Template:Did you know nominations/Al Maghtas

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 Allen3 ^talk 11:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Al Maghtas

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Al Maghtas Baptism Site

• ... that Al-Maghtas (pictured), in Jordan, on the east bank of the Jordan River is considered by Christians to be the location for the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist?

Both sides of the Jordan from Al Maghtas

Vladimir Putin at Al Maghtas

• ALT1:... that Pope Francis visited the Al-Maghtas in 2014 and Vladimir Putin (pictured at the site) inaugurated a guesthouse for pilgrims at the baptism site in 2012?
• ALT2: ... that Al-Maghtas (pictured), in Jordan has - compared to neigboring Qasr el Yahud less attention of tourists but more archaological evidence as being the actual site of Jesus of Nazareth's baptism?

• ALT3: ... that the Muslim conquest put an end to the later Roman / early Byzantine reverence of the site of the baptism of Jesus (pictured) on the east bank of the Jordan River?

• ALT4: ... that John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis saw the site of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (pictured) on the east bank of the Jordan River?

Created by Nvvchar (talk). Self-nominated at 05:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC).

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Alice Lucy

• The original first Hook is not useable, something like the "third holiest place" for christianity doesnt exist. Polentarion Talk 22:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• The alternatives are not that interesting.Makeandtoss (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Makeandtoss As User:Polentarion has added a lot of text and imgs his name has been included in the credits. The original hook without the mention of third holiest place should still be valid. Is ALT1 Hook valid but the img of Putin has been deleted. Should I suggest another alternte hook. Pl clarify.Nvvchar. 09:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Nvvchar: Why? Go with the original hook. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• • Sorry, the original hook is contentious. I suggest a Putin-free alternative. Polentarion Talk 11:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • No longer contentious. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Right, its current version looks much better. ALT4 uses a pun to show the ongoing interest in the most authentical site. Polentarion Talk 12:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Funny but not a very obvious pun..Makeandtoss (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I deleted one Jordan to make it more obvious. We went through some discussions, but I think it was worth while the effort. I hope we get a green light soon - would be great to have it around the seasonal holidays ;) Polentarion Talk 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
      • ALT3 is just humiliating. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• After approval it could appear on main page during Christmas period.Nvvchar. 01:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

  The Western Church usually celebrates the Baptism of the Lord on Epiphany (January 6). --Allen3 ^talk 18:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Full review needed, including of the various proposed hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

On 9 October was 837 char. On December 1, day of nomination, was 7670 char. 5x expansion confirmed. Currently 11542 char/long enough. Nom during expansion/new enough. Topic is generally neutrally discussed. Issues:

• This sentence "Jabal Mar-Elias (Elijah’s Hill) and the area of the churches of Saint John the Baptist near the river" is an exact quote from the UNESCO source, though not attributed. And, this "churches and chapels, a monastery, caves used by hermits and pools in which baptisms were held" is very close to "churches and chapels, a monastery, caves that have been used by hermits and pools in which baptisms were held".  Done
• Numerous paragraphs without citations. Each paragraph must be cited.

Pope John Paul II visited the site in March 2000 and Pope Benedict XVI visited in May 2009 claim is still uncited.  Done

• The section labeled "Religious importance" is an odd verb tense. It is in present tense, but since the writings are about antiquity, it seems that past tense would create better flow, as the entirety of the article is in past tense.  Done Mostly uncited and that needs to be addressed.

The claim that it was the crossing place of Joshua and ascension place of Elijah is still unverified. The lede makes the same assertion, but the source, Zeit does not address either Joshua nor Elijah. It states that "Elijah's Hill" is a landmark, but that is the only reference I find to Elijah, nor does it refer to a Jewish tradition.  Done

• In the section "History" someone has marked [dubious – discuss] though p 50 of the UNESCO source clearly makes the claim. Resolve issue.  Done

(note: I find no discussion as to what the outcome was, but the "dubious" flag is now removed.)

• The photo labeled Al Maghtas Baptism Site is used in the article and per Commmons is free use. The other two photos are not used in the article. Both are free use per Commons, though the Putin photo requires attribution.

• Hook0 at 171 char/under maximum. Interesting claim. I don't see this claim stated in the article, nor supported in the sources, but maybe I am missing it? The UNESCO piece says that Christians have accepted the site...evidence does not doubtlessly prove...others have made the claim, it is undoubtedly of religious significance. But I don't get "most likely" from that. I do see the claim made in the Catholic Sentinal article, but to my mind, that backs up the UNESCO statement that Christians have accepted it adding further to this, the Times of Israel piece unequivocally states that the "there is no solid archaeological evidence confirming that “Bethany Beyond the Jordan,” also known as al-Maghtas, Arabic for baptism, is the authentic site."

