tragedy Hamlet by Shakespeare. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not for sure. It's a leading theory, but not 100% confirmed. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You do not make the call. WP:CHOPSY professors make the call. We don't care about your own opinion. See why at WP:NOTFREESPEECH. tgeorgescu (talk)

I don't disagree with the theory, I'm just saying that it's not "for sure". IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless you get that published in a mainstream WP:RS, Wikipedia is not the place for venting such opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

A leading theory is not a fact, and you're seriously lacking in your ability to edit here if you cannot separate fact from hypothesis.

Fact: there was a guy named Lincoln.

Hypothesis: he held certain views one can infer from his writings.

Please don't conflate the two.

Also, do not mistake "opinion" with "two competing theories", especially as we have about zero primary evidence to prove that theory to be "the truth".

E.g. when we talk about the "Yahweh Shomron" inscription, we don't know whether this is a manifestation of Yahweh in the city of Shomron, or an actual different god.

When the Bible talks about how everyone worshipped other gods, to Yahweh's dissapointment, this can be either they used to be polytheist much later than the Bible wants us to believe, or it can just mean these people were sinners to the state religion.

This is not a matter of 100% truth, at all, we lack info. 141.226.93.142 (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if you think this isn't published either, you're wrong.

The minimalist views sought to refute the old mainstream theory (I'm not even saying I disagree with them).

If you treat the refuting-theories as actual fact, without mentioning the original theories, you're just doing an injustice to the actual truth and the theories.

Case in point: these theories aren't Evolution Theory.

They were never meant to be scientific, were never epistemically proven, and are really good suggestions, but as we have almost 0 primary evidence, are just that. 141.226.93.142 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

That's just the development of religion, the same God is still being worshipped. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Already answered above. Ad nauseam requests won't make us change the article. Our task is to report mainstream scholarship, not to undo it. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's answered above. I don't understand why the beliefs about the God changing a lot means that it's not the same God. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It was answered. Again, your own opinion does not matter. See why at WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm asking for an answer or which reply answers my question. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If you want answers, ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Here is only a place meant to discuss improving the article based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is not a place for answering random questions. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not asking some random question, I'm asking why the beliefs about a God changing means that it's not the same God (or whatever else leads you to think it should say "Yahweh was"). IndianEmperor7 (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your question does not refer to what mainstream scholars think, but to what you think. As such, it is unanswerable. It is none of our business to give you adult education. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

No, my question refers to what you think. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a full professor, so the article isn't based upon my own opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

But you're defending keeping it as "Yahweh was", and I'm asking why exactly you think that.

Do scholars of religion use the past tense when talking about the existence of Yahweh?

IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in charge of the claims published by mainstream scholars. I can read what they claim, but I cannot change what they claim. The claim that Yahweh was a polytheistic god, which is identical to God in name only, is a mainstream scholarly claim, and that's for us the end of the story. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be better to change the article to "Yahweh (Iron Age deity)" or something like that, then. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The word "Yahweh", in scholarly parlance already means an Iron Age deity. When scholars talk about the Judeo-Christian God, they use YHWH, in order to distinguish him from the Iron Age deity. Since Wikipedia follows scholarly customs, we also do that. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that wikipedia prefers common names over scientific terminology, seeing Wikipedia:Article titles. To most people, "Yahweh" just refers to the Abrahamic God. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Nope, we have WP:RULES for it, see WP:COMMONNAME. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I linked the same policy you just linked. I'm not sure how it favours your position. IndianEmperor7 (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Meaning: independent, reliable, English language sources. Hint: if it is not a mainstream scholarly work, it's quite probably not reliable about Yahweh. The subject Yahweh is owned by historians, not by theologians. So church dogma has no authority upon our article. And I even doubt that Christian churches have any dogmas about the Ancient polytheistic god Yahweh, tgeorgescu (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you talking about churches and theologians? Where did I say anything about that?

