Talk:Stella Maris Monastery

1631 lighthouse

at 1631 there were no lighthouse. by itamar rotlevi haifa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.89.206 (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Tomb of Elisha?

"According to Jewish tradition, first recorded in writing in the 13th century and later records, the tomb in the grotto in the church, is the tomb of Elisha the prophet, student of Elijah the prophet."

Unsourced material (I just removed it), in line with the most likely unfounded claim by a fringe Jewish sect led by a sex offender, Rabbi Berland, which is attempting at taking over the Carmelite church since May 2023. It seems made up and baseless.

A) What tomb? There is none, unless you can prove it.

B) What C13 Jewish source? Name it, with precise details. Does such a source exist? Does it really mention a tomb of Elisha in a cave on Mt Carmel? If so, how is the tomb's site identified and described?

C) The traditional "Cave of Elijah" is the other one on Mount Carmel. Any story connected to a "Cave of Elijah" is to be located there, unless proven otherwise.

The question remains though: Is there any source for how long this cave here has been associated with Elijah, and the main one as well for that matter? Or are these just folk legends floating around through mythological time, w/o any precise anchor? This as a separate topic. Arminden (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Berland is indeed a convicted sex offender and his habit is to stir up disputes and fights for free, but there are indeed ancient sources identifying the place as the tomb of Elisha the prophet.

After Rosh Hashanah 1741, Rabbi Chaim Ben Atar held the Yom Kippur prayers in the Eliyahu Cave on the side of Mount Carmel. The day after Yom Kippur they went up to pray at the site which they identified as the grave of Elisha ben Shefat, near the Stella Maris monastery building today.(Quoted in the Hebrew Wikipedia about Haim Ben Atar and found in the description of his journey)

Rabbi Natan of Breslav, the distinguished student of Rabbi Nachman of Breslav, writes that during his visit to Israel he visited Zion the prophet Elisha.

It should be noted that at the time of Rabbi Haim Ben Atar's visit the monastery had not yet been built

Whereas Rabbi Natan of Breslav visited the place about a year after the monastery was blown up and destroyed by the Muslim ruler.

Rabbi Nachman of Breslav who visited the Land of Israel in 1798 and stayed in the cave of Eliyahu the Prophet did not go to visit the Zion of Elisha the Prophet and apparently the reason that at that time the monastery was already built צחי 98 (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. However, this does in no way answer to my concerns:

- What tomb?

- What in these texts indicates that they refer to the small grotto, now inside the church, and not the large traditional one a short distance away?

So: far from being persuaded. Also a new question arising: what on Earth is "the Zion" of somebody, say, of Elisha? Never came across such an expression before.

Hebrew Wiki? THAT is the source?!

Still waiting for a better try. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@צחי 98: hi. I'm pinging you because I don't know if you haven't seen my reply, or didn't wish to answer to the issues I'm bringing up (quotable sources for claims on Hebrew Wiki, how to identify sites mentioned there with concrete cave at Stella Maris, what tomb/where is it to be seen, what's "the Zion of X"). It's not the best of times, but still. Take care, Arminden (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

For how long has the cave been associated with Elijah?

See also above: Is there any source for how long this cave here has been associated with Elijah, and the main one as well for that matter? Or are these just folk legends floating around through mythological time, w/o any precise anchor? Arminden (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, PLEASE STOP!

Dear 2603... PLEASE STOP! I can sea you're quite learned in Church matters, but you obviously have no clue yet about how things are done on Wikipedia.

1. No edits without sources, and there is a definition for reliable sources (RS).
2. No edits without a summary, i.e. a short description.
3. No own research.
4. No personal point of view (POW).
5. Use the talk-page to explain controversial changes.
6. It's best to choose a "user name" and allow other editors to have exchanges with you on your own talk-page (you will see at the top of any Wiki page when a message arrives). As it is now, I'm not even sure you'll get to read this.

And a few more rules along the same lines.

Wikipedia is a group effort, you cannot steamroll over other editors' work without presenting good support for your changes, that is: good sources, useful edit summaries, and ideally talk-page explanations.

One can see that you adopt Church-inspired terms and spelling, which are not acceptable on Wikipedia, such as "Holy Seventh Crusade to the Holy Land" - Seventh Crusade is acceptable, without Holy, and btw, it missed its target and ended up in Egypt. Overcapitalisation of Church terms which don't constitute proper names is also a problem.

I'm quite relaxed, won't make a fuss when you add something useful and plausible w/o indicating the source, but mark it as "citation needed", don't hide it behind existing refs, which if looked up don't contain that info. This way you at least allow others to look up a source and add it later. Not doing that creates such a mess, that the whole paragraph will end up being removed - so you're doing a great unintentional disservice to everyone.

I don't have acces to a computer at this moment, but will make sure to revert all your edits unsupported by sources as soon as I'll get to one. At least some are beyond the pale ("Lord Napoleon"?! BS at any time, but during his service as general in the army of the Directorate, the worst of all BS), most others are just unsourced if nothing else. I usually hate bulk-reverts, but you went far too far here and it is your duty to work carefully, not mine or anyone else's to take the edits 1 by 1 and find the few acceptable ones.

Cheers, Arminden

PS: Who can pls follow up and make sure our friend 2603... reads & reacts to this appeal? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the above editor's disagreement with the IP editor's constant insertion of unsourced material to the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)