This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Wikipedia. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Wikipedia requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Wikipedia requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Ancient Near East Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Apparently the forthcoming issue of Israel Exploration Journal has four articles on the tablet, debunking it from all directions. Zero^talk 12:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly how this works, but I'm guessing that since that notice is dated 2022 and it's not been deleted, we're safe... but just in case: I do not think this article needs deleting; I stumbled upon it by chance, and--also by chance--it has turned out to be extremely useful & Relevant To My Interests(TM)!

Himaldrmann (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted and then recreated two months later. Zero^talk 06:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted as a not-yet peer reviewed hypothesis and then recreated after it had received peer review. Largoplazo (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Sinclairian (talk) has made a non-consensus seeking to remove the key disclaimer to this article "he claimed findings were nearly universally rejected by scholarly commentators.", supported by 4 credible sources, and move it to the bottom of the paper, thereby misleading potential readers as to the scholarly consensus regarding the perputed item. It changes the established, stable version, while not providing any rationalisation to this edit. רמרום (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

move it to the bottom of the paper

This is incorrect. The sentence was moved down three lines to a place where the findings themselves were discussed.

thereby misleading potential readers as to the scholarly consensus regarding the perputed item.

This is also incorrect, as the content of the sentence which showed the scholarly consensus was not edited, shortened, reworded, or changed in any way, shape, or form. No new or modified information was added in moving the sentence.

while not providing any rationalisation to this edit

This is, unsurprisingly, also incorrect. Rationale was very explicitly provided as simply and concisely as I could possibly have made it. Sinclairian (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that "the claimed findings were nearly universally rejected by scholarly commentators." You may as well move the remaining verbose discussion to the body and thus keep the introduction concise. Anyhow, you preformed a non-consensus edit, and keep reverting it no matter the objections raised here. רמרום (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All reverts were made before you opened the talk discussion and raised objections. The timestamps show that pretty clearly.

As I explained before, minor edits like moving a single sentence do not require consensus – especially when absolutely nothing has been done to challenge that consensus whatsoever. Sinclairian (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You started an edit-war and thanks for a well-minded user we were both stopped in time. it is one sentence, but a super crucial one. It is the main counter-stance for this very dubious claim made, so by marginalizing it and sidestepping it you're changing the meaning of the introduction. רמרום (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for moving the sentence to the end of the lead is that it was a "more relevant chronological position". While it works as almost a concluding statement to the lead, I think it may be better in the original position as an immediate counterpart to the statement about the claim of it being the oldest known Jewish inscription. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let's see what other users think working towards improving this article. רמרום (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This—The claimed findings were nearly universally rejected by scholarly commentators. The team of its discoverers made sensationalist claims about its contents before the find had undergone the peer review process, and presented little to no evidence for their findings, outside of a single photograph taken of the folded tablet which was unveiled during the initial announcement.— doesn't make sense. "The claimed findings" have no prior referrent and we're left wondering "what claimed findings?". Then it goes on to inform us that the discoverers made sensationalist claims. The sentence beginning "The claimed findings" should logically be after that. It's not just a problem of composition but chronology: Something can't be universally rejected till after it exists. (On the other hand, it makes sense for the note about the editio princeps to go at the end.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed findings are mentioned in the preceding paragraph " oldest known Hebrew inscription, preceding the Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon by at least two centuries (with the curse tablet dated to around 1200 BC). " רמרום (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When considering the prominence that should be given to the marginalized sentence, please consider the general consensus re: validity which developed here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet `רמרום (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a source of confusion then. There appear to be two claims here: one is the claim that it's the oldest known Hebrew description, the other are "sensationalist claims about its contents". The respective impressions I get from these are that the former claim derives from archeological evidence (where it was found, what it's made of, how it was made) and the latter claim is about what the contents say. Perhaps the confusion is purely mine or perhaps it's a problem of wording. Largoplazo (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest two paragraphs in the lead; First: what the find was claimed as, (" curse tablet dated to around 1200 BC")(where the team came from is definitely not lead-worthy); Secondly, the rejection
• we remove a couple of cats: "2019 archaeological discoveries" and "Archaeological discoveries in the West Bank"
• We mv the article to a new name, eg. The alleged Mount Ebal curse tablet, Huldra (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support the first suggestion. Please wait before performing any other edits on the page while discussion is ongoing. רמרום (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had already rm the cats (that can easily be undone, though). I will of course not mv it before any discussion. Should we do a formal WP:RM for name-change? Huldra (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming it the Mount Ebal Lead Tablet . This is as much as the factual consensus (tablet, made of lead). Could anybody add a section regarding its illicit removal from Palestinian controlled area? רמרום (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But are we sure it is a tablet? ie that it is writing on it? It has been suggested that it was a fishing sinker; so what about Mount Ebal lead object? Huldra (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not established it's a "tablet."Dan Murphy (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sounds right. Mount Ebal Lead Object. Any objections from anyone? רמרום (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for "illicit removal": this is obviously hugely important, and an issue which has interested me for years. The problem is the almost total lack of WP:RS. Take the case of the Bull Site figurine. The only place I have noted any RS is for the illicit removal from Herodium -still ongoing, AFAIK. Huldra (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should list it as illicit removal, as it was taken by Israelis from area B in breach of the Oslo Accords רמרום (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think we need a RS saying that, just as we need a RS saying that the Bull Site figurine was an illicit removal. And I don't know of any such RS, unfortunately, (same for lots of other cases.) Maybe, someday, someone can go through, say the Israel Museum, and note all the items from the West Bank, removed since 1967. Then we could use it... Huldra (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What should be the name of this article? (if we don't delete it all together)

• Some suggestion:
• Mount Ebal lead object,
• Mount Ebal Lead Tablet any other suggestions? Huldra (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't delete it. Regardless of whether or not the inscription is legitimate, it is still notable for its coverage. Also, misnomers aren't disqualified from being titles of articles. The title should be whatever it is commonly known as or referred to. I highly doubt "lead object" is the most common term even used among those who refute the claims of its discoverers. EytanMelech (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree (weekly) that this article shouldn't be deleted, as some might only have heard about the "Mount Ebal curse tablet", and actually think it is one. And we will have the present name as a redirect to the new name, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good compromise. It could also be mentioned in the article that it's another colloquial name for the object, although not a technically correct one. EytanMelech (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Ebal Artifact? I think I like that one. There is no "common name" for this obscure thing. Might as well call it the Mount Ebal Rorschach Test.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Ebal Lead Object for my part, supporting your suggestion רמרום (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though Mount Ebal Rorschach Test is tempting (), I will move it to Mount Ebal lead object in a day or two, unless there is some significant objections to that name, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Mount Ebal lead object" is ok with me. Zero^talk 01:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]