Talk:Al-Maghtas

Third holiest place
Such a ranking list is no concept accepted "in christianity as such" nor is it confirmed in any of the three sources you provide. Protestant churches I am aware of do explicitely not have "holy places" nor "holy items". I doubt this article useable for DYK if you insist on content which is ridiculous per se and not at all confirmed in the references. Polentarion Talk 23:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I didn't add that. And I have no idea what to think about it, but obviously you changed a lot more content than this statement...Makeandtoss (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. If you want to have something in an article, you have to provide sources. So please do not revert to a version based on fiction without any background. We do not use bible verses to find a place. WP:OR applies. WP: Polentarion Talk 13:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you consider it 'fiction' or not doesn't change the fact that this site was designated as such by an overwhelming majority of churches, bishops and religious figures. We are not using bible verses to find a place, we are simply quoting what they say.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Where and when? As said, a) not by "Christianity" and b) the sources you use do not confirm a single word of the claim. Polentarion Talk 13:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not original research. We are just stating what the bible says, also I just added secondary sources.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * the book of Jonathan David Lawrence supports quite different content, same for Orte und Landschaften der Bibel. Both Bible and Tarnach have much more thinsg happening around the place. You better not misinterpreted quotes here. I did some clean up and downsized the entry to statements haveing a base in the sources. Polentarion Talk 20:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Too bad, they are minority views, WP:FRINGE. This is not a 'possible' place, this is the place with the highest possibility according to the overwhelming majority of relevant figures and institutions. Your edits, are trying to make this place look like it was designated as such only by the UN in some random anti-Israel stance.Makeandtoss (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * "overwhelming majority of relevant figures and institutions" sounds funny. The West bank authorities would like to have a different view as well. Overall, I read the sources you used - including the German one. None does comply with your interpretation. BTw you left out the relevance in the Tarnach / OLd testimony, both for the ascencion of Elijak and the crossing of the Jewish people in the Book of Josuah. Polentarion Talk 21:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you trying to compare Vatican, Roman and Greek churches and 3 different popes to West Bank authorities and Israel?!Makeandtoss (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No. a) I am Protestant and do not have to care about Roman or Greek Orthodoxies. b) I just read the sources you have used and neither confirms your claims. The situation is much more differentiated. Polentarion Talk 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"A number of denominations, including Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and Lutherans, have written letters of support for the Jordanian side, which three popes have visited since 2000." -Times of Israel Makeandtoss (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the sources. The East side was already important for the Jewish people. Late Roman / Byzantine Buildings were erected on the East, Sassanide Muslims made an end to that in the 7th century. Since then the western bank was the place to go, since it was safer. The excavations show that the East was the Earlier one. So what? Polentarion Talk 14:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to say this, but your last edits are not constructive by any measure. I really believe the article was better before. And let me repeat this one more time, it is not identified as a 'possible location'. This statement is better off in Qasr Al-Yahud article, there's a consensus that this specific site is the Baptismal site. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Goodness, its just a showcase for the ideocy of the local conflicts. I agree that the traditional reverence had been on the East side and went to the west after the Muslim conquest. But the river is just some meters large and has seen floodings and earthquakes inbetween. Have a look on the Pfinz to put it into perspective. Polentarion Talk 19:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)




 * Al-Maghtas is not directly on the river, rather, on a pool structure/river root or whatever thats called...Makeandtoss (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but thats hilarious. Of cause the archeological site is some meters on the dry side. But the ongoing reverence of the baptism of Christ is happening in the Jordan, with actual (comparably dirty) water. If you want to help tourism in Jordan, ask them to build a spa and get rid of Deash. Polentarion Talk 19:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If you would stop accusing me of 'propagandizing' wikipedia to promote tourism in my country, that would be really great. I am a Christian, even if I wasn't, I have every right to edit any page on wikipedia I want. Your edits are largely implying that this site's identification as the baptism site is equal to the identification of Qasr Al-Yahoud as the baptism site, which is plain wrong.Makeandtoss (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets not claim 300k versus 100 k Tourists on sources that give half a million versus some ten thousands, OK? Polentarion Talk 06:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Thnx for the clarification

Bethany and majorities
There is no base for the claim that a majority of Christian Churches voted for an exclusion of the East side. In so far the current lede does not stand scrutiny. Polentarion Talk 12:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) PS.: Please take note of the discussion - as said we do not use the Bible as primary source. We have some archeological - and biblical - evidence for a use of the springs and wadis, on the Eastern side -not the Jordan - itself as place of the Babtism.

