The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. People here disagree in good faith about whether this is a POV fork of Siege of Masada, dedicated to expounding a point of view that should be covered in the main article in proportion to its support in reliable sources, or whether it is a subject of academic study in its own right, and therefore worthy of an article, similar to our other "X myth" articles linked to by Onceinawhile. I cannot resolve this disagreement as AfD closer. Sandstein 11:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masada myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This new article falls short of Wikipedia's content policies in several critical areas: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VER. Firstly, the article relies heavily on broad claims and does not really verify its arguments with credible, independent sources. There are assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing, making the article’s claims questionable and unneutral.

However, the main point is that the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view over the others regarding what exactly happened in Masada. The academic debate is mostly around the specifics of the siege's conclusion: whether a mass suicide and final battle happened as Josephus says, or if something else happened, since there are neither confirming nor refuting archaeological evidence for what happened to the rebels (the siege itself is firmly evidenced). If we fix this POV issue, this article will become an overview of the debates surrounding reconstruction of the events on Masada, which does not need their own article. Other issues presented as part of the myth (myths are generally not neccesarily entirely fictional), like whether the Jews in Masada can be considered freedom fighters or not, remains mostly subjective.

Given that Masada is well-documented and discussed in better-defined and more comprehensive articles like Masada and siege of Masada, the academic debate surrounding its end and its symbolism in modern culture should be presented there. This would ensure that the discussion of the Masada myth is presented within the broader context of scholarly debate. HaOfa (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. HaOfa (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. HaOfa (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's first paragraph is odd. They describe assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing, yet the article’s very first footnote contains a quotation from Nachman Ben-Yehuda, professor emeritus and former dean of the department of sociology and anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem from 1996: "On the professional level, we now know that the Masada myth is a particular selective historically invented sequence (narrative) based, partially, on Josephus Flavius's account, minus some very important details and supplemented by items ranging from a rather liberal interpretation of his writings to sheer fabrication".

The decision not to read the article carefully enough before opening this discussion may have resulted in the misunderstanding shown in the second paragraph of the nomination. There is no scholarly debate on this topic. The questions mentioned by the nominator have nothing to do with this topic. This topic is about the version of the siege story created by early Zionists for nationalism purposes which markedly differs from the only historical version of the story in existence, which is Josephus’s version. The differences between the two versions is summarized at Masada myth#Table of elements. The sources show that this national myth topic is much more notable than the actual siege itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, article is well-sourced. the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view - it discusses the myth, and because this myth exists and is discussed in multiple scholarly sources, the topic passes notability guidelines. It can be see as a Legacy section for the main siege of Masada article, but because of its length it's better to have a separate one. Artem.G (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, I agree the content should be much more balanced and that discussions of Masada in Israeli culture should be described as part of the article on Masada where it has more relevant context and all the relevant views.

OdNahlawi (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Info on the myth should be included under the main topic, either "Masada" or "Siege of Masada," alongside the main scholarly opinions and with stronger sourcing (if exists), as some of the claims made here are controversial and lack balance. Masada#Legacy could be a good option. PeleYoetz (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination is faulty to say the least, there is no "academic debate" over the siege's conclusion and the matter is referenced as a national myth promoted by the Zionist movement in the UNESCO world heritage nomination for Masada. Clearly meets GNG and the material is more than sufficient to justify an independent article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this. For others’ ease of reference, relevant excerpts are shown below. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The content of this article is completely out of context and therefore leads to misunderstanding. If the content is to remain, it belongs in the main article about Masada or the Siege of Masada, as has been suggested above by the nominator.

That being said, I am not sure the content should remain altogether. The article is heavily one-sided, it uses questionable phrasing and sources, and quotes selectively from the sources it cites. For example, the source quoted most in the article is Ben-Yehuda's book, which is criticized for being superficial, having a main theory which relies on a misunderstanding of historiographical issues, and being inconsistent in its application of the constructionist method which it officially adopts, but only uses when comfortable, among many other criticisms.(see https://www.jstor.org/stable/43044142) The book is also not self-aware, and is representative mainly of the subjective-constructionist approach, but does not represent the objective approach adequately, and therefore is given undue weight in the article, which relies on this approach exclusively. (ibid.)

As an example for selective quoting of the source, the article ignores the sections of the book which discuss the decline of the "Masada Myth" (Ben Yehuda P. 253 and onward, Magness P. 199).

