| Revision as of 10:51, 15 August 2022 editArminden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,929 edits →Miserably poor editing at lead← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:47, 15 August 2022 edit undoArminden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users55,929 edits →Older as a "holy site" than 1868. Schenke - how reliable?: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
| :@]: Since you've looked long and hard at all the sources, I say dispense with the material as you see fit if unverified. ] (]) 08:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC) | :@]: Since you've looked long and hard at all the sources, I say dispense with the material as you see fit if unverified. ] (]) 08:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{u|Iskandar323}}, hi. That's what I've done already. Here I've let off some steam, plus invited whoever cares to help out, especially with Pummer, as it's not accessible on Google Books anymore, and with any knowledge about "al-Dwaik", who must be the same as Dawiqat, that I am 99.99% sure about, but I can see no source on that name to make it 100%. Apart from that, I won't remove Mark Twain: let others do some chores too, find the URL and page number. It's better for the user to keep it, and a moral duty for editors to step up. Removing serves no one, that's as much a fact as "poor editing is disrespectful". Cheers, ] (]) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) | ::{{u|Iskandar323}}, hi. That's what I've done already. Here I've let off some steam, plus invited whoever cares to help out, especially with Pummer, as it's not accessible on Google Books anymore, and with any knowledge about "al-Dwaik", who must be the same as Dawiqat, that I am 99.99% sure about, but I can see no source on that name to make it 100%. Apart from that, I won't remove Mark Twain: let others do some chores too, find the URL and page number. It's better for the user to keep it, and a moral duty for editors to step up. Removing serves no one, that's as much a fact as "poor editing is disrespectful". Cheers, ] (]) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC) | ||
| == Older as a "holy site" than 1868. Schenke - how reliable? == | |||
| :"The present structure, a small rectangular room with a ], dates from 1868, and is devoid of any trace of ancient building materials.<nowiki><ref name=Pringle94>{{harvnb| Pringle|1998|p=94}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schenke|1967|p=174}}: "der Gebäudekomplex... ist ganz modern und enthält nicht einmal alte Bauelemente." - "... the compund, built over and around a cenotaph, which nowadays is considered to be the tomb of Joseph, is entirely of modern date and doesn't even contain old architectural elements."</ref></nowiki> | |||
| Schenke seems to me a bit more politically, rather than academically, motivated. We have | |||
| :"One of the inscriptions is said to intimate the tomb's repair by a Jew from Egypt, Elijah son of Meir, '''around 1749'''.<ref>{{harvnb|Wilson|1847|pp=60–61}}</ref> ... These Hebrew and Samaritan inscriptions were still visible on the white plastered walls as late as 1980...<nowiki><ref>{{harvnb|Gafni|van der Heyden|1982|page= 138}}</ref></nowiki>" | |||
| You cannot have inscribed plaster from the 18th century surviving if everything was rebuilt from scratch in 1868. Or the two sentences refer to 2 different sets of graffiti, some pre-, some post-1868, and misleads one into thinking they're the same (unless somebody wrote after 1868 about the repair of 1749, which makes very little sense). It's either this, or Schenke is polemical rather than accurate. | |||
| Also, the interpretation of "enthält nicht einmal alte Bauelemente" ("doesn't even contain old architectural elements") as meaning "is devoid of any trace of ancient building materials", is plain wrong and overstretched. First, Bauelement can be for instance an old door, carved stone, or column, so well beyond "building materials" (stone, cement, sand, paint...). Second, there is no way one can discern a reused stone from a recently carved one, embedded in a plastered wall, ever. For luminescence dating one must at least dismantle that part of the wall, but that's not even been argued. | |||
| Also, the structure was '''rebuilt''' at the expense of the English consul at Damascus, because its older incarnation was ''in a bad state of disrepair'' - but not ''absent''. '''It's a huge difference between "dates from 1868" and "has last been rebuilt in 1868".''' Please mind that ] was a theologian and Coptologist, not an archaeologist - books, not stones -, a theoretician who came up with a very original proposal about Joseph based on cultural analysis, not on material analysis. ] (]) 15:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:47, 15 August 2022
 | Joseph's Tomb has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | The contents of the Arson attack at Joseph's Tomb page were merged into Joseph's Tomb on 26 June 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Sources
In the heart of Nablus, the biblical Shechem located about 40 miles north of Jerusalem, Palestinians took control of Joseph's Tomb after days of fierce fighting. Under the Oslo Accords, the tomb was considered a holy site where Jewish young men were to be allowed to pray and study the Torah. After the takeover last October, Muslims immediately converted Joseph's Tomb into a mosque, complete with a freshly painted green dome.
