Talk:Atenism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allyemreads.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated conjectures

There is absolutely no evidence that Atenism was enforced in the way described in the article. It was a mere example of the same henotheism that made all Babylonian gods "emanations" of Marduk.

Other gods mean?

The following passage sounds like it's criticizing the other Egyptian gods: In contrast to the old gods, Aten appears primarily to have been seen as a loving and protective god, whose primary goal was not to punish and demand allegiance and sacrifice but to support his people through his presence. This ignores how many gods, like Anubis, supposedly helped people reach the afterlife, and it sounds like an opinion. Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Smenkhkare

Smenkhkare is not referenced until late in the article and earlier refernce need to be made somewhere in the Decline of Atenism section.

Finally, Akhenaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun, and Ay were excised from the official lists of Pharaohs

I do not know enough about the subject to make this edit myself, but I believe that he or she should be noted as the successor to Akhenaten.

Parasite

Comparison with Catholicism

it is equivalent perhaps to a new Pope declaring an obscure African deity the supreme God of Catholicism, building a new Vatican City somewhere in Canada, and abolishing all bishops as well as banning the symbol of the Cross, defacing all churches to remove all reference to Jesus, and banning any personal veneration of Jesus.

That's a powerful image. It reminded of the relation of Islam to Byzantine Christianity and Arabic paganism. --Error 22:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's also a depply flawed image. Pharaoh was not an ancient Pontiff, and the Pope has nowhere near the authority necessary. I also question the assumption inherent in this article that Atenism was monotheistic. It surely does not need highlighting that such a clear-cut definition is unhelpful and confusing to the student of this subject? 87.113.115.229 (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Usermaatre-Setepenre

Cleanup

This article seems to repeat itself a lot, but I'm too sleepy at the moment to fix it myself, added cleanup notice. - Cymydog Naakka 04:28, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Moses

The Discovery Channel advocated a position that Moses was an Atenist Prince, and rebel son of Ramses (and thus not a Jew from the rushes) who killed his brother, the sub-King, whom would be the Pharoah who drown in the Red Sea... (and thus not a real Pharoah) ... Should this be integrated into the article and sourced as an origin for Judaism?

This is a very interesting theory with a fair amount of evidence (including one of the psalms found engraved inside a tomb) and doesn't seem to be covered at wikipedia, as far as I can see. I'm going to have a look at the evidence and come back when I've done enough research. If anyone has any ideas or sources about this could they comment here and I'll keep it on my watchlist. thanks, --Sachabrunel 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds interesting and I like it since it at least doesn't go into the "Moses didn't exist" idea. I sounds a little fishy to be because, I might be wrong, but I think it's based off of some second century AD historian who didn't get his history correct in other places. I don't beleive that Exodus ever mentions the pharoh ever actually leading the effort to catch Moses though. While a bit of an apologetics book (though I don't understand what's so wrong with defending what one beleives with evidence since everyone else can do it) Kenneth A. Kitchen (Egyptologist) gives what I think is the best evidence of the Exodus and he places it around 1260 BC I think. That's too late for Moses to be an Atenist but certainly allows enough space for Akhenaten to be influenced by the Hebrews. Kitchen's book seems to be part of a dueling triad with Finkelstein's and Dever's books on the same subject but I've read all three and I would have to say that the latter two overlook quite a bit of evidence. While not being an expert in the rest of the Old Testament, being an Egyptologist does give him an edge over the other two regarding Israel in Egypt and Moses.69.254.76.77 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is speculative. If any more than Ove von Spaeth mentions it, it might deserve mentioning. Till then Ove von Spaeth's site. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Responding to a years old claim, there are no psalms in the Amarna tombs. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Egyptian Religion

I am proposing a Wikiproject to enhance articles on Egyptian Religion.... please check it out and see if you want to add yourself.

KV 19:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Henotheism?

