This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
I have a problem, what goes into this article, and what goes into the Port of Gaza article?
I have stuff from Karmon, that is from 1799, which could go here, or into the Port of Gaza article. Same with stuff from SWP, this is el Mineh on SWP map 19, SWP III, p. 236, El Mîneh, the harbour, Palmer, p. 361.
My two cents - leave the pre crusades stuff here, and later later stuff in port of gaza. In ancient time this was a separate city. I am not sure the current fishing port is on the same site. The port of gaza could use shipping data from Ottoman (the port was in use but in decline toward end of period), and mandate period (I think Gaza lost traffic to Haifa mainly under the British, was not able to find great sourcing), Egyptian (not sure, suspect just fishing), and Israel/PA (pretty sure just fishing).Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Roughly yes. But did the walled city (inland) cover the same area? Maiuma was an actual city, and quite an important one. The present day port is a minor commercial facility. Note that the gaza port article covers the future port plans (which would be a major commercial port) as well, at length, which many plans potentially place in a different spot along or off the coast.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Ok, after thinking about this a bit, and if there are no huge protests, I think I will try User:Icewhiz suggestion: all Crusader stuff, and earlier, will go into the Maiuma article, while newer stuff goes into the Port of Gaza article. Im not saying that this is the final answer: they may be joined in the future. But Im saying that dividing them clearly, will be an improvement on the mess it is today, Huldra (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments1 person in discussion
A well-intentioned, probably intense piece of OR, but must be thoroughly processed. Just did quite a bit, but still a long way to go. Is it worth it...?
"Bishops of Gaza and/or Maiuma
Maiuma is identified as the seat of the Roman era Diocese of Gaza."
Roman dioceses were civil administrative units. The Church did or didn't adopt them as they were. Also, pre-Constantine the Church worked quite ad hoc, a bishop didn't need to have a large see. All this considered: how relevant is the above sentence, what does it mean, and what's the source? Weren't "Roman" & "Byzantine" mixed up?
Not clear if there weren't at times 2 simultaneous bishops, 1 in Gaza and 1 in Maiumas. Must be clarified & stated!
The whole bishops list is untenable as long as distinction between the 2 bishoprics, Maiuma & Gaza, isn't taken into consideration. Almost all refs, if any are offered, are lacking or insufficient. Arminden (talk) 11:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Removed dubious entries. Here they are, in case relevant RS can be offered. Note that the first bishops OF GAZA resided in Maiuma as long as Gaza remained pagan. Bishops are named after their sea, the title matters, a Bishop of Gaza is not a Bishop of Maiuma even if he resides in Maiuma.
Timothy, Bishop of Gaza, 304{{dubious|reason= as per source, Maiuma was split of Gaza and thus it would be wrong to include Timothy, Bishop of Gaza on Maiuma list |date= January 2024}}
Paul of Gaza, 308{{dubious|reason= as per source, Maiuma was split of Gaza and thus it would be wrong to include Paul, Bishop of Gaza on Maiuma list |date= January 2024}}
Samonas, Bishop of Gaza (fl. c. 1056)<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|author1=[[James Strong (theologian)|James Strong]] |author2=[[John McClintock (theologian)|John McClintock]] |title=Samonas from the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia |entry= Samonas |encyclopedia= The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature |publisher= Haper and Brothers |location= New York |year= 1880 |via= biblicalcyclopedia.com |url= https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/S/samonas.html |access-date= 3 December 2023}}</ref>{{dubious|reason= as per source, Maiuma was split of Gaza and thus it would be wrong to include Samonas, Bishop of Gaza on Maiuma list |date= January 2024}}
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion
"Maioumas ("harbour place"), ref: Patai"
With all due respect for Raphael Patai, but this looks highly dubious. There doesn't seem to be any Greek word for port or bay resembling 'maiouma(s)'. Prof. Patai doesn't indicate a different, non-Greek origin for the word and how he came to his brisk conclusion either.
Robert M. Good's thesis is that Punic (so Semitic, Canaanite -> Phoenician -> Punic) my'ms, ultimately mayumas, is a calque after Greek hydrophoria and therefore means "rites of water movement". He notes that "[f]estivals of water movement were common in the ancient Syro-Palestinian world" and sees a Canaanite-Phoenician-Carthaginian tradition as very likely. See Robert M. Good (1986). "The Carthaginian Mayumas"inStudi epigrafici e linguistici sul Vicino Oriente antico (SEL)3.
All in all, apart for the relation to water, there is no suggestion that mayoumas can mean "harbour place" in any relevant language, and Patai doesn't offer any explanation either. Arminden (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion
"Cart. Mad." used twice as ref. Meaning WHAT? Mystery!
At 2nd use it is combined with "Antoninus Placentinus", which is fishy in itself. The author of the 6th-c. itinerarium remains anonymous, the name Antoninus is based on an old misidentification with a 3rd-c. martyr. If a book containing this misidentification is meant to be cited here, then pls say so & give the needed details. Arminden (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe "Carte de Madaba", Madaba Map in French?
1. We don't edit just for Sherlock Holmes' benefit. Nor do we copy & paste like robots. Or do we?
2. We don't place 2 sources in 1 ref. That's lazy & misleading, here it looks like some cryptic chapter indexing formula for the work of the author mentioned in the 1st part of the ref. Arminden (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So it seems, but fact is well hidden. Must be clearly stated, from the lead onwards.
The fact that refs are so poorly written (no edition, no link, some even worse than that - just the author), which doesn't allow to check up what the sources called the place at different points in time, again makes work here way too difficult. Arminden (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply