Talk:Joseph's Tomb/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

This page seems not to have neutral point-of-view. It does not seem to acknowledge the Arab (Chrstian/Muslim) reverence for the site nor does it provide a balanced report of the conflicting reports regarding its attack and rebuilding.

http://www.revisionisthistory.org/palestine42.html (Ismael Shamir's account) is worth a read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.108.223 (talk) .

Surely neutral point-of-view does not mean add 50% whitewash. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply slapping a POV template on an article does not make it POV. It is expected that the editor detail why s/he thinks the article is POV, and/or alternatively make the article NPOV, as opposed to leaving the dirty work to others. --Shuki 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I beleive that I have made this article NPOV, however it still needs citations. --Musaabdulrashid 10:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem fair to contrast israeli leaniancy on access to holy places with palestinian harshness when israel frequently doesn't allow palestinians to visit Al-Aqsa mosque. --Musaabdulrashid 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Specifying 'Israeli citizens' is fair, but your statement 'frequently denies access' is blanketly untrue and at most exagerated for the example you brought only above. Israel rarely completely denies access to Palestinians to the Temple Mount. Occasionally, when tensions are high, it restricts access to older (40-45+) married adults since it has been proven that when tensions are high, the young ones tend to cause provocations, to put it mildly. In contrast, the Palestinians completely refuse to afford safe access to holy sites under their control, including Joseph's Tomb and other tombs as well as synagogues (Jericho and Gaza) basically relegating the Israeli government to restrict its citizens entirely from these sites and to the special rare visits under armed escort or otherwise to either sneak in in the middle of the night. --Shuki 22:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

noted. "frequently" has been changed to "on some occasions" --Musaabdulrashid 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's totally make it NPOV. --Shuki 19:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shuki, This article should not discuss the ramifications of how much territory is acctually Israeli. Stating that the israeli government does not allow israeli jews to visit nablus hinges its presence in this article on whether Israel can legally militarily gaurentee its citizens safty in areas that are not internationally recognized as Israeli or even claimed by the Israeli government (like nablus). In addition, its heavily redundant to what you added below, as well as what was already in this article. the word "control" should probably be changed as a vast amount of middle eastern territory has at one time or another been under israeli control in the last hundred years. "Soverignty" or "Claimed national territory" would be less misleading, as its impossible to garuntee religious access to any place simply because its under military control, no matter what the law says. This being said, that law should probably be cited. Until then "law" could be changed to "policy".--Musaabdulrashid 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. I removed the info about Israeli government and non-citizens since it is not relevant to this article about Joseph's Tomb. --Shuki 18:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Very good then--Musaabdulrashid 08:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio

It appears that the original article [1] was copied and pasted from the source it listed: [2]. It seems strange that we could have edited this so long without realizing that it was a copyvio so I thought I would ask here first if www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org liscences its works under GFDL. It seems doubtful to me. The normal WP:COPYVIO procedings should take place if this isn't explained soon.

I also edited the article to work more on the NPOV issue, which we now know the root of. --Musaabdulrashid 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This all seems very unnecessariy. I didn't write the article but I edited some things in, and I'm sure many people did too, thus changing it since then (I guess part of the destruction of the tomb was copied and remained). I doubt there's any copyright violation anyway. Amoruso 22:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Jewish Virtual Library is copyright 2006 yet the Wikipedia article was created in 2005!!! I did use public domain text at the time. The JVL article looks like it used the same text or an earlier version of the wikipedia article! Kuratowski's Ghost 23:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it doesnt matter what the copyright status of the piece was back then. In it's current form the aritcvle bears little or no resemblance - hence it not being a copyvio! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 00:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It does matter, you can't just change copyrighted material to make it not copyrighted. If the original version was a copyvio then the entire thing is a copyvio (excluding the paragraph on the destruction of the tomb, which appears to be original). This is explained clearly on the Template:Copyvio. More than half of this article could be a direct cut and paste anyway. The matching source was first cited in the article in the September 4, 2005 revision, before 2006. The date and copyright notice on the article doesn't matter anyway because all works are automatically protected under copyright the moment they are created in the United States (where wikimedia's servers are). Also, the JVL article cites sources from 2000 that this article never did cite, ever, indicating that if they copied this material that they completely fabricated those sources, which is a stretch. If this text was copied from public domain, kuratowski hasn't said where it was copied from under public domain yet. Until we have this established do not remove the copyvio tag again. --Musaabdulrashid 01:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok er, copyrighting is a difficult business. However the law does not cover text that resembles copyrighted material unless the material is printed (I think it's all a bit hazy). Anyway only if sections of the text are word for word can it be a copyvio - if the meaning and tone is the same but with different words then it isn'y copyvio it is sourced. As you can see from the copyscape page the wiki article does not copy infringe the first part of the text, however the second part is all taken vewrbatime and needs rewording. Also were killed in fighting around the tomb. The Israeli army subsequently section is a littele bit too close for comfort as it crosses 2 sentences so probably needs changing. It is easy done... --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 19:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this. If that text at JVL isn't free, or isn't from a PD source, then the article as it stands today is still a copyvio -- significant sections are close to identical. The claim that the text was originally from a public domain source needs to be documented; until it is, having the page replaced with the Possible Copyvio tag is appropriate. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The Internet Archive has a copy of this page from 2002, [3], which predates this article. —Centrx→talk • 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note the JVL's copyright page: "Generally, unless an entry specifically lists a source at the bottom of the page the copyright belongs to AICE." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

So, some of the article needs to be rewritten, getting rid of the text from that website, some of which remains in the current article. It is clear in comparing the current article with the website, which parts need to be rewritten and which parts are fine where you can just use what you already have in the article. Do the rewrite at Talk:Joseph's Tomb/Temp, but do not copy any of the copyrighted parts to there. This is also an opportunity to make it more neutral, if that was an issue. —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Started the rewrite. I did leave the copyvio ttext on the page but commented it out - its goign to be the reference so it may as well be easy to look at when rewriting. Ive just been deleting sections that I rewrite as Ive been going along :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok the rewrite is finised with all the copyvio gone. I redid other sections of it too and added some more references / sources (as well as sorting out the footnotes structure) Still needs more formatting work and there is some content still to add (mostly about the 2003 vandalism - from the WND article). Still it's a start and should save the article. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Done: Moved rewritten article over deleted copyright infringement. Looks good. —Centrx→talk • 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

nice work on the rewrite and question

I would like to congratulate the effort made in the speedy re-write. excellent work. I have a question - does anyone know if after Israel took control of the site during the present intifada, was the green paint washed off ? Or is it going to be left that way ? It seems astonishing... imagine someone painting the top of the Al Aqsa mosque, wonder if that's all right. Amoruso 22:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Written from Jewish point of view

The article is clearly written from a very Jewish point of view. It lists Jewish casualties and suggests that all violence was one-sided, as nothing is mentioned of Palestinian casualties or violence towards them. The article also doesn't mention the sites holiness to Muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petruspennanen (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have something citable and relevant to add to the article? Tomer^talk 10:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Which Joseph

The article does not tell us which biblical Joseph is being talked about.

Please click on wikilink in second sentence.--Shuki (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bias untrue statement

fears that Palestinian authorities are not sufficiently protecting Jewish and Christian religious sites

1. The Palestinian authorities are protecting all religious site to the best of their abilities, most jewish religious sites are under Israeli control anyways.[[4]][[5]]

2. Christians sites have been attacked like once or twice in Palestine threw the course of the modern history of the area, Christians are treated as Palestinians especially by the Israelis by the Palestinians and to imply otherwise is completely false.[[6]]

3. that statement implies that the Palestinian authorities can actually "protect", which is very innacurrate since the country is at war, how will any authority protect anything in times of war. I can;t reference this, it's pure common sense as well as from what I saw in my time there, which i understand won't be a reliable source, so i am sticking to the "common sense" theory.

This article is bias.

--Michael1408 19:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that nothing was done to protect Joseph's Tomb, if anything its destruction was encouraged by the so called Palestinian authority. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

History?

The article seems to have almost no mention of the history of the site before the 1960s. I came to this article expecting to learn something about Joseph's tomb, recent events like what the article seems to focus on should surely just be on section in a much larger article about a place that is, according to some, so old and important. If people get too embroiled in recent events when talking about historical sites, no matter how emotive those events are to both sides, the original subject of the article becomes lost. Please can somebody write a bit more about the tombs history to balance the article out more? 86.131.99.134 (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

POV

The style of the initial 2005 article seems to be anti-Arab, and even anti-Israeli government. The failure to mention Nablus until a long way into the article, instead talking about Yesha was a significant indicator, but the rest of the article is still POV. --Henrygb 17:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this similar to complaining that an article about say, concentration camps in Germany is POV and anti-Nazi especially if it fails to refer to Germany as the Third Reich until way into the article? Kuratowski's Ghost 00:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "Joseph's body was taken from Egypt during the Exodus and later reinterred in Shechem." RThat's all? Since this is the basis for identifying the site as the Tomb of Joseph, the locus should be given and even a quote, with some sensible explication... by someone who cares. --Wetman 10:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

_____________________

Sure a photo of Joseph's Tomb should be better if related to a Jewish source, not a Christian one.