The label of monotheism is not universally accepted and claimed to be rather Freud's interpretation. This newsgroup message suggests henotheism or monolatry. The message is written by a specialist and contains references. Pavel Vozenilek 14:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You are entierly right in doubting that the term monotheism is appropriate, however there are stronger sources than newsgroups, and we'd want citations from those. Redford, I believe, has somthing in Heretic King, and Reeves has somthing in False Prophet about this as well. Thanatosimii 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You have several references in the last part of Katherine Griffis-Greenberg's article (link provided by Pavel above your post) : Stevens, A. 2003. The Material Evidence for Domestic Religion at Amarna and Preliminary Remarks on its Interpretation and Assmann, J. 2001. _The Search for God in Ancient Egypt_. D. Lorton.

It would be appropriate to also mention, in the first paragraph, that Atenism can be described as Henotheistic. --Squallgreg (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Nefertiti's Role

Wasn't Nefertiti supposed to be a non-egyptian princess ? It is seen as possible that she was an Hebrew princess... And she may have influenced her husband and founded a new branch of monotheism. It's just a theory, but it doesn't look too weird, and that would prove the link between atenism and judaism for good. Would it be worthy to mention this theory ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.71.84.46 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

If you can source it reliably, certainly. SamEV 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any sources for that theory. Nefertiti was once considered to be the same as Gilukheppa, a mitannian princess, but that theory hasn't been supported in over 50 years, and she is now almost universally considered to be the daughter of Ay and the Granddaughter of Yuya and Tjuya. Definitly not a Hebrew princess, because the Hebrews were at the very best only in Canaan for 20-40 years, and at the worst still in Egyptian slavery or (if one buys the minimalist interpretation) not yet a people group at all. In none of these scenarios could there be a state enough to define one of them as a "princess." Ask any reputable archaeologist or historian from this time period and you'll get that answer. Thanatosimii 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Marfan's syndrome" – Hey!!

Section Amarna art, from text "However, according to some controversial theories," the section starts to hallucinate and give bizarre accounts. Now: these controversial theories can stand, but the structure of the text must be improved so that it is stressed that each of these "theories" (if that would be the name of one mans/womans talkative speculation) are very speculative, and have no general acceptance. Reading about Marfan's syndrome give no indication to me that forms of those affected are more feminine than otherwise. Wild speculations are wild speculations – they're sort of WP:trivia, unless supported by a scientific argumentation. Said: Rursus ☻ 09:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody have improved it, nor presented any references, so I removed it as undue speculation, a.k.a. one editor's fable. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Revival of Atenism

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to post something promotional, just the facts. Is there a different, and better, way I could have written it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.132.193 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, maybe you aren't related to the earlier editor - the blog site would normally be against our guidelines. I see the same text is at Kemetism. The problem is references, have you got a reliable source (WP:RS)for this - and notability, see WP:Notability and in particular WP:Group - if a religion doesn't satisfy those criteria, it really doesn't belong here. dougweller (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not related to the earlier editor. I have actually posted on the Atenist forums for whoever it is to stop doing it, as I see it as counter-productive. I am currently looking for a good reliable source, but I am having trouble. I knew of one some years back, but can't seem to find it. 98.215.132.193 (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference

Just a question/suggestion, but would Tutankhamen: Amenism, Atenism, and Egyptian Monotheism be a good reference for this article? It can be found online through sacred-texts.com. (Odd considering it isn't a sacred text, but I cannot admit to knowing the site all that well.) 98.215.132.193 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Its by E. A. Wallis Budge and was published in 1923 so it will be outdated at best and blatantly inaccurate at worst Merytat3n (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Akhenaten and the Druze

Hi @apollodion

The Obeid source in question has two references to Akhenaten.

