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

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Bible High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I believe that this article at least needs to acknowledge that most of the information is taken directly out of biblical texts with other historical facts, or lack thereof, not considered. Therefore I have added, "according to biblical tradition" to the beginning of the body of the article.JoshMahar 08:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Uzziah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/TransGuide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the two Uzziah seals are disputed. The reputable BAR society page on the 53 Hebrew Bible figures confirmed by archaeology by Dr. Mykytiuk lists the two seals as contemporary evidence of Uzziah’s existence. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/

So why does the page play coy and apply weird skepticism at the seals if no pages exist denying the authenticity of the seals? Jahuah (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unprovenanced objects are taboo for bona fide archaeologists. It is a breach of professional ethics to even mention them in public. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but if the seals are authentic, which they are, then people should know about it. Regardless of their origin. Jahuah (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you don't understand is that for mainstream archaeologists, even discussing if those seals are authentic or unauthentic, is prohibited. So those seals will never make it to mainstream archaeology. WP:FRINGE is of application. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't care whether or not they don't wanna talk about it. I care if it's epigraphy is authentic. Jotham's seal and Jeroboam's seals were both unprovenanced - yet both have been authenticated. Jahuah (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeologists who will publicly discuss those seals will become unemployed and unemployable. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is Dr. Mykytiuk not unemployed? He read the Uzziah seals and found out they were authentic to the 8th century BC. Jahuah (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/ tgeorgescu (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question though. Jahuah (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, he is an Emeritus Professor of Library Science, not archaeology. And they cannot cut his retirement pension. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, let me ask this rhen. Are the two Uzziah seals, despite their origin, a) Authentic, and b) date to the eighth century on epigraphic groundsM Jahuah (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know those answers. Those answers will never be part of mainstream science, so, in all epistemic responsibility, we will never know those answers. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-_-

So are my changes to this article going to be reversed? Jahuah (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: WP:FRINGE is of application. However, I'm not seeking a revert. But I cannot speak in the name of all other editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okie. Jahuah (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is the last thing I'll say. It doesn't matter what it's origins are. If a reputable epigrapher has securely dated it to the time of Uzziah, then it counts as contemporary evidence of Uzziah, and since no reputable epigrapher I've seen have dispusted these artifacts, and since they were found in the 1800s (long before archaeological forging became more possible)... then these are authentic seals beloning to him, bemoanings aside. Jahuah (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real archaeologists are keeping mum about the authenticity of those seals, otherwise they lose their jobs. Even denouncing the seals as completely fake would be a breach of ethics, and maybe breaching the law. Mykytiuk's claim won't be refuted any time soon, because archaeology professors are not allowed to comment it. So, that leaves his claim in a not even wrong area. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re dismissing him as doing pseudoscience? Are you kidding me? Some Wikipedia editor knows more about 8th century BC Hebrew than a professional PhD epigrapher? Jahuah (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you DO think the seals are fake then? Jahuah (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Wikipedian, so I know that my own opinion does not carry much weight. The taboo is explained at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/archaeology-today/the-problem-with-unprovenanced-objects/

Mykytiuk's claim is unfalsifiable for ethical and juridical reasons.

If an archaeologist agrees with Mykytiuk's claim, the archaeologist loses their job.

If an archaeologist disagrees with Mykytiuk's claim, the archaeologist loses their job.

Any archaeologist worth their salt will refuse to comment Mykytiuk's claim. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]