Talk:Bayt Jibrin

Untitled

Why so much on the wedding dress? It seems disproportionate... AnonMoos 15:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it seems very unnecessary, I've seen it on other town articles in the Hebron District like al-Dawayima -- Al Ameer son 19:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Date changes to March 19th, see Journal published on pg III-13 The Holy Land, by Studio Editions, 1989

Culture

A woman's jillayeh (wedding dress), from Beit Jibrin, about 1900, is in the Museum of International Folk Art (MOIFA) collection at Santa Fe, USA. It is of handwoven indigo linen and has very long, pointed wing-sleeves. The qabbeh (=chest-piece) is embroidered with several patterns: the qelayed pattern, a pattern with inverted, smaller chevrons; the so-called maya ("water") motif, el-ferraneh ("the bakers wife") pattern, and the saru ("cypress") motif. The side panels of the dress are completely covered with embroidery. The motifs include: mushut ("combs"), qubur ("graves"), fanajin qahweh ("coffee cups"), and rukbeh ("knee"). There are some shajarat el-hub ("trees of love") embroidered on to the red and orange silk on the front of the skirt. The embroidery is silk cross stitch, mainly in red, with some orange yellow, pink, and purple.

MOIFA also has a shambar (large veil) from the late nineteenth century from Beit Jibrin. This veil would be used with a jillayeh as above, for weddings and festivals. It consists of 3 sections of handwoven black silk (each the width of the loom) embroidered and joined together lengthwise with Cretan stitch. There is a heavy red silk fringe which was made separately and added to the embroidered end.

I really object to this removal; Beit Jibrins importance regarding costumes is also mentioned elsewhere (which I will add). Now, I totally agree that the article, with or without this part, is "tilted", but that should be amended by adding lacking material, not by subtracting existing material. Regards, Huldra 11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Also: I see that an individuals testimony was removed with the edit-line: "can we use neutral sources talking about the events instead of personal, partisan testimony?" Fine. The problem is that "personal, partisan testimony" (about 1948 events and after) is perfectly acceptable elsewhere; see eg Abu Ghosh. Now, if it is acceptable there, it is also acceptable here. If it goes out here; it goes out there. Simple as that. For the moment I am reintroducing it here; if anybody feels like removing it then please do not "forget" to remove similar material from Abu Ghosh. Thank you. Regards, Huldra 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

References

GA?

• It is wonderful to see that the article has improved as it has... just a few points: the page ref. numbers that I wrote to the Morris ref. seem to have disappeared during the latest editing... compared to my last edit at 10th June [1] the "p. XIX, village #322. Also gives the cause of depopulation" have disappeared, so has all the page-numbers to the Morris-references in the "1948, and after" section"... please:; reinsert them!! Thanks, Huldra (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Also, I have found a lot of new facinating info. about Bay Jibrin in Trisdam, will insert it ASAP. Huldra (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For the Morris and Khalidi references, they're still there but I turned citations of Morris that have the same page into a single ref to avoid redundancy. The citations are still there and on the reflist you could find Morris as the 1st one. This citation links to four different footnotes in the article. Citations #16 and #17 are also Morris. If I'm missing something, please tell me and I'll fix the mistake. I would hate to have messed a reference up. On a second note, do you have the ref for Beit Guvrin means the "home of heroes" or "house of men" in Hebrew. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for getting "p. XIX, village #322. " back, but the references concerning the 1948 war are still all wrong. ( the ref. to Benny Morris (2004), p. 414, Benny Morris (2004), pp. 462, 465, Benny Morris (2004), p. 468)) ..are still all gone.)

As to the "house of men" in Hebrew: it was inserted by an an anon [2] on 30 Oct. 2007... I have do not have a ref....I have absolutely no clue to where this was from. Sorry. Huldra (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll fix this mistake immediately (I am terribly sorry!) As for the uncited claim, I'll hide it until we find a ref. What else do you think the article needs before you nominate it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, I will just add the other stuff from Schölcht... and the facinating new stuff from Tristram.....and give you some time to copy-edit it.......and then I will nominate it for GA...ok? Huldra (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) (PS: I have no idea as to why Schölcht did not use the Tristram-stuff, perhaps he did not know it?? Strange, as Schölcht is otherwise very comprehensive)

Thats great and I fixed that reference mess. Can't wait to see what you will add to this great article! Until then I will look around for more info, but mostly I will read through the article to copyedit and find MoS errors. Btw, I'm not such a good copyeditor; usually I ask Tiamut for help in copyedditing before I nominate an article so I hope the potential reviewer would help in this occasion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I´m done now; I don´really have much else to add. Some ce might be needed.. especially the refs. If there are no great objections; then I will go ahead and nominate this for GA, ok? (If it is the same as with Palestinian costumes, it will take a few weeks before anything happens, anyway.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures?

Ok, for more pictures (although this article already has two more pictures that the average "depopulated village") : besides the David Roberts picture , try the Matson collection; that is, go to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/mdbquery.html, type in "Jibrin" and search. The problem is: none of the pictures in the Matson collection are for sure before 1923. Sooo: we must contact the curators at the Matson collection and ask them if we can use the pictures. Anybody volunterer?

Seems like too much to do, and you're right this is the only depopulated village with two pictures. If we find an old picture of Bayt Jibrin (which we'll be bound to find) we'll upload it. Right now the status quo is just fine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PS

Al-Almeerson: thanks for finding the Ázza refugee-camp...never thought about the possibility of it being named after the "prime" family...facinating.. Huldra (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quite interesting (It looks the 'Azza were the Husaynis of Bayt Jibrin). Anyway the article is just a stub from a UNRWA profile. I'll expand it later. Right now I'm working on this article and an interesting little village in the Jordan Valley named al-Fasayil. Very historic but very small and primitive until today. Its being eaten away slowly by house demolitions. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS

ahh, yes, we are all missing Tiamut <sob>Pls, pls, come back! Huldra (talk) 07:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully she does come back, the project needs her very much. She would be extremely delighted to see an article on a depopulated village potentially becoming a GA. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Whose Kamil Pasha?

Is he a governor, a general or just a local Ottoman sympathizer. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

From when? Kıbrıslı Mehmed Kamil Pasha...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be. Did he reign in 1855? --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

His first post was in the household of the Khedive of Egypt

Between 1885 and 1913 he filled the office of Grand Vizier four times. His periods of office were;

• from 25 September 1885 to 4 September 1891, under Abdülhamid II's reign,
• from 2 October 1895 to 7 November 1895, under Abdülhamid II's reign,
• from 5 August 1908 to 14 February 1909, under Abdülhamid II's reign and during the Second Constitutional Era in the Ottoman Empire,
• and from 29 October 1912 to 23 January 1913, under Mehmed V Reşad's reign and during the Second Constitutional Era of the Ottoman Empire.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Yepp; that´s the guy, (though my source say he died in Cyprus in 1916, not 1914. )..But he was indeed grand vizier four times. See p.207-208, Blumberg. And I will just add a little more from James Finn, and possibly Kahlidi, and then I will nominate this article for GA. Huldra (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Village Template

Problem on causes of depopulation. the causes will not allow a reference on the causes. So I've left the reference off. Mildly annoying I tried it every which wayAshley kennedy3 (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Its alright, as long as it's referenced somewhere in the article and it is. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Crusader castles....Bethgibelin was the first in a series... Blanchgarde...Ibelin were part of the series.. to allow Yappo and Caesarea to be used as as Crusader/pilgrim ports. P.S. nice job your doing...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Jean Richard (1921) "The Crusaders c1071-c1291" Translated by Jean Birrell: reprinted 2001 Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-62566-1, for the Bibliography.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarifications

• Is Darum the modern-day Deir al-Balah? If so I could wikilink it.
• I changed "Muslim mystic" to "Sufi mystic", is this correct? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • About Darum; I have no idea, I was just quoting word by word from le Strange. (Try perhaps to find out the old history of Deir al-Balah?)
  • Change to Sufi..I am not sure this is a good idea, the text say "Muslim mystic". Were all mystics in Islam Sufis? (I´m asking; personally I don´t have a clue.) Also; how wide -spread was Sufism at that time? (Again, I don´t have a clue..) If you are not 100% certain that your changes are correct, then I think you should undo it (my 2 cents). Regards, Huldra (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Deir al-Balah was anciently known as Darum, but I'm as clueless as you about Muslim mystics and Sufis, I thought all Muslim mystics were Sufis. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

edit war

There is an editor who is deliberately provoking an edit war on this page by removing sourced material and introducing falsehoods out of sheer hatefulness and spite. If this does not stop, I will call in an administrator.--Gilabrand (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are introducing rubbish. I'm using Jean Richards the authority on the middle ages crusades in Palestine. You're using a geographer so well known that he had to self publish his guide book. That's not an edit war that is rubbish you're trying to introduce.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Alrighty. Seeing as an edit war gets nowhere fast, there has to be a way to resolve this:

• First, why can't both names be present? It's surely possible that the crusaders called the town "Bethgibelin" and that the local inhabitants of the region called the place "Beit Jibril".
• Second, as for the sourcing issues, I admit that Jean Richard is a very notable source from the Institut de France that I used in my classes on medieval history; however, Zev Vilnay does appear to be notable in his own right. His obituary in the New York Times notes that his work was also considered authoritative and that it was reprinted into "24 editions and was translated into many languages." Based on that, I think each source is valid enough to meet the standards set by Wikipedia:Verifiability. Just remember: the threshold of proof on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; as it is impossible to know for certain what the place was called in the middle ages without the use of a time machine, and even then we might get ten different answers.
• Third, each of your work on the article is appreciated and has certainly increased the article's standards. If there are reasons that either one of you have for not providing both names for the town, please provide your concerns here so there can be some type of consensus on the issue. Best, Epicadam (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added both those names, using Vilnay as a source. Her response was to delete the information, charging that Vilnay's work is "self published." She followed that by a string of edits claiming the book was a plasticized, beribboned pamphlet or something of that sort. --Gilabrand (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. I see no problem in keeping both names. Although, the wording of the paragraph is a tad funny. Perhaps a better way to say it would be:

Bayt Jibrin has had many names over the centuries as a result of the various conquering empires that fought over control of the region. The town was known in Greek as Eleutheropolis (Gr. EX€vOEparrbXcs) meaning “city of the free." Around 1st century AD, the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus described the city as an administrative capital called Bethletephon. Later, the Egyptian-Roman geographer Ptolemy referred to the city instead as Baitogabra. During the Middle Ages, Bayt Jibrin was known by crusaders as Bethgibelin, but evidence suggests that the town was also known locally as Beit Jibril, meaning "house of Gabriel". The modern name Bayt Jibrin comes from Arabic meaning "house of the powerful".

• Just a note, there is no reference listed for the source cited "Ptolemy, V, 16, 6". That definitely needs to be fixed. Best, Epicadam (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Greek name of a city called "Bet Gubrin" in the Talmud and "Baitogabra" by Ptolemy. In the Old Testament the name can not be identified, but it probably occurs in a corrupted form (see Josephus, "B. J." ed. Niese, iv. 8, § 1). From II Chron. xiv. 9 it is likely that the city had no existence in ancient time. Later the Hebrew name came to the front as Bait Jibrin, a village with some ruins, twenty minutes to the north of Merash, the old Maresah. The immediate vicinity is rich in natural and artificial caverns. As "ḥorim" means "caverns" in Hebrew, and "ḥor" also signifies "free," the Greek name is founded on a confusion of, or a conscious play upon, words.

Bibliography: Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, ii. 331 et seq. 610, 661; Pal. Explor. Fund Memoirs, iii. 237, 266; Pal. Explor. Fund Quarterly Statement, 1879, p. 138; Neubauer, G. T. p. 122. [3] Jewish Encyclopedia says Horim means caves???? Are you going to tell them it's gibberish Gilabrand???Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Epicadam's wording. I will copy and an paste it in the section and any corrections or fixing Ptolemy's reference could be implemented afterwards. Guys may I remind you that this article is going through a GA review. Let's take care of this problem as quickly as possible, since I'm sure it could fail the stability guideline. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue has been resolved, correct? --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it has. The following was added: "However according to John Henry Augustus Bomberger and Johann Jakob Herzog "the Jewish legends concerning it [Bayt Jibrin] are not worthy of credit".[8]"

I'm not quite sure how this fits in here at all; nowhere preceding that sentence are "Jewish legends" ever mentioned nor is clear what "it" refers to. At present, it seems like "it" refers to the preceding sentence about the name "Bait Jibril".

The text quoted says "It [Eleutheropolis] may have received its name from special privileges conferred by the Romans; but the Jewish legends concerning it are not worthy of credit." That, to me, says that there was a legend that the term "Eleutheropolis" ("city of the free") came from the idea that the city had more autonomy than other places and that the authors Bomberger and Herzog are simply debunking that claim. It doesn't say anything about "Bait Jibril". If this is meant to provide an alternate explanation about the term "Eleutheropolis", then this aside should be located after its mention in the second sentence and be made less ambiguous. Best, Epicadam (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally sure what that was instated for, you have to ask Ashley to be completely sure. I think it's trying to discredit Zev Yilnay's Beit Jibril evidence since Yilnay, I assume is a Jew. However, I don't know if Herzog and Bomberger are saying Yilnay's statement is Jewish legend. To be safe, it should read "However, according to authors John H. A. Bomberger and Johann J. Herzog, Beit Jibril is not worthy of credit and is Jewish legend" or you could totally remove the "and is Jewish legend" portion. What do you think? --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering that the Bomberger and Herzog text doesn't say anything about "Beit Jibril", I'd say remove it altogether. If there's a source that directly contradicts Vilnay's claim that the area was called Beit Jibril, then it can be included; the Bomberger and Herzog text doesn't say that. To be perfectly honest, I really don't understand what the issue is with including both pieces of information. The area was home to many people so it's perfectly plausible that there were different names depending on whether you were an Arab, Jew, or Roman. If some editors have a political problem with a source based on who the author is then that's an entirely separate debate, but it does not belong on Wikipedia. Hopefully this can get resolved soon. I'll provide a secondary review of the article to outline what, if anything, could be revised to meet GA standards. That is, of course, provided that there aren't any continuing edit wars. Best, Epicadam (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed this "new" piece of information because it falls under the category of WP:SYN. The Bomberger/Herzog Protestant encyclopedia was written in the 19th century. Using a random phrase that is unrelated to the topic to disqualify something written by a 20th century geographer is unacceptable (and I won't even begin to speculate what the motives are). I still think there is a problem with the wording of the statement about the "modern" name Bayt Jibrin. Clearly it is not a modern name, but the old name interpreted on the basis of its literal meaning in Arabic. Can someone who knows Arabic rephrase this? --Gilabrand (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "modern" in the sense that the name itself is modern, which it clearly is not, but rather that it is now known by that name. Perhaps it would be better to say "presently known as" or "present-day"? Epicadam (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm content with the removal of the Herzog bit and I agree that we should say "presently known as". --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Add to culture?

Legend claims Bayt Jibrin was the burial place of a companion of the prophet Muhammad, Tamim Abu Ruqayya. Other ancient tombs in the village include one for a local resident Sheikh named Mahmud and his wife Ameina.

This bit about legend and tombs is probably best left to the culture section of the town, rather than history as there are no other historical information about any of these people... Epicadam (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Painting

"The Scottish painter David Roberts did a sketch there in 1839 that became the basis for a lithograph that appeared in his book Holy Land, Syria, Idumea, Arabia, Egypt & Nubia ."