Page 96. "The Druze concept of Tawhid is based mainly on the inner meaning (batin) of the Qu'ran, and the Christian and Jewish scriptures. The Druze path in Tawhid also derived input from a vanguard of pioneers in Pharaonic Egypt such as Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), from the wisdom of the Greek philosophers, from the traditions of Gnostic groups such as the Hanifs and the Sabaeans of Harran, from the legacy of the Ancient sages of the orient, and from Eastern mysticism."

Page 139. "...Tawhid made its first public appearance in Egypt at the hands of the pharaoh Amenhotep IV, better known as Akhenaten. Akhenaten eventually succumbed to the powerful influence of the priests when their status was completely undermined by the bold universal concept."

How would you rewrite your last two reversions towards a NPOV? There is a Druze source explicitly affirming the ontological role of Akhenaten (not Atenism) to their theological framework, and subsequently identifying him by name as the first historical example of their core concept (itself derived from earlier Abrahamic scriptures) having been implemented. 72.140.118.52 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your version includes more interpretation than the current version:

• "The Druze derive their religion from the concept of Tawhid, which draws upon deeper meaning within Islamic, Christian, and Jewish scriptures." - You are merging two of Obeid's statements, namely that the Tawhid is based on a deeper meaning and the fact that the Tawhid itself is descended from older traditions. However, Obeid does not combine these two claims.
• "The Druze view Akhenaten as heading a vanguard of pioneers from Ancient Egypt, and attribute the first public declaration of Tawhid directly to him." - Obeid does not say that Akhenaten was "heading a vanguard of pioneers from Ancient Egypt"; he and his religion are merely mentioned as one example of the Ancient Gyptian influences.

In contrast, saying that "influenced by older monotheistic and mystic movements, including Atenism" is merely a summary. You say "Akhenaten (not Atenism)", but how exactly are these two different in this context? Atenism was Akhenaten's religion. Applodion (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with this assessment. According to the source itself, the Druze's core concept (Tawhid) is derived from Abrahamic scriptures and from a vanguard of pioneers in Ancient Egypt, including Akhenaten. On page 139, the author explicitly identifies the first public example of Tawhid being used by Akhenaten.

So, if Tawhid comes from a vanguard of pioneers in Ancient Egypt that necessarily includes Akhenaten AND Akhenaten is also asserted to be the first public example of the concept being used, then rejecting that fact requires one to reject the chronology of events. If I understand correctly, you disagree that Akhenaten was the earliest example of Tawhid? Or that the source is wrong?

Also, if the source says Akhenaten, and not Atenism, then why are you trying to conflate what the source explicitly says? Atenism was the institutional implementation of Akhenaten's concept of Tawhid. His religious belief system. Not him. 99.251.108.183 (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your arguments, though well-meaning, demonstrate that you do not understand that what you are saying is not supported by Obeid. You are the one trying to conflate content, as I outlined. We may change "Atenism" to "Akhenaten's movement" (though this is not helpful), but otherwise your suggestions would worsen the text. Applodion (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate how what I'm saying is ambiguous, contradictory of the source material, or how it would worsen the text. In fact, we've established that Obeid explicitly identifies Akhenaten as the first example of the concept in question. I'm happy to walk through this with you step by step, since you don't seem to understand the text in question, and keep trying to impose your view here. Please keep it respectful since neither of us have veto power here.

Let's start with some basic facts about the text. Do you deny that Obeid explicitly identifies Akhenaten as the first public example of Tawhid on page 139? 2607:9880:3110:F1:7406:3FA8:92C0:19F6 (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

