Talk:Mosaic of Rehob

Article by excavator/researcher? High academic level, but NO REFERENCES!

So-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Date: 6th c.

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Original research and primary sources

This 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)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thank you for your updates and edits - I am returning to this review shortly! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks - definitely good to recall that our encyclopedia is for a general audience, not seminary students! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I will take another look! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wow! I'm relieved. My mistake. I confused his reply to this article. Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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.
  • IABot tagged a couple of dead links - please update and fix if you can (just search for "dead link" in the page and you'll see them).
I have already removed the dead links.Davidbena (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I think it is necessary to separate the citations from the notes. The citation style used here, in which some citations are simple and others have complex, varied notes with 5-6 sources cited, leads to confusion. We have a huge variety of sources and the lengthier notes strike me as being WP:SYNTH or even WP:OR in places (some particular ones I've noted below). I know it will be work to separate references from notes, but I think it's necessary to get the article to GA. This is also a good opportunity to begin treating some of the most ancient sources differently than the modern academic sources. I understand that some of the ancient sources are reliable for their interpretations of rabbinic law and translations of ancient Hebrew, but those interpretations should be described in text or in separate notes, not in citations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First, I thank you for your critical analysis of these sources (notes) and I have begun to fix them. Take, for example, Hai Gaon's commentary in this diff, how it has been improved, and the expanded footnote #32 here, and where, at first, we mentioned only Josephus, without showing the connection to the statement made in the article. I have endeavored to show the chronology of demographic changes in the city and which gave rise to Beit She'an's special status in Jewish halakhic law. As for some of your other references that need correcting, you've mentioned Josephus in notes #66, #143 and #148, but for some reason, my computer shows me notes unrelated to Josephus. I will go through the text and try to discover what you may have had in mind. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, due to your edits, the reference numbers have shifted. You can use this permanent link to an older version as a reference to see which ones I mean with those numbers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a ton of duplicate links - generally another page should be linked twice at most, once in the lead and once in the body. For instance, Land of Israel and Beit She'an are both linked twice in the lead - the second link should be removed for each. If you don't have the duplinks tool installed, it highlights all the duplicate links and makes eliminating them a lot easier.
I have, in accordance with your directives, deleted the links where there was concern about over-linking.Davidbena (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like there's a bunch more in the body - I recommend using the tool to highlight them, but to start with, there's Jerusalem Talmud, demai, Judah HaNasi, and Babylonian captivity. Looks like about 12-15 total.
I will try to fix them all, by "de-linking." Meanwhile, I tried to install the "duplinks" app, but without success. I must be doing something wrong there. Anyway, I'll just go through the page and remove the over-linked words. Most will have to be done tomorrow, as it is late here in my country.Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm seeing Sebaste, Judea, Galilee, Dor, Caesarea, Paneas, demai, and quite a few more still as overlinked. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my ability, I have just now removed the double-links to these words. I hope I haven't missed any.Davidbena (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811:, All the issues that you raised above have duly been addressed, and I can assure you that there is no violation of WP:SYNTH, nor of WP:OR. All statements have been sourced to accredited and reliable sources.Davidbena (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, unfortunately I don't think the main thrust of the comment, about separating references and notes, has been addressed. I think the article would be better-organized and more comprehensible if solid references to facts from academia were separated from your extensive notes discussing sources and their interpretations/implications. It would also make it clearer for the reader in the text when to click to get a source (when they see a number in brackets) and when to click to get clarification/more knowledge (when they see [Note 1] or [a] / [b] etc). —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will begin to separate the "explanatory notes" from the "academic notes" tonight, hopefully. I agree that this will greatly improve the layout of the article.Davidbena (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811:, I have begun the tedious task of separating the "explanatory notes" from the "academic notes." The article is starting to take shape.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Let me know when you are done with this and I'll take another look. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some fairly drastic prose edits, trimming way subsidiary notes and stories that seemed less relevant, but I think the prose is in good shape now after that and the nominator's work. Pass.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass, no issues.
  • One minor issue - there's a stray note ("Contains a French introduction") down at the bottom, which should be better incorporated or simply eliminated (I don't think it's vital content).