Yardenit and Qasr el Yahud
I did some cleanup in the related articles based on sourcing and discussion here. Its quite typical that the Palestinian a) deplored about Qasr el Yahud being left out and b) were not aware about the Jordan proposal involving them. Polentarion Talk 15:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Entry
The lede is too long, the quote of St. John doesn't beling there. Polentarion Talk 12:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Redundancies
Both Ænon and Bethabara show some redundancies. I suggest to shift most of the religious content to them. Polentarion Talk 12:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Expansion
Anyone interested in expanding article. Here are two comprehensive sources. ,. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Report
A UNESCO report is quite decisive, don't you think ? "The property is believed to be the location where Jesus of Nazareth was baptised by John the Baptist and is a popular pilgrimage destination for Christians."Makeandtoss (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw all these sources you provided does not give a single mention of this claim "during the British Mandate period, when several churches were built on the western side of the river.". Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Makeandtoss. One by one. I don't know what you are referring to - what UNESCO report did I disregard? Or do you mean me removing the word "property"? Think of somebody describing the Ka'ba in Mecca or even the Khazneh of Petra as "property". It is very poor style. Second, much of the UNESCO report is written by clerks from some Jordanian government office; they might master the technical lingo well enough as to keep their jobs, but their English doesn't need to be the yardstick we are using on this globally read English WP. Btw, did you ever read Dr. Waheed's website while it was still active? He did a brilliant job excavating Maghtas, but his writing style and English skills... Scary. And the UNESCO file often quotes him word for word. His different papers which were accepted by academic journals were obviously fixed by someone in terms of language before publication, but not all the stuff out there has been. As to the sources mentioning churches on the W side: please do read the Gorys quote. Maybe you mistook the St John Monastery for the ruins on the E side, but it's the Greek Orthodox monastery on the Palestinian side he refers to. Do you actually know Maghtas first-hand? I do, in detail, both sides. There are lots of modern (20th century) church ruins on the W side, visible from the E side too. I'm not pushing any agenda, honestly. I know the site very well, have visited most places there and have studied tons of sources. I have no doubt about the facts. The late Father Michele Piccirillo, the Franciscan archaeology professor who took Prince Ghazi there in the 90s, has told me the story first-hand, Mr. Rostam, who has landscaped the Jordanian protected area, has given me a bunch of additional details, so I'm not starting from scratch, nor making anything up. The story is clear, and the WP user should get it in a readable manner. The only bit I didn't find out much about is the 2 decades between 1948-1967, but even for that I have a contemporary Franciscan biblical archaeology guide. These are the facts: Jordan has the original site; Palestine has (but doesn't run, Israel does) what became during the 7th century the more accessible alternative; Al-Maghtas was/is the Arabic name of both sides (for how long, this I don't know); as soon as it was possible to excavate the area, the primacy of Tell Liyas/Elias and the eastern Zor was thoroughly confirmed; Jordan gets less visitors for all the wrong reasons and not just at Maghtas - and that's that. If 13, 3 or 300 church leaders wrote letters, or this or that newspaper published this or that story, if Ramallah, Jerusalem or Amman wants to make a point - this is utterly irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. The ruins stand there for all to see (the Byzantine ones, but also those from the Mandate time), it's weird to need to argue pro or against reality. I'm obviously not an English native speaker, but I have been professionally working in this language for many, many years, including for print publications, and have worked hard before allowing myself to make judgments over style and lexical accuracy. I usually get more compliments than complaints, so I guess I must have became fairly good at it. Anyhow, I have no argument with you or anyone else, all I care for is for the information to be put out there in a reasonable manner. Keep up the good work and cheers for now, Arminden (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I know the site very well, I once got lost in it and got chased by wolves. :) Anyway, "during the British Mandate period, when several churches were built on the western side of the river." what about this claim? Makeandtoss (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I'd be lying to say I envy you about the wolves experience, but somehow I do. Didn't know about wolves living there. Good the lions are gone, used to have those too in the Ghor. I only lost a lens cap at Al-Maghtas :-) The churches: see the Gorys quotation ("In 1933 the Franciscans built a chapel south of the St John Monastery. The Syriacs followed with a church and the Copts with a chapel."), I translated it from German. It's from the standard German "culture tour guide" for the Holy Land, and Gorys is quite good. But you do still see several of the buildings. An Ethiopian chapel is the most visible one. Even the Romanians had a chapel there. Have no clue why they built them on the W side, maybe closer to Jerusalem? Better connected by road? Were the