No. I dispute that the "Druze view Akhenaten as heading a vanguard of pioneers from Ancient Egypt". I would argue that, according to Obeid, the Druze believe that Akhenaten was one of several significant figures from Egypt who influenced later Druze thinking, and Akhenaten's main contribution was his public declaration of the Tawhid. This looks like a minor difference, but it has very different implications regarding Atenism's importance to modern Druze. Applodion (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you mean it sounds more like he was actively heading a coherently organized vanguard? If so, that's not my intention, although now I see how what you're saying. I still think that we need to change the paragraph, though I do agree that prefacing it with "According to Obeid,..." will highlight that he's presenting his summary of the Druze perspective. That said, if Tawhid is the central concept of Druzism, and Akhenaten is the original implementer of it according to Obeid, that seems like a pretty salient detail to leave out of the conversation of causation. Especially if we're talking about the chronology of monotheism as a conceptual worldview. 2607:9880:3110:F1:7406:3FA8:92C0:19F6 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'm also willing to replace Atenism with Akhenaten in the section. That should clear up some of the biggest issues we had with each other's position. Applodion (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

There's a 2000 year gap separating the fall of Atenism and the rise of the Druze, during which Atenism was forgotten. What's the reliable source for any kind of valid historical connection? AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The reliable source is the one about which we are talking here, Obeid, who is discussing Druze beliefs. Mind you, this is not about whether the Druze are right, it's about what modern Druze believe. Applodion (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Obeid traces the Druze's core concept of Tawhid through the Abrahamic scriptures, and ultimately to Akhenaten himself. Whether that's true or not is a different argument, but he does make that argument in the cited source. If he's a bad source, well, then this all becomes moot. But if he's a legitimate source who is accurately describing what the Druze believe, then we have an Abrahamic sect confirming the ontological role of Akhenaten to the development of monotheistic thought in their conceptual worldview. 2607:9880:3110:F1:7406:3FA8:92C0:19F6 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

`

Ok, but the Druze would have had no way of knowing that Atenism existed until digs and finds in the late 19th century at Amarna advanced Egyptological knowledge. The idea of Druze-Atenism connections cannot date from before the late 19th century... AnonMoos (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not unusual for a religion to claim distant figures once they become better known to the public. The Druze-Atenism link is a claim by modern Druze, not by medieval Druze. Applodion (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. If they're tracing the concept of tawhid through the Abrahamic scriptures, then they're inevitably going to end up in Egypt at some earlier point in time and space that predates the Abrahamic religions themselves, are they not? 99.251.108.183 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

They could have looked for ancient Egyptian approaches toward monotheism, but no real useful information on such was available before discoveries in the late 19th century. Each era had its major divinity, or head of the pantheon, such as Amun-Ra in the New Kingdom, Serapis-Osiris in the Ptolemaic period, Thoth-Hermes in the Hermetic literature etc, but such deities were always accompanied by many others. Only Atenism discouraged other deities, and almost nothing was known about it before the late 19th century. AnonMoos (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't share this perspective. If we know that monotheism originated in Egypt, there's plenty of useful information that can be extracted. For starters, the development of tawhid as a concept would necessarily have to predate the political implementation of a monotheistic religion. Very plausible that they narrowed down the conceptual genesis of tawhid to Egypt, and then deduced that a yet-to-be-identified pioneer(s) was responsible.

Why would people conclude that Egypt was the origin of monotheism? Where does it say that in the Bible or Qur'an or similar? In the Book of Exodus, God revealed himself to Moses on the mountain of Horeb, in or near Midian... I have no idea what Obeid wrote, but specific information on Atenism would not have been available before the late 19th century. AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's walk through the science of this step by step and get an accurate chronology, because I don't agree with your premises. Where is it in space and time that you think tawhid first appeared? Concepts don't pop out of thin air. Let's first identify that.