This one, for example, http://www.tsel.org/keveryoseph/ showing how it looked for hundreds of years.

~~

• Since there has been no discussion on this page for almost 1 year, is the npov tag still needed? Fuzbaby (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is still no mention of the Palestinian side of the story, nor of the association of the place with Gush Emunim, etc. Zero^talk 06:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

serious source to tap

Apparently there is an investigation of the archaeological and historical evidence in this German article that I don't have yet: H-M SCHENKE, "Jakobsbrunnen-Joseph's Grab-Sychar" in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 84, 1968, pp. 159-184. Zero^talk 10:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is still missing, in my opinion:

• The history of the identification as Joseph's Tomb. Actually it is quite old, more than 1000 years.
• The association of the yeshiva with Yitzchak Ginsburgh and political extremism. There was even a time when prominent settler leaders begged the government to shut it down. What is in the article right now is quite a whitewash.

Zero^talk 13:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you get the German article soon. I've been digging around to to see what I can find. I'll try to look into the Ginsburgh connection too and see if anything comes up. A lot of stuff there needs sources now to support it now that I removed a bunch of links to Israel National News, Arutz Sheva, World Net Daily - these are not reliable sources, particularly not when dealing with a subject like this. Tiamut^talk 15:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

When I get a bit of time I'll add some late antiquity travelers such as Itinerarium Burdigalense connecting Joseph's tomb to Shechem. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of the archaeological study of this region was done by Germans and for this reason a lot of the best sources are in German. Search for "Jakobsbrunnen" at Google Scholar. Unfortunately, my German is terrible. Zero^talk 02:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Nishidani can be of help. He's a polylinguist of some proportions as far as I know. Tiamut^talk 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I sent Schenke's paper to you. To anyone else who wants it: send me email by the link on my home page. Zero^talk 11:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox added

I've done some cleanup and also added an infobox. The image is smaller when placed into the infobox, so if it seems too small, perhaps a different image could be used instead. • Astynax ^talk 08:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Opened?

Ran across a quote from a book which mentions that a few years before the book was written that the tomb was opened and a mummified corps and an egyptian style sword was found within it. Looking for information on the book ("Prophets, Idols and Diggers" by John Elder, 1960) seems to show that the book is rather biased and out to prove the bible as true. However, unless the author is just making things up, the mention of the opening of the tomb (presumably in the 1950s) and finding a corps and sword inside must be based on something (even if it has been distorted by the author). The Wiki article mentions nothing about the tomb, itself, being opened; is there any evidence that it ever has been? If someone has this book, does the author cite any evidence for his claim? — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what book? -asad (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote I saw came from "Prophets, Idols and Diggers" by John Elder, 1960. If anything, I'd like to know Elder's source for his claim, that would should make it easier to look into (hopefully). — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It was added in August 2008, but removed in September. Need a more concrete source. Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

What authorities were rumored to have opened it? -asad (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Israeli people usually get up to that kind of mischief. Chesdovi (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

location

The "Palestinian Authority" is not a place, and it does not control the West Bank. The caption reinserted by this "new" account is simply wrong. As are the other changes made. As this is not even a matter of "POV" but rather simple accuracy I will be reverting those changes. nableezy - 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The article now reads "on the outskirts of the West Bank city of Nablus, near the site of biblical Shechem." - that seems accurate, and I can't see anything "simply wrong" there. Rym torch (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not what the issue was when I made the edit here on the talk page. nableezy - 17:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ok. You made the edit less than 30 minutes before mine, I assumed it was some current unresolved issue. I take it you won't be reverting again, then. Rym torch (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sheikh Yussuf Dawiqat

Editorprop, where in the source does it say "In recent years however" ? And this: "an Islamic cleric Sheikh Yussif (Joseph) Dawiqat was buried there two centuries ago. " is also straight from the source and need to be re written. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored it to the way it was before the anonymous IP erased it. That was what was written. The way you rewrote there were contradictions between the two sentences. Editorprop (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence I edited was sourced, the other was not, so if anyone needs changing, its not the one I edited. And just because they believe that the biblical figure was buried there doesn't contradict if they also believe that an Islamic cleric was also buried there. And you did not address the copy violations. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot to restore the places the IP changed "moslem" used in quotes and the name of a book to "muslim". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yaqut mentions Nablus, but there are conflicting traditions re. Hebron. "Islamic tradition cites Nablus as the primary site, though the site is later identified as being in Hebron." It seems early georapghers were happy to mention both sites, and this book expalains reasoning behind it. Chesdovi (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Qabr en-Nebi Yusuf

The follwoing sources give the Arabic "Qabr en-Nebi Yusuf" for the tomb:

• The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: L-Z (exluding Tyre) By Denys Pringle, pg. 94
• Marketing heritage: archaeology and the consumption of the past By Yorke M. Rowan, Uzi Baram, pg. 187
• Onomastica biblica: fonti scritte e ricerca archeologica, pg. 279

I therefore propose to change Qabr Yusuf in the lead to "Qabr en-Nebi Yusuf". Chesdovi (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Im just guessing, but it would not surprise me if the formal name included Nabi and the common name did not. Nabi just means prophet, so one means "Tomb of Joseph" and the other means "Tomb of the Prophet Joseph". nableezy - 16:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's why we can fuse the two. In english and Hebrew, the word prophet is not considered; in the Arabic, it is used more often than not: Other such sites are known just as Nebi Rubin or Nabi Samwil, etc. See these that refer to it as such: Steimatzky's Palestine guide, The living age ..., Volume 194. Chesdovi (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

UN paper 1949 also calls it "BALATA (Samaria) 96. The Tomb of the Prophet Joseph." Chesdovi (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also Nab, is the Neb & Nab different for a reason? Or is that a Nebish question? Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I dont mind adding nabi (or nebi). Nabi vs nebi is just an issue of transliteration preference. I am more accustomed to seeing "nabi", though I suppose nebi isnt exactly wrong. Ill add the Arabic if you like (its قبر النبي يوسف). Im not sure if it should say an-Nabi or al-Nabi for the transliteration. In actual pronunciation it is an-Nabi, but from what I have seen on Wikipedia it is more common to transliterate the definite particle ال as al regardless of whether the following letter is a sun or a moon letter. nableezy - 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Do as you see fit with the Arabic, and I would go with the actual pronunciation with the translit. Though I would consider streamlining all Nabi/Nebi articles to use only one version. Chesdovi (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. I also added the translation as the Arabic no longer equivalent to the English and Hebrew. nableezy - 17:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In England we say: "Spiffing job young chap." Chesdovi (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

ٍٍSorry folks, this is in contraction to common practice in Nablus and that amongst Arabic speakers in Palestine. These Arabic sources contradict the claim:

-Ma'an News source calling the location simply "Joseph's Tomb"

-This source in Arabic calling it the burial site of Yusuf Dweikat

-The Wafa News Agency dispelling the rumor that it is the burial site of the prophet, rather that of Yusuf Dweikat

We also have the the BBC source stating that "... Muslims believe an Islamic cleric Sheikh Yussif (Joseph) Dawiqat was buried there two centuries ago." Also this source that Chesdovi provided even states that the site is referred to by some Muslims as the burial site for Sheikh Yusuf Dweikat. One of his sources is a reference that is not even in English, and the other is a heading with no citation. Also, a hit on Google for the term "Qabr Yusuf" in Arabic will yield about 50,000 more results than "Qabr An-Nabi Yusuf" (in Arabic). I would also see the Arabic Wikipedia entry on the site, which does not use the work prophet as well. I am not claiming that it was never referred to as Muslims by the burial site of the Prophet Joseph, but the sources clearly show what the current usage is. I am reverting. -asad (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should have paid more attention to the article. In this case I think we might consider including both names. Id like to look at more sources though. nableezy - 19:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a need to include both names in Arabic name, translation and the transliteration. I don't want to go digging for sources, but I am positive I could pull dozens or more sources in Arabic showing it being spelled without "Nabi". Since I don't deny that there are some contradicting sources, there should be some mention of in the article, but definitely not in the first sentence or the lead. Too bad being friends with a police officer from the Dweikat family who guards the entrance to the tomb wouldn't count as a reliable source. -asad (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Too bad we have no non-partisan, pre-67 RS which coraborate this claim. Too bad we have:

• 
  16th-cent sketch
• 
  19th-cent Jewish inscription
• 
  20th-cent Islamic veneration

Wafa mention someting about Ottoman records? Ask them for their source. Chesdovi (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

قبر النبي يوسف

Reading what Asad wrote above, it is clear he wishes the lead only to include his POV. "The sources clearly show what the current usage is." Yet he also said that there are thousands of results for en-nabi too. Why is he insisting this cannot be in the lead? Because he wants to politicize the article. That's why he thinks this issue violats the topic ban. Let's see some examples of what the other current usage is:

