Talk:Ekron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Judaism Portal Ekron is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week { Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Yom Ha'atzmaut - quite short for an article of such importance Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs, Category:Synagogue stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help. Template loop detected: Template:WikiProject Judaism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	Ancient Egypt Portal This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

In (2 Kings 1): "When Ahaziah fell through the lattice in his upper chamber which [was] in Samaria, and became ill, he sent messengers to inquire of the god of Ekron, whether I will recover from this sickness." Can anyone familiar with the Hebrew tell us whether the deity of Ekron is given a gender in the Hebrew text that is rendered "god"? --Wetman 00:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the Hebrew version of the bible the name of the god is Baal-Zebub, which may be a variant of the known Canaanite god Baal Zabbul. It is refered in the text as a male god. Marom 16:57, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the inaccurate reference to Akron, Ohio. Mormonchess 17:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ekron, Kentucky

How did the town of Ekron, Kentucky get its name?

(anonymous)

...and the city of Akron, Ohio, deleted from the article? --Wetman 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a disambig page to deal with cities named after, or similar to Ekron Brando130 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Eras

I have not reverted the wholesale changing of BC to BCE on the article [1], but I have removed notices on the article and talk page that seem to be made to ward off other editors from doing so. For one thing, the BC/BCE issue is not yet fully resolved, but the original creation of this article [2] used both conventions (compare 712 BCE / 603BC) and the article did not have a totally consistent convention for almost a year [3] (at which time it went to BC, where it stayed until changed, almost two and a half years later)

Additionally, there is no consensus that the original author's convention must or should be used, most editors in fact dont seem to support this. (See for example [4]) Brando130 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Misinformed or disingenuous? When I created this page, 27 November 2003, I employed the BCE convention perfectly consistently throughout, as any educatecd person would have done. "BC/AD" is perfectly okay in the context of Christian subjects; it is not used in archaeology. There is in fact a Wikipedia consensus to use whatever convention has been established, on a page-by-page. I am returning the commented-out notice to the top of the page: removing it is a gross discourtesy. --Wetman 00:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You really shouldn't phrase it like that ("perfectly consistent.. as any educated person would have done..") in light of the fact that the link you provide clearly uses both conventions (again, compare 712 BCE with 603 BC on that link) - That may be a typo, but it is not clearly established Wikipedia policy that BC be confined to Christian topics, and I have already provided a link demonstrating one example that the original author's convention is not accepted as the standard in all cases. The article's overall 'established' convention is not necessarily the unilateral convention of the original author, and btw, the gross discourtesy, in my opinion, would have been to revert the dates, which I avoided doing. Brando130 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the wholesale statement that BC is not used in archaeology is false. I can cite archaeological material that uses BC throughout, just with what's sitting right in front of me as an example Price, T. Douglas "Principles of Archaeology" (McGraw-Hill, 2007) Brando130 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)