Talk:Aaron

Changes

I deleted the second section of the article, after the section break, because most of it was redundant with the first section of the article, and the first section seemed to be better written. If anyone would like to integrate the valid information in both the sections, please do so.

I removed the reference to Hank Aaron because he's seldom referred to by his last name alone.

The vaguely described source - an unnamed, very old encyclopedia distributed by an organization that provides free copies of public domain books - is the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia, distributed by Project Gutenberg. Strangely, the encyclopedia actually is unnamed due to trademark issues, and is referred to within Project Gutenberg simply as the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia. It was written in 1911, so the information in the article could probably stand to be updated by a modern Bible scholar. --AaronW 06:08, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Lead sentence

This article is a model of Wikipedia's penchant for awful lead sentences.

In the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, Aaron (/ˈærən/ or /ˈɛərən/; Hebrew: אַהֲרֹן Ahărōn, Arabic: هارون Hārūn, Greek (Septuagint): Ααρών ), who is often called "'Aaron the Priest"' (אֵהֲרֹן הֵכֹּהֵן) and once Aaron the Levite (אַהֲרֹן הַלֵּוִי) (Exodus 4:14), was the older brother of Moses, (Exodus 6:16-20, 7:7; Qur'an 28:34) and a prophet of God.

Let's tease out the actual sentence here:

In the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, Aaron was the older brother of Moses and a prophet of God.

Which of those is more useful to a casual user trying to find out who Aaron is? Which is more likely to appear in a professional publication?

I know that "this is how things are done on Wikipedia". Inserting every possible alternative name, inserting every pronunciation, inserting every transliteration, inserting fresh citations not found in the body. But is it a good system? Is it really useful? Would it be at all possible to put this extra information elsewhere—later in the lead, in an infobox, in the body? Would it be worth it to make the sentence readable, even if it meant editors would forfeit the fun sport of shoving as much information into one place as possible just because it's "the way things are done"?

hi

References

Real person ?

Is Aaron encyclopedicaly considered a real person? I ask because the Sacerdotes (priest ) category was removed over at the Latin wiki and would like to have it back in place. --Jondel (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC) I will try to talk to the admin first.--Jondel (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

He is not considered a real person by most scholars.02:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The primary sources for information about Aaron are the books of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers. These books are are considered by modern scholars to be legend rather than history. DiverDave (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have added a maintenance tag to this article because it is almost completely lacking in reliable sources. Circular reasoning and self-authenticating documents cannot be used to establish the verifiability of assertions made in Wikipedia articles. One can use such sources as sources on themselves, but they cannot be used to support assertions about the accuracy of their content. Critical analysis is necessary to support such assertions. For example, it is appropriate to use a document from the biblical canon as a reliable source for the following quote:

Every Writing is God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction that is in righteousness, that the man of God may be fitted—having been completed for every good work.

However, an extrabiblical source would be necessary to support the following assertion:

The text of the Bible is perfect because it was breathed by God.

DiverDave (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Article issues

Greetings, the top of the article has the tag "relies excessively on references to primary sources" (2021) and there are unsourced sentences.

• The last sentence of the "High Priest" subsection includes, "Most scholars think the Torah reached its final form early in this period, which may account for Aaron's prominence in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers", which is unsourced.
• Other unsourced sentences added after a citation, such as the "Jewish rabbinic literature" subsection, "although it is pointed out" (reference) "that it is said fifteen times in the Torah that "the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron." Maybe the reference is in the wrong place but maybe not.
• There are unsourced sentence paragraphs in the "Christianity" subsection.
• An unsourced two-sentence paragraph in the "Mormonism" subsection, "In the Community of Christ, the Aaronic order of priesthood is regarded as an appendage to the Melchisedec order, and consists of the priesthood offices of deacon, teacher, and priest. While differing in responsibilities, these offices, along with those of the Melchisidec order, are regarded as equal before God."

The article has categories "Articles lacking reliable references from June and December 2021, that fails the B-class criteria. If I missed anything it was because of a quick read-through. Thanks, -- Otr500 (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

External links

There are ten entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)