Talk:Qision

Synagogue AND 2nd cultic structure?!
Very confusing. If there's only one cultic structure discovered so far, whose purpose is still in dispute, then the lead reference to an ancient synagogue is misleading. Yes, Jews, rabbi, mention in Talmud - this all firmly guarantees there absolutely must have been a synagogue there, but where is it?

What are the arguments for seeing the public building ("structure") as something else? The inscription? Unlikely, I would think, unless there was some unlikely interdiction for such inscriptions in synagogues, which would then need to be mentioned. The layout? If so, again, it MUST be mentioned.

So far, very confusing article that needs thorough reworking. Arminden (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Distinction ancient village - khirbet
Hi, and thank you for this excellent eye-opener :)

I think we should make a clear distinction between the ancient village, called Qision (as we learn from the Talmud I guess), and the khirbet, or ruins field, known by the names Kh. Qasyun (Ar.), and the Hebrew name more recently derived from the Arabic one, Horvat Qazion / Qatsion. Not the same IMO. So we cannot say that "Qision (is) also spelled Qazion or Qatsion". Londinium isn't also spelled London :)

Thanks, and keep up the good work! Arminden (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I mean moving back those 2 spelling versions to "The site is known as", and away from the 1st sentence, which defines the ancient Qision, not the khurba. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pester you, just one more thing. I'm now almost exclusively using my mobile phone. The layout is quite different from a desktop monitor. Once you have a 2nd paragraph in the lead, it automatically throws it below the infobox, so you end up with
 * 1st par. of the lead
 * photo
 * map
 * infobox proper
 * 2nd par. of the lead.
 * So if something important, like the khirbet name, is not in the 1st, but only in the 2nd par., you must scroll a lot to even see it. That's why I put it here at the end of the 1st paragraph. I know it's more elegant to split them, but it's a matter of choosing between one downside vs the other. Arminden (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Arminden, for all the help and guidance. I'm still getting the hang of the formatting around here, so feel free to jump in if you see anything off. :) Mariamnei (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, di niente.
 * This actually has very little to do with formatting, it's more about encyclopedic structure and with avoiding "edit warring".
 * The problem is with the definition: since the article is called Qision, the main topic must be the ancient village. This must be clearly stated at the start of the intro ("lead"), where the definition of the Wiki entry is expected to be.
 * Qision obviously got Arabised with time, becoming Khirbet Qasyun. Israel has the habit of Hebraising Arabic toponyms as part of its "land redeeming" concept, either back to ancient Jewish names where available, or to new ones, usually phonetically or semantically related to the Arabic names. I guess here they based their decision on the byname of the Talmudic rabbi, or maybe on other ancient sources: Qasyun to Qatzion, and khirbet was translated to horvat, both meaning 'ruins'.
 * So the intro should read: ... Qision, ancient village.... at modern arch. site of H. Qatzion/Kh. Qasyun.
 * Splitting that into 2 paragraphs, which does indeed look more elegant in principle, has the downside that on mobile phones you'll get them wide apart, with photo, map and infobox details set between them. Hurried users might miss the 2nd part, about the archaeol. site.
 * For these reasons I had A) split Qision from H. Qatzion in the 1st sentence (it's factually not true that "Qision is also spelled Qatzion", the same way that it's not true that "Londinium is also spelled London"), but B) kept them as successive parts of the same paragraph. You changed both those edits back. If I revert your revert, we reach an "edit warring" state, which between us two might not mean much, but on Wiki that can quickly lead to "trials" in front of all kinds of weird commissions and then to editing suspensions or eventually to permanent edit blocks. That aside, just by love of logic & basic politeness, I wanted to get your approval before reverting back to what I wrote here above. So, what do you think?
 * Thanks and have a lovely spring weekend! Arminden (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)