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, while siding with the Palestinian peoples right to defend their land and Al-Aqsa Mosque, condemns the demolition of Joseph's Tomb that took place on Saturday, October 7. The destruction of any house of worship violates the principle of preserving the sanctity of synagogues, temples, mosques or churches (see Quran 22:40).
Joseph, sheikh yousef & Guy Montags reverts
The article currently states:"Joseph’s Tomb is a shrine in Ancient Shechem in the West Bank. It is traditionally considered to be the burial place of the Biblical patriarch Joseph and is located in Nablus city. Joseph's body was taken from Egypt during the Exodus and later reinterred in Shechem."
The article before Guy Montags reverts stated: "Joseph’s Tomb is a shrine near Nablus city in West Bank, it is traditionally considered to be the burial place of the Biblical patriarch Joseph and is located in the Samarian city of Shechem.Many archeologists believe that the site is a few centuries old and possibly containing the remains of a Muslim sheikh named Yossef. According to the Jewish texts, Joseph's body was taken from Egypt during the Exodus and later reinterred in Shechem (Joshua 24:32)."
In my edits on 4th of september, i changed the following details:
- "is a shrine near Nablus city" instead of "in Ancient Shechem in the West Bank"
- i did this because i dispute that it is located _IN_ Ancient Shechem, why? read further.
- "and is located in the Samarian city of Shechem.Many archeologists believe that the site is a few centuries old and possibly containing the remains of a Muslim sheikh named Yossef" instead of "and is located in Nablus city"
- i did that because according to the context, being located in samaria is the traditional consederation! (who's tradition, i didn't touch that topic).
- Yousef is indeed the arabic spelling for joseph, but Sheikh Yousef is defenetly not Joseph the patriarch. in arabic texts, sheikh was never associated with Joseph, since Joseph in Arabic Christian & Islamic texts is a prophet or patriarch, not a sheikh!
So, i belive that the version that was before Guy Montag reverted is a more objective one! AFAIK no one disputes the fact that Joseph's Tomb is near the current location of nablus city! but is it in Ancient Shechem? ie is it a part of the Ancient Shechem? the jewish virtual library says that there exist a subset of archologists who belive the site is only a few centuries old :) ! and thus being the tomb of patriarch joseph and being _IN_ Ancient Shechem is disputed!
The Palestinians' gun-fire
From the entry: "On May, 2007, the Breselov hasidim visited the site for the first time in two years and prayed under gun-fire from the Palestinians." From the source: "A Palestinian gunman opened fire at the escorting troops during the service and soldiers fired back, hitting the gunman."
Miserably poor editing at lead
The 2nd sentence is apparently oversourced (refs 2 throught to 7), but actually not sourced at all. The mess is absolutely incredible, even by I/P standards.
- The "local medieval sheik Yusef Al-Dwaik" seems to be a name either made up or maybe mistransliterated from Arabic or Hebrew (?), not present in any of the accessible quoted sources.
- There is however a sourced Yūsuf Dawiqat, an 18th-century sheikh. Is he one and the same with said Al-Dwaik? And is 18th-century "medieval"? The old story: were there any "Middle Ages" in the Levant, other than during the European Crusader states?
- Ref 2: p. 1239 is actually pp. 1239-40.
- Ref 3: Lidman (2016) can only be Lidman (2015).
- Ref 4: "Conder & 2004 (a), p. 74": there is no "Conder & 2004", neither (a) nor otherwise. Conder wrote the one book that can be meant here alone. There is however a "Conder & Kitchener 1882". Or a Conder (2004) , a 2004 reprint which is not accessible online, and the 1891 edition (full view on Google!) says smth else (on page 63, not 74): "both Jews and Samaritans offer burnt-offerings at this shrine", so nothing on Christians or Muslims (see original edition, p. 63, with only 1 occurrence of "venerated" in a Jerusalem context). So where does the precise quotation ("venerated by the members of every religious community in Palestine.") come from? Another 2004 source, lost while copying & pasting? Made up?
- There are several refs "Conder & 2004 (a)", indicating "pp. 291–292, 74–75" or no page at all, and there's also a "Conder & 2004 (b), pp. 63–64". The latter is superfluous (see below), probably a repetition of (a) from a different edition. The mess has no end.
- Conder & Kitchener is from 1882, and there is nothing on those pages dealing with anything near Nablus.
- Searching for the quotes, I finally found them at Conder (1878), Tent Work in Palestine, p. 74 (maybe also 75), with 291-92 dealing with Christmas in Bethlehem...
- It's from vol. 1 out of 2, an info that was crucially missing. Any permutation of possible mistakes not actually made?
- Ref 5: Pummer (1993) is not accessible online (it apparently used to be), so I can't check. Maybe this?
- Ref 6: "Twain 2008, p. 553" is referenced, but not listed anywhere. Innocents Abroad?
- Ref 7: The Times of Israel mentions no sheikh.
So either the now non-accessible Pummer (1993) mentions a "local medieval sheik Yusef Al-Dwaik", or this is an untenable name & period.
I can't repeat what I think of whoever messed this thing up, or else I'd be banned from Wiki forever. May he RIP. Arminden (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Arminden: Since you've looked long and hard at all the sources, I say dispense with the material as you see fit if unverified. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Iskandar323, hi. That's what I've done already. Here I've let off some steam, plus invited whoever cares to help out, especially with Pummer, as it's not accessible on Google Books anymore, and with any knowledge about "al-Dwaik", who must be the same as Dawiqat, that I am 99.99% sure about, but I can see no source on that name to make it 100%. Apart from that, I won't remove Mark Twain: let others do some chores too, find the URL and page number. It's better for the user to keep it, and a moral duty for editors to step up. Removing serves no one, that's as much a fact as "poor editing is disrespectful". Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Older as a "holy site" than 1868. Schenke - how reliable?
- "The present structure, a small rectangular room with a cenotaph, dates from 1868, and is devoid of any trace of ancient building materials.<ref name=Pringle94>{{harvnb| Pringle|1998|p=94}}.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schenke|1967|p=174}}: "der Gebäudekomplex... ist ganz modern und enthält nicht einmal alte Bauelemente." - "... the compund, built over and around a cenotaph, which nowadays is considered to be the tomb of Joseph, is entirely of modern date and doesn't even contain old architectural elements."</ref>
Schenke seems to me a bit more politically, rather than academically, motivated. We have
- "One of the inscriptions is said to intimate the tomb's repair by a Jew from Egypt, Elijah son of Meir, around 1749. ... These Hebrew and Samaritan inscriptions were still visible on the white plastered walls as late as 1980...<ref>{{harvnb|Gafni|van der Heyden|1982|page= 138}}</ref>"
You cannot have inscribed plaster from the 18th century surviving if everything was rebuilt from scratch in 1868. Or the two sentences refer to 2 different sets of graffiti, some pre-, some post-1868, and misleads one into thinking they're the same (unless somebody wrote after 1868 about the repair of 1749, which makes very little sense). It's either this, or Schenke is polemical rather than accurate.
Also, the interpretation of "enthält nicht einmal alte Bauelemente" ("doesn't even contain old architectural elements") as meaning "is devoid of any trace of ancient building materials", is plain wrong and overstretched. First, Bauelement can be for instance an old door, carved stone, or column, so well beyond "building materials" (stone, cement, sand, paint...). Second, there is no way one can discern a reused stone from a recently carved one, embedded in a plastered wall, ever. For luminescence dating one must at least dismantle that part of the wall, but that's not even been argued. Also, the structure was rebuilt at the expense of the English consul at Damascus, because its older incarnation was in a bad state of disrepair - but not absent. It's a huge difference between "dates from 1868" and "has last been rebuilt in 1868". Please mind that Schenke was a theologian and Coptologist, not an archaeologist - books, not stones -, a theoretician who came up with a very original proposal about Joseph based on cultural analysis, not on material analysis. Arminden (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
- Wilson 1847, pp. 60–61 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWilson1847 (help)
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class Religion articles
- Unknown-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- GA-Class Palestine-related articles
- Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- GA-Class Israel-related articles
- Mid-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- GA-Class Judaism articles
- Mid-importance Judaism articles
- GA-Class Death articles
- Mid-importance Death articles