Talk:Mount Zion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Israel (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Request[edit]

Could someone remove the other references to place names contained the word Zion to a more appropriate location? I don't know the rules for this kind of change. --Gilabrand 06:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Disambiguation suggestion?[edit]

I think Mount Zion is also represents the end of a successful spiritual journey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.40.123 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention of reference to Zion in Reggae songs and Rastafarianism, which would seem to be a significant cultural phenomenon. 77.209.18.19 (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

See Zion. Poliocretes (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That Mount Zion is not a hill[edit]

The article previously stated that Mount Zion is a hill. This is irrational because:

  • geologically it is located at the western ridge of the Judaean Mountains are the surface expression of a series of monoclinic folds which trend north-northwest through Israel as a result of the Dead Sea Transform. As such it was formed not by the usual process of [[hill] formation, but the collision of two tectonic plates!
  • culturally the significance was the location of a Jebusite (Canaanite) fortress at a strategic high elevation of over 700m allowing survey of significant approaches to the region, and not the 38m 'hill' elevation over the immediate topographic valley features this would enable if the height is measured from the 'base' of the feature.
  • economic significance of representing a significance challenge for transporting goods from coastal shipping settlements to inland populations living in the highlands. These considerations required a significant need to maintain pack and cartage animals, road networks, inter-social alliances to ensure free passage and military forces to enforce this freedom of trade. the wars between the tribes of Israel and Philistines for just this reason are described in Tanakh.
  • scientific evidence from all sources shows survey results that measure height of elevations reflecting above sea level, not base of feature since there is no logical way to establish WHICH base can serve as the baseline, there being three valley floors around the Mount Zion, all having different degree of depression!

