Re your comment on the Masada myth, did you read the citations and bibliography? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. If it is recounting the prevailing view, then it needs to be in the main siege article. If it's pushing a dissenting view, then it needs to be in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That logic suggests that we should also merge:

• Irish slaves myth into Irish indentured servants
• Rommel myth into Erwin Rommel
• Tudor myth into Tudor period
• Frontier myth into American frontier
• Habsburg Myth into Habsburg monarchy

As I just wrote at the AfD page, the right answer depends on the specifics of each case, and lies in the sources, specifically whether or not they confirm that the myth is itself a notable standalone subject.

The sources here confirm clearly that the Masada myth is a notable topic in its own right, given its impact on the history of modern Zionism. The Siege of Masada article is about what happened in 73 CE. The Masada myth article is about what happened in the 20th century.

Would you be able to make the time to briefly review the sources and see if you could be tempted to reconsider? I am conscious that your comment at the AfD was extremely strongly worded. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]