Talk:Dura, Hebron

Deletion
A map was deleted on the assertion that "remove map pr Undue. This is probably just a Biblical myth. Not backed up by archeology. Read Israel Finkelsten". There is no requirement that the map had to relate to archeological evidence. I see no such requirement. The map relates to the text. Which relates to the history from the Bible. There is simply no requirement that it be based on archeological evidence. And we are tasked with not engaging in OR about it "probably" being a myth of the Bible.

I am fine at the same time with this edit. And addressed the concern in this edit (an appropriate one -- good catch -- "Mukaddasi did not live in the "Biblical period") by adding a title rather than deleting one -- in conformity with the lower sections. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The practice of adding maps of biblical mythology to articles about locations has to stop. Zerotalk 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. We have an RS.  Written by an author who is notable (he has a wp article about him). Why would Zero be asserting that it must be deleted -- and deleting it? On the assertion that "It is not biblical history but recent mythology." It's without question worthy of reflection here -- as we have a notable author writing it, in an RS.  If Zero has a different notable author (with a wp article about him), writing the opposite in an RS about Dura, he is welcome to reflect that as well.  But there is zero reason to delete it, other than OR.


 * As to the map, what I have written above holds.


 * Your comments and that of your colleague are tantamount to saying that we must strip out of all articles of cities mentioned in the Bible what the Bible -- per an RS -- says about the city. Why would you want to erase from Wikipedia all such references to the Bible?


 * If you two editors will only mimic each others' OR assertions that the notable Professor is wrong, and his RS book is wrong, can you suggest what forum we might bring this to for dispute resolution?

Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Like I wrote in my edit summary, the tradition about Noah's tomb is already in the article, in the "Ottoman" section, as it was reported by Guerin in the 19th century. More detail is there too, not just a useless "some people believe".  If you can find a good source for an earlier tradition about this tomb, that would be interesting and we could include it.  But we can't call it "history" since it isn't.  It is just a tradition.  There are other "tombs of Noah" in Kerak and Atab as well.  Besides that, the awful tertiary source you used is not acceptable when there are scholarly sources available. Zerotalk 11:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Tomb of Noah. He was a popular man! And List of burial places of biblical figures ...Btw,  both of those articles are far  from complete. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Avi-Yonah, who??
At presently, ref 7 gives "Avi-Yonah, p. 96"   ....but  there is no  Avi-Yonah in the Bibliography. Could someone please inform this ignoramus who/what Avi-Yonah refers to? Preferably in the Bibliography section, Thanks, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably it means the book mentioned in ref 6. But I don't have it handy. Zerotalk 11:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the book, and your intuition is as reliable as ever: the text is not supported by the source. I'll read it a bit then get my scalpel out. Zerotalk 10:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, not so much intuition, as experience. I have lost track of how many badly sourced Bible or Torah sources I have found. Look at Beit Furik: I see you reverted some uncited. They then come back, and "sourced" it. To wikisource and a settlers website....


 * The other thing is that the "classic scholars"  (Robinson, Guerin, SWP) were also basically guessing, and  disagreed between themselves. Wikipedia could be great to at least "clear up"  the differences between them. The mix-up continues to this day; have you seen: User:Huldra/Dauphin & Finkelstein? The Dauphin mistake on Talk:Al-Qubayba, Hebron took some time  to figure out... Cheers, and good luck  with Avi-Yonah,  Huldra (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dura, Hebron. 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/20101210081942/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_PCBS/Downloads/book1487.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

LaMar C. Berrett
Hmm, I am not very happy with seeing LaMar C. Berrett used extensively in the article...he basically just use the Bible as it is a proven history. I suggest we take it out, possibly put it into the Adurim article, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have moved the more speculative stuff to the Adurim article, Huldra (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I returned the article to the older version, because I think that the newer version leaves out important context. A possible compromise solution would be to edit the portions of the text that you have a problem with to be more encyclopedia like. However, the link between the two places, whether based on archeology or popular conception, is noteworthy. OtterAM (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are now inserting your religious myths into an article as if they were historical facts. I consider this quite outrageous. (AFAIK, there is considerable discussion among archeologist if people like Rehoboam, Solomon, David or Noah actually ever existed....). Huldra (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've fixed it. Berrett's minisacule snippet, aside from her weak qualifications, is not necessary. One thing to clarify is where Jewish tradition set Noah's burial.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Nishidani..Thanks, btw LaMar C. Berrett was male, and reference no. 9 doesnt look too good? Huldra (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Gender confusion is now normative these days! I've castrated the other berrett ref with a further surgical strike, having overlooked it last night. :) Nishidani (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Falsification
Presently, we have in the article:

