Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Mausoleum of Abu Huraira

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Mausoleum of Abu Huraira

edit
(
)
The portico facade, 2010
The portico facade, 2010

Moved to mainspace by Huldra (talk) and Onceinawhile (talk). Nominated by Huldra (talk) at 22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC).

  • New enough (but please in future give date moved from draft), long enough, reads well (though a bit confusing on the actual building history, or it its early phases), AGF on hook quote. Earwig finds nothing - or rather one one source that has not been used but should be - I've added a note on the article talk. GTG - signing late. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest to wait till the RFC end to solve any NPOV issues. Shrike (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • There was no icon given to the original, unsigned review, but the article should not be approved until problematic sentences like The formation of Jewish sacred place was based on the argument that many Jewish sacred burials were Islamized during history of the region. have been fixed, and the tags in the article related to the RFC have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry; that was me. It was meant to be GTG at the time, but there has been a fair deal of contentious editing since my review, including Shrike adding the sentence you have rightly highlighted as near-gibberish. Johnbod (talk)
  • Note DYK hook (and to a lesser extent the article) contains some rather strong POV language. The tomb is located within Israel proper (deep withing pre 1967 lines), and the tomb is an officially designated Jewish shrine as Rabban Gamaliel's Tomb which is also how it appears on contemporary maps. Stating the tomb has been described as one the finest in Palestine may confuse the modern reader. That this statement was made by a modern writer in 2001, is an indication of possible bias in the source chosen.Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Sigh. That quote is from a Professor in Islamic Archaeology, in UK. That is about as RS as you can get. That you-don't-like-it: yeah, we get it. But unless you have a WP:RS who says that the present language is "strong POV language", then the above is just your 2 cents, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
      • RS on Islamic Archaeology perhaps (have not checked his creds). Not on geopolitics, where he may have a POV (or his original quote may have been clear in referencing the historic region, if so this has been lost in the quotation). Stating that a location in one country is in a diffrrent entity is tantamount to denying the existence of the former - which is highly POVish.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Actually, no. It is rather standard Archaeology etc, to use the name Palestine, as it has been since the 19th century. It does not refer to a country, but a region, Palestine, Huldra (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
          • 1. This is not used by all authors. 2. This is improper for DYK, without context, the current quote to a reader passing by implies that this is not in Israel.Icewhiz (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
            • Did you see the article it leads to, Palestine, or without piping: Palestine (region)? It clearly shows that the area includes Israel. Yes, yes, we know that some are allergic to the word "Palestine"...that doesn't mean that WP:RS are allergic to it, too. Huldra (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
              • The article is in a better state in this regard in that Israel is in the first sentence (I do however intend to expand the Jewish history and present use). The DYK text is a problem. Using a piped link to a meaning that is not the one usually used, while omitting Israel, conveys an impression to the reader that does not look at the source or click every link. This could be a very nice article and DYK if POV were not asserted.Icewhiz (talk) 03:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Huldra, and Icewhiz: now that the RFC is done, perhaps we can progress here. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is good to go, any more objections, anyone? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod would need to complete his review below—note the issues raised in his most recent post—and supply the necessary icon, or we'd need to find a new reviewer if he's no longer interested in continuing. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The hook should be clear on this being in Israel / a Jewish site. I'm OK with ALT1, or any other alternative that doesn't misrepresent a site in modern day Israel as something else.Icewhiz (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • GTG. Text now improved since first review. Review points the same. Either hook ok. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, the quote is an exact quote by an expert in the area, with the link to the Palestine (region). The article itself clearly states in the first sentence that it is in Israel. Im not sure how much weight we should put on imbeciles who cannot bother reading the article? Huldra (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm very sure that the use of "imbeciles" for people who read a hook but aren't hooked into reading the article is beyond inappropriate. Hooks leave impressions, even if the reader is not moved to click on the bold article link, which is why DYK typically insists on them standing on their own—we're placing their text on the main page for everyone to see. It's going to be very hard to argue for either existing hook after that unfortunate comment; I suggest you create a new hook that either drops Palestine or incorporates Israel if you wish this to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset so Huldra needs to create a new hook because of an "unfortunate comment"? Is that how DYK works? Huldra is following a source and applying it appropriately. Isn't that all we should be concerned about?