Talk:Rammun

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


 * 1938 book, volume I, p440. Zerotalk 08:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh, typo? In the 1841, vol 1, on p. 440 it is not, Huldra (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Madaba Map
Regarding Zero's y 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. — Llywelyn II   21:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. —  Llywelyn II   23:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Nope.


 * I mean there's also but, no, you're just being obnoxious and very much need to review . 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 y and y 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. —  Llywelyn II   23:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. You very much need to review WP:NPA. And this article is covered by discretionary sanctions.  nableezy  - 23:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. Stop lecturing me on your thoughts on policy and actually look at which information is correct. Anything else is precisely on . 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! — Llywelyn II   23:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)

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. Zerotalk 04:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)