"Mukaddasi, writing around 985 CE, noted that Dura was famous for its vineyards and a type of raisin called Duri. The city locality is in the Vale of Mamre mentioned in the story of The Twelve Spies who brought back to Moses large grapes of Eshkol as recorded in the Book of Numbers."(Mukaddasi, 1895, p. 69)

Alas, Mukaddasi only wrote that Dura was celebrated for its raisins...the rest is commentary from the translator, Guy Le Strange. Now it is all sourced to Mukaddasi, and not to le Strange. (And who the heck said we should include every speculation which were made by the Victorians in the late 1800??) Huldra (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually, Mukaddasi goes so far as to mention the "types" of raisins that are found in Palestine, the two most prized being ʿAinūnī and Dūrī, both named after their places of origin. What is the problem, Huldra? There is no "falsification," but rather two independent statements. I will try to cite the source for the first statement.Davidbena (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have made a slight revision in the text, to make it more conform with what is actually written in Mukaddasi's work, A Description of Syria (Including Palestine).Davidbena (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, it is still a falsification. The sentence "The city locality is in the Vale of Mamre mentioned in the story of The Twelve Spies who brought back to Moses large grapes of Eshkol as recorded in the Book of Numbers" is sources to Mukaddasi....when  Mukaddasi wrote no such thing. His translator, Guy Le Strange added that. Huldra (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know who wrote this second clause in this Wikipedia article. If Strange says it, it should be cited in his name. Otherwise, to reject it without premise would border on your own WP:OR. If Strange does not say anything of the kind, feel free to delete the second clause.Davidbena (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it is obviously not Mukaddasi who wrote the second sentence...as there is no mention that he had any specific knowledge about Christianity or Judaism (except for Christian and Jewish figures which also appear in Islam, of course). Also, in the "Palestine under the Muslims", p. 16 the same part about the Dura raisins is mentioned...without anything about the The Twelve Spies etc. Again, I assume that part if from  Guy Le Strange. And I cannot see that WP:OR is  relevant here...is is WP:DUE which should count here, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Guess if the text is attributed to Guy Le Strange, there is no danger of falsification then. Infinity Knight (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Right,...except it belongs in the Adurim article, not in this one, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

History
Both ancient history and recent history of this place are relevant to the article. OtterAM (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What belongs in Adurim, belongs there...and not in this article, too. I am willing to take a RfC on this...and the same for that completely unhistorical painting by Tissot, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the painting. However, I don't think there is a consensus to move all the ancient history to a separate article. The current version, in my opinion, does a fine job distinguishing between Biblical account, other ancient documents, and the modern historical account. OtterAM (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What does it event mean that James Tissot painting is "unhistorical"? Is there a requirement for historical accuracy for images used? The caption is clear, the paining is the artist's interpretation of the Bible story. Nobody thinks that Tissot witnessed the story, if that is not clear then it should be addressed. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, such a lot of the pre Ottoman history is either badly sources (eg Biblical sources, Josephus)...I suggest we either remove it, or move it to an Alleged history of Dura article, (Also, AFAIK, some of those sources do not mention Dura at all!) Huldra (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Huldra, Dura has documented ancient history. The temple wall in Karnak, within the Precinct of Amun-Re temple complex is quite real. Please do not remove sourced content just because you do not like it. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? I have not removed anything; I moved it to the correct article. Huldra (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Huldra, in this change the following content was removed:
 * Infinity Knight (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Infinity Knight: ....as I said in my edit-line: moved it to the right article (here), just before I removed it from this article, Huldra (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see above Both ancient history and recent history of this place are relevant to the article. As you suggested above please take RFC. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the point of having two articles, if we are to have the same info in both? And the onus is on the editor(s)  who want to include it  to get consensus: (via RfC, or whatever). I.e, not me, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to repeat ourselves, please take RFC. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first question is: is the identification of Dura with Adoraim considered beyond reasonable doubt? (I have one source that the identification of the place mentioned in the Egyptian lists is unknown.) If the answer is "yes", the second question is "do we need two articles?". Zerotalk 01:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first question is: is the identification of Dura with Adoraim considered beyond reasonable doubt? (I have one source that the identification of the place mentioned in the Egyptian lists is unknown.) If the answer is "yes", the second question is "do we need two articles?". Zerotalk 01:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for chiming in, Zero. Feel free to add more sources, your help with RFC questions is welcome. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Eero Junkkaala is a theologian, so maybe I should be removing sources rather than adding them. Zerotalk 07:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that was interesting. I had a closer look at what Junkkaala says about Dura & Adoraim:
 * Number 19 in the list is ì-d-r-m, most probably Adoraim. However, it is difficult to conclude where this Adoraim was located. The only Adoraim, which is known, is situated several kilometres west of Hebron. Its later name is Dura, map reference 152.101 and this is probably the same place as is mentioned in 2 Chr. 11:9 as one of the Rehoboam’s fortress cities. However, this seems to be too far from the other sites in Shishak’s list. According to Ahituv, Adoraim should be located in the Succoth Valley, as it is mentioned in Shishak’s list together with other cities in that region. As with Haphraraim, the question of the location of Adoraim must be left open." (pp.216–216)
 * So Junkkaala doesn't much like the identification at all and is being severely misreported. Zerotalk 08:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Severely misreported? The current content says number 19 in the list is associated with the biblical city of Judah. Junkkaala says Number 19 in the list is ì-d-r-m, most probably Adoraim. Junkkaala also provides the primary source for the info. Don't know whether Junkkaala likes it or not, he does not provide any alternative meaning for number 19. How would you report what Junkkaala says? Would you like to reflect Ahituv's Succoth Valley comment and how? Infinity Knight (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Two additional sources for Shoshenq tablets and Dura.