Persistent reversion of my edits despite these self-evident logical and evidence-based proofs is unhelpful. Crock81 (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It is true that the bible refers to Mount Zion as a "har" but you make the error of assuming that the biblical word in context meant the same as the English "mountain" we use to approximately represent it today. There are lots of places in Israel below 2000ft called "har something" and lots of places above that level called "Giv'at something" (something hill). Everything else here counts as original research and is not accepted as an argument on Wikipedia. Two of your points are even clearly wrong: (1) The 2000ft criterion is a UK rule that is irrelevant in Jerusalem, (2) the defensive value of a high point depends on its prominence relative to its surroundings, not on its elevation relative to a distant ocean. Actually the only criterion we should apply is to check what the consensus of reliable sources call it. I did a search of the academic literature and found both "hill" and "mountain", with "hill" several times more popular. This paper (which is not one of the best for this question but I'll quote it anyway) says "ancient languages often do not distinguish between 'hill' and 'mountain'; secondly that we should not be influenced by modern geographical knowledge with its specification of heights of mountains in feet or metres above sea level. The ancients were influenced by what struck their senses. 'Mount' Zion is a hill by our standards but that did not prevent its being religiously very important." In the archaeological literature, "hill" is almost unanimous. Zerotalk 02:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Zero's observations seem very clear and valid, and the quoted article puts the whole matter in excellent perspective. The book of Psalms can hardly be an "ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT" (to quote Crock81's recent edit summary) for modern usage of hill vs. mountain. I believe that, absent consensus for the change, WP rules call for restoring the article to its pre-existing state (i.e., saying "hill"). If "hill" is so much the dominant term in the scholarly literature, that should be good enough for us here. It should be reverted swiftly.
Formalities aside, there's the commonsense aspect, though of course it is POV and OR. How much does this feature rise over the nearby terrain? 100 metres? Even 50? To anyone who deals with real mountains, I'm sure calling this a mountain would be regarded as gross exaggeration. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, if not for the TaNaKh sources there would be no article and therefore no academic papers on it. There would be no Mount Zion. So CULTURAL CONTEXT is critical to the article's existence. Moreover, you seem to be unaware, as were previsou editors, that construction of the Temple on the HIGHEST point of terrain is mandated by Torah law (halakha), and this perhaps explains why contemporaries consistently in all 11 references use 'mountain' and not 'hill'. So, in fact using 'hill' as a descriptive is WP:OR. And, of course the issue is not COMPARATIVE MOUNTENEERING in this article, but cultural context and significance of THIS mountain. If the ancient Israelites regarded it as a mountain for over 1,000 years, it is good enough to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crock81 (talkcontribs)
Regarding "official definitions", here is one from the US NRCS that defines hill and mountain according to local topography without regard to sea level. By this definition Mount Zion is definitely a hill. But I don't think we should be applying the definitions from foreign countries at all. We should be following reliable sources that are about Mount Zion. Zerotalk 04:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that, because it rather supports what I was saying, context is everything. Consider the "hill – A generic term for an elevated area of the land surface, rising at least 30 m (100 ft.) to as much as 300 meters (approx. 1000 ft.) above surrounding lowlands", on the assumption the hill is located in the lowlands as a topographic elevation. Mount Zion is the top of a mountain ridge, itself overlooking the Judean foothills! Its a long walk to lowlands from Jerusalem Crock81 (talk) 06:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I note that there are cities that are situated on hills Seven hills of Istanbul & Seven hills of RomeCrock81 (talk) 06:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No, you are misreading it. "Lowlands" just means "a generic, imprecise term for a landscape of low, comparatively level ground of a region or local area, in contrast with the adjacent higher country". Zerotalk 06:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is precisie enough for me. If this 'authority' isn't precise enough, its not my problem. Crock81 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There are also the 7 hills of Jerusalem, [1], ...
All wp:rs refer to the elevated areas around Jerusalem as hills; not as mountains. Jerusalem would be the only city in the world surrounded by moutain peaks distanced by a few hundred meters from each other ? Pluto2012 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Here, an example of what I call a reliable source. Note how professionals report that their dig was at a 280m asl elevation, though it is a hill. Above Sea Level. Crock81 (talk) 06:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I had a chance to look through this 'RS' which is clearly written with a bias.
If one starts with the Mount of Olives why? just to the east of the main City of Jerusalem (but still reckoned to be located within the environs of modern municipal! Jerusalem), there are three summits to that Mount of Olives:
1. The northern summit (hill) is called Scopus [Hill One],
2. The middle summit (hill) was called Nob this location has not been positivelly identified [Hill Two],
3. The highest point of Olives Har HaZeitim itself, and the southern summit (hill) was called in the Holy Scriptures the "Mount of Corruption" or "Mount of Offence" [Hill Three] (II Kings 23:13).
4. On the middle ridge the southern slope! between the Kedron and the Tyropoeon Valleys there was (formerly) in the south "Mount Zion" [Hill Four] (the original "Mount Zion" and not the later southwest hill that was later called by that name),
5. The "Ophel Mount" [Hill Five], which is a step on the same southern slope at the .735m elevation
6. To the north of that the "Rock" around which "Fort Antonia" was built [Hill Six], counting a 'rock' for a hill
7. And finally, there was the southwest hill itself [Hill Seven] that finally became known in the time of Simon the Hasmonean as the new "Mount Zion."
This makes "Seven Hills" in all....except they missed a few, Mount Acra, Mount Bezetha (a suburb!), Mount Moriah...Crock81 (talk) 05:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
More of this 'genious' here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crock81 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Pluto2012, YOU were the one that claimed absense of sources? But it isn't enough to quote them, you also need to READ them! Just because 'reliable sources', accoring to Wikipedia, say 'hills' doesn't make it so! Firstly, a part of the definition of a "mountain" in Wikipedia is "Whether a landform is called a mountain may depend on local usage.", and local usage contemprary to ancient culture in Israel was to call prominent elevations in vicinity of Jerusalem, mountains.
Secondly, the PIRKfi DE RABBI ELIEZER, (THE CHAPTERS OF RABBI ELIEZER THE GREAT) ACCORDING TO THE TEXT OF THE MANUSCRIPT BELONGING TO ABRAHAM EPSTEIN OF VIENNA, TRANSLATED AND ANNOTATED WITH INTRODUCTION AND INDICES, BY GERALD FRIEDLANDER, LONDON, KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO. LTD., New York: THE BLOCH PUBLISHING COMPANY, 1916 is available online. So you don't even need to read Aramaic because your 'source' quotes an English edition.
Page 71 in the Story of Jonah says, "...and it showed him (what was) beneath the Temple of God, as it is said,“ (I went down) to the bottom of the mountains ” 6 (ibid. 6). Hence we may learn that Jerusalem stands upon seven (hills 7), and he saw there the Eben Shethiyah 8 (Foundation Stone) fixed in the depths.9 He saw there the sons of Korah 10 standing and praying over it. They 11 said to Jonah, Behold thou dost stand beneath the Temple of God, pray and thou wilt be answered." You will note the important connection here, because two of the pralms that mention Har Tzion are composed by sons of Korakh.
But, see the little numbers. These are footnote references. These MUST be payed attention to. In my real work, one footnote is worth $19 billion. So what do these footnotes say?
"6 The roots of the seven mountains in Jerusalem whereon the Temple rested. The mountains are designated in the O.T. as follows: Mount Zion, Mount Moriah, The Holy Mount, The Mount of my Holy Beauty, The Mount of the House of the Lord, The Mount of the Lord of Hosts, and The Lofty Mount of the Mountains."
"7 The word for “hills” is missing in the MS.; some other word was inserted and then erased. It occurs in the Oxford MS. (d. 35). In the letter of Aristeas (83 f.) Jerusalem is described as being situated “on the top of a mountain of considerable altitude. On the summit the Temple had been built in all its splendour.” - interesting this, isn't it. So it seems from at least since 1916 various 'reliable sources' have been giving preference to a single Oxford MS edition. I'll save you looking, its in the Bodleian Library. Also, it isn't in Hebrew/Aramiac or even Arabic as some Sephardic or Yementite MS are, but Syriac, which means its Jewish authorship is questionable.
It means that your 'reliable sources' have inserted a word that isn't there, from a culturally unreliable document, and pronounced all elevations in Jerusalem 'hills' inspite of the explicit cultutral and textual context. This isn't called wp:rs, but wp:or, I call it 'intellectual dishonesty', aka fraud. Crock81 (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Here another blatant fraudulent translation when reporting the proposed location of the Nob by an Israely archeologist. The quoted passage from Isaiah says 'hill' although the word in the text is har beit tzyon. You will note the accompanying aerial photograph and text make every effort to avoid using Hebrew names. For example at the end Mt. Scopus (Latin) is additionally identified by its Arabic name. What do you call that? Crock81 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This brings me to another issue, categorisation. This article is currently in the Hills of Israel category, whichin fact containsonly two hills, the rest being mountains. The Tmple Mount is in the Mountains of Jerusalem sub-category, itself part of the Mountains of Israel category. Crock81 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC) I just noticed that Mount Zion is a Category:Hebrew Bible mountains, but only rates a hill in Israel :-) So no editor noticed this? Crock81 (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is (was) a bit strange: The name is "Mount Zion", apart from that there is a classification as hill or mountain. The modern classification as hill or mountain does not depend at all on what historic people thought.
And what do modern people think? Seen from the Old City it's a hill, seen from the south it's a mountain. Take your pick.
Tomdo08 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Now to the categories: As User talk:Crock81 already remarked, some Jerusalem "Mounts" are in the "Hills of Israel" category, some in the "Mountains of Jerusalem". That's not very helpful.
I am fearful of nonsense edit wars, so I won't change anything, but maybe some hero with endurance wants to maybe introduce a "Mounts of Jerusalem" category?
Tomdo08 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The poor state of this article[edit]

