Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an archive of past discussions about Sodom and Gomorrah. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
First pont: That's hardly a criticism of Vchimpanzee's statement. What you said resembles a ad hominem, where you talk about the author's biases. Which authors always have. Your statement is bollocks, and it sounds like a low level, low IQ, Youtube comment you'd see on the top comments with hundreds of likes, though it was poorly thought out. I dont understand how you even thought this was a marginally good response to what he said.
Second point: I also saw on a WP article the author Richard Carrier and his fringe ideas about Jesus represented. Although the article did acknowledge it was fringe. I think it would be good to acknowledge, even if you put "this theory is not widely accepted by scholars"- which articles mentioning Richard Carrier do.
Third point: I just came back to this article after 2 years and was very confused the site wasn't at least acknowledged as a candidate people believed would be Sodom and Gomorrah. If it is not popular by scholars, it is popular in the public. Especially this video by "Inspiring philosophy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-teJabFF90&ab_channel=InspiringPhilosophy. Say some of these 600k, maybe even more as time draws on, people come to this article and dont see the site. I think it should be acknowledged. As Chimp stated, it was published in Nature, you know this is a good journal, and you know this is reputable.
"If it is not popular by scholars, it is popular in the public." How is this relevant? The policy on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources requires us to use reliable scholarship:
"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." The public can not publish reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
The timeframe for the ash at this site corresponds with the Santorini volcano; and then it was uninhabited for 500 years. The actual timeline for Lot should be around 1250BC, around Ibiranu 2 in Ugarit, and Kudur-Enlil in Babylon, and Tudhaliya 4(Tidal). This is a Geographic proof, which can sometimes be correct(see Schliemann's Troy), but are mostly wrong.
