Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Biblical origin Error

Someone who can edit this, please fix this. Abraham's first born son was Ishmael not Isaac (at least according to the Masoretic Texts, not sure what the narrative is in the Koran.)

"The title deed to the cave was part of the property of Abraham that passed to his firstborn son Isaac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanswisian (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for noticing the error. Dimadick (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Error in idiom

I don't have permission to fix this error. In the "Israeli control" section, the phrase "stepping foot" should be corrected to "setting foot". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyyso (talk • contribs) 15:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Needs better source

I can't edit, but this line -- "The site was revered in Judaism since at least 1000 BCE as a burial site for the patriarchs" -- needs a way better source. It links to something called "sacred-destinations.com" which is not an academic source and doesn't support this claim. The idea that "Judaism" even existed in 1000 BCE is historically suspect - "by Israelites" makes more historical sense than "in Judaism." More to the point, the claim itself is probably false. For example, The Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament by Lukasz Niesiolowski-Spano says that the site probably didn't have pilgrimages until the Persian era (6th centure BCE) and that the patriarch's burial was probably associated with Shechem with David's family associated with Hebron (with the patriarch's supposed burial place moved to Hebron in the Hasmonean era. "It is only within the context of the conquest of these territories by the Jewish state that the expanded histories of Hebron's 'proto-Jewishness' begin to make obvious sense... This would accord with the archaeologists' deductions, for they ddate the oldest objects found in the vicinity of the holy place near the patriarchs' grave to that very time" Amplifysound (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You are quite right and the article needs work. The source you found seems good. I started by removing the Sacred Destinations source, which is a copy of an openly partisan blog. Zero^talk 12:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Burial places sometimes are held sacred by several nations in succession. Therefore one shouldn't remove Judaism, but I agree that if properly sourced, Israelites can be added. By the way, sources need not be academic on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay? But is a non-academic blog post that doesn't cite its sources superior to an academic book that does? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources says that self-published sources like "Sacred-Destinations" are less reliable than those with editorial oversight, such as the academic source. The fact that it is apparently plagiarized from a Blogspot post also makes it less reputable. The fact that the Blogspot post takes openly partisan political and religious statements about the identity of Hebron, and is written by a gadfly mayoral candidate for the city of Los Angeles who advocates for birtherism also speaks to its lack of reliability.

This article currently states as fact that "The site was revered in Judaism since at least 1000 BCE as a burial site for the patriarchs" but that is simply false. As shown, we don't know for a fact that that the patriarch burial site was believed to be in Hebron in 1000 BCE, and we have good reason to think that the patriarch burial site was believed to be in Shechem then. Moreover, the idea that "Judaism" existed in 1000 BCE is historically questionable, but to be fair part of that is due to trickier questions about what "Judaism" is (i.e. if it's polytheistic, is it Judaism?). At any rate, "The site was revered by Israelites dating to at least the 6th century BCE, though whether it was always believed to be the burial site of the patriarchs is uncertain" is a more factually true statement than what currently exists, and the "Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament" source supports it. I'm not allowed to edit it but someone should. Amplifysound (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that academic sources are better, obviously. However, this "source" clearly states this as a hypothesis, which means it is not a source at all. Moreover, he admits that it is a thesis that differs from the accepted point of view. Big no-no as a source for Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Both of the statements of fact you just made are false. The proposed edit, "whether it was always believed to be the burial site of the patriarchs is uncertain," is NOT a hypothesis in the source. It is stated as fact on page 131 that the original date when this legend began is uncertain. Also, he does not admit that it is a thesis that differs from the accepted point of view. To the contrary, he cites E. Bloch Smith, S.E. Loewenstamm, and Nadav Na'aman in support, demonstrating that it is the accepted academic position that. at the very least, "whether it was always believed to be the burial site of the patriarchs is uncertain." I'm not quite sure why you are so tied to a plagiarized source of a white nationalist conspiracy theory proponent. Can you explain why that is an appropriate source, particularly given that the facts contradict it? Amplifysound (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Here is a second source written by the Co-Director of the Tel Hebron and the Jordan Valley Excavation Projects, which corroborates that the cave has not been revered as the burial site for the patriarchs for 3000 years. https://thetorah.com/the-ancient-city-of-hebron/ Amplifysound (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2019

Change:

The site was revered in Judaism since at least 1000 BCE as a burial site for the patriarchs.

To:

The site was revered by Israelites dating to at least the 6th century BCE, though whether it was always believed to be the burial site of the patriarchs is uncertain. Amplifysound (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"dating to" should be "dating from", but maybe just "from" is better. I can do it tomorrow if nobody else does it first. Zero^talk 20:00, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Please establish a consensus first. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"The story reflects a time when Hebron was settled by non-Israelites, following the exile or desertion after 587/586 BCE. One may safely assume that it was composed to justify the rights of the post-Exilic community to the burial site in the former Judahite city of Hebron." Na'aman, Nadav (2005). "The 'Conquest of Canaan' in the Book of Joshua and in History". Canaan in the Second Millennium B.C.E. Eisenbrauns. p. 374.

So there is the considered opinion of one of the most famous experts. Zero^talk 18:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Access by Muslims??

I visited the building in March 2005. This involved passing one check point about 100 meters from the building, going through metal detectors right outside the building, and one more check inside the building. There had been some violence a couple of days earlier and our Muslim host was not let past the check point but I was able to obtain a classification as a Christian and was let in. There were Jews praying inside, with a number of Israeli soldiers sitting with their rifles. Access by Muslims does not seem guaranteed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.165.198 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Underground cave

@Debresser: Distinctions from mountain caves might plausibly be needed in some articles (they would still be underground though). I don't see any mention of mountain caves in this particular article - in fact, these caves appear to be in the heart of a city. Is the city on a mountain? I don't see what would necessitate distinguishing this cave from another. Therefore it accomplishes nothing to have the redundancy, because I see nothing in this article which could lead the reader astray.