That is also probably best left to another section, maybe even Geography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicadam (talk • contribs) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Changes in the last three days

Whaw, --been away 3 days and the article has completely changed! First: a big thank you to Epicadam for reviewing the article, much appreciated!

Just a few quick notes (in a hurry!):

• on culture: the costumes were unique to each village, as it says in Palestinian costumes "a woman's economic status, whether married or single, and the town or district of origin," ...could be "read" from her dress. Now the inf. there is totally confused. The information is taken from two different sources, and that should be mentioned (and kept seperate), as the dresses/styles developed over time. I had thought of putting the details into footnotes, like, say, note 50 & 51 in Palestinian costumes. (hey, this article basically got started because of the costumes-section.....)
• on 1948 Arab-Israeli war: why was so much material cut out?
• the end of the Ottoman rule -section: It is ok to cut it down (& the story was also very messy), however, as it stands now it is simply wrong. The Pasha *did not* take an oath of loyalty from the local sheikhs, *before* he met Muslih al-´Azza in Bayt Jibrin etc. I´ll try to fix it later.
• I just took a very quick look at the edit-war(?) that there apparently have been here. I don´t know the involved writers, but of Israeli guide-books in general, read eg. Benvenistis Sacred Landscape: Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948. .. there are so many, many examples (One that Gilabrand and I have clashed about before, is American Colony Hotel...where his Israeli guidebooks talk about an "Arab" Pasha, or an "Ottoman" Pasha as original owner. In fact the owner belonged to the most prominent Palestinian family; the Hussaynis, and the "Arab" Pasha was the father of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni ..Ah, well, I have never come around to finding sources in English, yet.) But I digress))
• ok, I will (hopefully) be back in about 12 hours from now to do some more work.. Anyway, thanks to everybody who has worked on the article! Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Slashing of refs

The untidy editing has removed sources of references. Also some editor is removing referenced work so that the article agrees with their politivcal views.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In the history section bad POV editing has made the sentence unreadable.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reference to a Beit Guvrin is in the Talmud and that name has never been identified with with Bayt Jibrin. Fairy tales are being substituted for historical fact.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Now why would someone want to remove referenced work:-

Beit Guvrin (kibbutz)Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How many caverns 800 says an advertising blog or 80 says the Israeli national parks. Now how many are there?...

Crusades. Why would the crusaders try to capture a town that was already Christian?...

Beit Guvrin a name mentioned only in the Talmud (book on Law) but never identified with any geographical location...If the name Beit Guvrin is to be left maybe the article will need a piece on Hebrewdisation of the landscape to counterbalance the POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The SPNI reference is to the "Bell Caves" in the national park, of which there are 80. The other reference (which is an on-line magazine, not a blog) cites a general figure of 800 caverns in the region as a whole. --Gilabrand (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Beit Guvrin(= Eleutheropolis = Bethletephon = Baitogabra = Bethgibelin= Gibelin = Beit Jibril = Bayt Jibrin--Gilabrand (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Beit Guvrin is a word from the Talmud of a place unknown plonked on the site by the Naming Committee in a Hebrewdisation of the region post 1948. Sampson with his asses jaw bone was in the middle of a field, Mareshah is from the bible and was destroyed in 40BC Beit Guvrin at this place never existed, and as has been stated before with reference the Jewish legends are not worthy of credit. I wonder why you keep trying to remove it?

Beit Guvrin?????(as an edomite city)(Jewish legends are not worthy of credit, now the sentence is quite obvious)(= Eleutheropolis = Bethletephon = Baitogabra = Bethgibelin(says a historian who is the authority on crusader period = Gibelin(says a geographer at a time of hebrewdisation of the landscape) = Beit Jibril = Bayt Jibrin

The system has 80 Bell caves by the Israeli national parks authority. But as you like Myths and Fairy tales.......Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Even PalestineRemembered says there was a city called Beit Guvrin before Eleutherpolis. It must be a Zionist conspiracy.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When in time was it called Beit Guvrin? From my own research, it seems like the area was just a suburb of Maresha until the city was destroyed. Was the area called Beit Guvrin after the destruction of Maresha and before the introduction of the Romans? Epicadam (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Bet Guvrin replaced Maresha as the most important settlement in the area. It is initially mentioned by Josephus Flavius in 68 CE as one of the towns conquered by the Roman general Vespasian. Following the destruction of the Second Temple, it continued to exist as a rather crowded Jewish settlement until the Bar-KochvaRevolt, 132-135 CE. Emperor Septimus Severus changed Bet Guvrin's name to Eleutheropolis ("City of the Free") and granted it municipal status. Two aqueducts brought water from afar, and together with local waterworks, supplied the needs of the residents. Besides swellings, the city boasted an amphitheater and public buildings. The Jewish settlement was rehabilitated, and in the 3rd-4th centuries, Bet Guvrin was mentioned in the Talmud and Midrashim - Commentaries on the Scriptures - and by its sages.From the Roman and Byzantine periods, a large Jewish cemetery and architectural remains were discovered, as was a synagogue inscription. During the Byzantine period, Bet Guvrin was an important center of Christianity with a nurnber of churches. Most of the bell caves were dug during the Early Muslim period, and finds from the Crusader period indicate that it was a small fortified city, at the hub of which was a church dedicated in 1136. The city was surrounded by Crusader villages, and apparently the Church of St. Anne was restored at about the same time." This is a quote from UNESCO's tentative list of World Heritage Sites.

Excellent! Now, just find a way to integrate that (carefully) into the text and provide the proper UNESCO citation info (use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php it works great) and that should be perfect. I'll accept UNESCO as a valid source any day. Best, Epicadam (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Only we all know that Josephus did not call it Beit Guvrin. so we must understand that the name used by the world heritage site is the modern name for the town and not the ancient name. Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Italics

Aren't we supposed to italicize all non-English names (except the article name of course). For example, I italicized nahiya and liwa'', but do we italicize Eleutheropolis and Bethgibelin and Maresha throughout the article or just once? --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proper nouns (like names) are not italicized, but regular words like nahiya and liwa definitely should be. Epicadam (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire history question

In the first paragraph about the Ottoman Empire, it says this: "In 1596, Bayt Jibrin was incorporated into the Ottoman nahiya (subdistrict) of Hebron under the liwa´ (district) of Gaza." (I added "of Hebron", since that seemed to make the most sense.)

However, later in the article it says this: "In 1855, the newly-appointed Ottoman governor of the Jerusalem district, Kamil Pasha, made a more serious effort to subdue the district's rebellious Hebron region, which included Bayt Jibrin."

So, the question is what region/district/subdistrict was Bayt Jibrin actually in? It seems like it was a part of the "Hebron region" as well as the districts of Jerusalem and Gaza?? It's a bit confusing. Thanks, Epicadam (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe Huldra has the sources, however could it be that Bayt Jibrin indeed was a part of the main Gaza district, but nonetheless the Jerusalem governor got involved with the town in a wider effort against the rebellious Hebron region. Just to be sure, let's wait for Huldra's response. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw this question. I have changed the text so it says "Sanjak Jerusalem". AFAIK: during most of the 19.th century Ottoman rule in Palestine (≈present day Israel + West Bank + Gaza), the land was devided into three administrative areas, or "Sanjaks". The southern-most of these three was called the "Sanjak of Jerusalem", and included Jaffa, Jerusalem, Hebron and Gaza. (The northern-most district was called "Sanjaq Acre", and included Safad, Tiberias, Nazareth Acre, Haifa, and Jenin. The middle district was the smallest, called "Sanjaq Balqua" it included Nablus.) Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Only it wasn't called hebron under the ottomans so the ottoman name should be usedAshley kennedy3 (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Maqam?

