Contents

Talk:Tomb of Jesse and Ruth

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cemeteries Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries 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.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Palestine Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This is a total mess, as a fork from Tel Rumeida. Some of dozens of issues with the first draft. As it stood it deserved deletion, but in the meantime.

• 'Lady Judith Montefiore wrote in 1885'

i.e. the editor labored under the impression that Judith Cohen visited two decades after her death.

• Youtube is not a source
• Hebron.com is not RS and its material is nall self-published material
• Citing an amazon or bookseller source (e.g. abe books) (http://www.abebooks.com/Sefer-Chibat-Yerushalayim-Love-Jerusalem-hibat/1797987264/bd%7Ctitle=Sefer Chibat Yerushalayim [Love of Jerusalem] hibat yerushalaim by HOROWITZ, Haim [Chaim]: Press of Moshe and Yehudit, Jerusalem Hardcover, 1st Edition - Meir Turner|website=www.abebooks.com) is not acceptable.
• Citing texts without reference to the precise page, and translation, denies verifiability, and is unacceptable.
• Wikipedia is not RS for articles-
• Arutz Sheva is not RS for articles on archaeological sites.
• Oded Avisar, Sefer Hebron' etc. is not RS-
• 'Some researchers believe the location may be a remnant of King David's palace, due to its strategic location on a hilltop overlooking the Tomb of Machpela with a panoramic view of the city.'

They aren't researchers. No archaeological excavation has ever turned up any evidence of a connection with some fantasy of King David's Hebron 'palace' at Tel Rumeida. Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the "small fact" that the editor who started this mess (CarlSerafino) has less than 200 edits and should no be editing the area. As of now, I think it should be a AfD, what do others think? Huldra (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the technicalities. This is a fork of an ARBPIA page Tel Rumeida, so of course it immediately falls under that regime, though in building it the editor did not post an ARBPIA notice. From the edit record he had no right to do so, but, some might say, 'was he notified'. The page is more or less, as you can see from the original sourcing, a Hebron community construction of an alternative narrative to the one at Tel Rumeida. A significant amount of sourcing was taken from Tel Rumeida and Susya after a sockpuppet argued for strict observance of WP:RS, but the 'new' editor here is asking that WP:RS be ignored to make this new page. I don't have any view about AfD as yet, but the elements on this page that are well sourced are so few that they could be removed to the Tel Rumeida subsection. Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the editor knows nothing about the subject, having restored everything in the face of the policy objections listed here without deigning to address them. I.e., no talk page justication and reintroducing pure nonsense that shows the editor is pastintg in stuff he/she doesn't understand. I.e.'Lady Judith Montefiore wrote in 1885'. I noted above that she died in 1862 (from memory) and her Private Notes quoted here were drafted ion 1828.

At the least, then, the page should be reverted to the form it had in my last edit, and the editor be asked to propose his building blocks one by one for examination of their adequacy to WP:RS. It all looks at the moment like WP:SYNTH.Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have nominated it for deletion, as a POV-fork. Note that they use hebron.com (=the settler mouth-piece) as a WP:RS... Huldra (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source (Adler, p187) says "a place ten miles from Hebron", which is nowhere near Tel Rumeida. Zero^talk 03:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that means only one thing. Whoever did that edit was misleading, so I've removed it. The text is:

The Italian Jewish traveler Meshulam de Volterra visited the site during his travels which began in 1481.^[1] His journal has been reprinted in Elkan Nathan Adler's book Jewish Travellers in the Middle Ages: 19 Firsthand Accounts ^{[citation needed]} Nishidani (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Either fix it, or delete it. Arminden (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]