• مئات المستوطنين يداهمون قبر النبي يوسف في نابلس
• مئات اليهود المتطرفين يقتحمون قبر النبي يوسف»
• فيما اقتحم مئات المستوطنيين قبر النبي يوسف"
• مستوطنون يهود يقتحمون مقام قبر النبي يوسف في نابلس بالضفة الغربية
• Islam today: مستوطنون متطرفون يقتحمون قبر النبي يوسف في نابلس
• مستوطنون يقتحمون قبر النبي يوسف وسط حراسة قوات الاحتلال
• مستوطنون متطرفون يقتحمون قبر النبي يوسف عليه السلام بنابلس
• يهودية تخطط للعودة لقبر النبي يوسف في نابلس
• مقتل إسرائيلي واصابة 4 على يد شرطي فلسطيني يحرس قبر النبي يوسف
• توقيف اسرائيليين دنسوا قبر النبي يوسف بنابلس
• قبر النبي يوسف في مدينة نابلس الفلسطينية، وفق ما أفاد الجيش. Chesdovi (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your sources show that there are some Arabic sources that use the word Nabi, my sources show that there are sources that some that do not. What would you propose now? -asad (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuel bar Simson contradiction

According to Schenke, Samuel bar Simson places the tomb "inside Nablus", while the Jewish Encyclopedia places it "at Shiloh"? Chesdovi (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. Adler, and the JE, give the text as "From Bethel we went on to Shiloh. We saw there the sepulchre of Joseph the Just'. Schenke includes it by Nablus in footnote 69c which gives the same translation from his French source ("De Beth-El nous nous rendῖmes à Silo.'), but adds a note: ('lies 'Sichem' bzw.ergᾶnze 'und von Silo nach Sichen'). I don't know on what authority he assumes a lacuna, or slip of the pen. He's using Carmoly's French edition of Jewish travelogues. Perhaps there's a note to that effect. I dunno why I wrote 'inside'. Schenke wrote 'near' or 'at'. I'll fix that now. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. There seems to be some duplication towards the end of that paragraph. Chesdovi (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Ches. This looks problematical to me: 'It is one of the holiest sites in Judaism as many Jews believe the site to be the final resting place of the biblical patriarch Joseph and his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh.'

I just don't think one should be sourcing a putative belief in Judaism to the Daily Telegraph. Most of the academic literature I am familiar with defines it as a 'holy site', without superlatives. I know this is a position within precisely defined rabbinical groups among settlers. But the phrase suggests improperly that it has had over the millenia the sacred status of Jerusalem and Hebron, which is big news to me. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Take it out. Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The nearby fanatics claim it surpasses Rachel's Tomb, you can find them by searching for "third holiest". We don't need it here. Zero^talk 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Authenticity" ?

"Authenticity of the site was confirmed by the discovery of a nearby tomb and Egyptian relics from 1600 to 1400 BCE during archaeological excavations undertaken in the area in 1913" (cited to book of Gafni). I would interpret "authenticity" as meaning that Joseph is really buried here, which of course is impossible to confirm. Isn't that book just some sort of travel guide anyway? Travel guides are terrible sources of history. Can we at least change "authenticity" to "antiquity"? Zero^talk 13:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)

The Samaritans have held the site sacred since the 11th-century for the same reason.[9] Authenticity of the site was confirmed by the discovery of a nearby tomb and Egyptian relics from 1600 to 1400 BCE during archaeological excavations undertaken in the area in 1913.[9] Post-biblical r

records regarding the location of Joseph's Tomb at this site date from the beginning of the 4th-century AD.[10]

3 points.

(a) Schenke, to name but one source, has an extensive argument about the various areas associated with Joseph being particularly dear to Samaritans in antiquity, and I'm not confident that writing, even per the source I cannot access, that their interest in the site (whichever) only dates from the 10th century. Even if one is sceptical of Schenke's theory, there's a motherlode of data from patristic literature which testifies to Samaritan and Christian squabbling over the sites in Shechem. I think that source must be wrong, or confusing the Samaritans with the Muslims.

(b)I have no idea what 'authenticity' means in talking of 'the site', esp. since there are several sites that, historically, claim association with Joseph's remains.

(c) the coincidence in location of Joseph's tomb as variously identified i antiquity with 'this' (=the present) site is precisely what Schenke's analysis of the early documents challenges. It was he argues 'transportable'. Any ideas? Nishidani (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you beat me to the gun. There's an extensive and very complex literature on Joseph's bones, and whether or not they are there, somewhere, around Shechem. Shechem itself had a very strong middle Bronze fortification, and the date in that article links the antiquity to the Hyksos period, which is the traditional dating for Joseph. Egypt ruled Shechem through a local agent from that time at least to the Amarna letters. Perhaps we need to thrash this out but not in the lead. Perhaps a section under the Bible passages which relate to Joseph's burial wishes, the land at Shechem, the transport to Canaan, etc., is required. It would certainly help focus the confusion in later sources we have to deal with.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I found stuff about the Middle Bronze (MB IIC) period in Shechem, which is the 1600 to 1400 BCE period mentioned. It doesn't refer specifically to the locality of the tomb. The "authenticity" sentence is dubious and suggest zapping it. Zero^talk 14:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the moment, let's not be too hasty. I'll conserve the elided section here, just incase we need to get back to it. The archeology article looks interesting, and I haven't yet read it.

The Samaritans have held the site sacred since the 11th-century for the same reason. Authenticity of the site was confirmed by the discovery of a nearby tomb and Egyptian relics from 1600 to 1400 BCE during archaeological excavations undertaken in the area in 1913.

Nishidani (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Benjamin of Tudela

Hackett's article in Smith 1862 doesn't bear out the suggestion he affirmed it was in Samaritan hands. We need another source. Or did I speed read and get distracted by watching the latest Montalbano episode?Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. It is on page 67 of Benjamin of Tudela's Itinerary in Adler's edition.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sheikh Yusuf Change

The transliteration seems to be way off in the new source. The name is Arabic is دويكات. The "ات" at the end of the name is transliterates to "at" in English -- which means the current spelling, Dwaik, is completely incorrect. -asad (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The BBC spelling was Yussuf Dawiqat. We can correct to that but (2) I presume you have Arabic sources on Yussuf Dawiqat in local Islamic traditions. If so, could you help us on this, since Western sources are singularly poor on details like this? I'll put back the BBC transcription. I didn't use it because my premise in editing wiki is that we should, as far as possible, restrict our data to academic books or works under quality imprint. These articles suffer far too much from journalist accounts written to a deadlines, and do not contextualize, as serious books with the obligation of historical hindsight, broad context and detail do. Nishidani (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest adding in a note the English varient spelling which I have found so far include: Dwikat, Dweikat, Dwekat, Dawiqat. Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

ِAs far as the transliteration is concerned, all of those you have listed would could be considered correct. The concern with the source provided is that it didn't add the "at" at the end of the name. For the expansion of info on Dweikat, this might be interesting. I would be interested to see if the document is indeed at the An-Najah University library, then I could perhaps photograph it. -asad (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

book

This book of Niehoff could be useful. Zero^talk 14:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, my library has Jacob Neusner's 1985 translation of Genesis Rabbah. Next week I can check it. Zero^talk 14:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to google Neusner on it, but only got an essay. If we can get Neusner's version, perfect. Klein is a makeshift, and definitely not RS on this.Nishidani (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I would not trust anyone who has been schmoozing with terrorists. Chesdovi (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well we won't be citing Yitzhak Ginsburg on the Od Yosef Chai incident in that case! :) Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Location

Our article says, it is located ... "on the outskirts of the West Bank city of Nablus, near Tell Balāṭa, the site of biblical Shechem."

There are a couple of problems with this formulation. The tomb is located in the village of Balata, also known as Balata al-Balad. This village is situated on Tell Balata. Tell Balata's identification with Shechem is speculative and unconfirmed. See Benjamin Tudela's notes here where he says the sepulcher of Joseph is in the village of Balata which he described as "a Sabbath-way distance from Sichem." There are also archaeologists who dispute this identification, as noted on the pages for Balata and Tell Balata (which for disclosure, were authored in large part by me). Conder of the PEF also located the tomb in the hamlet of Balata [7].

In any case, I checked the sources cited for this, and the first, Pummer, says the the tomb is located near the village of Askar. Askar (camp) is a refugee camp, not a village, and its directly adjacent to Balata al-Balad. Strange that the source doesn't name the village in which the tomb is actually located, but whatever. It doesn't say anything about Tell Balata or Shechem either. The second source says that Tell Balata has been identified as Shechem, without mentioning that identification is disputed. It also doesn't mention Joseph's Tomb and its location (unless I missed it). So it seems these sources do not support the description given in the intro.

Can we change this to properly reflect the location? Tiamut^talk 16:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The archeological disputes over this are fairly complex. I wrote near Tell Balata because Schenke's map p.163 (which is dated of course) puts Joseph's grave outside Tell-Balata which is encircled with boundary marks, and Joseph's grave is outside the circle. Of course, there's been notable suburban development since. But surely the Tell is one thing, and the whole area, growth in recent decades included, of Balata al-Balad another?

Secondly, Askar (Sychar according to many), as where the fountain traditional sources speak of, on Schenke's map is marked out as an archeological site west by some 150-200 metres of the Askar refugee camp.

B. of Tudela's Sichem =Bal(a)ta, and not, as in so many medieval sources Nablus. He places Joseph's tomb 50 yards north of Balata, whereas Schenke's map places it indisputably east of Balata by (using his indications) roughly 100 metres. In Schenke's map Askar is no way 'directly adjacent' to Balata but 1000 metres westnorthwest. The refugee camp of Balata is almost directly adjacent by now, being south of Jacob's well. Pummer's note confuses Askar with Balata, as is clear from his '500' mmetres. This is bad enough in the original sources, but the amount of contradictions, misspellings and errors in the best scholarly literature itself is cause for anquish.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nish, I'm sorry, but I'm not following. Where is the tomb by your understanding of the sources? I should add to the mix this AFP report [8] from October 2000 that says its in the Balata refugee camp. How should we describe its location given the different source descriptions? Tiamut^talk 16:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The tomb marked out since 1868 is what I am pointing to, that is the one on Schenke's map. The rest of the citations refer to something that is hard to pinpoint as often as not. As Schenke says, historically, it was 'transportabel'. The sources historically have it all over the place, from Nablus, to Shechem (understood as Balata) to Jacob's well (where Schenke thinks it originally was located). I'm interesting it bringing to the page some awareness that, according to the best sources, Joseph's Tomb has moved around quite considerably over the millenia.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm following what you are getting at ... sorry, my brain is not what it used to be these days. I would though like to see some mention of its modern location vis a vis Balata al-Balad and the camp in the article, perhaps in the 4th paragraph, using the AFP report above as a source. And I'd like to avoid making statements like Tell Balata = Shechem, as that it disputed. Could we add something like "traditionally associated with" before "the biblical site of Shechem"? Perhaps we also need a Location section to flesh out some of what you outlined above? Tiamut^talk 17:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well this whole argument is so messy, that we need a lot of patience and good will. It's not an overnight job. The premodern consensus was that Shechem was Nablus. Since 1913, and especially these days, there is unless I am mistaken, a strong scholarly consensus that Tell Balata is where the Biblical Shechem lay. By the way, your Benjamin of Tudela link is not to Benjamin's remarks, but to leopold Zunz's essay translated in vol.2 as an appendix. Or am I freaked out by a weird day full of contretemps? I've stuck it into the bibliography and it may prove useful. Were it Benjamin's view he would have trumped modern scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right that it is messy. Shechem can refer to more than one place as well: the biblical Shechem, or the Samaritan Shechem of the Classical period. This latter is identified by some archaeologists as a site on Mount Gerizim and rather than with a contemporaneous site excavated at Tell Balata [9]. The biblical Shechem has yet to be attested inscription wise at Tell Balata, though it is traditionally thought to be have been located there. I'm not sure what the scholarly consensus is on that, though the name Shechem is popularly used to refer to the tell. Tiamut^talk 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's true there is no inscription evidence, but it was destroyed the second time in the Davidic-Solomonic period, before the diffusion of writing in that area. Nishidani (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Tell Balata wasn't inhabited during the Davidic-Solomonic period, and about the writing ... sure you jest. Tiamut^talk 15:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Yussuf Kalah in Miller

This is sourced to Nancy Miller's article.

Historically, Muslims have also associated the tomb with that of the biblical figure, but some early Islamic traditions name a medieval structure known as Yussuf-Kalah ("Castle of Joseph") adjacent to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron as the authentic site.(Miller 1985)

Two things are wrong here. Miller's article, which I have linked in the bibliography for consultation mentions no Yussuf Kalah. She mentions the Kalah 'Castle' but her source is Le Strange, (p.325), and we already have Le Strange in our bibliography. I have copied out the entire section from Le Strange on Joseph's tomb at Hebron and will add it later today.

A second point. 'Muslims' strikes me as problematical. After all the Shiites do not accept Sura 12 on Joseph, do they? Tiamat?Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Nish but I have very little idea about the differences in Sunni and Shia exegesis. Tiamut^talk 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Muslims" surely refers to the local Muslims, overwhelmingly Sunni, so I don't see that matters much. Zero^talk 10:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Never trust the common sense of the reader! (a) 'Muslims' suggests all Muslims in the world,(b) Historically we are citing texts by Muslims from the wider Islamic world who comment on the tomb reverently. (c) Local Muslims, or many of them, are now inclined to the hypothesis that it contains the remains of a local sheikh. As usual, we have the problem of exercising editorial discretion (in order to clarify possible ambiguous phrasinggravid with wrong inferences) in dealing with RS that often are slipshod in their failure 'to distinguish'. 'The narcissism of minor differences,' perhaps, but worth mulling.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Any details on life of Yusef al-Dwaik?

The article states: "Palestinians are said to regard the site as the burial place of a medieval sheikh Yusef al-Dwaik." As the site has been venerated by the local Arabs for centuries, there surely must be some information about the sheikh they insist is interred within. When is the earliest mention of this fellow? Does anyone have any? This link seems to say something about 661AD. Can someone read the Arabic a check?

يقع إلى الشمال من كنيسة بئر يعقوب على طريق شارع عمان، وهو ينسب للنبي يوسف عليه السلام، غير أن البناء الحالي يعود للعهد التركي العثماني مما يؤكد أن المقام هو لشيخ فلسطيني مسلم من مدينة نابلس واسمه يوسف دويكات، وتبلغ مساحته661م حسب سجلات مديرية أوقاف نابلس، وكان بالبداية عبارة عن قبر بسيط تعلوه قبة ثم أضيفت له غرفتين سنة 1960 لاستعماله كمدرسة لأهالي بلاطة البلد

Also, Freund claims he dates from the Medieval period, while the BBC states he died 200 years ago, hardely Medieval? I query this as I have seen some sources suggest that Yusef al-Dwaik is a revised tradition in response to Israeli claims on the site. Could there be confusion with the Sheikh el-Amud mention in the "Confusion over competing shrine" section? Also, Tiamut removed the word "SOME" Palestinians, but Rowan & Freund both use the term. Chesdovi (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I added "It is also said" instead of "Some Palestinians" because Dor says it is the tomb of Dweikat without any qualification. Sontag in the NYT also says simply "it is also believed to hold the tomb of a sheik." Tiamut^talk 16:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Second this request as per above (perhaps the Arabic name should be included). As to medieval/200 years, this source confusion is what makes editing this particular article difficult. That particular crux can be fixed if any of our Arabists can fish out the appropriate details. One of the tragedies of wikipedia in this area is that the numerous Arabic regional and city histories are simply ignored. Nishidani (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is a shame these Arabic histories can not be utilised. I will add, however, that such sites in Palestine were very well documented by 19th-century academics, such as Conder, and I have never come across any description of Josephs Tomb which bears a name similar to "al-Dwaik. What does "al-Dwaik" actually mean? Chesdovi (talk)

Please see my response above. -asad (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Asad. I was thinking of the recent histories, not the older chronicles. As to 'al-Dwaik', I confess that when I saw that I thought immediately of the Slonim family, the Dweks, of Hebron, who suffered so grievously in 1929. But even Hebronite Arabs wear the name Dweik. As for 'al-Dwaik', I would have thought 'ad-Dwaik' more consonant. Taimut, where are you? By the way, the Dawikat story is not just a modern defence surely. The 19th century travelogues often note that Muslims point out Joseph's tomb at the base of Mt Ebal. Nishidani (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There must be a grave in the vicinity which was previously attributed to the good shiekh. But remember we have an exceptional form of evidence, and rarely is it so compelling:

• 
  1564 sketch
• 
  1868 photo

The 16th-century sketch and the 19th-century photo have a strikingly similar perception, the tomb slab flanked by two cylindrical columns. Both were identified as being of the biblical prophet, not a Mulsim holy-man. Chesdovi (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Like I have said before, I don't have a problem explaining that some sources report that Muslims once believed that the site was the tomb of the prophet. As long as it is explained the other sources conflict the report and the modern consensus among local Muslims is that it is the burial site of Dweikat. I see what you are saying about the photos, but I feel that would be our original resource to make the claim on that alone. -asad (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

يقع إلى الشمال من كنيسة بئر يعقوب على طريق شارع عمان، وهو ينسب للنبي يوسف عليه السلام، غير أن البناء الحالي يعود للعهد التركي العثماني مما يؤكد أن المقام هو لشيخ فلسطيني مسلم من مدينة نابلس واسمه يوسف دويكات، وتبلغ مساحته661م حسب سجلات مديرية أوقاف نابلس، وكان بالبداية عبارة عن قبر بسيط تعلوه قبة ثم أضيفت له غرفتين سنة 1960 لاستعماله كمدرسة لأهالي بلاطة البلد

Translation: It falls to the north of the Church of Jacob's Well (Bir Yaqoub) on the way to Amman Road, and it is associated with the Prophet Joseph, peace be upon him, despite the building around it dating to the Ottoman-Turkish period which confirms that the maqam is that of a Palestinian Muslim Sheikh from the city of Nablus whose name was Yousef Dweikat, and it covers an area of 661 meteres according to the records of the administration of the Waqf of Nablus, and it was originally a simple tomb with a dome to which two rooms were added in 1960 to be used as a school for the families of Balata al-Balad. Tiamut^talk 15:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Does that then say that the Balata site is, in local belief, associated with both Joseph the prophet's grave and the 'place' of a Nablus sheikh, Yousef Dweikat (Ottoman period)?Nishidani (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what is implied, though the author gives more weight to it being the sheikh's tomb by assigning the building's construction to the Ottoman period. I was going to suggest earlier that both beliefs may coexist in the local population and perhaps even be held together by some. Its not uncommon for a tombsite to become a place of reverence for more than one person (the bodies do not necessarily need to be interred there either and there are indications that no bodies may be interred there at all and that it is a symbolic marker). Tiamut^talk 16:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but contemporary sources are way behind us, and we need RS, or some method of sorting out this mess. That's again why I distrust newspapers, which are written by lazy people running to a deadline and pitched to emotive readerships. I don't think it would offend anyone's religious beliefs to acknowledge that we are dealing here with symbols, and not anything related to history. There is a virtual consensus in the academic literature that Joseph was not an historical person, and that the gravesite represents an extremely long tradition of covenantal symbolism, from the Canaanites onwards. Schenke, who was a Christian hermeneutics professor, puts it well:'it's not a question of Joseph being buried there. He wasn't' (Loose translation). I think that position is not far from the consensus of Jewish biblical scholars.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

By the by, I'm just guessing, but I think reports that it dates to the medieval period are based on a misreading of dates by the sources cited, who perhaps somewhere along the way missed the AH sign attached to years from the Islamic calendar. Tiamut^talk 16:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For the moment I've relocated the detail about the sheikh to the section dealing with recent times. It should be obvious from an WP:NPOV and WP:Undue perspective, that placing this poorly attested, recent piece of information in the lead gives the impression that the area now claimed by Jewish worshippers had no significance for Muslims. Since the historical section shows that many Muslim travellers identified it or something in that area with Joseph's tomb (a matter to be sorted out, report by report), the Sheikh Dweikat part does not deserve high profiling as a central part of the tradition.

Interfaith shrine

I am uncomfortable with emphasis in the lead of the historic inter-communal friction caused by competing claims over the tomb. Was it always like this? In the 19th-century, it seems the tomb had a uniting feature about it, which should be incoorported: We see that there was not one group asserting sole control over the site - on the contrary - the tomb was "shared" and encompassed features belonging to all communties: the two mounted slabs with Hebrew inscriptions, the plaque of a christian renovator and the interior which was covered with names in Hebrew, Arabic, and Samaritan. Quite encouraging, don't you think? Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Good point. My drafting (and I've done my bit with excessive haste these past few days: there's loads of reworking to be done) was influenced also by something not mentioned or sourced there, i.e., the pre-Christian, Judaite vs Samaritan tensions that were pretty endemic (though we have nothing on the shrine at that period, Schenke's view is that it was excusively a Samaritan chapel of worship until Christians came in), and by the horrible two centuries long violence, mostly from Christians, that marked 400-600 CE., which was motivated in good part by the upstart Christian sectarian movement to appropriate Samaritan shrines. Sources (as used so far) are relatively thin for a thousand years, and then we have the numerous 19th century reports (around 1840s-50s, there were 20 Jewish families in Nablus, and 25 Samaritan families (though more prolific) and, as if, ironically, to underline the notorious verse in John the evangelist (4:9), hated each other.) by English, German and French travellers who availed themselves of opportunities to travel after conditions 'settled' with Ibraham Pasha's 'pacification'. The Jews are attested as attending to the shrine, but it is equally well attested that Jews were discouraged by Jerusalem rabbinical authority from settling in Shechem/Nablus, something which may explain the extraordinary error in Schwarz's account that has a Jerusalem based rabbi identifying the tomb at Abulnita.

We've got a good deal of work ahead to get a clearer picture here. Jewish accounts, the rise of wider Jewish interest in the site (my understanding so far is that Hebron and Jerusalem were far more objects of reverence in diaspora religious circles than was the case with Joseph's tomb, which seems to reenter Jewish interests in Palestine after the Western accounts publicized the site?). I've still quite a bit to do on the earlier history.

I've adjusted momentarily the generalization you rightly took objection to in the lead. A lot of another stuff needs slow, close revision. I just wanted to get a large general overview framed so we can get together and work this into the article the topic deserves.Of course, I commend the idea that it should be an interfaith shrine, but history is against us there, and recent events highlight the old 'it's exclusively ours' logic we find in high antiquity. Best Nishidani (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Two tombs!

Was I not paying attention, or is this a new discovery:

"From the well we rode a short distance to the Mahometan wely, known as Joseph's tomb. It is a walled enclosure, surmounted at one end with a dome, and containing, besides the reputed tomb of Joseph, that of a wealthy Mahometan, who obtained interment here. There are two tablets bearing inscriptions, one in the Samaritan, the other in the Hebrew character, the latter of which I commenced to copy, but soon abandoned the attempt ..." Thomas Jenner (1873). The Goodly Mountain & Lebanon. London: Hamilton, Adams, & Co. p. 149.

Unfortunately the "wealthy Mahometan" is not named, but this is clear confirmation that someone other than the prophet Joseph was believed to be buried here. Zero^talk 10:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this was the gravamen of the passage Tiamat translated for us, which appears to be saying that the site is associated with Joseph's tomb in Muslim tradition, but also was the burial site of a Muslim Sheikh from Nablus, Yousef Dweikat, who (WP:OR) evidently lies behind the 'wealthy Mahometan' here. That earlier info came from the waqf records at Nablus, which only prompts one to ask how the site falls in terms of ownership. Is it included in waqf property? This whole story fits perfectly into Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger 's theory about 'invented traditions' (1983), by which they mean not things cut out of whole fresh cloth, but radical reinterpretations, with accompanying rituals, etc., that then are taken by people to reflect ancient national customs or rites. That's why I dislike the newspaper clutter. Journalists simply don't do their work, digging extensively into records to get perspective on current events, but focus on the spectacular riot, griefs, and the nationalities binome. The result is that then people, like those in charge of archives and waqf documents, refuse access even to the few who would like to check, for fear that the 'wrong' information will allow the other side to spin what is a conflict in rights of possession into an historically-grounded vindication of a partisan interest. etc.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Shechem vs Hebron

Conder, Tent work in Palestine Vol 2, p82 says (in relation to Hebron): "A modern building: is erected against the western fortress wall on the exterior. This is called the Tomb of Joseph, whose bones are said, by Josephus, to have been removed hither from Shechem—a story no doubt due to Jewish jealousy of the shrine at Shechem, which was in the hands of the Samaritans." At the moment we don't mention Josephus in regard to the Hebron tradition. Should we? Can we find this in Josephus? Zero^talk 11:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, and it is important. The whole Shechem/Hebron axis has been read by Tanakh recentionist critics as reflecting priestly Jerusalemite/Judaite concerns in the 7th-5th centuries BCE to achieve symbolic integration in the developing biblical narrative of the northern and southern tribal traditions (hence, much of the narrative of northern kings sinning), while asserting the preeminence of the Judean sacerdotal vision, esp after the return from the Babylonian exile. It has to be contextualized (at least as editorial background awareness) in terms of what academic sources say of the historical background. This is discussed in several books I have in the bibliography, and a few others I haven't yet included. It should for the moment definitely go into the Hebron article. Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Apropos Josephus, there's a whole book on this which I added to the bibliography this morning. See for an idea on this esp.here. Much speculation surrounds why Josephus didn't mention any shrine at Shechem, and it is suggested that the cause was his antisamaritanism (which however Crown and others dispute). But, heck, the Formula 1 race telecast is about to begin. I'm off.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Guerin

Guerin's description of the tomb is in Samarie I, pp. 372–376. Since my French is wobbly, I'll leave it for someone else to mine. Zero^talk 13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The link take me to page 212 but I've now scrolled to that page. I'vegot a barbeque on within the hour but a rush translation of the gist is as follows.

