Talk:Temple Warning inscription

"A holy place/Hieron"

The lead should be returned to its previous state "an inscription from the Second Temple in Jerusalem". The term Hieron is a Greek term which is certainly not the commonname for the second temple or its sanctuary. A similar warning existed in Latin (for Romans) as well. The sources already in the article translate the location of the found inscription as "the Sanctuary". So my proposal is to use the following text:

The Temple Warning inscription, also known as the Temple Balustrade inscription or the Soreg inscription, is an inscription that hung outside the Sanctuary of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, discovered in 1871 by Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau and published by the Palestine Exploration Fund.

Additionally, the modification of a cited quotation is obviously unacceptable. The cited source uses "the temple" as a translation for the Greek Hieron, though more sources use sanctuary. I'm fine with either, but in no way is it ok to deliberately modify a quoted translation.

So there are quite a few issues that were recently introduced to the article. Thankfully, this provides an opportunity to improve the article based on the ensuing research. Drsmoo (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

this makes sense to me. I agree with the proposed changes. The 6th Floor (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal. This article should follow the highest quality sources, such as Bickerman.

Holy Place is used by Bickerman, and is more a accurate translation than sanctuary.

I can live with removing the translation from the first sentence, but then we should include the greek-to-english translations of the three key words in the Bickerman quote subsequently. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

.....Bickerman translates it as "sanctuary". "This may be rendered as follows: "No alien may enter within the balustrade around the sanctuary and the enclosure. Whoever is caught, on him self shall he put blame for the death which will ensue." - Bickerman

He also describes the inscription as belonging to Herod's temple repeatedly throughout the article.

It is also translated as "sanctuary" by the Jewish Enclopedia ""No foreigner may pass within the lattice and wall around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught, the guilt for the death which will follow will be his own"

And by Segal "No foreigner is to enter within the forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death"

And by Zeitlin "No alien may enter behind the slabs around the sanctuary and enclosure. Whoever is caught, on himself shall be put the blame for the death that shall ensue." Drsmoo (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Drsmoo. In general, when a change is reverted, the burden of proof of consensus is on the changing editor. I have therefore undone the recent edit. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: please explain why you reversed much more than just what was being objected to above? And also why you did not implement Drsmoo’s sanctuary proposal?

It should be good to have you here, as the more eyes the better, but only if you are going to help take the article forwards not backwards.

And because of this aggressive “ganging up” behavior, Drsmoo hasn’t bothered to improve the article like he suggested. Any momentum we had has now dissipated.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

If I reverted too much, I shall be perfectly happy to restore whatever is needed. Would you mind telling me precisely what I reverted despite consensus to keep? Debresser (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Debresser: I just looked into the edit history and see that you and The 6th Floor were brought here by the canvassing at WP:JUDAISM. I don’t mind so long as you’re willing to spend the time to discuss this properly.

Your question is wrong - you should be reverting only the pieces that have been objected to. We obviously don’t need explicit consensus for every component of every edit. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, for full disclosure I started this article and have made most if not all of the substantial edits since then. I would much rather see this article reach a high quality level rather than have progress be blocked by partisan squabbles. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Added agreed upon first sentence and new paragraph with a little bit of restructuring. Regarding citations needed for alternate names, the alternate names were added by the user who then placed the citation needed tags, which is a bit strange. There are definitely examples of use for both alternate names, however perhaps the user who added the tags can provide the source used to initially justify their inclusion. Drsmoo (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Citations are still needed. The template instructions clearly state "Remove the template when you add a citation for a statement." Onceinawhile (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So...you added information, then said that the information you added isn't properly cited, and you are now demanding that others cite your information for you. Is that correct? Why did you add information that wasn't supported by citations? @Debresser and @The 6th Floor, what do you think of this?

Drsmoo (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC) I think info should be cited, and it should be easy to provide the cites. But as Dr. Smoo writes, I am wondering why Onceinawhile doesn't do that himself- he obviously has the source that used the other names, since he added this info to the article. The 6th Floor (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Because that was five years ago. Looking at it now, I’m not convinced that the sources I see who use those terms are appropriately scholarly in nature. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. I added a scholarly source for one of them. The 6th Floor (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)