Talk:Ancient synagogues in Israel

Oldest synagogues in Israel

This article is about the "Oldest synagogues in Israel", so therfor synagogues in the Palestinian territories and in Syria shouldn't be in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring those synagogues. "Israel" in this context doesn't necessarily mean the modern state of Israel. Perhaps a name change for the article is in order, but there's no reason to remove relevant content for political reasons. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But the information is not relevant since the information is about synagogues in the Palestinian territories and Syria. While this article is about synagogues in Israel. Doesn't make any sense. I will therefor correct the name of the article since it contains synagogues in the occupied territories to: "Oldest synagogues in Israel and the occupied territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know how BRD works? You know you have no consensus to remove that information or move the article to another name without discussion.

If you continue edit warring, I will report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

SD you have a nasty habit of forcing your views down everyone's throats. You've been topic banned once before and you haven't learned from your mistakes.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

SD is correct in this case. Israel means modern Israel. Synagogues in Jericho, which is part of the PA, do not belong here. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So those who want to continue to have the synagogues in the occupied territories in this article, can you suggest a name change? Jiujitsuguy didn't like " Oldest synagogues in Israel and the occupied territories" so can you and No More Mr Nice Guy suggest other names? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

SyrianKing, article is about synagogues in Israel, not occupied territories, lets discuss name change here first. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Either the synagogues should be removed, the article renamed, or there should be clarification in the article. Sadly, it is obvious that the majority of editors want to keep the article title and contents factually incorrect. However maybe we can reach an agreement to have the phrase "occupied territories" added. SyrianKing (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? As I stated above, I don't object to a name change. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, you reverted me when I removed the synagogues in the palestinian territories and in Syria, and you said that: ""Israel" in this context doesn't necessarily mean the modern state of Israel. Perhaps a name change for the article is in order", since it is you who support a name change while objecting to synagogues outside of Israel to be removed from this article, then it is you who should suggest a name change. I previously suggested: "Oldest synagogues in Israel and the occupied territories", is that okey with you? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that could work. Give other editors time to comment though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Five days past by since your last post and no one replied. Per the agreement between me and you I have changed the article name. I have also added the cats: Synagogues in Israel, Westbank and Syria, since synagogues located in these three areas are in this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmbr, one of the synagogues in the article is located in Syria, not the Palestinian territories, so it must be named "and the occupied territories" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you are right- It was my mistake, and I also do understand the problem in the previous name, which involves political dispute. However, The historical piece of land called "Land of Israel" which was the common name in the time when the synagogues were established, includes sites which are nowadays within the boundaries of Israel, Syria and the palestinian territories, and therfore is the better name for this article. Thanks, --Hmbr (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Land of Israel

Chesdovi, explain why you removed this synagogue in the land of Israel? [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Supreme, you should read the article more carefully. The historical territorial name referred at most to the extent of the United Kingdom of Israel. Your citation talks about the boundaries which were promised to Abraham's children, not Israel's Children. --Hmbr (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Israel is not the "Land of Israel", the "Land of Israel" is something else and these sources shows its boundaries:[2][3] if only the synagogues in the "United Kingdom of Israel" is going to be here then the article should reflect the name and it should be moved to "Oldest synagogues in the United Kingdom of Israel" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not just "promised". They were indeed promised a larger tract, but only land that came under Israeli control in the days of yore has the status of the Holy Land, of the Land of Israel. I guess that's why Gaza synagogue is not included. Chesdovi (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not true, these sources say that the land of Israel is what God promised to the Jews: [4][5] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Abraham's physical descendents include both Jewish and Arab peoples, through his son Ishmael. Hmbr (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter about the subject we are discussing here. The land of Israel is defined in the sources I brought. Not "United Kingdom of Israel", that's something else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly not a great expert in Jewish History, bible or synagogues, so I'm sure you can be much more productive in other articles. Thanks, Hmbr (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are people who say that the Land of Israel means that, but on the other side of the sprectum there is: "The biblical boundaries of the so-called Land of Israel are entirley fictional". (Though I am not sure what she means by saying there is no Jewish religious definition of the borders.) As far as I know, the mainstream (and Jewish) view is that of the area approx. which forms Israel and the WB today. This can be verified from the Talmudic references to it - which makes it clear that Babylon was not considered part of it. Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

