The following discussion 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.
Apologies for the slow pace of the review - this is very far from my area of expertise, so I've been trying to read up a little to make sure I can properly assess neutrality and the sources used. I've been learning a lot and having fun with it, but it means it's taking some time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please recall that as you go through this with an eye on readability and comprehensibility, most readers will neither understand modern or ancient Hebrew, nor be familiar with halakhic law, as you mention. Try to view it as someone who is approaching the topic fresh. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that statement, and I will do my best to make this as clear and legible as possible, given the complexity of the subject matters addressed. I can assure you, however, that Jewish seminary students will quickly understand the terms. One of the reasons that I have added explanatory notes (and which, at your directives, I will soon separate from the academic notes) is to assist our ordinary reader so that he/she can understand this matter as adeptly as possible.Davidbena (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811:, I wish to inform you and others that I have completed the task of bringing this article up to the standard that was requested of me, and now you and others are free to do with the article as you wish. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to improve this article.Davidbena (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just received a message on my Talk Page informing me that the GAN has been rejected for what the reviewer thought were "unnecessary" block quotes, when, in actuality, these are not ordinary block quotes at all, but rather a full and complete translation of the entire text of the mosaic, just as full and complete translations appear for the Declaration of Independence (Mexico) and for the United States Declaration of Independence, just for an example. Perhaps it was because I broke down the text into smaller sections, to make it easier to discuss their import. What, in your opinion, should I do to make the article more agreeable to all, and, yet still, easy to comprehend?Davidbena (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HI David, that message was for your nomination of a different article (Mawza Exile), not this one. I am still reviewing this article and we are on track here. In this article, I do not find the block quotes egregious. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article now meets the GA standard and passes! Congrats to the nominator, Davidbena, for their hard work and many improvements, as well as to anyone else who may have worked on the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think it is necessary to separate the citations from the notes. The citation style used here, in which some citations are simple and others have complex, varied notes with 5-6 sources cited, leads to confusion. We have a huge variety of sources and the lengthier notes strike me as being WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR in places (some particular ones I've noted below). I know it will be work to separate references from notes, but I think it's necessary to get the article to GA. This is also a good opportunity to begin treating some of the most ancient sources differently than the modern academic sources. I understand that some of the ancient sources are reliable for their interpretations of rabbinic law and translations of ancient Hebrew, but those interpretations should be described in text or in separate notes, not in citations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I thank you for your critical analysis of these sources (notes) and I have begun to fix them. Take, for example, Hai Gaon's commentary in this diff, how it has been improved, and the expanded footnote #32 here, and where, at first, we mentioned only Josephus, without showing the connection to the statement made in the article. I have endeavored to show the chronology of demographic changes in the city and which gave rise to Beit She'an's special status in Jewish halakhic law. As for some of your other references that need correcting, you've mentioned Josephus in notes #66, #143 and #148, but for some reason, my computer shows me notes unrelated to Josephus. I will go through the text and try to discover what you may have had in mind. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a ton of duplicate links - generally another page should be linked twice at most, once in the lead and once in the body. For instance, Land of Israel and Beit She'an are both linked twice in the lead - the second link should be removed for each. If you don't have the duplinks tool installed, it highlights all the duplicate links and makes eliminating them a lot easier.
Looks like there's a bunch more in the body - I recommend using the tool to highlight them, but to start with, there's Jerusalem Talmud, demai, Judah HaNasi, and Babylonian captivity. Looks like about 12-15 total.
I will try to fix them all, by "de-linking." Meanwhile, I tried to install the "duplinks" app, but without success. I must be doing something wrong there. Anyway, I'll just go through the page and remove the over-linked words. Most will have to be done tomorrow, as it is late here in my country.Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, unfortunately I don't think the main thrust of the comment, about separating references and notes, has been addressed. I think the article would be better-organized and more comprehensible if solid references to facts from academia were separated from your extensive notes discussing sources and their interpretations/implications. It would also make it clearer for the reader in the text when to click to get a source (when they see a number in brackets) and when to click to get clarification/more knowledge (when they see [Note 1] or [a] / [b] etc). —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will begin to separate the "explanatory notes" from the "academic notes" tonight, hopefully. I agree that this will greatly improve the layout of the article.Davidbena (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some fairly drastic prose edits, trimming way subsidiary notes and stories that seemed less relevant, but I think the prose is in good shape now after that and the nominator's work. Pass.
One minor issue - there's a stray note ("Contains a French introduction") down at the bottom, which should be better incorporated or simply eliminated (I don't think it's vital content).
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
Pass, no issues.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
I have a similar concern as was raised on the talk page about citing information directly to ancient sources such as the Talmud, Mishnah, and Josephus. These sources *can* be useful, but are better filtered through modern historians and sources where we have a much better chance of assessing their reliability. These are not simply old sources about history - they are history themselves. Happy to talk about this in more detail. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some issues with ancient sources being cited directly (Josephus, #s 32, 66, 143, 148) (Mishnah #178, a bunch of citations to Hai Gaon) (Cite #27 is fairly egregious)
At a minimum, any facts derived from these should be noted in the text to be from those ancient sources, not just cited to a note. Again, I don't think, say, Hai Gaon is inherently unreliable, but interpreting the mosaic's text through the eyes of someone who lived in the 11th century AD is difficult to regard as the type of secondary source Wikipedia depends on. Sirilio is fairly well cited, in that when he is used to assess a Talmudic law, his name is mentioned and linked in text. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but current cites #s 27, 31, 38, 67, and others are still cited primarily to ancient sources for points of fact, not interpretations of ancient Hebrew or halakhic law. Please use modern academic sources to discuss these ancient texts and places. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Goldhor does not seem to be used at any point. Is it a general reference? If so, for which parts?
