Jump to content

Talk:Deir ed Darb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jewish?

[edit]

I find it strange that these ruins are identified as Jewish; the SWP-people mentioned nothing about that. In fact; the ruins look more typicallly Roman? And "Deir" means "monastery"? Comments? Huldra (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
Nice to meet you and thank you for your comments on the article. As you must be aware archeological research has advanced since 1873 and today archeological analysis is much more acurate than in the passt. Archeologist (Yeivin - 1972, Dar - late 70's, Raviv, Peleg Barkat - 2013) as i cited in the article, who studied the place have reached the conclusion it was a Jewish site, next to an ancient Jewish settlement.
Regarding your second question, i realized the cite i gave wasn't specific enough, so i added a cite to to exact page in the SWP where Palmer elaborates that "Deir" means "monastery". Owenglyndur (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply, and sorry for being late in replying (I am rather rarely on Wikipedia these days, sorry!)
My questioning is really why these researcher you mention thinks that it is Jewish? What particular structure do they find identifies this grave as Jewish -and not Roman? cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the article the tomb is similar to other Jewish tombs found in the Land Of Israel and especialy Jerusalem. I updated the citations on the article and attached Dar's writings on the the area and site. Owenglyndur (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find in the article what exactly identifies this as a Jewish tomb? Doric style isn't exactly known to be Jewish? And who "Dor" is, is still a mystery to me? And, to repeat: this place is not in Israel, please correct that immediately. Huldra (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the reason that Dar is presented without context is because the relevant part has essentially been copied from the source material. The text in the Wikipedia article currently reads:
A parallel to this kind of niche is found in the central tomb in the necropolis of Khirbet Kurkush, in Dar's opinion, this alcove symbolizes the change of ownership from Jewish to foreign.
Using Google Translate on the cited source the text below can be found on page 118:
As mentioned above, a parallel to this kind of niche is found in the central tomb in the necropolis of Kurkush. As stated above, in Dar's opinion, this alcove symbolizes the change of ownership from Jewish to Gentile.
I have added bolding to indicate where the wording is identical to the source, which considering I used machine translation is striking. This is a copyright violation of the sort found at other articles edited by User:Owenglyndur. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for falsly claiming that this place is "in Israel": that seems to be a pattern, too. A quick look at some of the other articles made by Owenglyndur:

  • Stone vessels' cave, cats: Roman sites in Israel and Archaeological sites in Israel, is, I believe, in an area occupied by Israel since 1967.
  • Kiryat Arbaya, cats: Former populated places in Israel, for a place in the occuped West Bank
  • Kfar Devora, cats: Synagogues in Israel, for a place on the Golan heights, (occupied from Syria, by Israel since 1967)
  • Hovlata, cats: Archaeological sites and Israel, for a place clearly in the area occupied by Israel since 1967
  • Khirbat el-Lathain, cats: Ruins in Israel, for a place clearly in the area occupied by Israel since 1967
  • etc, etc; I just checked a few, and non-Jewish history is completely wiped out of all of the articles. Topic-ban, or full ban (from the copy-right violations)? Huldra (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are patterns of multiple problematic behaviours here. I have been trying to engage with Owenglyndur on the copyright issue for a while no with little acknowledgement of the issue, and there are misrepresentations of sources as detailed at Talk:Roman roads in Judaea again with no engagement verging on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I've never opened a WP:CCI before but one may be needed here but that only addresses one aspect. With multiple issues, some community sanction may be in order. Any ideas where would be best to raise this? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The simplest way would be Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, and get a ban from I/P issues (since they hardly ever edits outside of IP), Huldra (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC) ‎[reply]
Oops; it seems as if they haven't gotten a DS warning, ie they cannot be "judged" at the AE board. :( Huldra (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have given them an IP alert, but a copyright investigation might be the best way to proceed (and I am unfamiliar with that process), Huldra (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Returning to the issue of whether the ruins are Jewish, Owenglyndur points to the presence of rosettes. The reasons given by the source, written by Dvir Raviv, can be broadly characterised as architectural and artistic similarity with Jewish sites. I'm again using Google Translate here so there is room for error and some terms are not translating well, but Raviv points to similarities with the Umm El Amed tomb in Jerusalem (p. 126); the presence of date branches in frescos also appears to be significant (p.111) but I am not confident enough in the translation to expand on that aspect. I am not familiar with Umm El Amed and how secure the identification is but I assume it is reasonable.

On page 111 Raviv also cites another author, Yitzhak Magen, who compared the design of the 'opening' (possibly an issue with Google Translate, but I'm guessing this means the entrance to the tomb) to the front of synagogues.