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • TheGracefulSlick, if that's really all you took from my comment, there isn't much point in continuing this conversation, especially as you seem think I'm resistant to the existence of Palestine, which is untrue. Huldra had to create a new hook anyway, but she vitiated her argument by referencing "imbeciles". I'll let Icewhiz and Yoninah weigh in on your proposed new ALT hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Huldra I see no POV issues with your hooks but would you be okay with this: :ALT2: ... that the Mausoleum of Abu Huraira (pictured), also known as the Tomb of Rabbi Gamaliel of Yavne, has been described as "one of the finest domed mausoleums" in the region of Palestine? It appears there is undue resistance from commenters here over the existence of Palestine; trimming the quote and adding this descriptor should get the ball rolling again.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    The problem in the hooks presented, as well as the article itself prior to rather major balancing, is denial of Israel and the ancient (as opposed to post 48) Jewish Significance of the site. To be constructive, I'm suggesting:
    ALT3: ... that this tomb (pictured) in Yavne is claimed as the site of burial of Abu Hurairah by Muslims and Gamaliel II by Jews despite both claims being highly unlikely? Source: Taragan, 2002, p.117Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with Icewhiz proposal its interesting hook and its most WP:NPOV --Shrike (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, ALT2 is a good compromise, but ALT3 is much hookier. Yoninah (talk) 11:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The article has clearly stated the building is in Israel since the first mainspace version, in what was a very short 1st sentence. I'm seeing the article become a POV football, especially from Icewhiz. All hooks above are ok (on AGF on hook ref) but ALT3 is perhaps the hookiest. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • TheGracefulSlick, yeah, ALT2 is an acceptable compromise, IMO. The ALT3 is really dealing with secondary issues, ie, not what I would want in a hook, (however "hookie" it might be) Huldra (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The identity of who is buried in a tomb and who venerates the tomb.... Secondary?! I would think this is the primary subject of a tomb.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the page creator prefers to emphasize the architectural quality of the tomb. Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It should be clear from the article that nobody knows who was buried in the tomb. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yoninah is correct. In the Middle East there is no shortage of churches which have been turned into mosques, or mosques which have been turned into synagogues. What remain, or is pretty constant, is the architectural style of the building, Huldra (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
About which you actually say very little! Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Johnbod, sigh, big sigh, I actually agree. Besides the Mamluk inscriptions we really should have expanded where the architectural styles were taken from...we started on talk..but then this whole process was derailed, (Alas, the Mamluk inscription are nice though?) Huldra (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Johnbod what should happen now? Do you need to approve the latest hook? Huldra has given the OK for ALT2.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I approved all 3 hooks above. Johnbod (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Per the earlier comments, I have struck the original hook and ALT1. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I oppose all other hooks except hook 3 I think its the best and most interesting.--Shrike (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This isn't a !vote and you haven't contributed anything to this discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Shrike contributed to the article - wmflabs stats for article - which required balancing (e.g. the initial version, [1], stated that attributed Jewish significance only started in 1948 (as opposed to the 13th century) and didn't specify anything about current facilities and use beyond this).Icewhiz (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Icewhiz, most "new" religious places are constructed where there have been a religious place earlier. Typically, old churches in Scandinavia were constructed on places where they earlier had worshipped Odin, the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe was constructed on an old Aztec sacred site, etc, etc. Every little village in Israel/Palestine had a sacred place/Mukam. That any significant Muslim construction was to be done on a formerly/already "holy place", is to be expected. (Heh, just look at the history of the Kaaba...) What is notable here, though, is that not a single stone, AFAIK, in the Mausoleum of Abu Huraira, have been found to been taken from any Jewish sanctuary. And this, even though we know that the Mamluks had no scruples using spolia for their construction, see eg the reuse of Crusader material in the Yibna Bridge or Jisr Jindas. There is a difference between a place having a religious significance, and a building. Where I live, certain glens, or open fields, in the wood used to be "holy", in the old days. Should that be mentioned, in the hook, of, say, a 700 year old grand religious building constructed in such a place? I think not. Huldra (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mausoleum_of_Abu_Huraira&oldid=813976848"