 * Infinity Knight (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So to sum things up, Huldra repeatedly tries to remove Dura's ancient history sourced content
 * removal 1 Revision as of 20:40, 27 March 2018,
 * removal 2 Revision as of 21:18, 4 April 2018
 * removal 3 Revision as of 23:58, 5 April 2018.
 * Then this discussion starts. Not gaining the consensus Huldra suggests to take RFC: I am willing to take a RfC on this... which is the appropriate DR procedure in this case. However instead, Huldra removes the content again


 * Final removal Revision as of 21:51, 16 November 2019.


 * If no further objections I am going to restore the ancient history content. So if anyone wants to remove the content they should raise RFC, that's how DR works. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have an objection. Three, actually. (0) Junkkaala states explicitly that he doesn't know where Shishak's Adoraim was located. (1) Quote from the paper of Na'aman that you cited where he identifies Shishak's Adoraim with Dura. (2) Quote from the 1880 source similarly (hint: you are even allowed to use the right page). Zerotalk 07:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Zero, many sources cite  for Dura/Adoriam identification. Na'aman discusses in linguistic -aim suffix dual grammatical number context The same suffix appears several times in Shishak's list (i.e. Adoraim, Hapharaim.... There are many more sources which note that Adoraim is in  Shishak's list of cities he conquered, see Google scholar. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, you provided two fake citations. For the hat-trick, quote from Robinson that Shishak's Adoraim is Dura. No wonder you want me to do the searching myself, though a search that doesn't even include "Dura" probably isn't the best approach. I looked at some, though. This one (p770) says that Shishak's Adoraim is in Samaria and has nothing to do with Dura. Of course, none of this means that nobody identifies Shishak's Adoraim with Dura, but it appears that the consensus is against it. Zerotalk 10:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Zero, not sure what you are arguing about. I am OK with using the direct attributed Junkkaala quote: Number 19 in the list is ì-d-r-m, most probably Adoraim. However, it is difficult to conclude where this Adoraim was located.
 * You asked: The first question is: is the identification of Dura with Adoraim considered beyond reasonable doubt?
 * There are many secondary sources saying something like "Robinson identifies Dura as Adoraim". You are also disputing sources already used in the page.
 * There are many secondary sources saying something like "Robinson identifies Dura as Adoraim". You are also disputing sources already used in the page.


 * More thoughts? Infinity Knight (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. Robinson (and plenty of others) identify Dura with the Adoraim of Rehoboam. The question is whether Adoraim of Rehoboam is the same place as Adoraim of Shishak. The consensus is that they are not the same. I just found two more examples of famous scholars with that opinion. One is Yohanan Aharoni: p327. Zerotalk 14:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Zero, gotcha, Adoraim of Shishak is different locality, in Israelite Kingdom and not in Judah. Agreed that part should be amended, Other thoughts? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You are misreading Junkkaala. When he writes "ì-d-r-m, most probably Adoraim" he means that the hieroglyphics ì-d-r-m are most probably to be read as "Adoraim". He doesn't mean that ì-d-r-m is most probably the Adoraim of Rehoboam. It is a reference to the reading, not to the identification. Other readings are possible, as usual with hieroglyphics. You made other mistakes too; I'll get to them later. Zerotalk 13:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , agree with your interpretation of Junkkaala, Adoraim is in the context of decoding Egyptian hieroglyphics, see here reprint of original hieroglyphics and their phonetic and semantic mapping. They also refer to "Doura" west of El-Khalil (Hebron) on page 88. Do you have access to this document? Infinity Knight (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is about a much earlier list of place names and makes some conjectures. We shouldn't be using 1880s theories unless there is some modern support. Zerotalk 09:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)