"Other Islamic holy sites in the village include the maqam for a local sheikh named Mahmud and a tomb for a sheikha named Ameina.[3]"

I'm not so sure it's clear just exactly what a maqam is... Epicadam (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, the wikilink is incorrect. The intended meaning is "shrine". I'll replace it now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

History flow progress

Just out of curiosity, is the History section flowing better than before and are there any more problems with it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• The section is certainly much much improved. It now reads like an actual history rather than being completely disjointed.
• Perhaps someone can say why this is important: "In his descripton of Palestine, the 4th century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus listed Eleutheropolis as one of the five "Cities of Excellence".[16]"? Without knowing what qualifies as a "City of Excellence" this information is rather pointless.
• My only other concern is whether or not the story at the end violates WP:NPOV. I mean, it's a fact that the town was invaded and the residents fled. However, beyond that, having a source give eyewitness testimony to events that happened when he was 8-months-old seems just inflammatory, as there is probably no way he would be able to remember the events. I'm not saying that they didn't happen, but just that the quote may not be appropriate.
• Also, a source for the bit about the police station would be helpful. It would also be good to say whether the Israeli action was unprovoked; just to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't turn into political propaganda but rather just the facts. Epicadam (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with the removal of the quote, but we should see what the nominator thinks before any action takes place. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm very sure that the Morris ref covers the police station bit. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a Morris ref. has disappeared during the last 3-4 days; I will reinsert it. It is also strange that most of the Morris 1948 inf. was removed, while a Badil-quote (mentioned above) from a single individual remained. (Btw, it is ok with me if the the Badil-quote is shortened, but I do not think it should be removed altogether. We have many quotes from individuals in other places, even when these quotes run contrary to the general accepted history. (See eg. Abu Ghosh.) The general policy is to keep them, if they come from a "reliable source", (which Badil is, in this context.))

-And to Epicadam: as far as I can see, there were no provocation/danger to the Israelis in Oct. 1948 from the Bay Jibrin people/area. To put it bluntly: the Israelis wanted the land. And by Oct. they had the military power to easily take it. (As you might know: Bernadotte was killed (by Jewish extremists) much because of his suggestion, mentioned in an earlier version), Regards, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with providing eyewitness accounts of the war, but perhaps this one be replaced with testimony from someone who was not an 8-month-old baby at the time. Anything that a child that young would have remembered about the war undoubtedly would have been second-hand knowledge.

Further, there are grammatical and consistency problems with the source. For example, the account says, "In February 1958, a child was born in Beit Jibreen Village, a Palestinian village 26 km north-west of Hebron. He was the first child born to his parents. Some months later, the war between Israel and the Arab states began." Of course, the date of birth must be February of 1948 for Mr. Ghatashe to have even been alive during the 1948 war, but the fact that such a obvious error remains on the page leaves me to believe that the source is not as credible as one would like. Best, Epicadam (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Badil is a credible source, notwithstanding a printing error. But I agree; the term "eye-witness" is unfortunate, and should be removed. It is, as you say, a second-hand knowledge. But I do not think that is a reason to dismiss the whole quote. But as I said: it could do with some "shrinking", feel free to go ahead.. I´m afraid I don´t have an eye-witness-account from anybody who was an adult at the time, Regards, Huldra (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"In 796, Bayt Jibrin was reportedly destroyed by Muslim forces in an effort to combat Christian influence in the region. According to a monk named Stephen, "it was laid waste, and its inhabitants carried off into captivity".[17] However, this view is contested by the writings of the Muslim traveller al-Muqaddasi, who said this about Bayt Jibrin in the year 985" - In what way does describing the town in 985 "contest" the claim of a monk in 796? In my opinion, the revised history section is flawed by attempts to link facts for the sake of "flow" that only result in false conclusions. --Gilabrand (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. I would prefer the information to just be removed altogether, but I don't like to be the one to just delete information. If Al Ameer son is okay with it, I think the information about the city being "destroyed" should just be removed. Epicadam (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read what came after with the crusaders setting up a new town you would realise that the place ended and was empty as it was destroyed.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Or it could just be rephrased. The Studium Biblicum Franciscum - Jerusalem source reads "The year 796 was deadly for the city because "it was laid waste, and its inhabitants carried off into captivity," as the monk Stephen, a contemporary author, puts it. The systematic destruction was part of a plan for the annihilation of the Christians that affected also other cities, such as Ascalon, Gaza, Sarifea, etc."

I just don't think we should remove something of this importance if it is indeed true. However, the Muslims didn't really systematically destroy cities after their conquests. Whatever the case, it is quite possible that they rebuilt the city afterwards and it's importance was resored by 985 CE. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think I was able to rephrase this so there's no contradiction in the dates and claims... Epicadam (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice job! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

read the refs

The Ancient Arab Period. The country was occupied in 638 by the Arabs who, on their arrival at Gaza, tried to force sixty soldiers of the city garrison to apostatize. These resisted and, brought to Jerusalem, were martyred. Their remains were deposited in the church of the Trinity at Eleutheropolis. was from the ref but the sentence had suddenly got a whole new meaning....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ibelin

You're naffing the history up again read Jean Richards before you make historical choices...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, could you pls tell who this is addressed to? Regards, (who admits that she has not read Jean Richards)Huldra (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone is editing a subject they have no knowledge of in a hack and slash method. The crusades. and because they have no knowledge of they are getting it incorrect.

The Hospitalers were given a charter to built a new town (Frankish, following the latin rights) on a deserted site, this they did; later they built a fortification on the site as part of a series of castles to allow safe passage of Pilgrims. Ibelin was the other end of the line of fortification Blanchgarde was the centre point. The article should be linked to Ibelin, there is no article on Blanchgarde.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Mount Hebron, and Judean Mountains

Ok, I´m certainly not an expert on Israeli/Palestinian geography...so could somebody tell me the difference between Mount Hebron and Judean Mountains? Is one just a POV fork? Hebron Hills normally redirs. to Mount Hebron, ....but in the "Geography" section of the article somebody has linked it to Judean Mountains instead. Any explanation? Regards, Huldra (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

11th Century

I see that someone has edited out all dates. Is there some reason for leaving dates out?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Paper

Is wiki running out of paper? In not why the need to reduce the article to 2 words?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I was wondering about the same..... Regards, Huldra (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Edomites

I see all reference to it being an Idumean city have mysteriously disappeared.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bet Guvrin

Bet Guvrin replaced Maresha as the most important settlement in the area. It is initially mentioned by Josephus Flavius in 68 CE as one of the towns conquered by the Roman general Vespasian. Following the destruction of the Second Temple, it continued to exist as a rather crowded Jewish settlement until the Bar-Kochva Revolt, 132-135 CE.

As Josephus called it Bethletephon I think you'll find that the world heritage site is referring to the modern name and not the ancient name......that little bit initially mentioned by gives you a clue....Also note the WH site is referring to Beit Guvrin at times when we all know it was known by Bethgibelin....rather puts the kybosh on the name bet guvrin Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Josephus did not call it Bethlethephon, but Betabris (Wars 4:447) describing it was one of two villages taken by the Romans in 68 CE "right in the heart of Idumea." Eleutheropolis encompassed the districts of Bethletepha, western Edom and Hebron up to Ein Gedi, and included over 100 villages. The tannah Judah b. Jacob and the amora Jonathan (referred to in the Talmud as "Yonatan me-Bet Guvrin" or Jonathan of Bet Guvrin) were residents of Bet Guvrin. The Talmudic region known as Darom (Daromas in Greek) was within the area of Bet Guvrin. (Encyclopedia Judaica, Bet Guvrin, p.731, Keter Publishing, Jerusalem, 1972). Bet Guvrin is Aramaic ("guvrin" is the Aramaic plural of "gever" - man, or strong man) which was the spoken language of all residents of Palestine at the time. (Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, Catherine Hezser, 2001, pp.249-250). Toldot Milhemet Hayehudim Im Haroma'im (Wars of the Jews) translated into Hebrew from the Greek and annotated by Y.N. Simchoni, Masada Press, 1961, brings the original Greek in a footnote and equates it with Bet Guvrin (Book 4, 8:4). Bet Guvrin is discussed in the Talmud in reference to tithes and application of shmitta agricultural laws that apply only in the Land of Israel. --Gilabrand (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice, could you add that info to the Etymology section with the cited sources. That Aramaic meaning is especially useful. If Ashley has anything to counter that we'll just find a way both could be presented in the text. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC) And is this the CE 200 Talmud or the CE 500 Talmud.....because one thing it isn't is the Talmud of the time you are trying to use Bet Guvrin..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wacky editing

During the Persian period, after the destruction of the First Temple, Maresha and all of southern Judea was settled by Edomites, who came from the southeast. At the end of the 4th century B.C.E. Sidonians and Greeks came to Maresha, bringing the Hellenistic culture with them. In addition, isolated Egyptians and a few Jews lived there - refugees from the fall of the Temple and emigrants from the Coastal Plain. Thus was created the special fabric of society in this Hellenistic city, which was an important economic center. During the same period, the Lower City was built, and in it many caves were hewn. From historical sources and local excavations it became evident that in 113 BCE John Hyrcanus I, the Hasmonean, conquered Maresha and converted the residents of the city and its surroundings to Judaism. The upper and lower city became desolate ruins. However, Maresha recovered and was repopulated, but its settlement was sparse, and according to Josephus Flavius, it was finally demolished by the Parthian Army in 40 BCE.

Amazing we had all this in before and then some wacky editor took it out???? So lets put it all back in shall we....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maresha and Eleutheropolis

After these last few days it seems as if there is, in part, more detailed information about Maresha and Eleutheropolis in *this* article, than it is in the Maresha and Eleutheropolis articles! This is surely absurd. Could someone mv. relevant information over to the "main" articles about Maresha and Eleutheropolis? Thank you. Huldra (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Bet Govrin

Since someone wants to use the talmud; can we have a reference from the talmud or all reference to the talmud will have to go. A weak secondary source is not the best of sources...WH uses Bet guvrin for the 3 cent. yet 3rd cent was when Severus renamed it Eleutheropolis...4th cent was still Roman under the emerging Byzantium period when the taxes got extremely onerous due to the wars against Persia; causing a major economic collapse in the region..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

important

revival of Judaism? The reference mentions nothing of the sort. Only that it is mentioned in the talmud. Highly dubious unsupported POV.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Still no talmud references, which talmud, what page, and more importantly what does it say? Does it say for instance that all Jewish observance has ceased due to all the Christian villages in the area?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Date of calling Bet guvrin. Ref 4 is calling it bet guvrin from a biblical age yet no mention of bet guvrin in the bible or any other source. Talmud post biblical? if so when and what talmud.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll hide the specific text until a source is found. I don't want anything to hamper the GA review. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolving problem

UNESCO is certainly a reliable source. In the text it is used to back the statement that says the town was called Beit Guvrin before the Roman conquest. If anyone challenges this please post another reliable source that counters the statement. This way, we could word the sentence(s) with an "according to blank1 ..., however blank2 says ..." terminology. Please provide the counter statement from a reliable source and both sides remember to stay civil and not to dismiss each other's sources or statements. Let's get this issue resolved now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No UNESCO does not say that "Beit Guvrin" was the name of the place. The style of the writing has used Beit Guvrin where it is known that other names were being used. In much the same style that we have used Bayt Jibrin in this article....UNESCO is a tertiary source and not good.... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Look at the style of writing. Note when UNESCO use Josephus and at that time UNESCO use Beit Guvrin, yet we know Josephus uses Betaris, same with Baitogarba and Ptolemy... We also know that Bet Govrin, Beit Guvrin is not found in the bible... That leaves later Talmudic writings from 200CE or 500CE way past the time that Josephus and Ptolemy wrote about Bayt Jibrin.

• 2.What does the Talmud say about Bayt Jibrin? Nobody has given a reference to the Talmud. Therefore why say "indicating a revival of the Jewish community around that time".?... on what evidence is that based? The Talmud may say that the synagogue had to close due to lack of Jews in Bayt Jibrin... Is it the 3rd Century Talmud or the 6th century Talmud, if it is the 6th Century Talmud the mention of Bayt Jibrin could be to the Plague that passed through Palestine wiping out 40% of the population?

• 3. UNESCO only uses two names, the modern name and Mareshah. Why doesn't UNESCO refer to any other name? The style of writing is for raising awareness/profile of Beit Guvrin as it is being considered for WHS status. In other words it is a quick bit of advertising, it gives no references.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You make some very good points :-) We'll have to see what Gilabrand could say about this. I'll contact him. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Josephus uses Betaris" - Josephus wrote two versions of Wars of the Jews, one presumed to be in Aramaic (of which no copies have survived) and a translation into Greek specifically for the Romans. Obviously, he would use the Greek name in such a text, but you can't extrapolate from that that it was the only name. The Greek version was a commissioned work, and scholars believe it was also carefully edited by Roman editors to improve the linguistic style. My edition of the book (in a Hebrew translation with scholarly annotations) has a footnote offering both Betaris and Betabris - although Encyclopedia Judaica mentions only Betaris. As I already noted above, Toldot Milhemet Hayehudim Im Haroma'im (Wars of the Jews) translated by Y.N. Simchoni, Masada Press, 1961, brings the original Greek in a footnote and equates it with Bet Guvrin (Book 4, 8:4) Another point I have already made (it might be nice if you actually read my answers, is that Bet Guvrin/Beit Govrin is discussed in the Jerusalem Talmud (also known as the Palestinian Talmud) which was written in the 3rd-4th centuries. There are many references to Beit Guvrin/Govrin, one of them regarding tithes and the application of "shmitta" agricultural laws. (Tractate Y D'mai 2).In addition, two rabbis are specifically described as residents of Beit Guvrin--Gilabrand (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"During the Roman period, cities in Palestine were given Roman names: Aelia Capitolina = Jerusalem; Diocaesarea = Sepphoris; Diospolis = Lydda/Lod; Philadelphia = Amman; Ptolemais = Acre, Eleutheropolis = Bet Guvrin" - This is a quote from "The Roman Road System in Judaea" by Israel Roll, The Jerusalem Cathedra: Studies in the History, Archeology, Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel ed. Lee Levine, Yad Izhak Ben Zvi & Wayne State University Press, 1983). It was standard practice for the Romans to rename cities, but these names were used for a limited period of time, and appeared in official documents and inscriptions. That doesn't mean that the old names were erased and no one used them anymore. I haven't seen anyone making the same claim for any of these other cities.--Gilabrand (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A book by Catherine Hezser, Jewish Literature in Roman Palestine (pp.249-250) [4]cites a passage in the Jerusalem Talmud by Rabbi Jonathan of Bet Guvrin in which he discusses the appropriate use of various languages: "Greek for song, Latin for war, Aramaic for mourning, Hebrew for speaking." (Tractate Y Megillah 1:11b)--Gilabrand (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting mixup: The Crusaders identified Beit Guvrin with Beersheba and it was only when Robinson arrived in the 19th century that it was equated with Eleutheropolis ("Perceptions and Images of the Holy Land" Yehoshua Ben Arieh, The Land That Became Israel:Studies in Historical Geography ed. Ruth Kark, Yale University Press & Magnes Press, 1989, p. 47)--Gilabrand (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys, both of you present good arguments and I can't see either of you accepting the other's statement so we must compromise. The only way we could solve this problem (which led to the GA fail by the way) is to have both arguments in the section. Period. I suggest we do something like this:

Bayt Jibrin has been renamed over the centuries by those who fought for control of the region. According to some sources, prior to the Roman conquest, the town was known as Beit Guvrin, deriving from the Aramaic word guvrin (the plural form of gavra meaning "man", or "strong man"). However, ???? contest that it was not called Beit Guvrin during that time period. The Romans gave it a Greek name, Eleutheropolis (Gr. EX€vOEparrbXcs), meaning “City of the Free". In his account of the Jewish revolt in 68 CE, the Roman Jewish historian Josephus called it Betaris, describing it as one of two villages taken by the Romans "right in the heart of Idumea."