Bedouin in the east more territorial? Following the medieval tradition, see St John's Mon.? Jericho is quite close, that's an advantage for sure, and in Cisjordan the Brits didn't share power with anyone, as they did with the Emir in Transjordan. All got shelled and damaged during the wars and Fatah raids and counter-raids. Now several denominations have their shiny new churches in Jericho, but none at Maghtas-West. Qasr el-Yahud is actually, as far as I understood, the local name for the St John's Monastery, which really does look like a castle, but the name is now officially used for the western part of the baptism site. I guess it sounds better from the Israeli point of view. I wish people could forget for a minute modern politics at least when it comes to religious and archaeological sites going back centuries.Arminden (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They were wolves owned by the bedouins... Btw if you have any interesting pictures of Al-Maghtas, they would be a great addition to the article. Also, how is the British Mandate relevant in this article? I know that the name Al-Maghtas is also used by Palestinians to refer to west side of river, but this article is about the eastern side? Dr. Waheeb's website can be accessed from the archive. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Great story. Wished I knew about them when I was there. Sorry, I don't have any pictures that would improve the page. Maghtas and Mandate: I just have this private crusade of mine (so yes, an agenda, after all), trying to connect what has been ripped apart by borders and conflicts. Any kid can build a paper glider and throw it from one side to the other, the place has one single name on both sides, but everybody is doing their best to change the name, play up some obscure conflict about which side is the authentic baptism site (a topic mainly keeping non-Christians active, who shouldn't care less - apart from the tourism revenue, that is) and so forth. John & Jesus, as far as we can tell, couldn't care less which side of the river they were on as long as they had enough distance between themselves and the authorities. In their time both shores belonged to Judea and Judea belonged to the Romans. They never went around encouraging pilgrimages and alike. There is not one quote in the Gospels from either of the two saying "thou shalt keep this place holy and worship here", apart maybe from the Jerusalem Temple. John baptised all along the river. But Jesus was baptised only once, true, and that's the topic here, OK. Only problem is, even Waheed could only contend that the oldest floor he could find, the white paved one outside the monastery on the tell, might-could-maybe was, a Roman Period prayer hall of some kind. Just speculating, because there was no archaeological proof for that. So we're back at the usual gap of at least 300 years between the events concerning Jesus and their first commemoration (here: the tell monastery). So yeah, 300 years later, the Byzantines identified the place there as the correct one, no doubt. No judge would give a sentence based on such evidence. Beautiful tradition, amazing archaeology - and that's all we have. If the Amman-based dean of the Grand Lutheran Church of Balqa or the Syriac archbishop of Jerusalem write letters to the esteemed Hashemite Royal Court asking for a plot of land for a new church and are offering in exchange for that their blessing and authentication for the site - I apologise for not being impressed. Not even if the Pope does. It's a non-topic. The facts are, Christians firmly believed since the Byzantine period that the authentic site is there, and when it became too dangerous or difficult to cross the river, they stayed on the west side and prayed there. The Bedouin who never considered the river as a border, and the people in the next town which happens to be Jericho, called both sides by the most simple and logical name, The Baptism. The Brits were the first Christians to be masters of both river banks in modern times, but they felt more comfortable in Jerusalem than in Salt or Amman, as did the different priests and monks, so the churches got built on the west bank. They should have known better, but so what. My point? Keep the right perspective. Had Jordan kept the West Bank, or the Palestinians gained the East Bank, both sides of Al-Maghtas would be one large protected area with a UNESCO seal of authenticity, the Pope would bless the water from a bridge crossing it right there, and nobody would care. It would all be Al-Maghtas, there would be no Israeli street sign pointing towards "The Castle of the Jews", the locals would nevertheless call the St John's Monastery by that name like they always did (unless the government would prohibit it), and we two wouldn't have what to debate about :-) Good night my friend, Arminden (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Arminden
 * Again, do you have a source for "revived again during Mandate period" because none of the sources and quotes you added support that claim. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, but I thought I had answered that, you probably overlooked it because it started with the original German-language quote, but I did translate it. I made it a bit more obvious now. See note 16: Erhard Gorys (1996). "Holy Land. A culture guide." (in German). "In 1933 the Franciscans built a chapel south of the St John Monastery. The Syriacs followed with a church and the Copts with a chapel." That's W bank side of Maghtas, Mandate time, with a flurry of new chapels being built - Gorys mentions 3 of them. Here you see additionally the Romanian chapel and church built between 1935-36:. The Romanian monks held out there until 1969, when they had to retreat to Jericho after the main monk in charge was killed by a Palestinian raid. Ethiopians had a large chapel, now in ruins. There might be more. 5-6 religious buildings, Catholic, Orthodox, Syriac, Coptic (Egyptian as well as Ethopian) in such a small area - that looks quite "revived" to me :-) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but this article is about eastern side, although the name was traditionally used for both sides..Makeandtoss (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I clearly wrote in the article "Al-Maghtas was revived during the British Mandate period, when several churches were built on the western side of the river." We had this whole discussion before. The site is on both banks, by virtue of traditions stretching between the 6th-7th century and the 15th, and again in the 20th, reflected in the common name, church history etc. UNESCO chose whatever it chose, but they are not the only authority. 1500 years of shared tradition are enough, I would assume. Especially since the site has not been attested as a pilgrimage site for the time immediately after Jesus, 1st-4th centuries, so we are talking "traditions" here, no more, no less. A border no more than 90 or 70 years old is irrelevant in terms of religion and 2000-years-old history. Even the title is "Al-Maghtas", not "The Jordanian World Heritage site of B.b.J. (Al-Maghtas)". This is an encyclopedia dealing with globally relevant topics, not a national guide book; a guide book would of course deal strictly with the section within the country it deals with, unless it's a Middle East guide, then it has the obligation to deal with both. The official Epiphany/Teophany processions (Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian & Erithrean) still do use the west bank site, but they care about THE WATERS and the LOCATION on the JORDAN, not the SOIL, i.e. bank they're on. That is our context here. We're back at the same type of issue as with the Desert Castles, which are predominantly in Jordan, but not specific only to that country, nor built by local emirs, but by Damascus-based Umayyad caliphs. So please, let's see the bigger picture together here. It takes away NOTHING from the Jordanian World Heritage site, which does have the oldest archaeological findings and the UNESCO seal of authenticity. It just keeps the correct historical, wider perspective. Like saying that the Holy Land, defined according to the Bible (both OT and NT) includes not just northern Israel and Palestine, but also western Jordan and southern Lebanon - that's how Jordan markets itself to tourists, by the way. It's intellectually wiser, more honest, and more accurate, too. Found also this re. west bank site during Mandate: "Place where the Baptism is commemorated. On the west bank of the Jordan River, an altar was built in 1933. It was embellished in 1957 with a stairway in the form of an amphitheatre. More to the west, the Franciscans have another edicule: a cube of four walls, that is crowned with a dome. Beside the Franciscan enclosure is that of the Greek Orthodox, separated by a road." So embellished during Jordanian rule over the West Bank - you can add that if you wish. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Qasr El-Yahoud is also Al-Maghtas, but we have a separate article for each site, this article is obviously talking about eastern side.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Qasr el-Yahud is also Al-Maghtas, but Al-Maghtas is not also Qasr el-Yahud. That makes it an easy decision. That's why we have a main page, Al-Maghtas, which contains all major data, and a secondary one, Qasr el-Yahud, which has only the very specific info regarding itself, but not also Al-Maghtas. But you are right, we need to add some "main" tags over there. Done. Thanks. Qasr el-Yahud is a tiny page, and for a good reason. We'll always get this problem when a wider term includes a narrower one, but here it's as easy to decide what to combine and what not as with, say (in the opposite way), the British Mandate for Palestine and the Emirate of Transjordan. There it doesn't make much sense to combine those into one. Cheers,Arminden (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well here's how it goes, this article says that the site is on Jordanian side and it says that this site is a world heritage site. Both indefinitely suggest that this is about the eastern side. To claim that Qasr El-Yahoud is a part of it, is factually wrong . Makeandtoss (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Qasr El-Yahoud could be part of a cross border heritage site. Let us not forget that the UNESCO report expressed the will to involve Qasr El-Yahoud and cooperation across the Jordan improves the whole region. Polentarion Talk 10:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But it didn't involve it. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Folks, I wrote everything already. To sum up, then I'm out of this: "Qasr al-Yehud" doesn't exist as such. Israel invented it. It's what is and always was: the western part of what Christians call "the Site of Baptism of our Lord Jesus", in Arabic "Al-Maghtas". None of us should create and define pages about truncated sites or topics. Al-Maghtas is a reality. UNESCO cannot change it, nor Israel. We can always have a MAIN PAGE and several secondary spin-offs - in this case, Qasr el-Yahud. If Makeandtoss wants a spin-off for the Jordanian park, go ahead - opening times, modern churches there, how-to-get-there etc. are legit topics for such. But for those who matter, the WP readers, Al-Maghtas is one thing and one only: a religious site with a main focus on the waters of the Jordan where Jesus was baptised, with the oldest tradition and most substantial & oldest archaeol. structures on the E bank, and a slightly newer tradition (6th-7th c.; 1400 years old!) on the W bank. PS: Qasr el-Yahud is the Arabic name of the W bank Monastery of St John, artificially expanded by the Israeli government to the entire area, which it administers although it's on the West Bank just a few km from autonomous Palestinian Jericho. All this is well researched, in 3 European languages, online, in books, on the ground... Enough. Cheers & see you elsewhere, Arminden (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, there's a difference between what you think and facts. Google Al-Maghtas and you will find zero results on western side. Even Yardenit was called by the Arab population "Maghtas" because "Maghtas" means baptism site. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Treaty of peace between the state of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan. 26 October 1994. Article V, Security Arrangements in the Jericho Area. 2. During religious events that take place three times a year and other special occasions that will be coordinated with the Israeli authorities, Palestinians will have the right to religious pilgrimage to the al-Maghtas under the Palestinian flag. 4. Safe passage will be provided from the Jericho Area to Nebi Mousa, al-Maghtas and the projects and ventures as agreed in subparagraph c. above on the shore of the Dead Sea for the aforementioned purposes. Article II: Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities of the Civil Administration 8. During religious events that take place three times a year and other special occasions that shall be coordinated with the Israeli authorities, Palestinians shall have the right to religious pilgrimage to the al-Maghtas under the Palestinian flag. 9. Religious affairs in the ´ Shalom Al Israel synagogue in Jericho shall be under the auspices of the Israeli authorities. Etc., all about sites on the West Bank. Terminology used in a treaty with JORDAN, not with Israeli Yardenit or even the Palestinian Authority. If it was good enough for HM King Hussein's government, it should be good enough for WP.Arminden (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It really can't be an article for both. Did prince Ghazi rediscover Qasr El-Yahoud? Is Qasr El-Yahoud a world heritage site? Was Qasr El-Yahoud filled with mines? Is Qasr El-Yahoud on Jordanian side? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, what on earth is the problem? Whenever you deal w smth rationally, 1st thing to do is: define the topic. What are we talking about? The baptism place of Jesus, that is: the WATERS of the Jordan River and the Christian markers of the site. Who cares about the baptism place of Jesus? Christian pilgrims. Who looks this up on WP? Christians, pilgrims or not, plus those interested theoretically in the baptism place of Jesus. Knowing this, what is relevant about it? The tradition, since there is no proof from the 1st century, not even the 2nd and quite possibly the 3rd and 4th neither, all until the Late Byzantine Period. What's definig a "tradition"? People's beliefs, legends, place names, supported (or not) by the the scientific knowledge about the topic. So then, what and where is the traditional site, its name, and the historical evolution of the site? Well, we know by now: the Al-Maghtas section from the E bank, that is: Tell Mar Iliya + east bank churches of St John's (5th-7th centuries), were the oldest place of veneration; then for much of the last 1400 years - the W bank part of the same site, also called Al-Maghtas. We mention this, offer a link to what Israel calls Qasr el-Yahud, and concentrate on what is TODAY the main part - thanks to older ruins, World Heritage Site status etc. So the E bank part gets by far the lion's share of the article. No question. But you cannot, in an encyclopedia, talk about, say, West Berlin as if it were the whole city of Berlin, or of historical Syria as always having been only today's republic etc. Same here. Main focus on what's the main site today, but without "blind spots" on what's historical reality. As it is, the article is 99% about the E bank side anyway. So WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT, removing the few mentions of the wider historical site? You can't be serious :-) Re. Prince Ghazi: With all due respect, he is irrelevant for an encyclopedia article about a 1600-year-old CHRISTIAN site. Btw, as I told you, Father Piccirillo took him there, Picc. knew full well what is where, but after decades in Jordan he also knew that w/o royal support not much would happen. So Prince Ghazi discovered nothing by himself, he was taken there by the hand and then was the highly useful & effective royal, deserving full praise, who helped fulfill the dream of the Franciscans and other Christians to get the mines removed (BOTH SHORES ARE MINED, until today, except for the Maghtas area, which was - partially - cleaned of mines) and archaeological excavations executed. "Qasr el-Yahud", as you like to call it, didn't need to be discovered either, all those Mandate-period chapels were excellent markers throughout the less than 20 years (no more) when the site was out of use (starting in 1969; in the 80s it was accessible again, but only 3x every year, under IDF escort.) Also, it was Jordan who built the first "amphitheatre" on the W bank (they didn't call it "Qasr el-Yahud" at the time), when Jordan controlled the area. Also, the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem and all the others never stopped celebrating Epiphany from the W bank side, until today, when they come and bless THE WATERS, not the banks. This doesn't mean at all that this part has priority either - it's ALL ONE SINGLE CHRISTIAN SITE. It's the same like the Greek Orthodox Patriarchy "of Jerusalem", and other non-Orthodox Church institutions, having authority over churches and other establishments in what are today Israel, Palestine, West Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, and most of the Sinai. That's the Church position, always been: tradition goes over modern-day borders. TO THINK ABOUT: If we are into all this because of the name, "Al-Maghtas", then maybe we should change the article name to "Jesus' baptism site". Then deal in this main article with what I'm talking about, history & all, and spin off Jordanian and Palestinian/Israeli facilities onto smaller separate pages, linked by tags. But I don't support this, I find current situation more elegant. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I knew very little about this site. If you want to see how it was circa 1940, go here and look at map 20-13 (upper left side).  One thing I see is that the statement in the article about "churches" in the area during the mandate period would probably be more accurate as "convents".  Of course any decent convent will include a chapel, but calling it a church isn't right.  Also note "old baptismal place" about 1km south of the ford, what is that? Zerotalk 23:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the map Zero0000. Arminden, as you can see on map. They labelled the west as Qasr El-Yahoud and east as Maghtas. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is political - baptism most probably took place on the east, the reverence switched from west to east several times and currently Israel (respectively the West bank) hosts more guests since its much more fun to spend a vacation overthere. The Vatican and the Orthodox church is eager to go for the best place AND is eager help Jordan, since the Kingdom tries its best to show its acceptance for the Christians in the country. In a normal world, Qasr El-Yahoud would be part of the site, as foreseen by the report. The side that is always loosing is the Palestinian one, which has a long tradition to opt for the wrong option. Polentarion Talk 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Zero, thank you for the map. I had the PEF survey (SWP, 1880s, sheet 18) and the 1945 road map based on this 1944 Survey (central sheet), which are both less accurate. This map is quite helpful, as much as a map can be. Makeandtoss, please go to sheet 19/13 and check the mouth of Wadi Qilt: That's exactly what I kept on saying. Then go back to the sheet pointed out by Zero. It reads: It offers no name for "areas" E or W. It does confirm that "Qasr/Qusur" is used, primarily at least, for fortified buildings ("castles"), that is: walled convents. On SWP map (1880s) even Deir Hajleh (St Gerasimos Monastery) is called "Kusr Hajleh". Of course, a) names migrate and are used with slight variations by this or that Bedouin clan or Jericho local, we all do it in our own town and it's always been done everywhere; and b) names of fords, areas, water sources ("bkt." - birket on the older maps) would sometimes be borrowed from the nearest landmark, so "our" ford might have been called at times/by some, Makhadat Qasr el-Yahud for "Ford of/next to St John's Monastery" - that's how Israel came to call the entire western part of the baptism site Qasr el-Yahud, lit. "Castle of the Jews" (guess why they preferred this name). Sheet 19/3 calls (what? the ford, the area?) at the end of Wadi Qelt "El Maghtas", and that's a whole 650 m south of "our" ford. 20/13 also indicates around the mouth of Wadi Qelt/Qilt an "Old Baptismal Place (Ford)"; migration of traditions and names, nothing unexpected here. Maps don't give explicit explanations, no sentences saying "I got this name from... and he meant by it the hill/ford/meadow/ghor/...". What I get from these maps is: St John's Convent (west bank, 300 m inland) was/is called "Qasr el-Yahud", it's the main landmark on W side, so the name could be extended to whatever on the W side. El-Maghtas is used by local Muslims for "the place where Christians take a dip" and it covers E and W, from the mouth of Wadi Qelt to the ford next to St John's. "Zor" is a type of meadow, with a typical outlook, on both banks, and "Zor el Maghtas" is indicated 400 m south of "our" ford and on the W (!) side. Which is why I insisted that "Maghtas" and "Zor" are NOT names specific to the E bank part of the "Site of Baptism", but always have covered both banks next to the traditional site. Quod erat demonstrandum. Polentarion, we agree to a point. Please do read the history of the place: for almost a millennium-and-a-half, the Church and the pilgrims have preferred the W bank because it was safer and closer to the Holy City, which also happened to be the only city in the wider region. Simple as that. The Gospels always read "Bethany BEYOND the Jordan", and when they could, some tried to go to the E bank, but with little success (see fate of last pre-WWI attempt, the 19th-c. Orthodox chapel of St. Mary of Egypt (NOT of St John or Baptism b.t.w.!): abandoned after the first quake). The W bank monasteries fared slightly better - see Deir Hajleh (St Gerasimos) and Qasr el-Yahud (St John's). Look at the road situation until 1944: only the W side had some - Jerusalem was the logical seat of all the important Christian denominations, nearby Jericho was never abandoned, while Salt was the only 19th-c. town on the E side in the entire district (Amman didn't exist until the 1870s and was still a village in 1900), so nothing to do with any anti-Palestinian bias (no such thing pre-WWI at least), just with normal, logical considerations. I see only arguments to leave things as they are. Arminden (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * El Maghtas -- on W side, south of:
 * Qasr el Yahud (St John's Convent)
 * El Maghtas (Ford) -- so the ford, which has 2 ends :-) but no name for the area around it, E or W.