The article still does not state this. The citations need to be removed from the nomination and placed on whatever claim you are making in the article. The al Arabiya piece says almost verbatim what the Times of Israel piece says, thus they are clearly from the same Associated Press source, as is the Washington Post article. Though the Washington Post does use the verbiage "believed to be" it is misleading at best in light of the actual UNESCO report and the other articles which clearly show that UNESCO accepted the site as one with cultural history, venerated by Christians but did not actually acknowledge that it is the place of the baptism. If you want to reword it to say Christians believe, or UNESCO acknowledged the historical significance of the site because Christians believe it to be ... I could try to work with that, but the current hook is not acceptable.  Done

• alt1 at 137 char/under maximum. Information verified by citation immediately following. Photo cannot be used as is not in the piece, thus "pictured at the site" needs to be stricken.
• alt2 at 185 char/under maximum. Wording seems awkward to me. First the ending M-dash at the phrase "compared to neigboring Qasr el Yahud" is missing. Neighboring is misspelled, as is archaeological. I would suggest that "attention of" indicates belonging to i.e. inward, but interest is focused outward, thus should be "attention from". The claim of more tourists is substantiated by the Times of Israel, but I see no claim in the article that the eastern site has "more" archaeological evidence. I see nothing in the sources provided that compares archaeological work on both banks.
• alt3 at 157 char/under maximum. Interesting and cited immediately following, however, source and article say conquest was only part of the reason. Flooding also played a large part. As all information links the two, I don't see how one can be stated as a hook without the other.
• alt4 at 152 char/under maximum. Not sure what is meant by the hook, saw as in looked at or saw as in believed it to be? The Francis part of the hook is verified in that he physically went there, but nothing in the citation states that he believed it to be the actual site. There is no citation for the physical presence or belief of either John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI.

• Nvvchar et. al. Please ping me when the issues have been addressed. SusunW (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I edited ALT 0 and provided sources. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Makeandtoss I still do not see that all of the issues relating to any hook are cleared. See above. SusunW (talk) 00:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Makeandtoss, the sources need to be added to the article, not here. All hook facts need to be sourced in the article no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to fix all hooks? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: The first set of bullet points relate to the nomination in general. 2 and 3 are not cleared. Beneath that is an analysis of each individual hook. If you are not going to fix them you need to cross them out.

I crossed out the alternatives, they are not that good. And someone already took care to the bullet points relating to nomination in general. Makeandtoss (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss you don't get to clear my bullet points, sorry, but DYK rules are clear that the reviewer cannot be involved. You are an involved party and I am responsible to make sure that the nomination meets the criteria. Until I have time to evaluate it again, they are not clear. I have commitments this evening and cannot spend the time. Please correct the hook as requested, state the hook with citations in the text. Make sure that the citations on the file verify the two pieces of data requested. Ping me when it is complete. I will review it tomorrow if you have finished it. SusunW (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss Citations are now complete but you have not corrected the hook and the claim in the article is inaccurate. UNSECO did not acknowledge that it is the place of the baptism. They acknowledged that it is a place of historical significance, which Christians believe is the place of the baptism. Please work on the wording of both the article and the hook. SusunW (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: I was now searching for sources to find an appropriate one but they are contradicting. What about this source? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss In light of the conflicting sourcing, we cannot choose one side over the other, regardless of how many citations you add to the claims. For the DYK to be accurate, it must reflect what the report actually said, which is that they approved it as a site of historical significance, which Christians believe to be the place of the Baptism. They did not state that the science proves it is the place of the Baptism, nor that the UNESCO commission believed it to be the place of the Baptism. No matter what the sources wish to portray, they are reflecting POV which we cannot. SusunW (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Well that wouldn't be accurate either. Because there are archaeological evidence like for example the Madaba map... But the problem is I can't find any source that mentions all of these together.Makeandtoss (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss The report says what it says. Whether you believe it to be accurate or not is irrelevant. It is an accurate statement and you have plenty of sources aready provided to say that Christians believe it to be the site of the baptism. If you are not willing to add the word Christians to the text and hook, then I cannot do anything further on this and you will need a different reviewer, as I will not take sides in a debate wherein the sources are so contradictory. SusunW (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@SusunW: Done.. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The correction to text and hook reflecting that Christians believe it is the site is acceptable. @Nvvchar and Makeandtoss: don't know if you want to ping others to try to get this up for tomorrow, but it should now be GTG. SusunW (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks @SusunW:. I have included Makeandtoss in the credits for his huge efforts in resolving contentious issues. As suggested by Allen3 earlier in the review it could appear on the main page on the day of the Baptism of the Lord on Epiphany (January 6, 2016). Nvvchar. 01:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)