On paper, the Land of Isreal does include land upto the great river, but in reality and history, the region only ever known as the LOI did not encompass this vast area. It is like calling the lands of Israel, the WB and Jordan today "Israel" becuase these areas were once promised to the Jews by Britian in 1917. What actually became Israel was 7% of this area. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The bible says from the nile to the euphrats, and I have shown several secondary sources that says that it is the Land of Israel, so its what the bile says and secondary sources against your: "As far as I know". "Land of Israel" is not the land that became the land for the Jewish people, the source says that the "Land of Israel" is what God gave to Abraham's descendants, and that is from the nile to the euphrates. You said: "the region only ever known as the LOI did not encompass this vast area" so what was the name of this kingdom or province or whatever? Hmbr said "United Kingdom of Israel", then change it to that. Content of the article must reflect the name, and if the name stays as it is, then it must include what the name is about, from the nile to the euphrats. Btw your comparisment to the British mandate doesn't hold, the British didn't promise a land consisting of today's Israel + WB + Jordan called "State of Israel", that would be called "Synagogues in the original delineation of the British mandate of Palestine" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Show me where God said "unto thee seed I give the Land of Israel". Chesdovi (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And what of the the well-entrenched rabbinic view that the messianic "Land of Israel" will encompass the whole world? In the Book of Numbers, the Torah relates how the Israelites were attacked by the nations that lived on the east bank of the Jordan River. The Israelites fought back, and after winning the war, they were left with a vast tract of land outside the originally-intended borders of Israel. [6]. The historic actual boundaries of the LOI are not defined to the last km, but they certainly did not stretch to the great river or brook. Chesdovi (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The term “the land of Israel” came into use with the Israelite occupation, but its significance changes according to the historical situation.... The borders of the land of Israel and its main sectors are described in the vision revealed to Moses: "and the Lord showed him all the land, Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the Negev and the Plain, that is, the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees, as far a Zoar. (Deut. 34 1-3.) As a boundary designation for the land of Israel, the phrase was eventually coined from “Dan to Beer-sheba” (2 Sam 24.2 1 Kings 4. 25) indicating the main centres in the north and in the south. In Transjordan the borders are “frm the valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon” (Josh. 12.1.) [7]

The area you want to call the LOI never covered that area. There are, however, many views about what area the land of Israel should encompass. The accepted term refers to the land which is today recognised by jewish legal scholars as having the holiness of the land of Israel, which conforms to the appoximate area of Israel/WB today. Chesdovi (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already showed you several sources that defines the land of Israel: [8][9][10]. Your source Chabad.org is a self publicized website written by a guest columnist, its basically the same thing as a personal blog, you cant cherry pick what one person believes and then leave out others believes. The bible have several definitions of the land of Israel, we can not cherry pick one thing from the bible and then leave out the other, "Land of Israel" must comprehend everything. Here we have Rabbi Moshe Pinchas Weisblum - From Abraham to Statehood – Israel’s Right to the Land: "This history outlines the promise of G-d to the Jews to live in "eratz" (the land of) Israel. It is laid out as clear as any street map and accepted as gospel, the infinite and finite gospel, by both Christians and Jews. In Chapter XV, it is written that Abraham, the head and the forefather of the Jewish people had a vision. "On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abraham saying to his descendants I am giving this land, from the River of Egypt to the Great River, The Euphrates River." This promise is one of the basic tenets of Jewish life. It is the reason why every Passover Seder, which celebrates the Jews' freedom of slavery from the Egyptians, ends with the phrase "Next year in Jerusalem." This promise was not just written in the bible by G-d, the bible brought down by Moses from Mount Sinai, but G-d's presence was felt and heard by those witnesses."[11] Eliezer Segal at the University of Calgary (see his CV:[12]) says: "The basic perception that Jews constitute a nation, and that our proper territory coincides (roughly) with the land trodden by our Biblical progenitors, is one that has never [well...hardly ever] been challenged in the Jewish consciousness since the earliest strata of the Bible. The covenant with Abraham, that forms the basis of our religious peoplehood, includes the promise that the patriarch's descendants, after their enslavement in a strange land, will return to the land: On that day God entered a covenant with Abram saying: To your descendants I have given this land from the River of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates..." [13] You have not shown me a source that says "The accepted term refers to the land which is today recognised by jewish legal scholars as having the holiness of the land of Israel, which conforms to the appoximate area of Israel/WB today.", these source that I brought shows a Rabbi defining the area as from the Nile to the Euphrates, and a scholar bringing up the same area when describing the Land of Israel including saying that it has hardly ever been challenged. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it highly amusing that someone like SD is arguing for an expansionist interpretation of "Land of Israel" for the sole purpose of including a synagogue in Syria on a wikipedia article. I doubt you can get a good grasp of thousands of years of theological discussion by spending 10 minutes on google, SD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