The identification of the site as Jewish is therefore based on a few indicators and it appears that the evaluation has some consensus. Some of this information should end up in the article but while I think Google Translate gives the gist I'm not confident enough in the fine detail to write something myself. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell: AFAIK; the opinion is divided, as Israel Finkelstein (and those he referenced) thought it to be Hellenistic/Roman (see link), Huldra (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Huldra, I think there's a misunderstanding of the source. When Israel Finkelstein says Hellenistic/Roman, he's referring to the time period, not the identity of the builders, which he did not try to assess. His book summarizes a survey, not a detailed analysis of each site. This doesn't mean he contested the Jewish background of the site, he just placed it within a specific timeframe, which the other scholars also agree with. Mariamnei (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Mariamnei, quite, but if you look in that Israel Finkelstein "Samaria survey", he identifies many places as Jewish, just not Deir ed Darb. Also, the references he has (SWP, Shimon Dar; neither are known for ignoring Jewish places) doesn't mention it, either. Therefore, I think it is fair to say that the opinion is divided, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI, Shimon Dar writes in about the place and i quote:
הקבר בירושלים הדומה לדיר א-דרב הוא אום אל עמד, והוא מתוארך למאות א'-ב' לפה"ס, וביתר דיוק לתקופה ההרודיאנית נראה שאפשר ליחס אף את דיר "א-דרב לאותה תקופה, לימיהם של החשמונאים המאוחרים ובית הורדוס"
"The tomb in Jerusalem similar to Deir ed Darb is Umm El Amed and it is dated to the first to second century BCE, and more accurate to the Herodian period, therefor the tomb of Deir ed Darb can be related to the same period, to the days of the late Hasmoneans and the house of Herod" p. 392 https://www.nli.org.il/he/dissertations/NNL_ALEPH990018747450205171/NLI Owenglyndur (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CLOP

[edit]

@Huldra, Richard Nevell, and Owenglyndur: As I noted at the DYK nomination which I rejected, the main tomb subsection is near-entirely WP:CLOP from Raviv 2013. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks and i rewrote the section mentioned. Owenglyndur (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The facade of Deir ed Darb, a monumental Jewish tomb from the Second Temple period
The facade of Deir ed Darb, a monumental Jewish tomb from the Second Temple period
  • Source: Raviv D., 2013, "Magnificent Tombs from the Second Temple Period in Western Samaria - New Insights", In the Highland's Depth - Ephraim Range and Binyamin Research Studies, Vol. 3, Ariel-Talmon ,pp. 109-142. (Hebrew); Peleg-Barkat, Orit; Raviv (2019). "שלושה פריטים ארכיטקטוניים מן התקופה הרומית הקדומה מאזור הכפר קרוות בני חסן" (PDF). במעבה ההר. 9: 43–58; Palmer, H (1881). "The survey of western Palestine". p. 228.
  • Reviewed:
Created by Owenglyndur (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Owenglyndur (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

Image eligibility:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Mariamnei (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mariamnei: Did you mean to post a "maybe" status (purple slash) instead of an "again" status (red arrow)? The again status is for DYK that need another new reviewer, while the slash is for indicating that there is a concern with the article/nomination. Z1720 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Hey there! This DYK overall looks pretty good, but since it's my first time doing a DYK review, I thought it'd be better to get another view. What do you think? Mariamnei (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariamnei: Since you outlined some concerns above, I'll let the nominator, Owenglyndur, address them. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your comments and help to get the DYK right. I did not know i'm not allowed to copy some sentances from another Wikipedia article, especialy whemn it is so relevant for the article i wrote. I will not do it again in the future. Owenglyndur (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Owenglyndur:, thanks for explaining that! Awesome, I see the pic is up on the article too. Looks like we're good to go! Mariamnei (talk) 08:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question; the article refers to a "Dar" ("Dar - late 70's", "in Dar's opinion", "led Dar to conclude that"), but I cannot find any reference to any "Dar"?, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it would have been nice to wikilink the SWP authors (Palmer, Conder, Kitchener) -and the page-links. Also; isn't the 3 and 7 references the same (except the page-no)? Why then is one marked in Hebrew, while the other is not? Also ref.3 has a red warning: "Cite journal requires journal=", cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as i wrote in an earlier comment by you, i added Dar to the citations. Further more if you look at the citations you can see that Conder, Claude Reignier; Kitchener, Horatio Herbert; Palmer, Edward Henry; Besant, Walter, show In citation 7.
I still cannot see any Dar in the citations. Also, nowhere have you linked Claude Reignier Conder, Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener, Edward Henry Palmer,etc, Huldra (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owenglyndur, Mariamnei, and Huldra: Just to say I don't intend on promoting this while there is a {{clump}} in the lead section - which by rights shouldn't have any references in the first place.--Launchballer 08:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i think i solved the Clump issue. To remove all citations from the lead?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenglyndur (talk • contribs)
Technically compliant with that policy, however you now have a {{which?}} template which needs rectifying before this can be promoted.--Launchballer 13:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one instance of a copyright violation as detailed on the article's talk page. It may be restricted to the specified text but I have not fully investigated so more may be effected. Until that is resolved the article should not appear in DYK. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell thanks for notifying this problem. I have just checked the first paragraph of "The main tomb" subsection—it is all WP:CLOP from Raviv 2013. I'm rejecting this nomination and tagging the article for CLOP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised; the artickle has the cats Tombs in Israel and Archaeological sites in Israel(!!) Neeedless to say(?), the place is not in Israel. If the author makes another such error, I will ask for a topic-ban from the IP area. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Deir_ed_Darb&oldid=1253959362"