The article relies heavily on the identification of the inhabitants of Masada as Sicarii, as mentioned by Josephus, and while the passage quoted from the book by Magness is rather blunt -"How did the site of a reported mass suicide of a band of Jewish rebels who terrorized other Jews become a symbol of the modern State of Israel? The creation of the Masada myth—in which these Jewish terrorists are transformed into freedom fighters and the mass suicide becomes a heroic last stand-has been explored by a number of scholars." (Magness P. 197) It is clear that her biting rhetoric is meant to magnify the question she presents. Her actual position, together with other opinions, is mentioned in a previous chapter: "The Jews at Masada likely included unaffiliated individuals and families as well as members of groups such as the Qumran Sect/Essenes",(Magness P. 164) and: "The nature and even the very existence of the Zealots and sicarii are also debated by scholars. Steve Mason proposes that instead of being a distinct faction, the term sicarii was used by Josephus as a “scare-word” to evoke a particular kind of violence and terrorism. Hanan Eshel speculated that because Josephus was a Zealot leader at the beginning of the revolt, when writing War years later he artificially distinguished between the “moderate” Zealots and the “extremist” sicarii, pinning on the latter the responsibility for the disastrous outcome of the revolt and thereby distancing himself. Here I use the terms rebels and refugees to encompass the variety of backgrounds and affiliations represented among the Jews at Masada."(Magness P.165) And so, this would be another example of selective quotation. But regarding the point of discussion, it is not clear whether the Sicarii inhabited Masada at all. The possibility that the inhabitants of Masada were in fact not Sicarii, together with the fact that both Ben-Yehuda and Magness state explicitly that although archaeology cannot confirm the narrative given by Josephus, it also cannot refute it (Ben-Yehuda P.57, Magness P. 195-196), make the idea of the Masada Myth "whitewashing" history or supplementing it "with fabrications and omissions" lose much of its weight, seeing as much is still left for interpretation. The article is both problematic and out of context, therefore it should be deleted or merged into existing articles. Uppagus (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MASADA: PROPOSED WORLD HERlTAGE SlTE by the State of Israel, 2000

• p.4: Josephus Flavius’s account of the revolt of the Jews, who realized that their end was near and preferred to commit suicide and die as free people as opposed to the option of living in slavery and degradation in Rome, became in the 20th century the Myth of Masada. The Myth was one of the corner stones of the Zionist Movement, whose desire was to renew the Jewish life in Zion, which is the Land of Israel. The pinnacle of the identification with the Myth, as an example of valor and sacrifice, was during the Second World War.
  
• p.41: Masada in the Zionist Ethos: The story of Masada - the suicide of the Jewish Zealots who preferred to die as free people and not live as slaves in Rome - which is called the myth of Masada - affected the Jewish pioneers in the years before the founding of the state of Israel, in 1948. The call of the Jewish refugee in the poem written by Lamdan in the early 1920s “Open your gates, Masada, and I, the refugee will enter”, became the cry of the Jewish pioneers for freedom. For them, only the land of Israel is the real refuge, which was forged out of agony. Lamdan coined the famous phrase “Masada won’t fall again”. The most significant example expressing the identification with the myth of Masada was during World-War 2, when Romell’s troops threatened from Egypt in the south and the pro Nazi Vichy regime threatened from Lebanon in the north. The Jews in Israel felt sieged like the Zealots in Masada: struggling for liberation and ready to sacrifice their lives for it.
  
• p.44: It’s true that the development of Masada site derives partly from the myth and the movie…