SD, you dismissed my analagy to the 1917 borders of Israel. Yet you have yet to show me where the bible metions: "unto thy seed I give the Land of Israel". Chesdovi (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
As a boundary designation for the land of Israel, the phrase was eventually coined from “Dan to Beer-sheba”. Chesdovi (talk) 12:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
If you want the LOI to include up to the farthest extent of its borders ever mentioned, forget the Euphrates, the Midrash tells us: "Jerusalem will in the future expand to cover all the Land of Israel, and the Land of Israel will expand to cover the whole world." So this page must include all synagogues in the whole world. Chesdovi (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I already showed you above the primary and secondary sources that say from the nile to the euphrates, including a rabbi saying it and a scholar saying that it has hardly ever been challenged. Your claim of that the Land of Israel is only "Dan to Beer-sheba" is not backed up by any source, so its your own personal claim against the sources I have brought, and I explained in my above post that the bible have several definitions of the Land of Israel, we can not cherry pick one thing and then leave out the other, "Land of Israel" must comprehend all definitions. I just googled your sentence, and in the entire internet there was only one single hit, if this really was a religious text then there would undoubtedly have been more hits, but even if this one single hit is correct, it says: "and the Land of Israel will expand to cover the whole world.", has the Land of Israel expanded to cover the whole world yet? No, so its an irrelevant discussion now, in the future when it happens we can ad the synagogues in the expanded Land of Israel that covers the whole world. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of search you did, but here are just a few examples which it took me exactly 10 seconds to find - [14] [15] [16].

You can even find a reference to the actual midrash if you spend 5 minutes reading the stuff.

Like I said above, you are not going to be able to learn milennia of theological debate by spending 10 minutes on google. I find it amazing that you would actually argue about this with someone who obviously knows more than you ever will about the subject. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Non of your links have the same quote as from Chesdovi, and you are arguing about something that doesn't matter, the sentence has already been replied to above: "it says: "and the Land of Israel will expand to cover the whole world.", has the Land of Israel expanded to cover the whole world yet? No, so its an irrelevant discussion now, in the future when it happens we can ad the synagogues in the expanded Land of Israel that covers the whole world. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think it appears in the links I provided then it's obvious you haven't read them. Since it's obvious you don't even know what the midrash says, how can you in good faith argue against it? Seriously.

The extent of your knowledge about this issue is some stuff you read on google, some of it, like this doesn't even mention "Land of Israel", while. If you had bothered to read the source Chesdovi provided here you could have both learned something and stopped being so tendentious. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read them and they don't have the same quote, for example the first link says: "In the future, Jerusalem will be like all of Israel, and Israel will be the entire world." while chesdovi said: "Jerusalem will in the future expand to cover all the Land of Israel, and the Land of Israel will expand to cover the whole world.". Genesis 15:18-21 does not specifically say "Land of Israel" and neither does the bible quotes that talk about Beersheba to Dan. Yes this is a 3 line snippet showing a secondary source with the nile-euphrates quote from the bible defining it as the Land of Israel, so what? I also brought a source from a rabbi and from a scholar above, what is wrong with these three sources? Yes the source Chesdovi brought is a secondary source defining the LOI, and I have brought several secondary sources defining the LOI, why are you cherry picking one pov and leaving out the other? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit ironic of you to accuse me of cherrypicking when the quote you brought from this source doesn't specifically say what the "Land of Israel" consists of, but it does explicitly do so later on in the piece, which you may or may not have read. The later passage unsurprisingly supports what Chesdovi told you above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not cherry picking, I never said that Dan - Bersheeba is not a definition of the Land of Israel, I said that there are several, and that was what I wanted to prove. The source does indeed say what the Land of Israel is: Headline: The Land of Israel in Classical Jewish Sources: In the Bible: "The basic perception that Jews constitute a nation, and that our proper territory coincides (roughly) with the land trodden by our Biblical progenitors, is one that has never [well...hardly ever] been challenged in the Jewish consciousness since the earliest strata of the Bible. The covenant with Abraham, that forms the basis of our religious peoplehood, includes the promise that the patriarch's descendants, after their enslavement in a strange land, will return to the land: On that day God entered a covenant with Abram saying: To your descendants I have given this land from the River of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates..." .. and after he also talks about other definitions of the Land of Israel, this is exactly what I have been saying, that there are several definitions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