Also, I provided the direct quote from Obeid source above in the OP. He says that they trace tawhid through the Abrahamic scriptures, with input going back to Ancient Egypt, and specifically Akhenaten (not Atenism). You're insisting that it's not possible for them to have deduced that the pre-requisite concept of tawhid originated prior to the Abrahamic sects themselves, no? Yet that's what the source is explicitly saying. Is the source incorrect? 2607:9880:3110:F1:2961:ED03:8BA6:71E3 (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The Amarna period and the Atenist pharaoahs were basically omitted from the historical traditions of the ancient Egyptians (considered to be false pharoahs not worthy of memorializing) -- see Abydos King List etc. There's no real way that Obeid could have known about Akhenaten before late 19th-century Egyptological discoveries, and as far as I can tell, no real reason to consider Egypt as a home of ancient monotheism before late 19th-century Egyptological discoveries... AnonMoos (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you going to answer any of my direct questions? 2607:9880:3110:F1:FD70:F2BF:AB6F:87F2 (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

And, there's still the source itself, which explicitly identifies Akhenaten by name. Do you think that Obeid is an unreliable source? 99.251.108.183 (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is an RS, but no source is perfect, and any writer can produce misleadingly imprecise wording, which I suspect is the case here. AnonMoos is correct that nobody knew about Atenism before the nineteenth century. None of the classical sources about ancient Egyptian history were aware of him (the story of Osarseph in the work of Manetho may incorporate a garbled memory of his reign, but it doesn't mention monotheism per se and doesn't mention Akhenaten under his own name). The ancient Egyptian sources could not be included until their writing system was deciphered, a slow process that only seriously paid off in the 1850s. Hence, the first author to identify Akhenaten's religious innovations, and his apparent monotheism, was Karl Richard Lepsius in 1851. So "the Druze path in Tawhid", which originated in the period when Akhenaten was forgotten, cannot be derived from him.

The Druze today may well claim Akhenaten as a precursor, but the quotations from the source don't say so in a very clear way. It's even possible that the Druze claimed ancient Egyptian predecessors before the nineteenth century and then connected that tradition with Akhenaten after the fact; Islamic tradition has claimed for centuries that Hermes Trismegistus was a prophet who preached monotheism, far back in Egypt's murky past (a tradition with a convoluted origin that's mostly disconnected from Egypt's actual history; see The Arabic Hermes by Kevin Van Bladel). But I would be a lot happier if we had a source that laid out what the Druze believe about ancient Egypt and when they started to believe it. Obeid does not seem to do so. A. Parrot (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean the source doesn't say so in a clear way? On page 139, Obeid identifies Akhenaten as the earliest example a public declaration of tawhid. In fact, earlier on that page, he explicitly mentions Ma'at, Thoth, Hermes, and the Nous. I don't think you can get any clearer on the references to ancient Egypt and Greece. One issue that I have with AnonMoos rebuttal is that we're not specifically talking about Atenism, but the origins of tawhid as a concept. Atenism would merely be an example of the political implementation of tawhid that would necessarily have to predate it, which is why it's in the conversation but not the crux of it.

Let's walk through the chronology of events. Where do we find the earliest form of monotheism? 2607:9880:3110:F1:3010:8B3E:4D92:6EB5 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The question is not the earliest appearance of monotheism. The question is what relationship Akhenaten has with the Druze. Do the Druze view Akhenaten as somebody who came upon the concept of monotheism entirely independently, without any direct connection to the Abrahamic religions? Or do the Druze see Akhenaten as the initiator of a continuous tradition that outlasted his own time and ended up as an influence on Druze beliefs?

If it's the former, it's not particularly noteworthy. Countless Muslims, Christians, and Jews have seen Akhenaten in a similar way ever since Egyptology made him known to the general public. If it's the latter, it's worth interrogating when and how the Druze came to believe it; it cannot have been present at the foundation of the Druze religion, given that its founders had no idea who Akhenaten was. A. Parrot (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

No, the question is whether the Druze could have deduced that the concept of tawhid, and thus, the conceptual basis of monotheist thought, originated somewhere in Egypt. Very plausible, especially with Manetho referencing Ramses and Amenophis (Amenhotep in Greek) 2000+ years ago. Even if you take what he says with a grain of salt, which one should, one can garner plenty of details from the fact that these discussions were being made a long time ago.