Everywhere I look there are problems. For example:

The Tanakh reference to Har Tzion (Mount Tzion) that identifies its location is derived from the Psalm 48 composed by the sons of Korah, i.e. Levites, as "the northern side of the city of the great king", which Radak interprets as the City of David "from the City of David, which is Zion (1 Kings 8:1-2; 2 Chron. 5:2)"[Ronald L. Eisenberg, The streets of Jerusalem: who, what, why, Devora Publishing, 2006, p.169]

However the source given has none of that apart from the final two biblical references.

A new example from Crock81:

Although some claim that the name Mount Zion referred successively to three locations, as Jerusalemites preserved the time-honoured name, but shifted the location they venerated as the focal point of biblical Jerusalem to the site at the time, this is not borne out by textual evidence.

According to who? According to Crock81 is not good enough. An opinion like this has to be attributed to a named authority with a citation. The same goes for most of what Crock81 just added. We can't do our own analysis using bible and Josephus as sources! Zerotalk 07:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, now we have our own posek. @Crock81:, honestly this array of uncited assertions is not acceptable. A great amount of what you added has to go, and a lot of what was there before has to go too. Zerotalk 09:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you where the problem is. Its Wikipedia that attracts people like you that do NOTHING - ZERO, until someone like me comes and starts doing SOMETHING, and straight away people like you and HERTZ1888 'jump on the wagon' undoing edits and critiqing, and I have been at it less than 24 hours!
I don't see either Zero0000 or Hertz1888 on histroy content contributions. All I see is Hertz1888 reversions and you a few times just from having it on your watch lists. You think removing stuff is fun, try WRITING SOMETHING.
Why didn't you remove that Ps.48 sentence before if you think its so bad? Because you just go around reverting anything that seems 'wrong' to you while working on your own 'pet' articles, and because you have been in Wikipedia for too long, and being an admin gives you a sense of power that means nothing in the real world. Well Zero0000, think about this - why does the Psalm say "city of the great king" if it could have NAMED the king the author thought was great? So perhaps it isn't talking about any NAMED king. Perhaps to understand the psalm, one has to dig a little deeper than most academics are willing to do because they may find something they won't like.
The previous editors made assumptions when composing the 'three locations' OR theory. The assumption is that Zion and Mount Zion are the same identities. They are not. Moreover, how many of the past editors have Hebrew skills and tools, and can dig into the orally transmitted Torah also? Can you? Because if you cannot, you cannot do your 'bible analysis'. Josephus BTW was NOT an authority on Israel or Jerusalem, but was just a survivor, who wrote with a certain intended bias, and was treanslated into Greek. Consider there is still a 'Cheesmaker Valley' article in Wikipedia, which says the word is a confused translation, and there are many like it, used for centuries by 'professors' of Theology. So I guess Josephus isn't going to help you that much eaither.
However, I don't make threats. If you start reverting and being generally destructive and interfering, I will simply leave. I have more than enough stresses in life that I don't need to contend with Wikibullies. But, I will publish in Amazon, with a preface. I promise. Crock81 (talk) 11:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I believe you are violating WP:NPA, which says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor", and clearly you are also failing to assume good faith. Please tone it down. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
You are not excused. You did not contribute any content to this article, so there was nothing to comment on except your arbitrary and unwarranted reverts. YOU are then the only target of attack by your OWN choice. Had you TRIED to contact me and discuss before reverting, your expereince may have been different, but it is YOUR experience because YOU chose how that relationship developed from the start. You make decisions, learn to live with them. Crock81 (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I am the author of several FA that took me some thousands hours of work.
I support the rationale of Zero000, here. Crock81 adds a lot of WP:TI, which lack reliable sources. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
What, you haven't even bothered to announce a consensus vote, and already into the 'support' mode. ASK ME IF I CARE! And, I also don't care to look up what TI stands for. You can try speaking English. As for reliable sources, you CLEARLY haven't seen decade-old FA articles in Wikipedia STILL looking for reliable sources to EVERY statement made in them. I can only suggest that instead of reading talk pages of articles you do not contribute content to, you EDIT something. Its called 'being productive' Crock81 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Tanakh vs Hebrew Bible[edit]

In this edit, Crock81 replaced the phrase Hebrew Bible with the word Tanakh, two terms which refer to the same thing (albeit they have separate Wikipedia articles [2][3]). I would say that the original choice was better, given that it's more commonly used in English (judging by Google Books results in particular, but also general Google search results) and that it's preferred by Bible sholars (according to the English Wikipedia and the Judaism Wiki). (see also the WP naming convention guideline)     ←   ZScarpia   15:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

TaNaKh is not the same as a Hebrew Bible, since most editions are produced by academics, and are therefore edited accordingly. Here, the context of the artilce is entirely cultural, and suggests TaNaKh is more appropriate, not an academic version. Google statistics are...statistics. Statistics do not identify content relevance Crock81 (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Crock81 was blocked indefinitely on 14 October for being unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy. Does anyone agree with the contents of his reply to my comment?     ←   ZScarpia   18:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Mountains of Jerusalem‎[edit]

There is a mountain region called Jerusalem Mountains. It likely needs its own article since there is a category Mountains of Jerusalem‎. I would prefer to leave the reminder for it in red. 11:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crock81 (talkcontribs)

Tomorrow I'd like to do a section on the various names for Mount Zion, one of which is Moriah. I would also propose merging the current Moriah article into Mount Zion. Thoughts? Crock81 (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000:

Infobox image[edit]

I'm going to be removing the image of the Dormition Abbey in the infobox since it represents the 'new' Mount Zion and the Chrisitan bias in its identification. This bias is based on entirely speculative opinions, and virtually no evidence. The image will be appropriatelly relocated in the article, and more clearly titled. Crock81 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

deleted text[edit]

Deleted: It is a Bi, Na limestone (Turonian Early Upper Cretaceous; 89.3-94 mya) Shivta formation[1] within the Judean Mountains of the Judea-Samaria Fold Belt.[2] The mountains in the Jerusalem area are formed by the northeastern strike of the Hebron Anticline formation that abbuts the southern edge of the city. [3] Reasons: (1) "Bi'na limestone" (also spelt Bina, Bi'ina, etc) is a type of limestone named after the Bi'ina region of the Galilee. Nothing to do with Bismuth and Sodium. (2) It isn't a Shivta formation but part of the Shivta formation. (3) The source shows the "northeastern strike of the Hebron Anticline" ending south of the Rephaim Valley, which is south of Mount Zion. There is even a fault line between the strike and Rephaim Valley. Zerotalk 10:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so this is the reason why I can't find a reference to Bi, Na. THis was mis-spelled on a Wiley Online Library article, and I'm not a geologist.
I was not familiar with the Bi'ina /Bina limestone.
So how do you suggest the re-edit of this considering I have the following to add
Mount Zion is one of several low mountains in the Jerusalem area[4] that are part of the 20km-long ridge. It is the a Bi, Na limestone (Turonian Early Upper Cretaceous; 89.3-94 mya) Shivta formation[5] within the Judean Mountains of the Judea-Samaria Fold Belt.[6] The mountains in the Jerusalem area are formed by the northeastern strike of the Hebron Anticline formation that abbuts the southern edge of the city. [7] There is even a fault line between the strike and Rephaim Valley. This is significant because both the Jewish scriptures and latter sources (e.g. Josephus in Antiquities, XV:52) indicate earthquake activity, including severe, and fairly frequent occurences. [8] The author of Pslam 125 however considered the location of Mount Zion "..that does not topple, but forever abides."[9] It seems unlikely that kings David and Solomon would consider building the First Temple in a location prone to severe earthquakes. The Temple Mount location is however bracketed by minor fault lines to the immediate South.
I asked a geologist user for assistance on interpreting the map, but you probaly saw that.Crock81 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
undoing the change to coordinates and height shows your bias? The subject of the article is the original Mount Zion, not the 'new' one designated by the Roman Catholic Church. There is in fact no evidence for the topographic location of Mt.Zion at height 765, and all Christian focus has been inside the walls on height 773, so the location coordinates as given are ~90m off anyway. If memory serves me right, the articles coordinates will currently put it in a football field :-) Crock81 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000:.