All you have proved is that you can use google to some extent. You obviously don't have enough knowledge about how Judaism works to usefully interpret what you find. But this is pointless. You are not interested in an accurate article, you're interested in putting a synagogue that's in Syria in it, not matter what people who know more about the subject tell you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your latest post does not address the issue. You have failed to explain why one definition can be cherry picked while the other can be left out. Well obviously I am interested in an accurate article and you are not, since I am the one that wants to follow the definitions in the reliable sources, while you want to cherry pick definitions. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You actually had a source that supported both what you (wrongly) think is the definition and the one others are telling you is correct and you chose just the one that suited your point, and you accuse me of cherry picking? That's rich.

You do not understand how Judaism works. You do not understand the difference between what the Torah says and how it is interpreted. You are not interested in learning more about the issue, all you're interested in is finding a technical reason to push something into the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have to bring up the other pov from the source, because no one disagrees with it, why do I have to prove something that no one disagrees with? Thats not cherry picking. You claim the nile-euphrates definition is "wrong", yet you have not shown how it is "wrong", the only thing you have presented is your own personal cherry picking pov of the sources, and now instead of addressing the issue you are now resorting to personal attacks. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the source is "wrong", I said you are not reading it correctly. In the section titled "In the Bible" the term "Land of Israel" is not used. The section "In Halakhah" explains what it is according to Jewish thought. To put this in terms easier for you to understand, the bible is a primary source. You need a secondary source to interpret it. Saying you do not understand how Judaism works is not a personal attack, it's a simple fact which you can't honestly deny. That you would argue so much about something you have so little knowledge about is an excellent example of one of the things that's wrong with this project. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is used in the headline: The Land of Israel in Classical Jewish Sources, then he begins with the bible. Its clear to anyone what its about. I have already shown you several secondary sources that interpret it, Text by Eliezer Segal at the University of Calgary [17], Text by Rabbi Moshe Pinchas Weisblum [18], The Jewish people, the Holy Land, and the state of Israel: a Catholic view By Richard C. Lux [19], Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict:What the Headlines Haven't Told You by Michael Rydelnik [20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

This is getting quite pointless. Your first source never says that the boundaries until the Euphrates are "the Land of Israel". It is clear to anyone what it's about, and you're just not getting it. Another source is "from a Catholic view". The third is just a three line snippet which shows no context (you obviously haven't read this book, have you? How can you in good faith present 3 lines as a source?). Google is not a replacement for knowledge. Your wikilawyering here is reducing the quality of this encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I take that last one back. It's not reducing the quality of the encyclopedia, just attempting to. Since it's obvious your interpretation doesn't have consensus here, I shall now bow out of this silly discussion. Feel free to start an RfC if you want to pursue this further. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The first source does say that the Nile-Euphrates are "the Land of Israel", now I understand that you don't like this because it goes against your personal pov, you are free to ask any uninvolved admin and he will tell you that the source supports this. "The Jewish people, the Holy Land, and the state of Israel: a Catholic view" By Richard C. Lux, might be written from a catholic view, so what? Halakhah is written from a Jewish view, where are you going with this? I already replied to your attempt to discredit the "Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict:What the Headlines Haven't Told You by Michael Rydelnik" source above, and now instead of replying you are repeating yourself. And you did not address the source by Rabbi Moshe Pinchas Weisblum, how come? You can not show me one single diff in this entire discussion where I have attempted to include "my interpretation" which makes your last comment false. Since consensus is based on arguments and not votes, and since there has not been one single argument in this entire discussion for why we should cherry pick one pov and leave out the other, no RFC is needed for anything as there is a lack of argument for why we should cherry pick one pov and leave out the other.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