'I notice a monolithic column of grey granite lying in a field. It probably comes from the ruins of a church once buiilt about Jacob's well; nearby I also notice a fine fragment of rose granite. At 7.30 we arrive at Qabr-Yusef, or Joseph's tomb. It is equally designated by the name of 'Weli Nebi Yusef (mortuary chapel of Joseph the prophet). The tomb, whitewashed and built in the form of a donkey's back, is sited obliquely to the diaginal in the midst of a small exposed rectacular palisade, which had a north-south orientation, and which rounded off, on this side, with a mihrab, within whose niche a large number of names, sketched hastily by Jewish pilgrims visiting the monument. Above this niche, moreover, one notes an inscription in Hebrew characters. At eachh end of the tomb there is a a small broken column covered in lime, like the whole monument itself, and whose top has been hollowed out, in order that incense and other perfums can be burnt there. At one of the weli's angles there is aI vine that creeps over the walls on one side. What are we to think of this sanctuary? There's no doubt that it has been rebuilt several times, and, in its present state, it bears no traces of antiquity. All the same it is attached to the sarcophagus which is said to enclose the ashes of Jacob's son. This tomb resembles those that Muslims erect in honour of their ('minor saint') figures, and there is nothing Jewish about it. But the place that it occupies covers, perhaps, the funeral vault where the bones of Joseph were laid. . .(citation of relevant bible passage we all know) p.373 vol.1

The fact that it is in the vicinity of Jacob's well, whose authenticity can hardly be questioned, proves, I believe, in a decidedly plausible fashion, that the weli in question is sited, according to appearances, in the same field which the patriarch Jacob purchased. The tradition of such a burial must have been conserved faithfully among the Jews and transmitted by them to the Samnaritans who, notwithstanding their origins as foreigners, often found it convenient to their cause to pass themselves off for the descendents of the sons of Joseph, . .(Bourdeau Pilgrim and Eusebius cited) . .(St Paula) went to visit near Shechem the tombs of the 12 patriarchs

'Atque inde divertens (a puteo Jacob) vidit duodecim patriarcharum sepulcra.'

As this passage shows, it was believed that not only Joseph, but also his brothers, had been buried in the same place, a tradition which rests no doubt on the following words of the speech of St Stephen to the Jews etc. (cites Josephus in Greek on the burial of Joseph's brothers at Hebron:Τελευτὥσι δ'αὑτοῦ οἱ ἁδελφοὶ, ζήσαντες εὑδαιμόνὥς ἑπἱ τἤς Αἱγύπτου.Καὶ τοὐτων μὲν τἁ σώματα κομίσαντες μετὰ χρόνον αὑτὥν οἰ ἁπόγονοι καὶ οἰ παῖδες ἒθαψαν ἑν Χεβρὥνι. And his brothers died in turn, having lived happily in Egypt. And their descendents and their children subsequently bore their bodies away and buried them in Hebron'). . .p.375

'The Muslims, nonetheless, waver between two different sites, some recognize the tomb of Joseph in the sanctuary of Aouliet el-A'ìmoud, to the west of Jacob's well, half way between this well and the town of Nablus. Others, to the contrary, view it, along with Christians, Jews and Samaritans at a short distance to the north of this same well, at the Weli Nebi Yusef, which strikes me as in favour of the latter probability. p.376 Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Some other scholarly citations I didn't find yet (though my library claims to have Revue Biblique):

• Bagatti, Studii biblici Franciscani liber annuus, 16 (1965-1966) 127–164.
• Abel, Revue Biblique (Paris), 42 (1933) 384–402.
• Vincent, Revue Biblique (Paris), 65 (1958) 547–567.

Zero^talk 13:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I sent all three of you the paper of Vincent, which is French and is mostly about Jacob's Well. Zero^talk 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Have received. Bagatti's work would be fascinating. Any chance of nabbing it? Thanks in the meantime.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can get it, but expect to see Italian. Zero^talk 15:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I've rapidly read through Vincent, which is a must for the Jacob's Well article, which we can get round to after this is secured as a reasonably good. comprehensive article. It does have that one cite from Theodosius ca.530 which can be construed as putting Joseph's tomb beside Jacob's well (Neapolis . .Ibi est puteus, quem fabricavit Iacob, ibi sunt ossa sancti Ioseph). Those guys had queer ideas of space. In the same report, we find that Samaria is in Nablus. I think I can harvest that latin from Schenke however.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Aouliet el-A'ìmoud is always certainly the wely for Sheikh el Amud. I also suspect that it is this site which is depicted in the photographs showing e tomb with pillars on either of side of it. I have been to Josephs tomb and there are no pillars or remains of pillars there. Conversely, Amud means pillar in Arabic and it's common for place names to be descriptive. Tiamut^talk 17:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the 1917 Ottoman guard photo. There is a draped object at the photographer's end which looks like a table, Where the guard is standing, at the other end, there is evidently no column. Nishidani (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Context

Context, I've often said, is what makes historical events comprehensible. At a first look at this page, I thought that it violated NPOV because it gave high-beam focus on incidents and victims and portrayed the ethnic 'mob' and its PA bosses as some kind of delinquent organization bent on destroying antiquities. For that reason I sought out material in RS which would help contextualize events in a frame of occurrences before and after, RS that mentioned this in regards to Joseph's Tomb. My reading of WP:NPOV is that this is how an article is balanced. There was, furthermore, a strong bias in the sources for numerous reports, sources in Israeli newspapers, or the predictable NYTs, which gave one version of events. Unfortunately academic RS have so far not proved helpful. Lipton alone contextualizes the events, but he does so listing only things that happened after the sacking of the tomb, and, perhaps it's excessive scruple, but I think an editor might object to the following passage from Lipton which I added in, immediately following on his report on events of October 8.

On October 10, 2000, a crowd of Jewish settlers threw rocks at apartment buildings that a part of a Franciscan project that provides housing to low-income parishioners on the property of St.James’s Latin Church (Mar Ya’acoub) in Beit Hanina. The church itself was not damaged; however, several windows and solar panels on the apartment buildings were broken. Palestinian human rights groups reported on several incidents in which Israeli settlers vandalised mosques in Hebron in the presence of IDF personnel; the IDF soldiers reportedly did not attempt to intervene. On October 12, 2000, Israeli settlers set fire to a mosque in Huwara, causing more than $20,000 in damage. On November 21, 2000, settlers set fire to the Imam Ali mosque in Huwara. On December 29, 2000, Israeli settler ransacked the Prophet Yaqeen mosque in Hebron. On April 8, 2001, settlers vandalized the al-Aqtat mosque in Hebron and desecrated religious literature.'

Well, what we need technically is some source which gives the pre-sacking context in terms of the widespread violence also from the other side leading up to that event, a source which connects the two, not as an aftermath, but a lead-up. It's no use citing Sher, who however reports that Chirac told Barak a few days before the Nablus incident that his government could not consider the practice that the IDF:'continue(s) to fire from helicopters on people throwing rocks,’ as conducive to peaceful negotiations. To connect up the dots would be improper, though commonsense tells us that the two are intimately related to the behaviour of the people in Nablus. We have to keep, whatever our personal POVs, however, to strict standards, and since I can see a technical objection to the passage above's relevance (I think technical objections should not elide what is historically of congruent relevance) I've taken it out for discussion here, and will abide by whatever consensus forms.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

North-south

Correct to cite Conder, Chesdovi, but you are mistaken in your inferences about east-west/hence/ Jerusalem, hence Jewish. Many Qumran tombs have N/S orientation. Nishidani (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean, but it is not relevant. Chesdovi (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Qumran, Essene? What does this have to do with Josephs tomb facing Jerusalem and not Mecca? Chesdovi (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(1) Before 1967?? (2) two tombs

Chesdovi, you added "Before 1967, the tomb was still located in a field in the village of Balata on the outskirts of Nablus" with a source, but the source says "tucked away on a side street", not "in a field". Also, your sentence makes it sound like the tomb was moved after 1967, but that is mentioned nowhere and I'm sure it is not true. The modern topographic map here shows it in exactly the same place as a British topological map from 1939 (within the accuracy of these maps, which is 10–20 meters). In fact as far as I can determine by superposition, it is in exactly the same place as shown on the PEF map of the 1880s. Zero^talk 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the Matthews's full source. There is another source [114 or 115] which states it was in a feild. Matthews may not have been aware of this and described it historically as being off a side street, as it appears today? Also, it was not moved, but engulfed but the expanding urban sprawl. Chesdovi (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

How reliable is that modern topographic map? It seems to call the neighbourhood "Nebi Yussef". Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is an official map of the Survey of Israel, I think 1980s but I don't see the date right now. We could compare to a modern road map if there is one detailed enough. The tomb was in a field some time in the past, but we'd need a source that it was still in a field in 1967 to say that. In 1939 there were a few buildings close to it but maybe it was still a field then. I'm dubious about 1967 because Balata had developed a lot by then due to the refugee camp. I found a 1967 aerial photo of Nablus but it doesn't reach as far as the tomb. Maybe there is a 1967 Balata photo on that site somewhere, can you try? Zero^talk 15:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - memory lapse. I've traced the source to an A7 article would you believe it: "Joseph's Tomb, just 30 years ago, was located in a field outside the city, but is now surrounded on all sides by streets and houses." RS? Chesdovi (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly less reliable than the one you cited which says "side street". If you doubt it, perhaps you can write something noncommittal. It doesn't really matter if it was a field. Zero^talk 15:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Re. what you said about it moving, look what the 1911ed. Encyclopædia britannica says:

In the neighbourhood of Nablus are shown: (1) a modern building which covers the traditional site of the tomb of Joseph, as accepted by Jews, Samaritans and Christians. The authority for the burial of Joseph at Shechem is the speech of Stephen (Acts vii. 16), though Josephus places the sepulchre at Hebron {Ant. If. viii. 2). Moslem tradition also regards Shechem as the burial-place of Joseph; but it appears as though the actual site, as shown, has not been always in one unvarying spot. The Encyclopædia britannica: a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information, Volume 24. Pg. 817. ---What does that mean? Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably it refers to the fact that the earliest accounts seem to describe it in a different place. Nishidani brought some things from Schenke on that and the Smith article also mentions it. I don't think anyone suggested it moved during the 20th century. As I said, the 1880 map shows it in the same spot as later, and the 1863 plan you just brought also shows the same spot. Zero^talk 01:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The section "Confusion over competing shrine" is confusing. There was a dispute over the content of a nearby second structure, and someone couldn't decide which was which, but I don't see there a clear statement that the structure now known as Joseph's Tomb was thought to (also) contain someone else. So what "confusion" is there? The only clear statement that I know is the one I mentioned above by Thomas Jenner (1873) who states explicitly that one structure was believed to hold two tombs. It should be added (I will tomorrow if nobody else does). Zero^talk 14:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems there were two tombs and there was confusion over which tomb was associated with the biblical prophet. There is no infomation so far in the article that says two people were buried in one tomb. Chesdovi (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had the time, but Schenke argues that the original tomb was next to, or besides, Jacob's Well, and got to its present position several hundred years later. That would be one explanation of the dual tomb evidence. A second point. Most encyclopedias just copy from travellers' reports and are as useless as tits on a bull (the 1863 Smithj's article isn't since its author had been there.Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

William Cooke Taylor

Correct me if I´m wrong, but William Cooke Taylor never travelled to the Middle East, did he? Isn´t his 1838-description based on "Egyptian Antiquities", by Rosellini et.al? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Map

Zero0000 What I see in all settlements is they use Israel map. Why should it be different here? Was there a discussion about it? Can you direct me to it? Settleman (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a settlement. The use of the Israeli map for settlements is also not the result of consensus but the present state of a long fight. Your argument would put all of Area C at least on the Israeli map, which would cause an uproar. You shouldn't do it. Zero^talk 23:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Accepted. Settleman (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Cenotaph?

Is it really appropriate to refer to the tomb as a cenotaph (empty grave), when no-one really knows whether there is an actual burial there? Or can someone source this? Is it not convention to refer to a structure considered to be a tomb as just that, a tomb, unless there is evidence to the contrary? Mlevitt1 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph's Tomb. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1201867286880
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359861127&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1239710774653
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010227202500/http://www.shechem.org/kyos/engkyos.html to http://www.shechem.org/kyos/engkyos.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070413070338/http://www.shechem.org/kyos/d2.jpg to http://www.shechem.org/kyos/d2.jpg

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) 10:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2016 merge

Found an old merge template at Arson Attack at Joseph's Tomb. Accordingly I propose that the content there be merged into this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

'The Arson attack at Joseph's Tomb occurred on October 16, 2015 when some 150 Palestinians set fire to the compound of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, Israel, causing heavy damage to the building'

(a)They can't be merged. (b) The text cites Arutz Sheva for the idea Nablus is in Israel. It ain't. The arson can be mentioned, but (c) the reaction section must be excised: no one reads'em. I'll add the facts from the Independent. The other article should be deleted, as useless, now.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. All the useful details are already documented in this article and reliably sourced. This means there can be no merge, but only the deletion of the other article, which cannot rise beyond its stub status.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with merge but we should use reliable scholarly sources when possible. Drsmoo (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

There are no scholarly reliable sources for this one incident. Nishidani (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes there are Drsmoo (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Well tell us what 'scholarly reliable sources' significantly add to the following text which we already have in our article.

On 16 October 2015, amid a wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis, dozens of Palestinians overran the tomb and a group of them set it on fire with petrol bombs. Palestinian security forces dispersed them and extinguished the flames; and although the tomb itself was not apparently damaged, the women's section was reported to be heavily damaged. Israeli security forces later arrived at the scene. According to a Palestinian official, the Palestinians had attempted to set up barricades in the area to prevent home demolitions by the Israeli Army, but a group of them proceeded to attack the tomb.

This is more detailed that what the shit sourced article mentioned above has, and, unless significant new material from 'reliable scholarly sources' emerges, there is no raison d'etre for this article, and certainly nothing in it that could be merged to improve what we have.Nishidani (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That will be determined during the merge Drsmoo (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not an answer to the two issues I cited. One does not merge unless one has a clear idea of what goes in and what stays out. You haven't, evidently. So do some mental work and come up with a reply for once.Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah, we're currently voting to merge. Drsmoo (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a very strange reply. There is clear consensus to merge, so anyone who wants to can now execute it. Happy Christmas and Hanukkah everyone. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo. Your 'vote' was just that, a gesture without merit, because it ignores that there is nothing on this page that is not on the other. So merge means, effectively, another way of making this pathetic scrag disappear. Okay. Merge, i.e. elide this page.Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that anything is merged here so until this I revert the deletion of original article.I also think that the merge is unwarented and we should have proper vote to determine if there is a consensus to merge--Shrike (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

If anyone one to delete the original article that we should have proper AFD.--Shrike (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a merge consensus. All that need be done is take whatever in this article adds, according to 'reliable scholarly sources' to what we have in the mother article. That done, the two articles are one, and this loses its raison d'etre. I'm fine by that, and so are 3 other editors. The fact that there is nothing in this article that is not in the other article (reaction sections are predictable knee-jerk bullshit devoid of encyclopedic significance) means the merge only eliminates this page. You can test this with san AfD but there's no way this incompetently sourced stub would survive such an examination Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Then start an AFD.--Shrike (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

No. The consensus bar you is to merge, which means this page will disappear and die a natural death. It's up to you to make an AfD case, hoping for a majority to turn up to reverse the verdict here. Otherwise, as has been said, anyone can now go ahead and merge this out of existence.sNishidani (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

uncitied claims

In the since 2000 section there is an uncited claim that Abbas condemned an attack on the tomb and moved for an investigation. I move to either provide a citation for these sentences or remove them. Bgrus22 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Putting pencil sketch back in infobox instead of recent photo

@Drsmoo: please explain your edit. Your edit summary provided no explanation. Wikipedia normal practice is to show a recent photo if one is available. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You should try explaining your edit. The image you switched in is not suitable for the main image of an important holy site. To put this in context, you made your edit after claiming on the Rachel's Tomb talk page that all similar sites didn't have images. When I pointed that out to be incorrect, you made this edit. Note, there is no policy-based reason for changing the image. Drsmoo (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I will point out that this behavior- asking for evidence of certain things in wikipedia articles, and then removing such evidence when it is presented- is extremely troubling . It does not instill faith that the editor in question is interested in improving the encyclopedia. Epson Salts (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we please focus on the question. You must think I am stupid if you imagine I thought that swapping the photo would have any impact on the other discussion. Perhaps I going to say "...oh no it isn't..." and then Drsmoo would think his memory was deceiving him? So let's assume for a minute that I all my mental faculties are in order, and let's move on to the question in hand. When Drsmoo pointed this out, I wondered why, looked around, and realised it's simply because the photo didn't exist until recently. So now it's time for a discussion.

Do you take us for idiots? you had never before edited this article, over on Rachel's Tomb you asked for evidence of any other wikipedia article where an old sketch or photo of a currently standing structure was used, rather than a modern day photo, and as soon as an example was provided to you, you came to this article to remove it? Are we expected to believe this is just a fantastic coincidence? Please edit in accordance with Wikipedia polices, if you can. Epson Salts (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The only coincidence is that I believe all lead images should be modern photographs where possible. This is not only consistent with Wikipedia normal practice, but also common sense - readers first want to know what the subject is before they want to learn was it was. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you believe that, but until your belief system becomes wikipedia policy, kindly stop editing disruptively to make a point. Epson Salts (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Epson Salts:Please stop personalizing this. You have yet to provide your own rationale for supporting a sketch which misrepresents the modern tomb as the lead picture. Until you provide such explanation, your comments (which consist of comments on the editor not the content) can only be ignored. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Since the only argument you've offered so far is your personal belief about how things should be done, how do you expect me to address it, other than by acknowledging that this is what you believe, but is not policy? You don't seem to deny that you came here as a direct result of a debate we're having on another page, in an attempt to change what was presented as counter-evidence to you claims on the other article.Epson Salts (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I hereby formally deny that my view that the lead picture should change here is "attempt to change what was presented as counter-evidence to you claims on the other article". As I explained above, it is impossible that such a strategy could have worked. Not just unlikely, but actually impossible. I do not do things that have zero chance of success.

