Talk:Mosaic of Rehob
![]() | Mosaic of Rehob has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 3, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Mosaic of Rehob appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Article by excavator/researcher? High academic level, but NO REFERENCES!
editSo-called "references" are nothing but (well-funded) commentaries by the author of the article (cannot even speak of a "Wikipedia editor" in this case). Great resource, except if one wants to quote it - or if it's to be judged by Wikipedia rules, which I'm not a great fan of, but... there are limits to freelancing. I am sure the author has published this content in at least one paper; just quote that paper and it's all halakhically kosher. PS: the English is great, except for some transliteration errors, which makes it look like the work of a possibly Hebrew native-speaker with good enough practice in academic English. But why do we need to guess? Arminden (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Stupid of me - why didn't I look straight away at the History page? It's all done by our friend, @Davidbena:! Hi David. So, great work, just please, don't imagine anyone will read the huge number of sources indicated at "bibliography" to find out what bit of info is supported by which author. References are references, and should ideally be quickly reachable online, and bibliography at WP is mainly an apparatus that helps avoid giving all the data at each reference, when the sources are quoted several times with varying page numbers. As it is now, I have to take your word for every bit of fact OR interpretation contained in the article. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Date: 6th c.
edit@Davidbena: Hi! I don't get it: you write that the inscription is from the 3rd-7th c. and link to an Israel Museum link, where all I can see is: 6th c.
Second, the lead defines the topic of the article as "Mosaic of Reḥob, also known as the Tel Rehov inscription and Baraita of the Boundaries". I understand from this that all 3 names refer to the narthex inscription ONLY, not to all mosaic fragments from the synagogue, surviving from all its 3 phases. So 6th c., or if Vitto or anyone still has doubts, 6th-7th. Apart from the date of the halakhical text, this is essential as it defines what the article is all about. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, all three names refer to the narthex inscription (mosaic) only, not to the plastered fragments also found in situ and which are basically a repeat of the mosaic. By the way, there are no mosaic fragments, as the mosaic was found completely intact.Davidbena (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- As for the conflicting dates given for the mosaic, I will provide the source, as the date of the Mosaic is disputed by scholars. Yehuda Feliks, Professor of Botany at Bar-Ilan University, is he who disputes the age of the mosaic, and writes emphatically, in his book "The Jerusalem Talmud (Talmud Yerushalmi) Tractate Shevi'it -- Critical edition (1986), pp. 454–455, that the Jerusalem Talmud's redaction was no later than the end of the 3rd-century CE, and that the making of the Mosaic of Rehob was immediately thereafter, rather than hundreds of years later, as espoused by other scholars.Davidbena (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- There are multiple sources giving different opinions as to the age of the mosaic. Each source is mentioned, but not to decide in favor of any particular source, I have simply mentioned the range of respective opinions, namely, 3rd-7th c. The mosaic today is housed at the Israel Museum, for which reason we have also linked to the museum. Actually, the three names refer only to the mosaic itself, not to its fragments. The mosaic was found in its entirety. Nothing was missing; everything intact. It was cut into sections and reassembled at the Israel Museum, where it is today.Davidbena (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Original research and primary sources
editThis article contains an excessive amount of material cited directly to ancient primary sources such as Talmud and Mishna. These sources need to be replaced or augmented by modern secondary sources. If that's not possible, the material should be removed. Zerotalk 07:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mosaic of Rehob/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm happy to review this article. I'll be using the template below. If you have any questions as we go, you can just ask here or on my talk page, either's fine! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note that due to the holidays, this will be a slow review! Apologies for the delay, but I will keep working on it steadily. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your updates and edits - I am returning to this review shortly! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies for the slow pace of the review - this is very far from my area of expertise, so I've been trying to read up a little to make sure I can properly assess neutrality and the sources used. I've been learning a lot and having fun with it, but it means it's taking some time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please recall that as you go through this with an eye on readability and comprehensibility, most readers will neither understand modern or ancient Hebrew, nor be familiar with halakhic law, as you mention. Try to view it as someone who is approaching the topic fresh. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with that statement, and I will do my best to make this as clear and legible as possible, given the complexity of the subject matters addressed. I can assure you, however, that Jewish seminary students will quickly understand the terms. One of the reasons that I have added explanatory notes (and which, at your directives, I will soon separate from the academic notes) is to assist our ordinary reader so that he/she can understand this matter as adeptly as possible.Davidbena (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks - definitely good to recall that our encyclopedia is for a general audience, not seminary students! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with that statement, and I will do my best to make this as clear and legible as possible, given the complexity of the subject matters addressed. I can assure you, however, that Jewish seminary students will quickly understand the terms. One of the reasons that I have added explanatory notes (and which, at your directives, I will soon separate from the academic notes) is to assist our ordinary reader so that he/she can understand this matter as adeptly as possible.Davidbena (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Please recall that as you go through this with an eye on readability and comprehensibility, most readers will neither understand modern or ancient Hebrew, nor be familiar with halakhic law, as you mention. Try to view it as someone who is approaching the topic fresh. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies for the slow pace of the review - this is very far from my area of expertise, so I've been trying to read up a little to make sure I can properly assess neutrality and the sources used. I've been learning a lot and having fun with it, but it means it's taking some time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your updates and edits - I am returning to this review shortly! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
@Ganesha811:, I wish to inform you and others that I have completed the task of bringing this article up to the standard that was requested of me, and now you and others are free to do with the article as you wish. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to improve this article.Davidbena (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I will take another look! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I just received a message on my Talk Page informing me that the GAN has been rejected for what the reviewer thought were "unnecessary" block quotes, when, in actuality, these are not ordinary block quotes at all, but rather a full and complete translation of the entire text of the mosaic, just as full and complete translations appear for the Declaration of Independence (Mexico) and for the United States Declaration of Independence, just for an example. Perhaps it was because I broke down the text into smaller sections, to make it easier to discuss their import. What, in your opinion, should I do to make the article more agreeable to all, and, yet still, easy to comprehend?Davidbena (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- HI David, that message was for your nomination of a different article (Mawza Exile), not this one. I am still reviewing this article and we are on track here. In this article, I do not find the block quotes egregious. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wow! I'm relieved. My mistake. I confused his reply to this article. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- HI David, that message was for your nomination of a different article (Mawza Exile), not this one. I am still reviewing this article and we are on track here. In this article, I do not find the block quotes egregious. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi. I just received a message on my Talk Page informing me that the GAN has been rejected for what the reviewer thought were "unnecessary" block quotes, when, in actuality, these are not ordinary block quotes at all, but rather a full and complete translation of the entire text of the mosaic, just as full and complete translations appear for the Declaration of Independence (Mexico) and for the United States Declaration of Independence, just for an example. Perhaps it was because I broke down the text into smaller sections, to make it easier to discuss their import. What, in your opinion, should I do to make the article more agreeable to all, and, yet still, easy to comprehend?Davidbena (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- The article now meets the GA standard and passes! Congrats to the nominator, Davidbena, for their hard work and many improvements, as well as to anyone else who may have worked on the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. |
| |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
... that people returning from the Babylonian captivity to the Holy Land and to their places of settlement in the Holy Land at that time left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?Source: Mishnah (Tractate Shebiith 6:1 )- Reviewed:
Created by Davidbena (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mosaic of Rehob, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting: - n
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @Davidbena: Welcome to DYK! Now, when I say the hook isn't interesting, i mean that the hook is confusing. I'm not understanding what the hook is supposed to say and I think that's because the hook doesn't have any links to other wikipedia articles in it. Also Mosaic of Rehob Isn't linked in the hook either so i'm not sure what the mosaic is. Also, i'm not sure what citation that's supposed to be as i'm not used to the citation style of the article. Also, I'm stumped specfically on "left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?" because i don't know what you mean by "indelible mark", what "Jewish nation", and what "certain religious practices". Also the hook is too long, it's at 220 characters when it should be less than 200. I know I said a lot but hopefully it doesn't scare you. I saw this "The mosaic contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text" in the lead that could work as two possible hooks if this doesn't work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- So, should I go ahead and re-submit a nomination for this page "Mosaic of Rehob" at DYK, using your suggested hook? I'm willing to do so. I'll also link the name "Mosaic of Rehob". If you give me the go-ahead, I will re-submit it, with the hook reading this time as follows:
"Did you know that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?" Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: I might have confused you but that's not what I'm asking. I'm mainly asking you to make your hooks more specific and do add some links to other wikipedia pages not to do a whole other nomination. Like for example, something like this.
"... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?"
- Though if we are going to work with this hook, there are two minor problems I kind of have with it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, that's also fine. Can I empower you to help me with this? Your suggestions are good, and since I have never done this before, you seem to be better fit to fix all the small problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Here's my two problems.