But that needs to be tested since we don't have direct access to the information, etymologies, or folk histories that they had. So, the first thing that we need to do is establish the timeline of these concepts. So, where would we find the earliest form of monotheism? 2607:9880:3110:F1:3010:8B3E:4D92:6EB5 (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't follow what you're saying. The Druze are only relevant to this article if their beliefs place special emphasis on Akhenaten's religion. To discuss those beliefs in the article, we need reliable sources that tell us what those beliefs are. Without such sources, we cannot "establish" anything. See Wikipedia:No original research for the reasons why. A. Parrot (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a very odd response. Simply put, the Druze source says that their core theoretical concept derives back to Ancient Egypt, and to Akhenaten himself, so that's necessarily going to be tied to Atenism by virtue of being his interpretation. Can't get past that.

Functionally speaking, Obeid has provided either a correct summary of Druze views or he has not. So, which is it? Is he a valid source here or not? 99.251.108.183 (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but it's not clear enough to fully understand what he's trying to convey. To recap, Obeid says "The Druze path in Tawhid also derived input from a vanguard of pioneers in Pharaonic Egypt such as Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten)". I can see two possible ways to read this sentence. The first is that the Druze think Akhenaten's beliefs were passed down in some way through the centuries to influence Druze beliefs. The second is that the Druze simply consider him to have been the first person to come up with the concept of tawhid.

The first reading seems to better match Obeid's wording, but if one reads the sentence that way, it raises a lot more questions. Akhenaten's successors rejected his religion within a few years of his death, there is no evidence that its beliefs survived after that, and because the sources for understanding ancient Egyptian history in the post-classical world were so severely limited and garbled, there was does not seem to have been any memory of Akhenaten by the time the Druze religion was founded. So either the founders of the Druze tradition in the eleventh century were somehow aware of Akhenaten—which is much too strong a claim to be supported by Obeid's vague wording—or the Druze concluded that Akhenaten was one of their precursors in modern times, after the evidence about him came to light.

The second reading is less surprising, but it doesn't make the Druze beliefs about Akhenaten sound especially noteworthy. Many adherents of Abrahamic religions have seen Akhenaten as "the first monotheist", as somebody who independently formulated beliefs similar to their own. If the Druze don't do anything more than that, there's no point in highlighting the Druze in particular; they would just be a part of a much broader trend. If the Druze formally incorporate Akhenaten into their belief system, it would then be noteworthy, but how exactly do they do so? Again, Obeid is unhelpfully vague. A. Parrot (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Both of your readings place Akhenaten and Egypt as the origin of tawhid, regardless of which one you choose. Which confirms my point. Obeid is explicit about that as well. So, if I understand you correctly, Obeid is a reliable source of information, but unreliably vague as a source of information? Also, if he's not clear enough to fully understand, then how did you conclude that he's a reliable source on Druzism in the first place? This isn't adding up. 2607:9880:3110:F1:E16C:3AE3:8717:E57A (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, "reliable" is something of a term of art. It means a source that is assumed to be reasonably knowledgeable and rigorous, rather than producing misinformation. But sources that are generally presumed to be reliable can make the occasional error, or not state particular facts as clearly as they should. The Obeid book was published by a university press, and books from university presses are generally treated as reliable in the Wikipedia sense. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume Obeid's book gives a generally accurate picture of Druze beliefs. But on this particular point, it is not as clear as it needs to be. A. Parrot (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

To summarize, we have to find a wording which reflects Obeid, yet does not include too much interpretation of his statements due to the vagueness of his wording, right? Applodion (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm speaking more historiographically. De facto reliable as a secondary or tertiary source pertaining to the material. I agree with you on the whole about the Obeid source, but still add that the reference to Akhenaten is a pretty bold claim for a respected author to make as just an off-handed comment, not to mention then doubling down on it 40 pages later. He flat out references Akhenaten as the first public declarer of their core concept. 2607:9880:3110:F1:E16C:3AE3:8717:E57A (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)