Talk:Rammun

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Notes for later

I think it was Robinson who first connected the place with Rimmon (see [1] p. 440)...but we need an earlier Robinson-ref.

1938 book, volume I, p440. Zero^talk 08:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, typo? In the 1841, vol 1, on p. 440 it is not, Huldra (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a nice old picture we could download, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madaba Map

Regarding Zero's WP:POINTy edit, (a) see my talk page for further discussion of his issues and misunderstandings of policy. (b) Zero, this is a secondary source. What was your issue with it? If it's only the exact spelling on the map, the map is a valid primary source for its own spelling. — LlywelynII 21:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the point that is disrupting Wikipedia that you are claiming Zero is making? You are claiming editors are being disruptive because they object to using a 6th century map as a primary source? I too object to that, it is a misuse of WP:Primary to interpret a map to claim that this is the same village that is "misplaced", which would also need a modern secondary source. We dont interpret 1400 year old maps on Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: If you're just confused as to how I would know this is the only possible R.mmon on the map, it's because I've personally gone over the entire map letter by letter. Yes, it's pointy to disrupt my correction of the source based on the primary source they misread just to teach me how primary sources are evil.

It's the spelling correction that's more important; it's fine to remove the discussion of placement as more debateable, even though that's also correct. — LlywelynII 23:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confused as to how our policies on original research restricts editors from claiming some expertise because they have gone over the map letter by letter, releasing them from the obligation to provide modern secondary sources for analysis, then that is a problem, and it does not excuse you repeatedly personally attacking other editors. People opposing your edits are not disruptive any more than you are disruptive for opposing theirs. You may not provide your own analysis of a 1400 year old map on Wikipedia, full stop. And you may not continue personally attacking other editors. nableezy - 23:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.

I mean there's also Casanowicz, I.M., A Colored Drawing of the Medeba Map of Palestine in the United States National Museum (PDF) but, no, you're just being obnoxious and very much need to review WP:POINT. Screwing up the name documented in a primary source in the name of policy isn't an actually valid application of any policy. Discussing how badly you're being WP:BITEy and WP:POINTy isn't a personal attack either. Despite your current rudeness and mistaken application of policy, I'm sure you mean the best and just want accurate information in the article. Y'know, like the correct spelling of the placename on the map. — LlywelynII 23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. You very much need to review WP:NPA. And this article is covered by discretionary sanctions. nableezy - 23:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Stop lecturing me on your thoughts on policy and actually look at which information is correct. Anything else is precisely on WP:POINT. It's Remmon, not Rimmon.

Is it better for you to add the Casanowicz source to the article? Sure! Is it more important to wage a holy war against me for correcting misinformation? Nope! — LlywelynII 23:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the link that doesnt work? Again, editors may not make novel analysis of a 1400 year old map. WP:OR is very clear on this. There has also been exactly one rude editor on this page, and it aint me. nableezy - 23:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up the Taha citation, with a working link. Note that the source does not have "located fifteen miles north of Jerusalem, between Bethel and Jericho" in reference to the map. This part of the sentence is only acceptable if the map states these geographical details in text form. I'm not sure it is necessary even then, as the location of Rammun is already given in the article. Zero^talk 04:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]