Talk:Bar Kokhba revolt/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Byzantine suppression

@Editor2020: - what is the problem with Byzantine suppression of Samaritans and Jews? Why removing the source?GreyShark (dibra) 07:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I too didn't understand the removal, with the edit summary "need more detail". Debresser (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't look at the source, but I would have deleted it just on sight of the author. Lissak-Shpak is one of the most unreliable fanatical authors around and middle-east propaganda is just her hobby and not her area of academic expertise. Zero^talk 11:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Since that is not listed in the references there is not enough information to tell anything about it. Who is this? Is this a published source? If so, what? Editor2020 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In that case, you should probably ask for a better source per WP:GF, not deleting it with a weird editorial remark.GreyShark (dibra) 07:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000 Since Lissak-Shpak has a Ph.D., she is no worse than some of the fanatical authors with a university degree you happen to like so much! Your hypocrisy shows... Debresser (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ph.D in history apparently, though an American history specifically. She is not a strong source, but the claim here about suppression of Jews and Samaritans during Byzantine rule is well documented and not something controversial in my opinion. She also cites where she gets the info from.GreyShark (dibra) 08:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

There are several sources I can bring for the Justianian's oppression of the Samaritans and Jews - Weinberger, p. 143; Brewer, C. 2005. p.127 [1]; Evans, J.A.S. 2005. "Jews and Samaritans" . [2]; Lissak in her 2015 book published by Xlibris is citing Braslavsky for the claim of Justinian's law codex, which was negatively directed on Jews and Samaritans. Doesn't seem an exceptional claim and is not even her own.GreyShark (dibra) 08:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

So cite it to a reliable source. However I wonder why it is here at all. The tendency for every article on particular historical events in Palestine to expand into much longer time periods should be resisted in my opinion. We have wikilinks for that. Zero^talk 09:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, your should take into account the difference between reliable sources, unreliable sources and between lower quality reliable sources.GreyShark (dibra) 10:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I always do. That's why I would never use a low-quality unreliable source like Lissak-Shpak. That book is just a rerun of From Time Immemorial and contains scores of outrageous claims sourced to nobody at all. Zero^talk 13:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Please keep your personal opinions out of the discussion. Rivkah Lissak-Shpak is an academic source, just like that anti-Israel propaganda spewing Lebanese professor you pushed a few years ago as reliable (sorry, I forgot his name), so please be quite now. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, someone who has published academic articles on a different topic is reliable because she is an academic? You should take a break and read some policy pages. Furthermore, we are required to assess the reliability of sources so, no, I won't keep my opinions out of the discussion. I'm not sure who this "Lebanese professor" is, but perhaps it was a Professor of Development Studies and International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London who is obviously far more qualified on ARBPIA topics than Lissak-Shpak. I'm proud to have the highest sourcing standards around here and I'm not going to lower them because you want me to. Zero^talk 02:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You are confused - Roman and Byzantine era is not an ARBPIA topic.GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct, but I've never cited Achcar on Roman/Byzantine topics to the best of my recollection. Zero^talk 09:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is getting out of context. I will just put better sources and let's get done with it.GreyShark (dibra) 12:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

If Lissak-Shpak, R. 2015 is a reference to this book published by Xlibris then no it is not anywhere close to a reliable source. Xlibris is a self-publishing firm, and Lissak-Shpak has no academic expertise in this area which would make her self-published works reliable to cite, her qualifications lie elswhere, making a self-published book emphatically not a reliable source. nableezy - 19:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Zero (and Nableezy) You are free to use any standard you like for yourself, but you can not force the community to accept your standards. Rivkah Lissak-Shpak is an historian, so she seems more than qualified to me, per my understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to test that understanding at WP:RSN. However, the relevant portion of WP:RS is fairly clear, Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Lissak-Shpak is not an established expert in this field, making her self-published work, per WP:RSSELF not acceptable. You emphatically do not speak for "the community". nableezy - 20:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Lissak-Shpak is not an established expert in this field". Says who? Your highness? Professor Nableezy? Come down from that tree man! Debresser (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Says the fact she has not been published in any academic or peer-reviewed work on the subject. nableezy - 19:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Since that is not true, as you can see for yourself on this CV, may I hope you now cease your opposition? Debresser (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If you would like to "expose lies", try actually reading what you present. What in that is a peer-reviewed work or something published by an academic publisher anywhere near the topic of Roman Palestine? Ill help you, since, you havent seemed willing or able to understand this point. Nothing. Livak-Shpak has such work in the topic of immigration and assimilation in early 1900s America, but nothing of the sort on Palestine, Israel, Roman history, or anything else of any relevance here. The book you so desperately want cited is self-published, and the author is not an expert in the field. You are more than welcome to make your case at RS/N where I have every confidence that your misapplication of policy will be, once again, brushed back. nableezy - 03:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Aelia Capitolina's foundation

Perhaps the article should take into account "Jerusalem and the Bar Kokhba Revolt Again: A Note" by Eran Almagor, ELECTRUM Vol. 26 (2019): 141–157, http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15133/ (abstract with link to full pdf article) which suggests Aelia Capitolina was founded during the last stage of the revolt which halted earlier reconstruction http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15015/ Mcljlm and "Eusebius and Hadrian's Founding of Aelia Capitolina in Jerusalem" by Miriam Ben Zeev Hofman, ELECTRUM Vol. 26 (2019): 119–128 http://www.ejournals.eu/electrum/2019/Volume-26/art/15015/ (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Mcljlm (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Destroyed Jewish villages and fortresses: list is useless as it is now

Unsourced, several site names are misspelled/the transliteration is faulty, none is identified by link or source, making most of them unidentifiable... A total mess, almost useless. Many are small underground hideouts, of which there are hundreds! Why these and not others? Adds nothing to the usable info. User leaves more confused than before arriving here. Will remove the list until somebody works on it. I'm preserving it here,including my tags.

This is a partial list of the destroyed Jewish localities (villages, towns, etc.) in Judea and Samaria:

• Akad (H. Akad, identified with Tell el-Fakhariya)
• Azekah
• Beit Guvrin
• Betar
• Bror Hayil
• Burgin (Khirbat Umm Burj?)
• Emmaus
• Galoseless
• Gophna
• Godad
• Hazan (Ahuzat Hazan, Judaean lowlands?)
• Hebron
• Herodium
• Itri
• Itton
• Kobi
• Midras
• Modi'in (Umm el-Umdan?)
• Nakik
• Rafa
• Shemtov (Horbat Shem Tov, Judaean lowlands?)
• Shimon (Tur Shimon in Nahal Sorek?)
• Tittura
• Tur
• Tzom
• Zaak (Horvat Za'ak, southern Judean foothills/Shephelah?)
• Zikhri (Horvat Zikhri—"The Rider’s Cave"?)

Arminden (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Who was living in Jerusalem after the Jews were banned?

The city must have been pretty empty. 71.223.123.244 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It bacame a Roman colony.GreyShark (dibra) 06:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Depopulation

What is the source for this:

The Bar Kokhba revolt resulted in the extensive depopulation of Judean communities, more so than during the First Jewish–Roman War of 70 CE.

It is sourced to Taylor but she doesn't describe any depopulation at all. Similarly:

They note that, unlike the aftermath of the First Jewish–Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the Jewish population of Judea was devastated after the Bar Kokhba Revolt, being killed, exiled, or sold into slavery

The part of the Jewish population "being killed, exiled, or sold into slavery" is not in the source. Taylor's quote plays a central role in building the narrative of the article, featuring five times, which seems dubious. The other source used in the article, The Cambridge History of Judaism, does not chronicle any of the above. ImTheIP (talk) 06:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This has more or less been discussed in Talk:Bar_Kokhba_revolt#Genocide section.GreyShark (dibra) 13:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"common view"

The common view is that the name change was intended to "sever the connection of the Jews to their historical homeland"; a few scholars dispute this.

This sentence is sourced with a citation that uses the words "commonly viewed as" but which itself disagrees with the statement. I don't think it can be used to support the current wording. The article current presents it as if there is a consensus that (only) a few scholars disagree with, but the source never makes a claim that strong. It also doesn't say who it is "commonly viewed" as something by. Scholars? Regular people? The source also isn't exactly peer reviewed but let's leave that aside for now. Prinsgezinde (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that source has been cherrypicked because it contains the phrase "commonly viewed", but again, without mentioning 'by whom' (and with caveats). Iskandar323 (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: That appeared to be only the tip of the iceberg of the unreliable rot in the lead. I've had a bit of a go at trimming the worst of the mess. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath

The Aftermath section moves straight from describing the enslavement of captives to "Jewish presence in the region significantly dwindled after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt, and pagan populations penetrated it." Is it possible to give some indication of timescale - in the immediate aftermath, by 200 CE, over centuries, or what? Also, "penetrated it", rather than eg "settled in the region"? NebY (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, it's bizarre phrasing. Also not relevant. New population does not equal other populations dwindle - the dwindling, as mentioned in the actual source, was due to the expulsions of Jews for Jerusalem. I've refocused it on that point. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

That's better! NebY (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)