My argument is not based on a personal belief, but clear evidence of common practice in Wikipedia. I am simply advocating that we follow Wikipedia norms. You are advocating for an unusual situation, yet consistently refuse to provide support for your argument. Unless you actually comment on the question at hand, there is no choice but to ignore you. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

you deny that came here a s direct result of this image being presented as counter-evidence to a claim you made in the discussion on the Rachel's Tomb article? It was some miraculous coincidence that brought you here at this time? Do you take us all for idiots? Epson Salts (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

No I do not deny that. I acknowledged it at the beginning of this thread, when I wrote: "When Drsmoo pointed this out, I wondered why".

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo:, please explain why a clear and recent photo of the tomb is "not suitable"? Ideally with some actual substance underpinning it. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I have found a better modern image, and now shown both images side by side. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

False citing of War on Sacred Grounds

There is a claim written here that Muslims were banned from visiting Joseph’s Tomb citing Ron Hassner’s War on Sacred Grounds. After looking at the book myself (specifically page 87 where the supposed quote is from) I found no evidence for such a claim in the book. Please address this or share the relevant passage of Hassner’s book that makes this claim 99.98.247.232 (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Good question. I don’t see it there either. But it is in:

Hayden 2002 page 167: "Of course, the contestation is still two-way, with Palestinians (re) con vert ing or destroying Jewish shrines that come under their control. Thus in Nablus, following the capture of the town in 1967, Jews began to visit a Muslim shrine which, they claimed, was on the site of the Tomb of Joseph; increasingly frequent visits by Jewish settlers after 1975 led to a prohibition of Muslim worship there and, in 1992, the installation of Torah scrolls and the covering of the prayer niche indicating Mecca (Philps 2001). With Israeli withdrawal from Nablus in 1995, clashes between Palestinians and the Israeli soldiers who were still guarding the tomb and letting Jews but not Muslims worship there, led finally to a battle that forced the military to withdraw. The Palestinians, again in control of the site, removed all signs of its use as a synagogue and uncovered the prayer niche again. There is no other religious symbol in the now restored building. However, ‘the Palestinians painted the dome Islamic green, but after Israeli protests it reverted to neutral white’(ibid.). A more clear instance of contest, if not exactly tolerance, is hard to find." He quotes: Philps, Alan (2001) The day the dream died’, Telegraph, 3 February, colour supplement.

Onceinawhile (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Note that Hayden is cited one or two sentences later. It seems to be just an editing mixup. Zero^talk 02:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2022

Могила Иосифа.

Могила Иосифа.

AlexEleon (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for find these. They are good additions. I presume you would like them to be added to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that would be good. Thanks. AlexEleon (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. @AlexEleon: Please make it clearer where you want the images in the article. It may also be best to get a consensus before adding these to the article. Thank you! --Ferien (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that the left image is whiter informative than the right one, for example.

• 
• 

The second image (Inside Joseph's Tomb at Shechem -- modern) is not in the article at all. However, everything is at your discretion. I just wanted to pay attention to high-quality images. Have a nice day. AlexEleon (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Current Photo

The current photo in use is grainy and low-res. I have placed a request here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Photos for Rachel's Tomb and Joseph's Tomb to solicit additional input regarding hopefully upgrading the photo. Drsmoo (talk) 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Second holiest for Samaritans

@Nishidani: a few years ago you added a ToI source stating that this site was the second holiest for Samaritans,[10] presumably after Mount Gerizim. Have you seen any better sources than ToI for this statement? I wonder if there really is such a ranking in the Samaritan culture, and if it was true surely they would have significant access rights to the site. The Samaritans in the area have historically had good relations with the Palestinians of Nablus; it would be interesting to understand their position regarding the nationalistic conflict over the site. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It depends on how one defines sacred topology, i.e. taking Mt Gerizim as one sacred site with 4 points (the temple, the 12 sacred stones, Isaac's sacrifice etc) followed by the contiguous Joseph's tomb, as 'second'. The Tol source clearly takes it that way. You're correct that we should find a Samaritan source specifying 'second'. For the moment you might add a adjunctive note from Plummer's great book The Samaritans p.10 How that sits with reverence for the Hebron site escapes me but here oral traditions are so confused no clarity is probable. Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Please add the following line at the end of this section (separate paragraph is not needed):

A few days later the tomb was renovated during an Israeli incursion.

Thank you!--221.189.44.47 (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

References

1RR

@Mathmo: this article is subject to 1RR and discretionary sanctions. Please self-revert, as you have just crossed 1RR.

As to your edit comment: WP:RS links to WP:NEWSBLOG "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". The Times of Israel writes "The opinions, facts and any media content in them are presented solely by the authors, and neither The Times of Israel nor its partners assume any responsibility for them."

If the statement in your edit about the 2019 bomb is true, it should be straightforward to find a better source. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I was following well within the normal 3RR guide! Apologies for my oversight, I will fix that now. Mathmo ^Talk 03:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

According to

this blog, this article is "is detailed and well-presented". :) It list some sources which are not used, as of now, though. Including Tawfiq Canaan, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Miserably poor editing at lead

The 2nd sentence is apparently oversourced (refs 2 throught to 7), but actually not sourced at all. The mess is absolutely incredible, even by I/P standards.

• The "local medieval sheik Yusef Al-Dwaik" seems to be a name either made up or maybe mistransliterated from Arabic or Hebrew (?), not present in any of the accessible quoted sources.
• There is however a sourced Yūsuf Dawiqat, an 18th-century sheikh. Is he one and the same with said Al-Dwaik? And is 18th-century "medieval"? The old story: were there any "Middle Ages" in the Levant, other than during the European Crusader states?
• Ref 2: p. 1239 is actually pp. 1239-40.
• Ref 3: Lidman (2016) can only be Lidman (2015).
• Ref 4: "Conder & 2004 (a), p. 74": there is no "Conder & 2004", neither (a) nor otherwise. Conder wrote the one book that can be meant here alone. There is however a "Conder & Kitchener 1882". Or a Conder (2004) [1889], a 2004 reprint which is not accessible online, and the 1891 edition (full view on Google!) says smth else (on page 63, not 74): "both Jews and Samaritans offer burnt-offerings at this shrine", so nothing on Christians or Muslims (see original edition, p. 63, with only 1 occurrence of "venerated" in a Jerusalem context). So where does the precise quotation ("venerated by the members of every religious community in Palestine.") come from? Another 2004 source, lost while copying & pasting? Made up?
  

There are several refs "Conder & 2004 (a)", indicating "pp. 291–292, 74–75" or no page at all, and there's also a "Conder & 2004 (b), pp. 63–64". The latter is superfluous (see below), probably a repetition of (a) from a different edition. The mess has no end.

Conder & Kitchener is from 1882, and there is nothing on those pages dealing with anything near Nablus.

Searching for the quotes, I finally found them at Conder (1878), Tent Work in Palestine, p. 74 (maybe also 75), with 291-92 dealing with Christmas in Bethlehem...

It's from vol. 1 out of 2, an info that was crucially missing. Any permutation of possible mistakes not actually made?

• Ref 5: Pummer (1993) is not accessible online (it apparently used to be), so I can't check. Maybe this?
• Ref 6: "Twain 2008, p. 553" is referenced, but not listed anywhere. Innocents Abroad?
• Ref 7: The Times of Israel mentions no sheikh.
  

So either the now non-accessible Pummer (1993) mentions a "local medieval sheik Yusef Al-Dwaik", or this is an untenable name & period.

I can't repeat what I think of whoever messed this thing up, or else I'd be banned from Wiki forever. May he RIP. Arminden (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: Since you've looked long and hard at all the sources, I say dispense with the material as you see fit if unverified. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, hi. That's what I've done already. Here I've let off some steam, plus invited whoever cares to help out, especially with Pummer, as it's not accessible on Google Books anymore, and with any knowledge about "al-Dwaik", who must be the same as Dawiqat, that I am 99.99% sure about, but I can see no source on that name to make it 100%. Apart from that, I won't remove Mark Twain: let others do some chores too, find the URL and page number. It's better for the user to keep it, and a moral duty for editors to step up. Removing serves no one, that's as much a fact as "poor editing is disrespectful". Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources

In the heart of Nablus, the biblical Shechem located about 40 miles north of Jerusalem, Palestinians took control of Joseph's Tomb after days of fierce fighting. Under the Oslo Accords, the tomb was considered a holy site where Jewish young men were to be allowed to pray and study the Torah. After the takeover last October, Muslims immediately converted Joseph's Tomb into a mosque, complete with a freshly painted green dome. [11]

The Muslim Public Affairs Council, while siding with the Palestinian peoples right to defend their land and Al-Aqsa Mosque, condemns the demolition of Joseph's Tomb that took place on Saturday, October 7. The destruction of any house of worship violates the principle of preserving the sanctity of synagogues, temples, mosques or churches (see Quran 22:40). [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 09:59, 1 August 2002 (UTC)