 * Qasr el Yahud (St John's Convent) -- far inland, again: convent, not area.
 * El Qusur (Armonim) -- next to a bunch of rectangular plots & buildings, where I know the Ethiopians have their chapel; "qusur" and "armonim" meaning the same, "castles" (Arabic + Hebrew). What the Bedouin probably called any larger stone-built house (in the Jordan ghor the farmers build in mud brick and the Bedouin use goat-hair tents).
 * Zor ed Deir -- W side
 * Zor el Habash & Zor el Maghtas -- S of "Zor ed Deir"
 * As I already said Maghtas is a common noun, even Yardenit is called Maghtas by Arabs... Makeandtoss (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Invalid argument. So is zor, zarqa, samakh, aqaba(t), and when it's a place name, it's a place name. The Brits didn't mark on the map that Major Winterbottom took a "dip" there in the Jordan and wrote it in Arabic: they marked a place known locally under the specific name "Al-Maghtas", with capital M. Basta. Let's not get silly. And please, I give 100 good arguments and you pick one detail and shoot it back at me, and when I show you that it's not a valid argument either, you pick the next. When you thought Zero's map served your own point of view, it was great; now that it doesn't, it's not a valid map, "maghtas" is not a place name. I really am out for here, I covered all the bases, from now on it's a waste of time. Arminden (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * All I know is that this article can't contain information on the western side of the river. If you disagree, I will take it to dispute resolution. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Some more information about "El Maghtas" on the west side of the river. In the 1931 census report, which did not include Transjordan, El Maghtas is listed in the Jericho subdistrict with 6 occupied houses, 3 Muslims and 14 Christians. "Jericho (including El Maghtas, Allenby Bridge and Qasr El Yahud" is listed in the Jericho Sub-District in a 1939 list of administrative districts. In several places I see mention of a dispute between the Palestinian Authority and Jordan over the location of the historic site; this should be tracked down and put into the article. It's important to expose disputes and mention all sides to the story. Zerotalk 23:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the area was called El Maghtas.... The disputes revolve around the actual baptism site not on Al-Maghtas. This article obviously talks about eastern side of the traditional Maghtas site and should be treated as such. If not then a seperate article for Qasr El-Yahoud is useless and should be merged here. But then again, it cant be. There are waaay too many differences between the two sites . Makeandtoss (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comon now, , , . Makeandtoss (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Qasr El-Yahoud is a separate entry and will stay like that. A quick reference to the common history and the UNESCO attempt to involve the neighboring country doesnt need dispute resolution. Polentarion Talk 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me clear the misunderstanding. A quick mention of the common history is fine. But to claim that this article is about both sides is not . Makeandtoss (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I adapted my statement. OK and thnx from my side. Why don't we close thise section then? What does it say about needed changes for the article? Polentarion Talk 02:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The only reason I have opened this up is to be able to shorten the lead by excluding unnecessary and misleading info Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Then lets discuss the lede and not the report ;) I made a suggestion based on a format for disputed article sections we try to introduce in the deWP. I would like to test that here as well. Polentarion Talk 14:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lede
This is a trial for a structured discussion of the lede. Format is similar to ArbCom, so anyone contributing has just one section, with an abstract in brackets (max 10 words) and a length maximum 250 words, which can be changed during the discussion. The table provides a downsized short version of the current version and a field for suggested alternative text versions. If you do not want to participate in the format, "Off topic" is the section of choice.


 * References

Discussion of the proposal

 * 1) Polentarion Talk:  [Pro shorter Lede] I would like to see the basic issues and local (current and historical) setting, the role in the most recent history and the current revival. Point is, both the explanation of Bethany (I did it with a link now) and the biblical aspects and quotes deserve an own section.  Point ist, its now shorter, but contains the actual things you see at the site - baptism ponds, churches, the monastery, the Wadi and the strategic location. It still refers to the main aspects of the article. But I tried my best to have them being treated in the Lede, in so far to follow your intention, less your text. I copied my version on the right side now, revert if needed. Done?