A. It's not my POV, it's what anyone who has read more than a 3 line snippet on google about Judaism knows.

B. There have been plenty of sources provided, including one by yourself, that show that Land of Israel doesn't mean what you think it means.
C. You are in no position to say that other people's arguments are invalid and therefore the consensus reached on the talk page is invalid. So far 3 people said one thing, and you said another. There is no consensus for your position. If you want to try and change that you can open an RfC. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• The biblical promise to Abraham was just that, a promise. You can call this page Synagogues in the Promised Land if you want. The only area that can honestly be referred to as the Land of Israel in our context, is the land that was settled by the decendants if Israel, (who himself was Abraham's grandson - how can the borders mentioned to Abraham be called the LOI when Israel was not even born yet?) SD has pointed out correctly, the term is not anywhere in the bible in relation to borders. That's why my analagy is correct. The 1917 plan may not have been called Israel, it was called the National Jewish home or other things, but that's what it meant. True, God intended the LOI to reach from Egypt to Iraq, but this never happened, like the Jews not getting Palestine and TransJordan. What became the national Jewish home was the actual land that became Israel. So too with the historic borders of the LOI. The only land that can honestly be called the LOI is the land that actually was settled by the Israelites. As in the negotiations between the British and French on the borders of Palestine, the biblical verse "from Dan to Beersheba" frequently appears in various documents, because that was the furthest extent of the Israelite dominion. This page is not based on synagogues in a proposed region which never came into being, rather on a region that was an actual entity called the Land of Israel, meaning the land where the ancient Israelites lived. Chesdovi (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Propose merge of Ancient synagogues in Palestine->Oldest synagogues in the Land of Israel
The articles are clearly dealing with the geographic distribution of synagogues, which makes the Land of Israel a much more relevant term, as Jewish concept. Furthermore, the content in the Palestine arrticle is practically identical.GreyShark (dibra) 22:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that both articles should be merged.

Regarding the title, I think that "Oldest" has something pov-ed with the "-est" that cannot be defined.

I suggest the merged article keeps "Ancient synagogues"

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Some material will have to be removed from Oldest synagogues in the Land of Israel if it is to be merged. Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything to remove, because the mainstream definition of Land of Israel coastline from Ashdod to Acre and from shoreline to Transjordan and Golan covers almost all Jewish/Samaritan archaeological sites now in the article, while Palestine in fact doesn't extend to the Golan (which is part of the Land of Israel per most opinions). Anything specific? Maybe Ashkelon?GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - i withdraw the proposal, following notice that Oldest synagogues in the world list according to countries. Land of Israel should be renamed to Israel and content fit accordingly. There is no reasons all others would be modern countries, but this would be a geographic region.GreyShark (dibra) 19:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 03:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Oldest synagogues in the Land of Israel → Ancient synagogues in Israel – In line with naming standard of articles (Ancient synanogues in <foo country>) and in parallel with the rename proposal Ancient synagogues in Palestine->Ancient synagogues in the State of Palestine GreyShark (dibra) 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Support "Ancient" is better then "oldest". Debresser (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Support "Ancient" is less pov and in that way more understandable than "oldest". The Land of Israel covering Palestine, I also think it is wiser to establish the border between Israel and Palestine for the classification. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Good idea, as will be more clearly defined. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Ancient synagogues in Palestine

The synagogues listed (at least >90%) are in Israel, not in "modern" Palestine. The target article should be expanded with the list that this article has. If you read the whole source article, it's all about ancient synagogues in Israel, short of the article title. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

That list has now been changed and all synagogues in Israel removed from it, making this proposal unnecessary. By the way, Wadi Qelt is in the West Bank, so should not be in this article.