Goldhor [Goldhor, Isaac (1913). Adamat Kodesh, being the Land of Israel (vol. 2), Jerusalem (Hebrew)] is cited in the article's Bibliography, which means that he is, indeed, cited in the article.Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm asking: what information in the article is Goldhor used to support? Why is it in the Bibliography?
After a preliminary search for Goldhor's citation, I could find nothing, so it must be that I had inadvertently left out his reference to a certain source. Having gone back over his seminal work, I have now added a reference to his name in note #92 (Pi Maṣūbah).Davidbena (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put: The Baraita of the borders of Eretz-Israel is, for all practical purposes, only a geographical reference to the old borders during the time of Israel's return from the Babylonian captivity, as noted by Chaim Ben David, that is to say, as the country was once settled, but it is not an ethnographic reference to the border for all time, that is, a definitive mark of Jewish and non-Jewish settlements, since the demographics of the country have changed.
The note's meaning is not clear as written. Please rewrite it to both provide a brief definition of baraita and clarify the use here for those who might be totally unfamiliar with the phrase.
#39 (re the beans) seems to stray into original research
I have since corrected the note so that it will no longer sound like Original Research. The note now reads as follows: Called in Hebrew, פול המצרי (pōl ha-miṣrī), which, when translated from the Hebrew, signifies "Egyptian fava bean." On the identification of this bean, see Rabbi Nissim's commentary of the Mishnah, Ketav ha-Mafteach, and where he describes pōl ha-miṣrī as being the bean which has the Arabic name of "lubiya" and which has "a dark eye in its center," meaning to say, a black-eyed pea and which is a sub-species of the cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Dalman (2020), p. 313, wrote for pōl ha-miṣrī the "Egyptian broad bean," without explaining what it is. Amar (2015), pp. 125–127, citing a Spanish herbalist contemporary with Maimonides, explains pōl ha-miṣrī as being Nelumbo nucifera which bears a seed resembling fava beans and is endemic to Egypt.Davidbena (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above note has been amended to read as follows: The Hebrew word שיפה = shifah is translated here, in our text, as "reed grass", based on the definition of this word given by medieval Talmudic exegete, Hai Gaon, in his commentary on the Mishnah (Kelim 9:8), published in Mishnayot Zekher Chanokh (משניות זכר חנוך) (in Hebrew). Vol. 11 (Taharoth). Jerusalem: Vagshal Publishing Ltd. 2011. p. 133 (s.v. של שיפין). OCLC1140888800., and who described shifah as being "reed grass; sedge." Since this section of the mosaic is repeated in the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 2:1), the same definition given by Hai Gaon is provided also in the commentaries of Solomon Sirilio and Pnei Moshe on the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 2:1), both explaining the word shifah as meaning "a kind of sedge" (מין גמי) or "sedge" (גמי), respectively. Solomon Sirilio (ibid.) goes on to explain that freshly grown Egyptian broad beans (pōl ha-miṣrī) that are found in the marketplace of Beit She'an and which are not bound by the leaves of sedge or reed grass is a sign that they are locally grown produce, and exempt from tithing. If, however, they were bound or tied in leaves of sedge, it is a sign that they were brought from outside the bounds of Beit She'an and must be tithed as demai-produce. (End Quote)Davidbena (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note #84 says "some have erroneously..." Who are the some? Who says they are erroneous? Smacks of original research.
Since I can no longer find the source that I used for this assertion, I have deleted the addition of "Some have erroneously identified this river as the Kasmieh River (also called Litani River) in southern Lebanon." Besides, the addition is irrelevant.Davidbena (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, #102 "Some suggest that this Sharoshan..." Who are the some?
#179 "Should rather have been spelt" according to who?
This is plain to anyone who knows Hebrew, while all those who have written about the mosaic concur that there is a spelling error. Instead of writing מתעסרין [= mitʿasrīn], the copyist wrote מתאסרין [= mitāsrīn], which although both have nearly the same sound, the words carry different connotations. The way that it is written in the mosaic does not fit with the continued sentence, which latter proves the writer's intent. The sentence can only make sense with its correction. Sussmann, the primary scholar who worked on the mosaic, has pointed out this fact, and he has even noted where the Jerusalem Talmud states that there has long been a problem with people who cannot correctly differentiate between the "aleph"-sound and the "ʿayin"-sound. Often, speakers and writers will interchange "aleph" (א) with "ʿayin" (ע), which has happened in our text.Davidbena (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could keep going - some of the notes are well cited, but others are not, and some are very mixed up to the point that it's difficult to tell what information is being cited to which sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I should find other notes that need further clarification, I will make the improvements. If you know of any other notes that need further elaboration, please let me know. Often, Jewish halakhic law is an arcane subject to those unfamiliar with Jewish laws and culture.Davidbena (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current citations #s 53, 58, 62, 66, 122, 125, and others need citations to reliable sources. Some of these things may *seem* obvious to you, but they are still facts which require citation to reliable secondary sources. To take #179 as an example (should rather have been spelt), your new note is a significant improvement, as it mentions the sources which point out the potential spelling error. Please go through comprehensively and make sure that each note which interprets a place-name or phrase is cited to reliable sources (preferably not ancient ones, especially for demographics). —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811:, I have added academic sources to all the above notes mentioned here by you, with the exception of #53 which is already sourced with an academic source. Perhaps you were referring to a different note. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, I have complied to all of your requests.Davidbena (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the rest of the references to make sure that there are no more uncited references, and that the newly separated notes are supported by reliable sources as well. I know it's a pain, but we have to make sure the whole article is based on a solid foundation! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2023 (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.