IndianEmperor7 (talk) 08:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC" The Maccabees were monotheists? Pretty weird for the Hellenistic era. What primary sources support this view? Dimadick (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Some decades later, scholarship might move towards that. Till then: WP:BALL. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2024

There is an inaccuracy which points to the topic of palestine and naming the land the israelites inhabited as such. In the time that it is being referenced the name would have been more appropriately the Land of Canaan. So I would like to suggest editing it to that to avoid confusion as well as political debate. The term Palestine did not come about for well over a 1000 years after the time period of which this topic came about. 2604:AF80:1C47:F870:1067:CFA9:8D46:840B (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You are asking whether the name Palestine was existed at that time? It has started with the Roman Empire after the Jewish revolt was crushed.... I thought it's obvious!Meni111 (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

you are totally right, but it seems the editors do nothing about it Meni111 (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We have a detailed Timeline of the name Palestine. The name was used in the Greek language since the 5th century BCE, and is predated by the Egyptian placename "Peleset" (12th century BCE) and the Assyrian placename "Palashtu" (8th century BCE). Palestine and its variations have been used for the last 33 centuries. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Coin caption

@Sinclairian, apologies. It wasn't clear to me how strong the consensus was. Maybe mention of the dissenting view should be relegated to a footnote, as its current presentation made the issue seem rather more contested to me than it is. Remsense ‥ 论 16:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to apologize for. I don't necessarily believe we need to relegate the dissent to a footnote per se, the main issue is that while dissent to identifying the coin's figure exists is comparatively sparse, it draws upon information with strong foundations to make its case (vis-a-vis the YHW vs YHD inscription which is still debated) –  I think the way it is presented now does not overplay its scholarly significance. Sinclairian (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"God of the Old Testament" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect God of the Old Testament has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 12 § God of the Old Testament until a consensus is reached. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed

The following image was removed

Soleb inscription, "Yhwʒ" of Shasu, oldest known reference to Yahweh, Nubia

. I sourced it to Cambridge, to Soleb an ancient town in Nubia correct?, in present-day Sudan. It seems that there's just as much "proof" that this refers to Yahweh as the other speculation. Is there something wrong with the source? Andre🚐 20:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary, the article discusses the Yhwꜣ connection at length in the very first section of the article – the conclusion it reaches is "albeit the interesting analogies, the learned discussions, and the broad perspective, the evidence is too scanty to allow any conclusions concerning the exact meaning of the term YHWA/YHA/YH as it appears in Ancient Egyptian records." Therefore, adding the image which comes to such a strong conclusion about it that clearly contradicts the article itself is not acceptable.

Likewise, you keep removing or moving down the coin image, which has been the lead image for this article for more than a decade and is sourced and discussed far more comprehensively than a simple screenshot of a hieroglyphic term that might be connected to the article subject. That's a no-no. Sinclairian (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't the disputed/speculative Yahweh coin just as speculative? I moved the image and replaced it with another, but you reverted, which is fine. It seems that 2 other editors also moved the coin image, the most recent of which wasn't me. The source I added, for the Yhw3 inscription reads, "At the center of any evaluation of early evidence for Yahweh must stand a pair of related texts from New Kingdom Egyptian sites in northern Sudan: one from Soleb, during the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1390–1352); and the second from ‘Amarah West, during the reign of Ramses II (ca. 1279–1213). Both are monumental inscriptions for display on temples, lists of places and peoples that create a map of Egypt’s world. This material is far older than any potential reference to Yahweh, and if the name Yhwʒ does match the deity rendered as Yhwh, even if it did not yet identify a god, it becomes the chronological starting point for all historical evaluation (Figure 1)." Why wouldn't this allow us to have that picture in the article, then? Andre🚐 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Silliest removal of sourced content. Either we include all possible theories or none. If not then we just state the known facts. Rolando 1208 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

That's trivially not the case according to anyone who's ever skimmed site policy: verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion, and we're also meant to responsibly weigh representation according to a neutral point of view. Remsense ‥ 论 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What is not neutral about that? Andre🚐 15:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Writing in prose about how a theory is discredited and then prominently illustrating the object of that theory in a straightforward manner—even if the caption agrees with the prose—is not neutral, it's incoherent. I speak not of the coin at present. Remsense ‥ 论 15:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't discredit the theory, it simply states there is a dispute over the sufficiency of the evidence and the conclusions; same deal with the coin. I'd say neither should be prominently displayed at the top but both should be included in the body. Andre🚐 15:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)