There is an alternative: merge this article into the Palestine article, after renaming that article to Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region). Debresser (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

But, what is the purpose of such an article "Synagogues in the Palestine region"? Is this a notable topic for Jews or Arabs? For Jews the only meaning is synagogues in the Land of Israel, whereas for Palestinian Arabs, the grouping of synagogues in Palestine region doesn't provide any meaning. And my opinion is that Palestine region and LAnd of Israel are NOT the same and actually differ pretty much in their geographic and historic definition.GreyShark (dibra) 13:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Disagree with both Sir Joseph's proposal and Debresser's alternative, because the borders of Palestine region and Land of Israel differ (and differ quiet much in various definitions). This would also be non-standard with other "Synagogues in <Foo>" articles, typically indicating modern states and countries. With current removal of duplicates - it seems a fair fix to the problem.GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

"The Land of Israel" is a religious term, the commonly used term to describe that area is "Palestine" and that should be what an English encyclopedia uses when discussing the region. This article should be merged there with a section on ones that are in the modern state of Israel and a section on ones in the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 15:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Nableezy As I told you elsewhere, and you know this very well, just choose to ignore it for POV reasons, "Palestine" may have been the name of the region in the past, but definitely not in the 21st century. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both Nableezy and Greyshark, that the terms "Land of Israel" and "Palestine (region)" are ill defined, but in my opinion that is not a problem and the article, whatever it be called, could include all synagogues in the area, loosely interpreted. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You dont agree with me, because I never said that. Your lack of self-awareness on what is being ignored as "POV" notwithstanding, Palestine is the standard terminology for scholars discussing topics such as ancient synagogues built in that land area. nableezy - 15:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. "In Israel" vs. "in Palestine" are ill-defined and yet are separate and distinct entities in the minds of many people. If gray areas exist in terms of ancient synagogues, then articles' contents can include explanations where necessary. These should not be merged.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  05:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice argument. Which is precisely why I held that "Ancient synagogues in Palestine" should be "disambiguated" to "Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region)", because in present times, for many people "Palestine" means the state, and not the region. Debresser (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

And I initially agreed with you; however, one editor in the RM debate said something that, for me, hit the nail on the head: [Some readers] would see a Wikipedia article titled Ancient synagogues in Palestine (region) and think that there is some region by the name of Ancient synagogues in Palestine. A parenthetical disambiguator must, to be clear, apply to the entire page title, not just to part of it. So there must be a better way. You may have suggested a better title with Ancient synagogues in the Palestine region, but since that was not part of your first proposal, and since the entire debate was highly controversial, I felt that the better title you suggested would need its very own RM. Since I closed it "no consensus", another RM can be opened immediately per WP:RMCI.  What's in your palette? Paine  16:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I somehow overlooked that argument in the discussion, or didn't understand it. Perhaps indeed a new move proposal is in order. As a suggestion, might I ask that you add the reasoning you explained here in your closing summary there, perhaps? Debresser (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

As you wish.  What's in your palette? Paine  06:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Pleasure! Paine  

• Comment - there doesn't seem to be a consensus here, so the merge tag is removed.GreyShark (dibra) 12:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Moreover, I wouldn't mind a formal closing of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"in Israel"

"in Israel" does not include the West Bank, the Golan Heights, or the Gaza Strip. Ive removed the entries that I know are not in Israel, though I may have missed some. nableezy - 21:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

That is arguable. Especially since many of them are actually being administered by the Israel Antiques Authority. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And since it is arguable, I would suggest that, rather than remove them, explain them and apply reliable sources. Wouldn't that be more objective and encyclopedic?  What's in your palette? Paine  07:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I could easily bring sources that show they are in Israel. The problem being that Israeli sources will not be accepted, because of the claim that the Israeli point of view is not accepted by the international community. Debresser (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As per WP:RS, such sources, if reliable, are acceptable. If they are challenged, then the sources used to challenge them, if reliable, are also acceptable. The article content may then explain any contradictory/opinionated/biased information from those sources.  What's in your palette? Paine  11:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Places outside of Israel are not in Israel regardless the presence of Israeli soldiers and settlers. Sepsis II (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Still, Wikipedia is all about reliable sources.

