Talk:Bardala

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dauphin

Dauphin, 1998, p. 790 writes:

Fondements. Bains du début époque arabe fouillés en 1972, construits sur une église byzantine ayant deux phases de construction. Dans la Phase 1, antérieure au IV" s., pavement de mosaïque aux motifs géométriques et floraux et croix. Dans Phase Il, pavement de mosaïque de la nef réparée de grosses tesselles blanches et bas-côtés pavés de dalles de pierre. Deux sources, une au N, l'autre à l'O. Meule de pierre. Pressoirs à raisin creusés dans roc. Four de potier (?): déchets de céramique. Grottes funéraires découpées dans roc avec arcosolia. Accès par des marches. Certaines grottes contiennent des sarcophages. Entailles dans roc. Céramique byzantine.

And the sources she gives are:

SWP II, 227: Berdeleh; Records, p. 75 (XII P rn 8-10); HA 44 ( 1 972), I l (en hébreu); Yeivin, Z., "Archaeological Activities in Samaria", Eret::: Shomron, Jerusalem, 1 972, 147-62 (en hébreu), XIX (résumé en anglais); Land of lssachar. No. 52. p. 37 (en hébreu); TIR. lud. Pal., 74.

French-speakers to the rescue! (The SWP II is alreadry in the article: that is Conder and Kitchener), Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I don't qualify as such, but voila, an attempt - "[?]" where I'm not sure:
Foundations. Baths from the beginning of the Islamic period excavated in 1972, built atop a Byzantine church which shows two construction phases.
During Phase 1, before the 4th century, [represented by a] mosaic floor with geometrical and floral patterns as well as crosses.
During Phase 2, the nave's mosaic floor [was] repaired using large white tesserae and [?] the lower parts [were] paved with stone tiles.
Two springs, one to the north, the other one to the west. Millstone [?]. Wine press carved into the bedrock. Pottery kiln (?)[their question mark, not mine!]: pottery sherds [or production waste?]. Rock-cut burial caves with arcosolium-type recesses, accessed via steps. Some caves contain sarcophagi. Notches cut into the rock. Byzantine pottery.
ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Huldra (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention. I tried to access the Dauphin link, but page 710 was not on view today. Do you have a hard copy? Or maybe another link? Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have "a computer" version...It is 43.6 MB, which I believe is too much to send via email? Huldra (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for offering, but yes, it's too large... I thought more of indicating a working address inside the article. What you set in here at the top for translation (pasted? typed?) does not indicate the date for most of the listed findings (the foundations, millstone, wine press, tombs, notches) and I hoped that the context would for instance show that, since she writes about "La Palestine byzantine", they are all from the C4-7. Can you confirm that? Just use Google translate, it might well suffice. Also, "antérieure au IV" s." probably means "antérieure au 4ème siècle", but cannot possibly mean the church was "pre-4th century" because this would be pre-Byzantine, from the time of anti-Christian persecution, and would make the Bardala church a world sensation. It probably means "early in the C4", but that's only a guess; my French is very limited. Maybe if you could post here a slightly larger context, if need be send it to Nishidani, we could figure that out and include the info in the article. For now, I had to leave it out. The Pal. brochure with its "coffers" and "graves" from "different civilizations" is not quotable.

The Pal. brochure's history part is so bad, you can hardly make out what they wrote; the author obviously understood nothing of what he was copying there, just dropped in bits of info in bad English. Why nobody edits these publications, I cannot fully understand. There are well educated people in Pal., in Eur. orgs. sponsoring them, in Isr. (Arabs, Jews, whatever). Also, the tendency to mix local lore (village named after "ancient" amir named "Bardaweel") with archaeology is even worse than the widespread Jewish Israeli confusion between (Hebrew) Bible and science; at least the HB is a truly ancient written source with limited historicity. "Ancient" in Eng. is anything from Neanderthals to Napoleon... Rambling again, but it's frustrating. Living in a mythological world where "ancient" starts yesterday and is as true and present as one's name, address and bank account, is legitimate in traditional societies the world over, but not in modern publications, WP included... Cheers, ArmindenArminden (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not sure I understand what you mean by "indicating a working address inside the article"...it is Dauphin, p. 790. (And yes, it is this place, given as gridnumbers: 1955.1993.)

I have often seen Dauphin basically list what Guerin has listed of "antiquities"....and that is a bit "dated", to say the least. Because my non-existent French, I often just list the reference/page-number, (=Not alway easy to find!) and a short description like "Ceramics from the Byzantine era have been found here". I´m not sure what you mean by "The Pal. brochures"? Huldra (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Brochure = Bardala Village Profile by Applied Research Institute - Jerusalem. By "working address" I mean online link, the one indicated now [1] leads to a VERY limited access gate, where the searchword "Bardala" leads to zero hits; this type of "Google books" page is never very useful, at least I hope that they do change which pages one can access from time to time. Now it's only ca. 350-520, so 790 is way out of reach. But if you have the book in digital form, unless it is in PDF format with the text scanned in "picture" mode, you should be able to copy parts of it, open Google Translate [2], choose "French" and get a very approximate translation. Guerin could probably have given the right period for the burial caves, and that would do, we could put it in. I don't expect the caves to be accessible, or even to still exist if they were anywhere close to the village centre, but Bardala doesn't seem to be on the tourist map of Palestine anyway, judging by it not being mentioned as such in the Bradt guide or anywhere online. The Khader shrine sounds interesting, I only wish they had indicated some date or a picture... That's what I mean with the brochure being quasi-useless in regard to history & archaeology and tourism (not their main concern, I know). ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the ARIJ- sources. Al Ameer son & I both agree, that on history they are terrible. Basically they follow what "old men" of the village said about the history. I have seen countless examples of their village history saying that it was "populated first time in the 18th century"...or something like that, ....and then it is mentioned in the 1596-tax records (!). The ARIJ- sources are great for *present* situation, but *if* we are to use them for older history, we should always qualify by "according to" etc. I see present sentence "Bardala's history dates back to 1500 BCE" (sourced to ARIJ) was put into the article in 2008; I think we have improved our sourcing since then.

As for the Dauphin-google-link not being very useful; yes and no. If you notice; I will only link to the google-book in the "Bibliography"-section (and *not* in the article, that is, I would (in the article-text) link to "Dauphin, 1998, p. 710". This is the same as I do for Hütteroth and Abdulfattah-references: this indicate that there is no preview. I *still* think it is ok to link it in the biblio-section, as that link has info, like isbn-number, publisher, etc.

I haven´t found *this* place in Guerin (it might be there; I´m not finished with User:Huldra/Guerin)

Obviously, on older history of these places we should primarily go with sources which are based on *proper excavations* (like the one mentioned by Zero, below.) Huldra (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The basilica is mentioned in this article. It says, inter alia, "Excavated by Z. Yeivin and E. Damati on behalf of the Military Administration of Judea and Samaria in 1972." ... "Two building stages were discovered by the excavators: Stage a: the southern stylobate was uncovered and columns stood upon it in situ; also, remains of a mosaic floor. Stage b: A portion of the nave and the aisles were uncovered. The south aisle and part of the north aisle are floored with stone slabs. The nave is floored with a mosaic of crude white tesserae. A bath-house was later built above the western part of the church." ... "In Stage a: remains of a mosaic floor ornamented with crosses within a round frame, as well as stylized flowers. In Stage b: In the nave there are parts of a white mosaic." ... "Stage a: Probably from the fourth century, on the basis of the crosses decorating the mosaic. In our opinion, before 427." Zero^talk 08:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I didn't say the Dauphine source is wrong in any way; I said it's not available online, so nobody who doesn't own a hard copy (and who does?) can expand on what's written in there. I was curious if the rock-cut tombs with arcosolia are Byzantine, this might clarify that ARIJ sentence about "coffers and graves from different civilisations". Also, there might be some reference to pre-Byzantine findings, if there are any. ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to the village's Hebrew origins?

at least 3 sources in the Talmud talk about the jewish village of bardala. the byzantine findings support the pre-existing talmudic village.

So why not mention it?

2A00:A040:185:B336:E84C:B98:D5FB:CC8A (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]