- It says "in any mosaic in the region" but what region? I can't tell if you mean the palestine region, the holy land, or some other region I don't know about.
- The hook needs to be stated in the article, not just the lead, with an inline citation. I might be dumb but I can't see these mentioned in the article at all other than the lead.
- These are generally pretty easy to fix and answer so I hope to see them done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- The obvious answer to that is "... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any Hebrew mosaic in Palestine." I will make the correction now in the main article, and I'll find a way to incorporate the text, besides in the lead, also somewhere else.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke:, At your directives, I have just now amended the text to read "...in Palestine," instead of "in the region," and I have also repeated the claim that it is the largest Hebrew mosaic found in Israel, with a source, in the section entitled "Description of mosaic".Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Alright that's pretty much it. Now, since the hook we worked on was technically my hook, I'm going have to give this review to someone else since i'm not allowed to review my own hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- That should be fine. Good luck!Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- Alright that's pretty much it. Now, since the hook we worked on was technically my hook, I'm going have to give this review to someone else since i'm not allowed to review my own hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Here's my two problems.
- Okay, that's also fine. Can I empower you to help me with this? Your suggestions are good, and since I have never done this before, you seem to be better fit to fix all the small problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: I might have confused you but that's not what I'm asking. I'm mainly asking you to make your hooks more specific and do add some links to other wikipedia pages not to do a whole other nomination. Like for example, something like this.
@Onegreatjoke:, Wikipedia allows only seven days to submit a nomination for DYK after an article has reached "Good Article" status. Should I re-submit the nomination before this time-frame has expired?Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- You've already submitted the nomination you don't need to submit it again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena and Onegreatjoke: BuySomeApples (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @BuySomeApples: How about "... that the Mosaic of Rehob is the oldest known Talmudic text?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I like it! @Onegreatjoke and Davidbena: I'm approving this hook if there's no objections. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine with me.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena, Onegreatjoke, and BuySomeApples: The wording of this hook is not OK. First of all, the passage cited in the footnote does not seem to directly support the claim that this is the oldest known Talmudic text. (And ideally, it would be better if you had additional sources verifying the "oldest known" claim, including one more recent than 1975. Are we sure no other older texts have been identified since then?) Furthermore, isn't it awkward to say that it's simply "the oldest known Talmudic text"? What about the (central text of the) Talmud itself? (I appreciate the effort in simplifying the hook, but it now seems completely out of context.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching this and putting it back on hold @Cielquiparle: I interpreted "This is the first time that we have access to any Talmudic text inscribed close to the time of its inception" to mean that it was the oldest surviving text. That's probably a better wording anyway since I see how this hook is unclear. I don't think the original Talmudic texts are still extant but I agree that a clearer / more recent source would be good. @Davidbena: what do you think? BuySomeApples (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps a clarification is needed. When the article says it is the "oldest Talmudic text," the implication is that it is the oldest EXTANT Talmudic text. The only Talmudic texts that come closest to it are the excerpts of the Jerusalem Talmud discovered in the Cairo Geniza and which date back to circa 800 of our Common Era. And while the Jerusalem Talmud was originally compiled earlier, no extant manuscripts of that early work are available.Davidbena (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: do you know of any more recent sources that confirm the mosaic is still the oldest extant example of a Talmudic text? I definitely think the wording in the hook and article should be clarified to specify either surviving or extant. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to add "oldest surviving Talmudic text." No one disputes this, as the Babylonian Talmud only came into existence in 500 CE, although the oldest known text of that Talmud is the Munich Ms. dating to the 14th century (1342 CE). The Jerusalem Talmud, although written about 200 years earlier, in circa 300 CE, has no surviving original texts, but only copies made some centuries later.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: do you know of any more recent sources that confirm the mosaic is still the oldest extant example of a Talmudic text? I definitely think the wording in the hook and article should be clarified to specify either surviving or extant. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena, Onegreatjoke, and BuySomeApples: The wording of this hook is not OK. First of all, the passage cited in the footnote does not seem to directly support the claim that this is the oldest known Talmudic text. (And ideally, it would be better if you had additional sources verifying the "oldest known" claim, including one more recent than 1975. Are we sure no other older texts have been identified since then?) Furthermore, isn't it awkward to say that it's simply "the oldest known Talmudic text"? What about the (central text of the) Talmud itself? (I appreciate the effort in simplifying the hook, but it now seems completely out of context.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @BuySomeApples: How about "... that the Mosaic of Rehob is the oldest known Talmudic text?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)