We could, of course, add some explanation at the beginning of the article. Like the phrase "The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.", which is standard usage on all Israeli settlements articles. In the article proper, we could divide between disputed and non-disputed. Opinions? Debresser (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

We could divide between Israel and Israeli occupied territory if the article was named Ancient synagogues in Israel and Israeli occupied territories. Sepsis II (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I find it interesting that you would want so much precision. Please see Talk:Ancient synagogues in Palestine where I have repeatedly asked for more precision myself. I am about to post a new proposal there later tonight.

I doubt this article will be renamed to what you propose. Still, as said above, as soon I or anybody else do our homework, synagogues from the territories can be added, and the only questions are basically if we should add some explanation and if we should divide them. So I would be interested in your opinion according to that scenario. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the title I suggested would follow wiki guidelines, it may be synthesis. Sepsis II (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. We don't add synagogues that are not in Israel to a synagogues in Israel article. If we want to do that we have to change the title or give it a try at lala-land where the streams are of chocolate...--TMCk (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the attempt at sarcasm you are referred to WP:SARCASM. As far as the rest of your post, you'll be proven wrong. As I said, Wikipedia is about reliable sources, and not your or my POV. Debresser (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure. RSs outside lala-land we use.--TMCk (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Wait, it isn't arguable. There may be an argument on the Golan (a very weak argument that the overhang majority of sources have settled), but Israel doesn't even claim the West Bank to be in Israel, much less Gaza. And for the Golan we have an overwhelming majority of reliable sources that say flatly it is not in Israel as well. Wikipedia can't be claiming things are in Israel that even Israel does not claim to be in Israel. That's just foolish. And regarding well I can bring sources that say x synagogue in the West Bank is in Israel, they may well be reliable for the architecture and history of x synagogue, they wouldn't however be reliable for the borders of Israel. These obscure articles should not require us to deal with this same nonsense over and over. You want to include the West Bank in Israel? Fine, try it at West Bank first and see if an article with more than 8 watchers will let that fly. nableezy - 23:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What isn't arguable? WP:RS? Agree. Please also notice that it wasn't me who said this, but an outsider to our irritating disagreements. Debresser (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that's a response to your first comment that it is arguable that these places are not in Israel. nableezy - 23:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is. The fact is that there are those who argue it. I agree that most of them are from Israel, but still, legal scholars are legal scholars, and you have to respect academic diversity. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just as much as little as in "Creation science".--TMCk (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

what exactly don't you get about the 'fact' that Israel does not claim the West Bank to be in Israel? Why exactly would Wikipedia be more expansionistly Zionist than Israel? You want Wikipedia to proclaim the West Bank as being in Israel? Fine, try it at Talk:West Bank and if it works there then we can add those places here. nableezy - 00:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Ari Ashkenazi Synagogue

The title of this article is "Ancient". This synagogue isn't "ancient". It's not even medieval. It dates from the Renaissance period. Old and ancient may be used to mean the same thing in common parlance, but shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. There are arguments about when "Ancient" ends, but pretty much everyone agrees it's somewhere between 476 and 800 CE, with most preferring the earlier of those dates. See our article Ancient history. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

2nd Temple period synagogues

I made a larger edit today, which was surprisingly contested and almost entirely reverted by my dear colleague Debresser.

Here are my arguments, one by one.

Making a clear distinction between State of Israel and Land of Israel in the scope of the two pages dealing with Ancient synagogues in Israel and Ancient synagogues in Palestine is more than needed - I looked up smth. on the "Israel" page and thought I'm reading a Hamas brochure till I understood that it's an (as such almost useless) sub-page of the larger "Palestine" page, which was only mentioned at "Also see", a category easily missed by most.

The pre-/post- 70 CE distinction is essential. Pre-70 CE synagogues are of high interest to both Jews (before Yavneh and Yohanan ben Zakkai they only served as place of reading the Bible, not for prayer), and the Christians (Jesus preached in many of them).