We just need to know exactly who contests its name and an RS to back it, as well as an additional RS to back the UNESCO claim that it was called Beit Guvrin. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Who contests? Ashley. Although I suggest we wait until she writes a book and gets it published (not self-published) by a good university press (and definitely not UNESCO or a publication company that sounds too Jewish) before we add her name.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's a he (just found out) and let's just cool down here. If Ashley does not present a reliable source to back his argument, then there is no base for his argument and this discussion would be rendered pointless; the Beit Guvrin claim would stay without a "however" to counter it. Although I do request you add another source for it to back UNESCO. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Early use of bet Guvrin. Didn't happen. It was used after ptolomy. As in talmud either from 200 or 500. How can you prove a negative conclusively???

Josephus call it Betaris. Severus renamed it Eleutheropolis, Ptolomy calls it Betogabra Talmud calls it bet Guvrin( from when don't know either 200 or 500, which talmud?)...Crusaders bethGibeline . even Gilabrands evidence says about Hebrew speakers during the Roman period...not pre-Roman so sticking bet Guvrin in pre-Roman is incorrect. None of Gilabrands references gives a date. merely that it is in the Talmud. the original argument still stands, which Talmud CE200 or CE500.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Bible

The bible has Mareshah a long way before 40BCE. and the Bible has Mareshah not Maresha...The Bible tells us all about it being an edomite city...Which again does not square with the place being known as Bet Govrin...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail

Hi all. The week review period is up and it still appears that there is still a good deal of work being performed on the article. For this reason, I believe the article fails the stability requirement of WP:GACR. When the article is in final form, please renominate! The article has come a long way since its original nomination and I'd really like to see it get up to GA status. Remember: there's no waiting period necessary to renominate, but since this article has had some stability issues, it may be best to wait for a few days after the last major edits to relist at GAN.

Please find the GA talk page here: Talk:Bayt Jibrin/GA1 Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

history sections

"Typically not necessary to have subsection headers marking divisions in time" - I disagree with whoever wrote that. I have worked on many articles (including featured articles) that mark divisions in time. The history section here is too long and needs subsections badly--Gilabrand (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC).

I completely agree. I used subsections for Bethlehem and Nablus and it was fine. I say "Roman period", "Arab, Crusader and Mamluk rule", "Ottoman rule" and "British Mandate" (the '48 War should get it's own section or just be included in British Mandate section?). --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

removing requested information

This historical figures from the Talmud were introduced because there was a demand for them, as proof that Jews lived in this city. To remove them on the grounds that they are in the same category of some unknown Muslim shaykh who may or may not be buried there is unacceptable. If you want this article to move forward, removing sourced information that I have taken great pains to gather is not the way to do it. I complied with requests to bring citations and information, which I have done. I have not incorporated it in the article because of the edit warring that is going on here. Knowing who I'm dealing with, all my work will be in vain. When the behavior of disruptive editors is reined in (which I am surprised has not been done until now, but is clearly part of a pattern of dealing lightly with disruption if it backs up your political agenda), I will proceed further.--Gilabrand (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, sorry I just removed the bit because Epicadam and I discussed that saying the archbishop of Cyprus was from the city and a Muslim mystic had a hermitage there was not relevant to the history of the "city". Saying there was a revived Jewish population in the city with a reliable source (which you added) is enough and is incontestable. The source you used backs a non-controversial claim that doesn't need additional "proof" that Jews lived there by giving examples of notable Jews who were from the city. We don't need to list notable Christians or Muslims who lived in the city to prove they had a presence there. Unless Judah or Jonathan had something to do with the history of Bayt Jibrin (any activities there) then their mentions will be removed from the body and relocated to See also where we will also list the archbishop. Thanks for your efforts and honestly, they are greatly appreciated. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that my goal on Wikipedia is not GA status, but FA status - and I will devote my energies to any article I believe is worthy, regardless of whether it belongs to WP Israel or WP Palestine, in the interests of providing an in-depth presentation of a part of the world that is sadly dismissed as a war zone and nothing more. Now, in order to provide this multi-layered view, I see nothing wrong with mentioning a bishop or a shaykh or a Talmudist who lived and worked in a city (as long as this is sourced), even if we have no record of the street they lived on or where they bought their groceries. History comes alive that way. It sheds light on the fact that people of different religions lived in this city (even if some editors would prefer that it not be so) - not to mention the fact that these were not just ordinary villagers but important religious leaders, which adds a whole other dimension. Bait Jibrin/Beit Guvrin was not just a village. It was a hub of activity in the ancient world before it was a rural settlement that was notable only for the taxes the villagers paid on their beehives. As for moving these Talmudists to "also see" - that makes no sense, as there are no articles about them. The link is to articles about other people. At the moment, this information may stand out, but once the history part is divided into subsections, as suggested, it will make more sense. Then you can also add more information about the ancient sheikh tombs and Christian clergy without a problem. I am glad to hear my input is appreciated by someone. Up until now, I can't say that I have felt it.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it certainly has. I could work with what you're saying and we'll include the bishop and the shaykh as well. I presume Epicadam wouldn't have much of a problem either. I say we divide the history section now to it's previous setting. I'll go ahead and do it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The history section already looks better, and could possibly be refined further, as you say. I will read it later. I love messing around on Wikipedia, but sometimes I do have to work...--Gilabrand (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Beit Guvrin

Gilabrand your web site gives as reference to the use of the name Bet Guvrin:-

History of Occupation: (Mareshah/Eleutheropolis/Bet Jubrin)

A. Late Bronze Age: Josh. 15:44 mentioned as city of Judah. Keilah and Achzib and Mareshah

B. United Kingdom: no mention.

C. Divided Kingdom:

1) A city fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. 11:5-8). Mareshah

2) Good King Asa (3rd king of DK) attacked by Zerah of Sudan (called the Ethiopian) sets stage for great victory spoils for Judah (2 Chron. 14:8-10). Mareshah

3) Micah 1:15 Tells of the coming judgment described in the trail of Philistine armies from Gath to an invasion of Judah, it makes way through Mareshah.

D. Judah Alone: no mention.

E. Persian Period: no mention.

F. Hellenistic Period: C4BCE populated by Idumeans, Sidonians and Greeks, (based on burial evidence). Lower city built. Few Jews and Egyptians. Circa 113 BCE, John Hyrcanus I (Hasmonean) converted city and environs to Judaism, Upper and Lower city become ruins.

G. Roman Period: Repopulated until destroyed in 40 BCE by Parthians. Birthplace of Herod the Great. Replaced by Marissa Josephus Antiquities 12, 8, 6: mentioned first by Josephus in 68 CE as conquered by Vespasian. Crowded with Jews between 70 CE and 132 CE. About 200 CE Emperor Septimus Severus renamed city Eleutheropolis or city of the free, granted it municiple status. Aqueducts, five highways, ampitheatre, public market built.

H. Byzantine Period: C3-4 CE sages mentioned like Rabbi Yonaton and Rabbi Yehuda Ben Yaacov lived here. Large Jewish cemetery discovered. Several churches (including St. Anne’s) built.Ptolomy Betogabra early Byzantium then Bet Guvrin

I. Early Arab Period: Most of the Bell caves dug in early Arab period, used for building chalk road surfaces.

J. Crusader Period: Church in lower city (near road) dedicated in 1136 CE.

K. Modern Period: Arab village position of Egyptian Army (took British Taggart fort) June 48, removed October 48 by Israel. May 49 Kibbutz established.

