Talk:Nimrod Castle

Found Image
Have procurred an image/permission wading thru the wikimania to do my first wiki image post (please standby). Schlüggell 00:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

nice one

Golan Heights in Israel
Nimrod castle in the Golan Heights, Israel is maintained by the Israel Park Authority.

Nimrod Castle is maintained by the Israel parks Authority which is definitely not Syria.

Map depiction
Currently, the Golan Heights is under Israeli control, and since 1981 has been under Israeli civilian control. It has been under Israeli sovereignty for 44 years (1967-2011) while it has been under Syrian control for only 21 years (1946-1967). The current Syrian map depiction is misleading, violates NPOV and has been a source of contention for some time. Initially, I was going to reinsert the Israeli map depiction but realized that others might not be pleased with that for same reasons that I set forth here (just in the reverse). On Commons, they came to somewhat of a decent compromise that merely states the location's geo-coordinates leaving the political element out. I wasn't happy with that but that's the nature of compromise, where no one is ecstatic with the outcome but we can live with it because the alternative means endless bickering. Therefore, the location will be associated with neutral, non-political geo-coordinates. I hope that this satisfies all concerned and welcome any other suggestions.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the map shows the location as being in the Golan, which is recognized by nearly the entire world as being in Syria. I am reinserting a map and ask that you get consensus for such edits.  nableezy  - 13:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The current map depiction has strong POV overtones and is a digitally altered and skewed map that reflects partisan opinions. The Golan Heights have been under Israeli civilian control for 44.5 years. They have been under Syrian control for only 21. I have compiled a number of maps from reliable sources (including National Geographic and United Press International) showing the Golan as belonging to neither Israel nor Syria. Please note the UPI map. The Golan remains under defacto Israeli control and it’s disputed status should be reflected on corresponding maps. Moreover, Nimrod's Fort is a tourist attraction and as such it's status should at the very least be shown to be within the area of the controlling sovereign so that the reader who wishes to visit the subject area knows where he/she is going. Accordingly, I have replaced the existing non-neutral, digitally altered, partisan map with a more neutral depiction.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you not get tired of playing these games? There are countless scholarly sources that make the status of the Golan clear. Finding some news stories about the Golan does not trump that, and is a blatantly obvious attempt to distort the content of an encyclopedia article to conform to some fantasy world where whatever Israel says goes. Sorry, but this is still an encyclopedia and the scholarly sources that show the international consensus that the Golan is Syrian territory occupied by Israel is not trumped by a selection of news stories.  nableezy  - 15:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Nableezy, we know this is difficult for you but you must endeavor to comment on edits and not accuse editors of editing in bad faith – "playing games," as you say here. That the Golan Heights are internationally considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel isn't the same as simplistically saying that the Golan is in Syria. It's this difference that makes the map depicting the Golan as part of Syria a POV representation. There's no consensus that it's in Syria any more than there's consensus that it's in Israel. If anything, there're more sources that call the 1974 line the border between Israel and Syria, and this was established at Talk:Golan Heights as I'm sure you remember. Wikipedia isn't allowed to take sides in international disputes. The Golan Heights are internationally considered Syrian territory occupied by Israel and shouldn't be represented as a territory under Syrian control.—Biosketch (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained numerous times, the digitally manipulated and altered map that you designed and uploaded bears no relation to reality and is contradicted by the numerous map depictions that I’ve provided. The area is under Israeli control and has been under Israeli control for nearly 45 years. That is more than double the time it was under Syrian control. To present a map that shows it under Syrian control is not only misleading but dishonest. Moreover, the subject area is a tourist attraction and a reader who takes a cursory look at the map may be led (falsely) to believe that the area is under Syrian control. As I’ve demonstrated, most maps show the area as shaded, belonging to neither thus underlying its disputed status. Please also have a look at these additional interactive maps. Other editors who have commented here have voiced support for my WP:NPOV edits. However, if you wish I will note the WP:POV template to placate your concerns until the issues can be vetted and hopefully some form of compromise can be reached in a collegial manner. I also caution you from engaging in personal attacks against me. Calling me "expansionist" and part of the “Hasbara” team as you did here is offensive, gratuitous and I ask that you strike it. We are all volunteers here who spend time editing articles so that others may benefit. Engaging in personal attacks against me or others who don’t share your opinions is not helpful to the project.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * How interesting. Using a map that shows Syrian territory as being in Israel is not digitally manipulated and altered. Ive had more than I can deal with of this latest POV push, so I have taken the issue to Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard.  nableezy  - 17:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

