Talk:𐤀𐤂𐤅𐤕

RFD discussion: January 2022

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Philistine entries added by User:ShlomoKatzav

𐤀𐤓𐤂𐤆

𐤀𐤔𐤒𐤋𐤍

𐤃𐤂𐤍

𐤇𐤍𐤍

𐤊𐤅𐤁𐤏

𐤋𐤔𐤊𐤄

𐤏𐤂𐤋𐤍

𐤏𐤍𐤒

𐤐𐤉𐤊𐤋

Hey, made an account just for this! Neat.

So the RFV for this has been dead for weeks, and the only real discussion were users further agreeing that the sources were either circular or universally unreliable. These pages are just a mess and seem to be words invented by taking Hebrew words and changing their alphabets to Phoenician. I've checked and only like 3 pages are words which are even attested in Philistine inscriptions, the rest are just conjecture made up by the user. Rebfeee (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rebfeee: In the future, when you doubt the existence of an entry, that should be discussed at RFV. But in this case, I'm just going to go ahead and delete all the Philistine and Ammonite entries you've marked, because Shlomo made a total mess, and we have spent too long dithering on how to clean it up. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge Oh, I should have mentioned! There is (was) an RFV for this. Right here! I was the IP that made it, but it went inactive after a while so I figured since the few people that commented on it seemed to agree, I'd move it to RFD. If there was some sort of procedure I skipped over, that's my bad. But, thank you anyway!! Rebfeee (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rebfeee: Thanks for reminding me to close that. If something is started at RFV, it should be closed there, but what happened is that we simply forgot about it. In the future, you can just ping me if you need something. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Noted! Thank you again. Rebfeee (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November 2021–January 2022

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Philistine entries added by User:ShlomoKatzav

I think it’s pretty obvious to the relevant parties who this is, but, that doesn’t matter at this point.

It appears User:ShlomoKatzav has been adding Philistine word entries rather imaginatively. As far as I can tell, they’ve just been copying their Hebrew cognates and changing the alphabets around. The sources he uses in each page do not attest to the spelling of the words he’s cited them for, nor do they concern the pronunciation. One of his sources is just a pdf document claiming the Philistines have a connection to the Olmec civilization from Mesoamerica.

Most of the pages in Category:Philistine lemmas fall under this.

2600:387:C:7019:0:0:0:7 18:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, 2600:387:C:7019:0:0:0:7

You wrote that the name of Ashkelon is an imagination. But Ashkelon was a Philistine town, more than 3000 years ago.

Ashkelon has an entry in the English-Wikipedia. It has a transliteration in Phoenician characters. You can check it.

The Wikipedia entry was created on 2002.

With regard to Goliath: there is an entry in the English-Wiktionary. Goliath was a Philistine person.

I copied the Phoenician script from the English-Wiktionary.

This entry was created on 2015.

The letters I am using are not Hebrew but Phoenician. These letters were lingua franca in the ancient Canaan.

Shlomo.

ShlomoKatzav (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all, wikis aren't sources for our purpose. I have personal experience with one case, w:Proto-Philippine language, where someone mistakenly created an entirely bogus article with a whole set of words and example sentences in the wrong language, written in the wrong script, and it took three and a half years before the nonsense was completely removed.

As for the rest: there's a difference between saying that a word is known from actual writing vs. is most likely to have been written a certain way based on how it was written in other languages combined with what we know about the way similar words were written in actual writing.

There are a few published inscriptions from Philistine archaeological contexts written in a Canaanite dialect similar to Phoenician. Word in these inscriptions can be included here as Philistine entries provided there is scholarly consensus that they are, in fact, in a Philistine language. Otherwise it has to go in the Reconstruction or Appendix namespaces.

There are also various proper nouns in texts written in other languages that can be inferred to be from a Philistine language. These should not be included under a "Philistine" header in a mainspace entry, especially not in a script different from the one in which they were actually attested, except for standard transliterations/transcriptions of the original script following scholarly conventions.

Looking at Philistine 𐤀𐤋𐤅𐤕, this is apparently attested from a Philistine context, but there's no indication that this is the actual name of the biblical Goliath. It might very well be related to the biblical name somehow, but from what I can tell without full access to the paywalled source, it seems to be just a name on a list. It's easy enough to find sources that say the name "Goliath" is only attested in the biblcal text.

As for Philistine 𐤀𐤔𐤒𐤋𐤍, the article linked to discusses the name without saying how it was spelled in Philistine inscriptions. Without a source that does so, this will fail rfv.

I have access to the paywalled source. If it is relevant to the discussion, I could help. --Fytcha (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding what's "obvious to the relevant parties", I assume you're talking about BedrockPerson (talk • contribs • global account info • deleted contribs • nuke • abuse filter log • page moves • block • block log • active blocks) and various other related accounts. This occurred to me, and I ran a checkuser check. BedrockPerson's IP socks are all from around Oyster Bay on Long Island, New York. ShlomoKatzav's IP's are completely unrelated, and quite consistent with the location information given on their user page. Whatever you can say about them, there's no evidence they're anyone's sockpuppet. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Been a few weeks since anyone responded to this, thought I’d add my two cents. It also seems like the transliterations on some pages are just incorrect, never mind unsourced. Like, 𐤀𐤔𐤒𐤋𐤍 says the pronunciation was ascalon - despite the fact there is no “c” sound in any Semitic language - only “k” and “q”, and “s” and “o” sounds aren’t really seen outside of Hebrew (or, at least, this is the case with ‘s’ vs. ‘š’) On top of that, every source (not to imply there are a large number to begin with) I’ve found with concerns the Philistine name for Ashkelon reconstructs it as something like Ašqālān or Isqālān, not ascalon. The same goes for 𐤃𐤂𐤍 - consensus says that outside of Hebrew the god’s name was probably Dagān or just Dagan - never the “o” sound. I’m not sure where these transliterations came from. Likewise, the orthography of these words are completely unlikely. In ancient times Semitic languages, Hebrew included, never spelled out the matres lectionis unless its consonantal value was being spoken. So, 𐤐𐤉𐤊𐤋 and 𐤊𐤅𐤁𐤏 are clearly is just the modern Hebrew words with the script changed to Phoenician - there’s no way they would have had these spellings.

Also, the 𐤀𐤋𐤅𐤕 page claims “Literally, the word is written as 𐤂𐤋𐤄𐤕 .” I’ve seen the ostracon the word comes from, there are only two words. Neither of them are written “𐤂𐤋𐤄𐤕”. This also has no citation. 108.30.184.238 19:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• All deleted. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)