[5]

only one little detail wrong Josephus doesn't refer to Beth Guvrin as claimed by the reference but he did call it Betaris. Sorry but you'll have to find another reference. The first time the Beth Guvrin is used is in the Talmud either the cCE200 or the cCE500. And the birth place of Herod??? Ashkelon...no exactly an accurate site....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One of your (many) problems is that you keep up a steady patter, but never look at the answers. I wrote above that the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the 3rd-4th centuries. Here is a source for the fact that Rabbi Jonathan of Beit Guvrin is from the 3rd century. "Jonathan (Nathan) of Bet Gubrin: Palestinian scholar of the third century; junior of Joshua b. Levi and senior of Simon b. Pazzi (Cant. R. i. 1). He confined his labors to the Haggadah, and contributed to the Midrash several homilies, some of which, however, are given under different names in other compilations. One of his sayings was: "Four great languages have been given to the world: Greek for song, Aramaic for dirges, Hebrew for conversation, Latin for war" (Yer. Meg. i. 71b; comp. Esth. R. iv. 6; Midr. Teh. xxxi. 21). Bibliography: Bacher, Ag. Pal. Amor. iii. 592.S. S. S. M." (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?letter=J&artid=404)--Gilabrand (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly 3rd 4th century and not pre Roman. so are you going to remove the pre roman reference.....The bible references are to Mareshah not bet GuvrinAshley kennedy3 (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All the material I have cited above shows that Beit Guvrin was inhabited by those who fled Maresha, before the Roman period. I am anxiously awaiting the learned book you are writing on the history of the world. When that happens, you can rewrite Wikipedia. --Gilabrand (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Beit Guvrin is not mentioned in the Bible, Beit guvrin is only mentioned in the talmud 3, 4 century. I haven't re-written the bible however you are attempting to do so... until you finish your re-write the references you are using say that your use of bet guvrin for a pre-Roman name is incorrect...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment (how to solve this problem)

To find a solution on whether or not using "Beit Guvrin" as Bayt Jibrin's original Aramaic name in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Beit Guvrin was some time between 200 AD to 500 AD as per the Talmudic sources....The name did not stick as by the time Benjamin of Tudela visited there were only 3 Jews left in the town....The name then changed to Bethgebrim by the time of the crusades....The place was Mareshah first...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Acta Sanctorum Martyrum Orientalium et Occidentalium" (Rome, 1748). gives the Martyr Peter abselama as being born in the district of Beth Gubrin during the Sassanid period.....It looks as though Beth Gubrin and Eleutheropolis were used at the same time (one vernacular the other official?) until 796 when the place was made waste as a desert....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

G. Roman Period: Repopulated until destroyed in 40 BCE by Parthians. Birthplace of Herod the Great. Replaced by Marissa Josephus Antiquities 12, 8, 6: mentioned first by Josephus in 68 CE as conquered by Vespasian. Crowded with Jews between 70 CE and 132 CE. About 200 CE Emperor Septimus Severus renamed city Eleutheropolis or city of the free, granted it municiple status. Aqueducts, five highways, ampitheatre, public market built.

In this period before being Eleutheropolis, Bible Mareshah, then the Edomite period (this rather does in any Hebrew name) Josephus Marissa (Josephus Antiquities 12, 8, 6), ptolemy puts in Betogabra (Translates as House of Gabriel), then a period of Eleutheropolis and Beth Gubrin until (796) House of Gabriel Beth Jibrin comes back into play with the crusaders....You should also note that it was not mentioned in Josephus Jewish Wars.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Old sources

It seems as if almost every traveller to Palestine visited Beyt Jibrin after Robinson had identified it as Eleutheropolis. What is great is that many of the books from these travellers have come on the net in the last year or two (the copyright has long since expired). I will try to collect the ones I have found here, with page ref. (for a general list, see User:Huldra/Sources)

• James Finn (1868): Byeways in Palestine, Search for "Bait Jibreen"
  • • Spring 1849. p. 176, p.178-182, stay at Bait Jibreen, at the house of the brother of the sheik
    • Spring 1853, note 182: fighting in Bayt Jibreen, at least 35 killed.

• Robinson, Edward (1856): Biblical researches in Palestine, 1838-52. A journal of travels in the year 1838. By E. Robinson and E. Smith. Drawn up from the original diaries, with historical illustrations,

• William McClure Thomson, (1859): The Land and the Book: Or, Biblical Illustrations Drawn from the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and Scenery, of the Holy Land Vol II, 1860. Search for "Beit Jibrin", There are many different versions of this book, also on the net, some with illustrations! See illustrations:
  • • p. 359: [6]
    • p. 371: [7]

• H. B. Tristram (1865): The land of Israel: Travels in Palestine. Mohammed Isa of Bayt Jibrin: February-April 1864, p. 374, p.377, p.378, p.381 and p.506

• Carel Willem Meredith van de Velde (1854): Narrative of a Journey Through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852. VOL II.

I will add more as I find it. Regards, Huldra (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tamim-al Dari

I copied this from the Hebron talk-page, mostly as a set of useful links for a new article, Huldra (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC) :

The sahaba (companion) of the prophet Muhammad] Tamim-al Dari should really have his own article. He was apparently a Christian merchant, who was one of the first converts to Islam. He was then given lots of property in Hebron, which he (or his family) in turn made into a waqf for the famous Hebron 'table of Abraham' (simāt al-khalil).

See:

• Poster of the First Islamic Endowment in Islam The prophet's Esteemed Grant to Tamim Ibn Aws al-Dari "This document was given by Prophet Muhammad to Tamim al-Dari and his brothers in the year 9AH (630 AD). "This is a copy of the definitive original document, written by the hand of the fourth Caliph Ali bin Abi Talib. Granting them and their ancestors the city of Hebron -Al-Khalil- and the surrounding area."

This is what al-Muqaddasi writes about him in 985:

• (In Hebron)...public guest house continuously open, with a cook, a baker and servants in regular attendance...... from the bequest of Tamim-al Dari and others. (p.310)

And Yaqut al-Hamawi writing in year 1225:

• "Hebron was given in fief by the prophet to (his companion) Tamim al Dari and his family. There are named in the deed, Bait Ainun, Hebron, Al Martum, and Bait Ibrahim." (p.319)

See also:

• Tmīm al-Dārī by David Cook, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 61, No. 1 (1998), pp. 20-28

Abstract: "Tamim al-Dari is one of the most enigmatic of the Prophet's companions. The stories of his conversion are mutually irreconcilable, but there is a minute fragment of historical information about him preserved in the exegetical tradition which, together with other fragments, helps us to connect this figure with the Prophet even before the beginning of Islam. This helps to explain the unique land-deed by which Tamim supposedly received the area of Hebron in Palestine, a number of years before its conquest by the Muslims. This land-deed has been the focus of a continuing controversy in the Muslim legal literature, in which the Hanifites, speaking in the name of the Turk-Mamluk overlords, were pitted against the Shafiites."

• Prophecies of Apocalypse in Sixteenth-Century Morisco Writings and the Wondrous Tale of Tamīm al-Dārī -LM Alvarez - Medieval Encounters, 2007

• Tamim al-Darı: A Portrait of him as the First Muslim Artisan, by Avinoam SHALEM p. 507, ORIENTE MODERNO XXIII (LXXXIV), n.s. 2-2004

• Tamim-al Dari in E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 (".....at present day the keepers of haram al-Khalil claim to be descended from Tamīm al-Dārī" )

• A History of Palestine, 634-1099 By Moshe Gil, Ethel Broido

Now, interestingly, it seems as if he was buried at Bayt Jibrin, see:

• Sharon, Moshe (1997): Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (Bayt Jibrin p 109-142) ISBN 9004110836, p. 140-142

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bayt Jibrin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Initial overview

Starting review.Pyrotec (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read it through once; and on that basis it appears to met Wikipedia:Good article criteria, but I need to go through it now in depth a few times before I make a decision.

Two minor comments:

• In the Archaeology section, the statement that the Four Seasons mosaics were "defaced in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War" needs a citation.

It is already covered by the Studium Biblicum Fransicum - Jerusalem ref. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be mentioned in Reference 22, but the statement does not have an in-line citation calling up Ref 22. Perhaps some copyediting has been done - that statement is preceded by ref 50 and succeed by ref 51. Ref 22 is invoked by the sentence following ref 51.Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, now I see. I'll fix it immediately.

