Talk:Dan (biblical city)

Christianity Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Mid‑importance

	Judaism portal This redirect 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 articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Laish = Leshem?[edit]

I'm wondering if the Laish is the same city as Leshem, mentioned in Joshua 19.47. Since they have the same root, it would make sense, but I don't see it mentioned in the article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Dan (ancient city). -- Sreifa (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging this page with Tel Dan. --Sreifa (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It is a good fit, although I would like to see a new title such as "Dan (ancient city)" as the article should cover more than just the biblical period. Tel Dan is something I recognize, but mainly in the context of the excavations there, and many people would not search for that term. Regardless, the issue of a title can wait until after a merge, which I support. • Astynax ^talk 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.