 * 1) Makeandtoss[Not too short] :Hmm a bit too short, dont you think? Why only one section? I was thinking of three sections, which would be good both both aesthetically and summary-wise. The example I just gave is just for initial preview, so that the lead contains a summary of the article and its most important info. In the example, we include a description in first paragraph, evidence in second, another description in third and a concise timeline in fourth. We can rearrange the paragraphs to make them 3. Honestly, all of these paragraphs are equally important to mention. So I guess we will have to merge, edit and summarize them in order to fit in three paragraphs. Better now? Your version is quite perfect now. I would go for two more edits on your version; adding the bible quote (with or without explanation) and adding "considered as the site of baptism of Jesus and ministry of John the Baptist. Better format before, I guess done.  Makeandtoss (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Off topic
I changed the entry now. We do need to make some finetuning, as some of the details should be put back in the main text. Thnx! Polentarion Talk 04:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Al-Maghtas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402140833/http://journals.ju.edu.jo/DirasatHum/article/viewFile/1449/1439 to http://journals.ju.edu.jo/DirasatHum/article/viewFile/1449/1439

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Bethabara
Bethabara is a term used only for this site, from a single usages in the New Testament, and only in some translations.

This is not consistent with our treatment of other such places where there is a single location that is strongly favored by the academic and religious communities (e.g. Bethlehem / Nazareth / Mount of Olives / Calvary / Bethsaida / Capernaum).

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC) for your views, as you are the two main editors by number of edits at these articles. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I support the merge.Makeandtoss (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. It’s been more than a week with no other comments, so I will proceed. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Photo caption 1913 pic: RUSSIANS, no doubt whatsoever
See discussions here and here. Arminden (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: the pilgrims are pretty certain on the W bank, not E bank. So at what is now called (rather erroneously) Qasr al-Yahud, which once used to be just the vernacular name of the St John's Monastery on that side of al-Maghtas. Arminden (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Moving from Al-Maghtas to Bethany beyond the Jordan
Hi. The official website of the place gives its name as "Bethany beyond the Jordan" and makes no use of the Arabic name Al-Maghtas. "Bethany Beyond the Jordan" is also more used in English than al-Maghtas. So, this being the English Wikipedia, would anyone oppose moving this article from Al-Maghtas to Bethany beyond the Jordan (I'm just not sure about whether to capitalize Beyond or not...). Thank you all. Dan Palraz (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Since objection is likely, to avoid an edit war it would be best to start a formal process. Zerotalk 00:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me Shrike (talk) 08:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The topic is "the site of Jesus' baptism", which covers E & W. If not, Bethabara doesn't belong here.
The article kidnaps a wider topic, the site of Jesus' baptism, and restricts it to a modern institution, the Jordanian archaeological park cum pilgrimage facilities. This creates lots of issues, for instance redirecting Bethabara here; Byzantine Bethabara is clearly shown by the Madaba Map to be on the W side and is discussed as such by every author (see Piccirillo, Noort, whoever you want). Once this article covers, at least in principle, both sections, this stops being a blunt mistake.

There is no "competition of the sites" on this level, as wrongly perceived by some. We're not here to support this or that tourism ministry and attract pilgrims to this or that side of the Jordan. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, offering a scientific, so historical, archaeological, exegetic etc. presentation of a topic. Unless we start a new article called site of Jesus' baptism, we cannot afford to cater to local patriotism and other irrelevant motivations. In Arabic, both sides of the site are called Al-Maghtas, this is undisputed, which makes it simple: this is the article dealing with the traditional site of Jesus' baptism, period. There is no other. The history of how the site developed on both banks from early on and how the main focus for Christian pilgrims migrated already during the Late Byzantine-Early Islamic periods from east to west, mirrored in 20th- and 21st-century processes, is fascinating and essential, and shows one single entity, extending over both river banks, with a complex history. The topic of the significance in Jewish tradition is not touched upon, which is a major lacuna: How did the "place of crossing" tradition come about? Was it a Jewish tradition (probably), which however only became wider known once the site became so central in Christian tradition? N.B.: a river crossing also refers by necessity to both river banks.

An academic, solid approach would require that we have one article on the "Baptism site of Jesus" with a traditional identification with Al-Maghtas, E & W. As such is has a significance and a history. The two moden pilgrimage/tourist institutions, Jordanian (E) and Israeli in Palestine (W) are only afterthoughts, worth maybe their own separate small articles forking out of the main, well-founded article. Anything else is unintelligent, provincial, senseless squabbling over a topic of world-wide interest, and shame on us for keeping it on this trivial level for years on end.

If this silly discussion doesn't stop, a first technical consequence would be that Bethabara MUST be de-redirected: it can't be here, if this is about the E side of the site ONLY. And a zillion other issues arise as well - any mistake at the foundation (definition) has endless ramifications throughout what's built on top of that mistake. Arminden (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Discussion topic added also here: Talk:Qasr al-Yahud. Arminden (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)