Number of synagogues from over two thousand years ago excavated so far: in the Land of Israel there are 4 at the most: Umm el-Umdan at Modi'in, Tulul Abu el-Alayik (very uncertain), Gamla (contested by some), Modi'in Illit (little published). Not over 2000 years old, but still 2nd Temple Period (so pre-70 CE) are a maximum of 7 more: Wadi Hamam (Nahal Arbel), City of David ("Theodotus synagogue"), Magdala, Masada, Herodium, posibly Capernaum, and Tel Rechesh in Nahal Tabor. That's all we know with some degree of certainty. Qumran, Jacob Ory's second, ghost synagogue at Chorazin, and Alexander Onn's at Shuafat only deserve a mention if one wants to be over-inclusive.

Synagogues securely dated to before the destruction of the Temple: such do NOT include Capernaum and Qumran.

• Capernaum (the 1st c. CE black structure underneath the 4th c. "white synagogue" has not been excavated except for some minor areas, it is defined as a synagogue only based on weak circumstancial evidence (the principle "once holy, always holy"), with very little archaeological work to support it. Plausible? Yes. "Securely dated" - certainly not.
• Qumran: there is no proof whatsoever that any of the excavated rooms served as a synagogue; there are 2 large rooms which MIGHT have served a cultic purpose, so weak conjecture, nothing else. One can expect a Jewish sect to have a synagogue, but there is no archaeological proof for any of the structures there being one.

Dabura leads to a silly comics figure (sorry to the fans), the mention "Golan" needs to be added, and there is no page on that subject as yet.

Quod erat demonstrandum. Arminden (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Dabura fixed.[21] No problems here. Debresser (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this[22] lay your worries to rest? I simply implemented the same solution as on Ancient synagogues in Palestine. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Link to Ancient synagogues in Palestine very much needed

@Debresser: Hi my friend. As you sure have noticed, this article gets far less attention and updates than Ancient synagogues in Palestine. Also, it's very obvious that that one is indeed a much wider topic: its geographic area is defined as Palestine (region), whereas this one is covering the State of Israel, not the Land of Israel. So it's a clear fact, no space for discussion, right? And if somebody follows common sense and is looking up sites like those from, say, Qumran or Gamla, in this article, they'll be stuck: not a word... A hattag linking this to Ancient synagogues in Palestine [region] will help them find what they're looking for. And that's what matters. Boycotting the overrated term "Palestine" for whatever reason, is actually boycotting the WP user, and then why waste time on WP? It's still not about "fighting the good cause"; it's only about the user. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC) PS: what the heck happened? Is it my fault? No clue.

I hadn't paid attention that Palestine there is defined as the region, nor did your edit specify that. So let me try this again. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What TIME PERIOD does the article cover?

Like always, politics got the best of us and we forgot the essential issue: DEFINE YOUR TOPIC WELL. So, what is "ancient" here?

"Middle Ages" is not a term commonly used in the periodisation of the Land of Israel history. It was created to fit European realities (breakdown of Western Roman Empire and loss of Graeco-Roman civilisation, feudal system, etc.). The common terms here are: Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader (cum Ayyubid), Mamluk, Ottoman, etc. period. The Crusaders did indeed import medieval European society to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but that was it (1099-1291). Since the lead indication "Early medieval" wasn't sourced anyway, I replaced it with what I believe was meant by it. But was it? I set in Early Islamic period. Who feels academically up to the task to define "ancient synagogue"? Good luck & cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I now discovered that the dedicated project The Bornblum Eretz Israel Synagogues website, run by the Kinneret College, separates between "ancient synagogues" from the "Roman and Byzantine periods", and "late synagogues" - "selected historically significant synagogues from the Middle Ages through the beginning of the 20th century" (yes, they do use the term Middle Ages, so there's no consensus there). Quote: "The number of identified ancient synagogues reaches a peak in the Roman and Byzantine periods, mainly from the 3rd through 7th centuries CE, and decreases during the 7th through 10th centuries with the collapse of the Jewish population. ... From the Middle Ages to the early modern period, the size of the Jewish population in the Land of Israel was relatively limited... The relatively few synagogues, which were established and functioned in the Land of Israel during this period...". Maybe we should follow the example and define our time span as C1 BCE - C10 CE. Or subdivide into several periods? The English use of the term "ancient" is much more flexible than in other languages... Arminden (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)