I have just now removed that irrelevant note.Davidbena (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass, issue addressed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • Pass, no issues.
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).
  • I have a similar concern as was raised on the talk page about citing information directly to ancient sources such as the Talmud, Mishnah, and Josephus. These sources *can* be useful, but are better filtered through modern historians and sources where we have a much better chance of assessing their reliability. These are not simply old sources about history - they are history themselves. Happy to talk about this in more detail. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have begun to add an academic source which cites the Jerusalem Talmud in its reference to identical material found in the mosaic.Davidbena (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some issues with ancient sources being cited directly (Josephus, #s 32, 66, 143, 148) (Mishnah #178, a bunch of citations to Hai Gaon) (Cite #27 is fairly egregious)
    • At a minimum, any facts derived from these should be noted in the text to be from those ancient sources, not just cited to a note. Again, I don't think, say, Hai Gaon is inherently unreliable, but interpreting the mosaic's text through the eyes of someone who lived in the 11th century AD is difficult to regard as the type of secondary source Wikipedia depends on. Sirilio is fairly well cited, in that when he is used to assess a Talmudic law, his name is mentioned and linked in text. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: All the issues that you have raised above have been addressed and corrected.Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry but current cites #s 27, 31, 38, 67, and others are still cited primarily to ancient sources for points of fact, not interpretations of ancient Hebrew or halakhic law. Please use modern academic sources to discuss these ancient texts and places. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with your request, I have duly amended the four notes mentioned by you here, by adding for each an academic source.Davidbena (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldhor does not seem to be used at any point. Is it a general reference? If so, for which parts?
Goldhor [Goldhor, Isaac (1913). Adamat Kodesh, being the Land of Israel (vol. 2), Jerusalem (Hebrew)] is cited in the article's Bibliography, which means that he is, indeed, cited in the article.Davidbena (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I'm asking: what information in the article is Goldhor used to support? Why is it in the Bibliography?
After a preliminary search for Goldhor's citation, I could find nothing, so it must be that I had inadvertently left out his reference to a certain source. Having gone back over his seminal work, I have now added a reference to his name in note #92 (Pi Maṣūbah).Davidbena (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues addressed, pass.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • What is Note #10 ("baraitta") trying to say?
Simply put: The Baraita of the borders of Eretz-Israel is, for all practical purposes, only a geographical reference to the old borders during the time of Israel's return from the Babylonian captivity, as noted by Chaim Ben David, that is to say, as the country was once settled, but it is not an ethnographic reference to the border for all time, that is, a definitive mark of Jewish and non-Jewish settlements, since the demographics of the country have changed.
      • The note's meaning is not clear as written. Please rewrite it to both provide a brief definition of baraita and clarify the use here for those who might be totally unfamiliar with the phrase.
Following your directives, I have rewritten the note and have separated it from the main body of "academic notes."Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #39 (re the beans) seems to stray into original research
I have since corrected the note so that it will no longer sound like Original Research. The note now reads as follows: Called in Hebrew, פול המצרי (pōl ha-miṣrī), which, when translated from the Hebrew, signifies "Egyptian fava bean." On the identification of this bean, see Rabbi Nissim's commentary of the Mishnah, Ketav ha-Mafteach, and where he describes pōl ha-miṣrī as being the bean which has the Arabic name of "lubiya" and which has "a dark eye in its center," meaning to say, a black-eyed pea and which is a sub-species of the cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). Dalman (2020), p. 313, wrote for pōl ha-miṣrī the "Egyptian broad bean," without explaining what it is. Amar (2015), pp. 125–127, citing a Spanish herbalist contemporary with Maimonides, explains pōl ha-miṣrī as being Nelumbo nucifera which bears a seed resembling fava beans and is endemic to Egypt.Davidbena (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation for #40?
The above note has been amended to read as follows: The Hebrew word שיפה‎ = shifah is translated here, in our text, as "reed grass", based on the definition of this word given by medieval Talmudic exegete, Hai Gaon, in his commentary on the Mishnah (Kelim 9:8), published in Mishnayot Zekher Chanokh (משניות זכר חנוך) (in Hebrew). Vol. 11 (Taharoth). Jerusalem: Vagshal Publishing Ltd. 2011. p. 133 (s.v. של שיפין). OCLC 1140888800., and who described shifah as being "reed grass; sedge." Since this section of the mosaic is repeated in the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 2:1), the same definition given by Hai Gaon is provided also in the commentaries of Solomon Sirilio and Pnei Moshe on the Jerusalem Talmud (Demai 2:1), both explaining the word shifah as meaning "a kind of sedge" (מין גמי‎) or "sedge" (גמי‎), respectively. Solomon Sirilio (ibid.) goes on to explain that freshly grown Egyptian broad beans (pōl ha-miṣrī) that are found in the marketplace of Beit She'an and which are not bound by the leaves of sedge or reed grass is a sign that they are locally grown produce, and exempt from tithing. If, however, they were bound or tied in leaves of sedge, it is a sign that they were brought from outside the bounds of Beit She'an and must be tithed as demai-produce. (End Quote)Davidbena (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note #84 says "some have erroneously..." Who are the some? Who says they are erroneous? Smacks of original research.