• Ref 5 states "Jewish Wars Josephus Flavius IV:447"; with no further details given (it's not listed in the Bibliography). I've got the Penguin Classics [1959] (revised 1970) version and I managed to find the reference; interestingly Idumea appears multiple times in the index but not Betaris. If there are no objections, I propose to add the Penguin Classics edition, with a page number, to the Bibliography section.Pyrotec (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No objections ;). --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Caves

I'm not quite convinced that the number of caverns and caves is a "A unique geographical feature of the Bayt Jibrin region..." is this statement referenced anywhere? I'm looking at a chapter by Anderson, James D. Chapter 26: "The Impact of Rome on the Periphery: The case of Palestina - Roman Period (63 BCE-324 CE) in: Levy, Thomas E. (Edr) (1995). The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. London: Leicester University Press. It mentions many caves in the western and south western foothills of Judaea and in Lower Galilee. Many adjacent to villages, made by villagers and occupied during war and insurrection, particularly during the Bar Kochba period. There are also the well known Qumran caves.

Could we agree on: "The Bayt Jibrin region contains a large number of underground caverns ......"?Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Moshe Sharon on pp.126-131 describes the caverns/caves as being "in the greater vicinity of Beit Jubrin." Either suggestion is fine.--Al Ameer son (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

GAR

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Comprehensive

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Comprehensive

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations, I'm awarding GA status.Pyrotec (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

List of other depopulated cities

Can this show/hide template below be used in the "see also" section?

{{Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War}}

This template also has a couple images. The template title links to List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict.

The list page, though, does not have images.

Also, the template is more specific. It covers around the time of the 1948 war. The list covers more time periods, and so it takes more time to navigate. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, its supposed to have been here. However, the images must go or be replaced with pics of village ruins not refugees. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for adding the template to the article. Others seem to think the images of refugees are OK. Please see Template talk:Villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I do too for now. Maybe another template just for 1948 refugee links and pics can be created?

Modeled possibly on this template with images:

Template:Holy sites in Judaism

It is in many articles, sometimes in the open state. See its "what links here" link. Here is one example; Rachel's Tomb. The template is open there. I think it is because there is only one show/hide template on that article page.

On this talk page there are now 2 show/hide templates. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely forgot about that discussion; sorry I didn't reply back. I meant Template:Palestinian refugee camps. Still, I don't see why we can't replace them with say perhaps: Image:Az-Zeeb remains.JPG, Image:Lifta ST 04.jpg, Image:SubaRuins.jpg, Image:Birwa Church.jpg and Image:BaytJibrin.jpg. I thin this discussion, if it continues, should be moved to the project talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see: commons:Category:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I categorized some of the relevant images there. Some of the other images need to be uploaded to the Commons.

I usually think people are more important than ruins. :) Template:Palestinian refugee camps does not seem like a template one would put in this Bayt Jibrin article. I think we need another template labeled Template:Palestinian refugees that focuses on people photos and links, rather than camps and ruins. This way we have 3 templates from start to finish of (1) where refugees came from (this template), (2) the refugees themselves, then (3) where they ended up (the camps template). The first 2 templates could be used here.

Feel free to copy any parts of the various discussions to the project page. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Map location

The map coordinates at the top of the article show the current location to be inside of Israel. Is this correct? I am categorizing the images in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bayt Jibrin is currently within Israel's borders. Is what you want to know? -- Al Ameer son (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I was confused by the article and some of the image descriptions. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1168 Hospitaller charter

It may be a little too off-topic for this page, but I've put the 1168 Hospitaller charter for Bethgibelin on Latin Wikisource, here, if anyone is interested. I couldn't find it anywhere online so I just copied it out myself. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Zero^talk 06:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the merge request was no consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

---

I'd would like to merge the Bayt Jibrin page to the Beit Guvrin, Israel page, since both pages refer to the same place, Beit Guvrin being what exists today.--Sreifa (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine this way. There are numerous other articles for ancient/medieval sites in the Middle East, distinct from the articles on the modern sites. These two articles are pretty large on their own so merging them would make one unnecessarily giant article. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The merge would only add a paragraph--Sreifa (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)--Sreifa (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to a merge. This article is about its own topic, a Palestinian town that was depopulated by the IDF in 1948 and the history of that town. Another town was founded on the land of this town in 1949, but they are not the same town and treating them as such is illogical. The topic of Bayt Jibrin, its history, and its fate merits its own article. nableezy - 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying Bayt Jibrin doesn't merit an article. But the way it's being done right now results in confusion and repetition. And you removed the National Parks cat, even though Bayt Jibrin was/is located in what is today a national park. Maybe all we need is a bunch of "see alsos" but something here doesn't mesh.--Sreifa (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed those cats because they are inaccurate. Bayt Jibrin does not exist as a park or an archeology site in Israel, the town no longer exists. Beit Guvrin does. nableezy - 12:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Bayt Jibrin as a place exists within the park, even if not as a living town. And since this article gives the history and archaeology, it is in the cat of a site in Israel.--Sreifa (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. A new town, founded in 1949, exists on the land of a town that no longer exists. This is not analogous to St. Petersburg and Leningrad, a city that remained the same except for the name. These are two separate topics, a city that existed pretty much uninterrupted from some time BCE through 1948 when it was forcefully depopulated of its residents and a new town that was established several months later in 1949. nableezy - 13:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

..and today a park exists in the same place (because of that same history). I'm not here to tell you that you're wrong about Bayt Jibrin, just that something here misses the bigger picture.--Sreifa (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but that park is not a part of Bayt Jibrin. It may be on the same site of Bayt Jibrin, but it is not a part of Bayt Jibrin. nableezy - 03:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The merging of Bayt Jubrin and Beit Guvrin pages is partial and has a lot of political implications. If you want to maintain the historic nature of this page one should start with Ancient Beit Guvrin / Eleuthropolis and include all the info. in one page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.10.166 (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it all historic?--Sreifa (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

Unify the 5 (!?!) articles dealing with the same site

Enough with this overpoliticised BS! One site is one site. Bayt Jibrin is history, no reason to make it the "main article". This "my lobby is stronger than yours" BS is on kindergarten level.
These 5 articles should be ONE:
-Bayt Jibrin
-Beit Guvrin National Park, actually Beit Guvrin-Maresha National Park
-Eleutheropolis
-Kibbutz Beit Guvrin, Israel
-Maresha
Arminden (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Arminden

See the discussion at Talk:Eleutheropolis. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bayt Jibrin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alcor.concordia.ca/~pal/History/Villages/batj@vil.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129115552/http://gemsinisrael.com:80/e_article000012102.htm to http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000012102.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090828082255/http://www.parks.org.il:80/ParksENG/company_card.php3?CNumber=509499 to http://www.parks.org.il/ParksENG/company_card.php3?CNumber=509499
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.palestinecostumearchive.org/regional.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030718004225/http://alcor.concordia.ca/~pal/History/Villages/batj@vil.html to http://alcor.concordia.ca/~pal/History/Villages/batj@vil.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bayt Jibrin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alcor.concordia.ca/~pal/History/Villages/batj%40vil.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/3d14c9e5cdaa296d85256cbf005aa3eb/cc68bab76ec42e79052565d0006f2df4%21OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://alcor.concordia.ca/~pal/History/Villages/batj%40vil.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105042928/http://www.archaeology-classic.com/Israel_E/Beth_Guvrin.html to http://www.archaeology-classic.com/Israel_E/Beth_Guvrin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bayt Jibrin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516215309/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Eleutheropolis to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Eleutheropolis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050512120818/http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ECG_EMS/ELEUTHEROPOLIS_Gr_EXEvOiparats.html to http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/ECG_EMS/ELEUTHEROPOLIS_Gr_EXEvOiparats.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)