History
History of Nimrod Fortress is wrong. It was built by the crusaders after 1129 and fell to Nur ed-Din in 1164. Pkachyna (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That theory was apparently discarded. You need to give a source. Zerotalk 00:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The sources: 'The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare','R. C. Smail - Crusading Warfare, 1097-1193', as Subeibe castle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkachyna (talk • contribs) 21:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't a very good source. Modern sources by experts who specialise in crusader and Islamic architecture disagree.  Eg.  Pringle, Secular buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, p2; Petersen, Dictionary of Islamic Architecture, p26; Ellenblum, Crusader Castles and Modern Histories, many pages.  Archaeologist Murphy-O'Connor writes in Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land "The might and majesty of the fortress at one time inspired prejudice to consider it Crusader. In fact, it was thrown up in haste by al-Aziz Uthman, a nephew of Saladin, in 1228–30.".  Zerotalk 22:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Hebrew page quotes an news article from 2018 which itself refers to Differential earthquake footprints on the masonry styles at Qal’at al-Subayba (Nimrod fortress) support the theory of its ancient origin and says this research supports the thesis of construction in the "Latin era". Jolastar (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

the area is not disputed territory. it is within the borders of the country of israel and in no way is part of syria. i went there recently and used an israeli visa to get there not a syrian one. it is inaccurate and biased to say that the international community believes it is part of syria. Ydrrbaum (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The is an issue with the history: the castle cannot have been built in 1228 by the Al-Aziz Uthman who was Salah ad-Din's son (Al-Malik al-Aziz Uthman ibn Salah ad-Din Yusuf) because the latter died in 1198. It could be the right name with wrong link - twice - though. According to the Hebrew page the castle was built by the ruler of Banias, Al-Aziz Uthman, probably with funding from Al-Malik Al-Mu'azzam Isa, ruler of Damascus. In the Hebrew flyer distributed by the Israeli Parks Authority, the builder is also given as Al-Aziz Uthman, described as a "nephew of Salah ad-Din", "younger brother of Al-Mu'azzam" starting in 1227. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jolastar (talk • contribs) 15:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The book "Caesarea Philippi" by John Wilson (p151) says it was built by El-Malik Al-Aziz Uthman who died in 1233. He was the third son of al-Adid, brother of Saladin. On p133, Wilson says that the attribution of the Fortress to the Crusaders is due to the misreading of an ancient manuscript. Zerotalk 09:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Muslim castle?
How can a castle be muslim? Did the castle come alive and decide to follow islam? The castle was not built by people who follow the muslim sect. islam was founded long after this castle was built and this castle was built long after Judaism started. Calling it a "muslim castle" is not neutral and is antisemitic.
 * Or, to put it another way, "ignorance is bliss". Zerotalk 05:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

location
the nimrod castle is in israeli territory not syrian. i dont know who this ' international community ' is, but that statement is inaccurate and possibly antisemetic Ydrrbaum (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong dates?
How can it be built by Al Azziz Uthman between 1229 and 1290..? If AL azziz Uthman died many years before 1229 according to Al Azziz Uthman's wiki page? Sandro Jadon (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

2018 study contradict it was first built in 12th-13th cenury!!!
"Displacements and shocks that caused earthquakes in the Nimrod Fortress (Nimrod's Celt) in the Golan, indicate that the fort was built in the Hellenistic period (up to 30 AD) or the Byzantine period (4th to 7th century AD) and not in the Ayyubid period (12th and 13th century), As other researchers believe."

"From the findings, Dr. Margalit concluded that Nimrod Fortress was damaged during its existence by two powerful earthquakes: the first, in 749 AD that hit the massive configuration and the second in 1209 AD that hit the Crusader configuration. The Ayyubid and Mamluk constructions were not damaged as they did not exist at the time of the second earthquake. From this Dr. Margalit concluded that the construction of the fortress could not be attributed to the Ayyubids and therefore determined that the fortress was built in the Hellenistic or Byzantine period and later used by the Crusaders and renovated by the Ayyubid"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328956082_Differential_earthquake_footprints_on_the_masonry_styles_at_Qal%27at_al-Subayba_Nimrod_fortress_support_the_theory_of_its_ancient_origin

Please correct the outdated information,--Vanlister (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this very interesting source, which definitely needs inclusion. I'm reading it now. Zerotalk 03:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello,can you add in the introduction that it was first built before the middle-age according to archeological findings.

Also the state of research since 1970, from the introduction from Margalit work " Ronnie Ellenblum, in his manuscript “Who Built Qal’at al-Subayba?” proposed that the fortress was established in the post-Crusader era between A.D 1220 and 1230 by the Ayyubic ruler of Banias, Al-Malik Al-Aziz ‘Uthman [3]. The Ayyubic theory gained wide popularity and is currently accepted by most scholars [6,7,8,9]. However, it is based on an interpretation of historical texts, rather than on firsthand observations or archaeological findings [7]. In addition, the theory does not explain why and how a local ruler constructed such an impressive fortress in a time of war, far from the front, when the necessary resources and professional human workforce were scarce."

https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-018-0227-9

--Vanlister (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC) I'll add the non controversial ref.--Vanlister (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Old refs
I am pasting here a couple of 19th C refs that didn't fit on the article on Banias.


 * B. B. Edwards and E A Park (1846) Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review Allen, Morrill, and Wardwell, p. 193.


 * Robinson and Smith, 1841, vol 3, p. 347 ff, p. 358

trespassers william (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

acceSSed
Please correct: "accesed" to "accessed". 80.180.159.222 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zerotalk 04:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)