Since I can no longer find the source that I used for this assertion, I have deleted the addition of "Some have erroneously identified this river as the Kasmieh River (also called Litani River) in southern Lebanon." Besides, the addition is irrelevant.Davidbena (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, #102 "Some suggest that this Sharoshan..." Who are the some?
I have since corrected the edit in the footnote to read: "Joseph Patrich, in Temples of Herodian Caesarea, p. 181, suggests that the name Sharoshan may have actually been a name of derision for a Canaanite goddess and applied to the city of Caesarea."Davidbena (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • #179 "Should rather have been spelt" according to who?
This is plain to anyone who knows Hebrew, while all those who have written about the mosaic concur that there is a spelling error. Instead of writing מתעסרין [= mitʿasrīn], the copyist wrote מתאסרין [= mitāsrīn], which although both have nearly the same sound, the words carry different connotations. The way that it is written in the mosaic does not fit with the continued sentence, which latter proves the writer's intent. The sentence can only make sense with its correction. Sussmann, the primary scholar who worked on the mosaic, has pointed out this fact, and he has even noted where the Jerusalem Talmud states that there has long been a problem with people who cannot correctly differentiate between the "aleph"-sound and the "ʿayin"-sound. Often, speakers and writers will interchange "aleph" (א‎) with "ʿayin" (ע‎), which has happened in our text.Davidbena (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could keep going - some of the notes are well cited, but others are not, and some are very mixed up to the point that it's difficult to tell what information is being cited to which sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I should find other notes that need further clarification, I will make the improvements. If you know of any other notes that need further elaboration, please let me know. Often, Jewish halakhic law is an arcane subject to those unfamiliar with Jewish laws and culture.Davidbena (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Current citations #s 53, 58, 62, 66, 122, 125, and others need citations to reliable sources. Some of these things may *seem* obvious to you, but they are still facts which require citation to reliable secondary sources. To take #179 as an example (should rather have been spelt), your new note is a significant improvement, as it mentions the sources which point out the potential spelling error. Please go through comprehensively and make sure that each note which interprets a place-name or phrase is cited to reliable sources (preferably not ancient ones, especially for demographics). —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Ganesha811:, I have added academic sources to all the above notes mentioned here by you, with the exception of #53 which is already sourced with an academic source. Perhaps you were referring to a different note. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge, I have complied to all of your requests.Davidbena (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please check the rest of the references to make sure that there are no more uncited references, and that the newly separated notes are supported by reliable sources as well. I know it's a pain, but we have to make sure the whole article is based on a solid foundation! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues addressed, pass.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Nothing found by Earwig - manual spot-check not yet done.
  • Nothing found by manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • Not able to find any significant areas of coverage missing - will keep checking for other archaeological views if any exist.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Not seeing any areas of overdetail, certainly nothing egregious. Pass.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • Made some minor changes during prose review to make sure that the historical states discussed are not confused with the modern State of Israel.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  • Other than sourcing issue raised above (unresolved from talk page), nothing else. If sourcing issue is fixed, pass.
I have just now added more sources, in compliance with the above request.Davidbena (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • It would be helpful if File:Ktovet recov AA.jpg had an English-language description on Commons.
  • For File:C+B-Trachonitis-Map.JPG, the author could be "Unknown" instead of "no idea"
    • I have complied with the request and have added the English description to the Wikimedia Commons image of the mosaic.Davidbena (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issues addressed, pass.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • No issues, pass.
7. Overall assessment.
The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

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)[reply]

(
  • Comment or view
  • Article history
)
  • ... 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.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That should be fine. Good luck!Davidbena (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

You've already submitted the nomination you don't need to submit it again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good, long enough and well cited. The hook is interesting enough, but I feel like it being the oldest known Talmudic text is more hook-y. "The oldest X" is just slightly more interesting than "the longest text on a type of art from a specific place", and the Talmud is reasonably well known. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena and Onegreatjoke: BuySomeApples (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples: How about "... that the Mosaic of Rehob is the oldest known Talmudic text?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! @Onegreatjoke and Davidbena: I'm approving this hook if there's no objections. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's perfectly fine with me.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mosaic_of_Rehob&oldid=1204186160"