*Delete, this is better as part of the Masada article, and would need some NPOV work even there. While a national and cultural myth has grown around Masada, this article is distinctly biased against the Masada defenders, and reads like an attack page. If it is not deleted, it needs to be made more neutral. Jerdle (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra Why does an editor have to be an EC to vote here? This is an article that is in no way related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eladkarmel: as a rather central myth in modern Israel, I would unquestionably place it as part of the conflict. Huldra (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The topic at hand is how an event from ancient history is viewed in modern Israeli culture. This vote seems as valid as any other... HaOfa (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The EC is broad. It includes anything from food (Hummus, Za'atar, Tabbouleh, or Falafel) to academics (Ian Lustick, Benny Morris), to anything else even touching on the issue. This article is clearly within its limits, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that a new user with 67 edits manages to find and participate in an RM about Gaza genocide, the RSN noticeboard concerning the counting of the dead in Gaza and now an AfD for something tied to Zionism (an Arbpia covered article) so "broadly construed" might well apply here. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Quite. Better not spend too much time thinking about that, though. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is this related to the conflict? Just because an article deals with modern Israel does not mean it pertains to the conflict. Gödel2200 (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy, per my comment above, to have the closer determine what weight to assign to this !vote. Selfstudier (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (and improve) I’m having a hard time seeing a need for a stand-alone article, it would be better to merge it into one of the articles in the last paragraphs of the nom, and redirect the name there. FortunateSons (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per FortunateSons. Eladkarmel (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Majority of the thirteen sources are directly about the myth itself, which makes it clear this clears the hurdle for needing a standalone article. If all of the sourcing mentioned this as a footnote or a secondary topic to the proposed merge articles, I'd understand the rationale, but as is I do not. Votes calling for deletion because this article "should be much more balanced" misunderstand AfD, and should be discussing that on the talkpage. Deletion for NPOV reasons without first working with editors on the article itself is a high hurdle to clear. Parabolist (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable topic, covered in reliable sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a blatant WP: FORK and WP:FRINGE. Compare: Rootless cosmopolitan. I’m not unsympathetic to both sides, when it’s reasonable; see Palestinian law. This is bollcks and irredeemably bad. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note This editor has been kind enough to admit that they did not read the citations and bibliography, because they did not have time. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fork of what? Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fringe ? How so? How can it a fork of something fringe? Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on the notability of the subject. Content can be fixed editorially.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief, that is awful. Blatant WP:FORK of Siege of Masada; a merge back to the parent article with a balanced discussion of the other perspectives is in order. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The word "myth" is not even in the article (lead or body) of Siege of Masada, so how is it a fork? Selfstudier (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, which is how this is a POV fork! This is just a very elaborated version of two paragraphs of the "siege" article, only it isn't called a myth there and it doesn't belabor matters with huge excerpts from its sources. Those excerpts alone rival the size of the whole "siege" article and for that matter the length of the actual "myth" article text itself, which is its own problem, but as it stands, we have a "mythless" article in which the apparent falsehood of Josephus's version is largely an afterthought and its connection to modern Israel is somewhat in passing, whereas the "mythic" version is all about deconstructing both of those. It also comes across as something of an attack page against the Israeli archeologists. I don't see why this needs to be split out. I'm not saying that the myth article is wrong; what I'm saying is that there shouldn't be two articles. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: thanks for the extended comment. To quote your comment, the "apparent falsehood of Josephus's version" has nothing to do with this article; that is a different subject.

The sources say that Josephus's version is the only historically known version, but that the real siege itself is not particularly notable in (ancient) Jewish history. What is notable is the modern 20th century history, which is the story of the myth. It is called a myth, by scholars and by the State of Israel itself (see the UNESCO application quoted above), because it differs substantially from Josephus and these differences have no basis other than the romanticism required to create a national myth.

The story and impact of that myth is much more notable than the Josephan-told-siege itself, hence why a fully-fledged article about the myth will always be multiples of the size of an article about the real siege. You can see that from the underlying source material. Thus there is much more of a reason for a separate article here than there is for any of the other articles in our Category:Historical myths. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge. This article is a POV fork from its base. We cannot present some views as truth and describe all others as "myth." Even if some reliable sources use "myth" (though they seem to disagree on what is the myth exactly), this is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia should give a balanced coverage of all views and not one-sided articles on each. O.maximov (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are describing the viewpoints of "all others" as myth, as RS's call those viewpoints myth. "though they seem to disagree on what is the myth exactly" Which RS's are in disagreement? "An encyclopedia should give a balanced coverage of all views and not one-sided articles on each." Yes, we should give a balanced coverage, and what that means is that we give more weight to RS's rather than myths. See WP:DUE. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is an inexplicable view, since we already know there is no multiplicity of views and no debate, the relist comment says to focus on notability, which virtually none of the deleters do, because that is inconvenient to their arguments. And I am now finally going to point out that many of those advocating delete and/or merge are of a pro Israel disposition (I'm sure they would not disagree with that characterization) and I am minded to conclude that their positions are motivated by considerations other than a straightforward GNG assessment, in particular that it is a "Zionist" promoted myth, which in fact makes it even more notable, not less. Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logic of those editors arguing that a myth article should not exist standalone suggests that we should also merge:

• Irish slaves myth into Irish indentured servants
• Rommel myth into Erwin Rommel
• Tudor myth into Tudor period
• Frontier myth into American frontier
• Habsburg Myth into Habsburg monarchy

The right answer depends on the specifics of each case, and lies in the sources, specifically whether or not they confirm that the myth is itself a notable standalone subject. The sources here confirm clearly that the Masada myth is a notable topic in its own right, given its impact on the history of modern Zionism. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too readily giving each (sometimes politically motivated) interpretation of fact or historical event its own article fractures our collective worldview into pieces, and is the antithesis of the encyclopedic approach. Personally, I think the Rommel myth deserves a section in Erwin Rommel, unless it becomes an idiom used outside the context of the military leader. As another example, it was long believed that cracking or popping knuckles caused osteoarthritis, but although this has been written about many times, both as fact and as myth, this "myth" does not get its own Wikipedia page. Perhaps WP:Notability should have a section on myths? Dotyoyo (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 07:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is an unnecessary WP:FORK of the Siege of Masada, which is fully capable of covering different uncertainty-qualified interpretations of this historical event in its different sections, such as "Josephus' narrative" and "Historical interpretations". Fracturing coverage of a historical event by interpretation is the antithesis of the encyclopedic approach. It's worth preserving some content from this article, but I propose this be done à la carte, rather than through a Merge, due to how extensively this article covers the mythic narrative (WP:BIAS, WP:WEIGHT). Furthermore, echoing other statements made here, any article related to the Jewish-Roman wars that references Josephus should perhaps stress his POV, given that he was not only a Roman, but a client of the the Roman Empire's ruling family, as reflected by his name change. As User:Huldra phrased it, "Josephus history cannot be taken at face value". Dotyoyo (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "I propose this be done à la carte, rather than through a Merge, due to how extensively this article covers the mythic narrative" – actually, the logical corollary of this, i.e. that the material here is so substantive that it would cause such weight issues if merged, is just to not merge and simply to leave it as a self-sufficient topic – including it in summary style and linked on the seige page, lest it otherwise get overwhelmed. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there is compelling evidence that this is a notable "myth" or whatever else you would like to call it. There is no reason that this article cannot be summarized in the other one. (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Buidhe: did you mislay a negative? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean summary as in summarizing a sub article in the main article according to due weight. (t · c) buidhe 19:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From my research on Google Scholar, mentions of the myth surrounding Masada typically refer to various, really differing aspects, and this article confuses them all. One of them touches the question whether the mass suicide actually occurred or whether Josephus, generally considered reliable, fabricated the account based on his experiences at Yodfat and Gamla. Labelling one view with the term 'myth' here is used in a non-neutral and non-notable manner if taken a separate article, as it represents one viewpoint among many—some scholars support Josephus' account, while others adopt a middle-ground perspective, as seen in many scholarly debates. Additionally, I have seen a few other articles that use the word 'myth' surrounding a theory popularized primarily by sociologist N. Ben-Yehuda, which focuses on how Masada has been presented in state-building in modern Israel. This theory, primarily developed by a single scholar, also does not seem notable enough for a dedicated article. In summary, all those differing critiques labeled as 'myth,' are not notable enough for standalone articles and should be included within relevant sections of existing articles per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:POV, and to refrain from unwanted WP:POVFORKs. ABHammad (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to research anything on Google scholar because all those sources are right there in the article already and I cannot recognize your description of them at all. Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into the Siege of Masada because quite frankly the main article sucks and could use a lot of the material in this one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am surprised this article cites Ben-Yahuda's 1996 work but not his 2014 work on the same topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As pretty much everything created by Once, this is meticulously sourced – here to eminent historians clearly outlining what they identify as a specific process of modern myth-building around the kernel of historic truths. The language of myth is used incredibly consistently across the dozen sources cited, including in the titles of four of them. It is clearly a very well discussed, standalone topic. Myth building was a key component of early Zionist historiography, and this topic is as much a child of that as yet uncreated topic (alongside wider issues of Zionist revisionism re: 1948, including Nakba denial, as well as other dates and events) as it is of the specific events at Masada. The calls here for outright deletion are entirely incredible, given that the sourcing is watertight. If the thinking is that the topic is merely a POV that shoots off from an existing topic then the argument should be for a merger, but there appear to be many pure deletion votes here – as if the quality sourcing counts for nothing. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, the fact that people are voting to outright delete this baffles me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.