If you want to argue generalities (which doesn't benefit this article), a mountain cave is still underground. I wonder though, what does an above ground cave look like? Leitmotiv (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I really though about this before I reverted. I agree that a mountain cave is also technically underground. Still, articles should be as unambiguous as possible. Having the extra word, makes it clear beyond all doubt what the intention is. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That's good you thought it over, most people seem to knee-jerk react. My point though, is if there's any context in the article in which differentiating between some other type of cave is necessary, and I don't see any. Reminding the reader a cave is underground accomplishes very little in this type of article when it's situated at the heart of a city (the context was established early on). I think most readers understand that a cave is underground and we don't need to beat them over the head with it. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right. I get your point. Still, since it could be a mountain cave as well, even if the article doesn't say anything specific to indicate such, I personally prefer the present, unambiguous version. Debresser (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I see you are unwilling to budge. But I will point out, that it could not be a mountain cave, because the article establishes early on it's in a city, so there is no ambiguity. In fact the lede notes it's in "the heart of the city" and was next to an "adjoining field" as part of a "burial plot". It continues with "over the cave stands a large rectangular closure". You keep mentioning ambiguity, but there is none. That's misrepresenting the article and avoiding the obvious context. I would read the lede with a fresh set of eyes to see if your message is on point. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

First transaction mentioned or discussed is before this event in Genesis 17

In Genesis 17, God twice mentions that male babies can be bought from outside the family, circumcised on the 8th day, no doubt to expedite growth of the movement. Fact it is mentioned twice in same chapter is curious. To add i also wonder if the blood libel stems from the concept of buying outside the family, and the obviously messy circumcisions! "and Abraham's purchase of Machpelah is the first commercial transaction mentioned." So in principle the above is not accurate. Or perhaps a caveat should be added, as in the above is the first completed transaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldcall (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

The sentence about the death of Rebecca is unsubstantiated and wrong. The Bible never says that Rebecca outlived her husband. Change that detail please. 199.203.227.29 (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Since the present sentence is also unsourced, and Jewish tradition indeed disagrees with that statement, I have removed it. Better have a correct unsourced statement than an incorrect one. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Christianity

Why isn’t Christianity mentioned under the Religions tab? It is a their holy site as well. N160JG (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Reference necessary: Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

Change: The following statement under etymology section should be changed: in the current article it states "Rabbi Yitzḥak said: "The city is called Kiryat Ha'Arba, the city of four, because it is the city of the four couples buried there: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah.". This is a reference to an argument, conjecture or commentary. In keeping with biblical references to Kiriath Arba, the use of the word is referenced here:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+14%3A15&version=NKJV "And the name of Hebron formerly was Kirjath Arba (Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim). Then the land had rest from war." Biblehead (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This appear to be original research. Please provide a secondary source that discusses this second interpretation. Also consider whether that passage is really relevant to this article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Patriarch tomb.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2021

"In 1994, the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre occurred at the Ibrahimi Mosque, in which an armed Israeli settler entered the complex on the Jewish holiday of Purim—which had occurred during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan—and opened fire on Palestinian Muslims who had gathered to pray at the site, killing 29 people, including children, and wounding over 125."

Change to:

"In 1968, a hand-grenade was thrown on the stairway leading to the tomb on 9 October; 47 Israelis were injured, 8 seriously.[48][49] On 4 November, a large explosion went off near the gate to the compound and 6 people, Jews and Arabs, were wounded.[49] On Yom Kippur eve, 3 October 1976, an Arab mob destroyed several Torah scrolls and prayer books at the tomb.[50] In May 1980, an attack on Jewish worshippers returning from prayers at the tomb left 6 dead and 17 wounded.[51] In 1994, Boruch Goldstein entered the Ibrahimi Mosque, and opened fire, killing 29 people, and injuring ~125, after which he was beaten to death by an Arab mob."

All of the necessary references are in the section entitled "Israel". Helpfulguy101 (talk) 00:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done All of this material is in the article already. Zero^talk 04:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

Amend "although most historians believe the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob narrative to be primarily mythological" to the more appropriate "although some historians believe the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob narrative to be primarily mythological". 47.184.192.158 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2022

Amend:

<ref name="BAR">{{cite web |url=https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/11/03/01 |title=Patriarchal Burial Site Explored for First Time in 700 Years |author=Nancy Miller |date=May–June 1985 |publisher=Biblical Archaeology Society |access-date=30 November 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181130202230/https://members.bib-arch.org/biblical-archaeology-review/11/03/01 |archive-date=30 November 2018 |url-status=live}}</ref>

to point to the landing page for the actual article being cited using:

<ref name="BAR">{{cite web |url=https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/11/3/1 |title=Patriarchal Burial Site Explored for First Time in 700 Years |author=Nancy Miller |date=May–June 1985 |publisher=Biblical Archaeology Society |access-date=21 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210310071640/https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/11/3/1 |archive-date=10 March 2021 |url-status=live}}</ref>

I used <nowiki> tags in order to get the reference's source to show instead of a rendered citation. That may need a tiny bit of adjustment when implementing this edit request. I'm not familiar with how that works.

The original link puts the user on a list of issues of Biblical Archaeology Review for the most recently published year. To get from there to the article I had to change a listbox to 1985 then scan the issue article titles for the article being cited. The edit sends us straight there. I also updated the archive information to the most recently archived instance of the article URL. --Gookey (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for doing all the formatting work for me! PianoDan (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Thanks for implementing it -- Gookey (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)