Within minutes of each other, you changed the coordinates to point at the Temple Mount and added an Arabic name that refers to the hill on which the "tomb of David" sits. You can't have it both ways. Zerotalk 10:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't me :-) The coordinates of the Temple Mount are the same as that of Mount Zion because that is the summit of the mountain, and heights are given for topographic elevations according to their summits. What has been consistently misunderstood, even in Jewish culture, is that the reference to the Jebusite citadel captured by David as 'mount Zion' is wrong, because the citadel was located on the slope of a hill. There is textual evidence for this argument which I will bring to the article later. But, in effect the 'old' mount Zion (citadel) coordinates are for a slope, and cannot be used for the geographic feature's topographic elevation.
The Arabic name is from the Arabic Wikipoedia article :-) Have you read it? It makes for interesting reading. I need this particular name in the article because it shows that the subject is seen in the same perspective in the Muslim tradition as the Jewish one, i.e. the conquest by David. However, the MEANING of this tradition has been relocated to the false tomb built during the Crusades, because that is what the Caliphate inherited on the re-conquest of Jerusalem. I have an argument by a rabbi that in fact king David's burial is not currently known, but almost certainly (based on textual evidence) located in the 'city of David' area at the foot of Mount Zion/Mount Moriah/Tample Mount outside the existing walls of Old City. Note that the Jebusite site was a 'lower city' with the 'upper citadel' separated by "ditches" (Josephus). The citadel was rebuilt into the king's palace later.
The present coordinates are just west of the complex of buildings that has Zion Convent, Dormition Chapel and David's Tomb. A 1920 survey shows the top of the hill at 768m in that location. Zerotalk 11:37, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The reason (this is a theory) why the Crudasers located the false tomb of David in that location is because of the "creative" ancestry for JC given in NT. The Dormition Abbey is of course there for very Christian reason also, but the sources of locating the event which it commemorates are not only disputed within the evidence, but by another city!
You didn't answer if you have a personal bias for editing the article as Mt.Zion being located according to the Catholic Church.
I'm trying to obtain a recent, more precise and open source topographic map of the area. Crock81 (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ A. Sneh, Y. Avni, Geological map of Israel 1:50,000, Jerusalem sheet 11-II, , Geological Survey, Ministry of national infrastructures earth and marine research administration, Jerusalem 2011
  2. ^ Geological Survey of Israel, Major geological structures map
  3. ^ Menashe Har-El, Golden Jerusalem, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2004, p.3
  4. ^ Psalm 125:2
  5. ^ A. Sneh, Y. Avni, Geological map of Israel 1:50,000, Jerusalem sheet 11-II, , Geological Survey, Ministry of national infrastructures earth and marine research administration, Jerusalem 2011
  6. ^ Geological Survey of Israel, Major geological structures map
  7. ^ Menashe Har-El, Golden Jerusalem, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2004, p.3
  8. ^ Kitto, John, A Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Adan and Charles Black, 1851, p.592
  9. ^ Davis, Menachem (ed.), Tehillim: The Book of Psalms, Mesorah Publication, 2001, p.365

Has everybody abandonned this article ?[edit]

I have the feeling to be the only one to be shacken to read that a psalm is used in the lead to source that the hills around Jerusalem are mountains (here). I have already reverted 2 times myself... Pluto2012 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with a Psalm being a source? It is a very reliable source because it is part of documentary evidence for the subject of the article, which sets the cultural context for the article content. Within that context the topographic feature is a mountain. It is NEVER called a hill anywhere in TaNaKh or Talmud. It is not defined as a hill from either the geological perspective or one of mounteneering, or even the modern extra-cultural definitions of what is a hill in other countires. The entire region of Jerusalem is situated in the Judean Mountains as part of the Jordan Rift Valley. If you try to walk from the Jordan River to Jerusalem, you will find it a steep and long climb.
Perhaps you should note that the Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources states "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." This does NOT mean that all documentary evidence YOU label religious are 'unreliable'. In fact, though not intended to be interpreted literally given it is poetry, the verses used as reference are literally true here. Jerusalem is situated among low mountains (compared to Tibet), and even dispite human activity over the past 3,000 years, the particular height has not been significantly reduced. Crock81 (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It is a primary source, see WP:V
It is not WP:RS
Pluto2012 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Just a note, there's nothing wrong with WP:PRIMARY sources in certain situations. clpo13(talk) 23:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
In certain situation... So you claim that here we can use a psalm to state that one of the hill of Jerusalem is a mountain. May we use the Lord of the Rings to add to this article that Mount Moriah is unhabited by goblins ? Pluto2012 (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
I said no such thing. If you're going to be like that, then I have nothing more to say to you. clpo13(talk) 23:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
By your intervbention here above you supported this troll (and you are a troll yourself in doing so !) And you dare to comment you have nothing more to say to me.
It is acted that you support we can use a psalm as a source in wikipedia unless you clearly write the contray. Pluto2012 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Lord of the rings is a perfectly good source regarding Moria (Middle-earth). It has nothing to do with Moriah, despite the similar name. A work of fiction is a good source for its fictional world. Mount Zion is foremost a religious term, therefore religious texts are proper sources for describing religious views on the mount. WarKosign 06:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree. However religious views should not be presented as geographical/scientific facts. Moreover, the religious texts should be cited via reliable commentators and not interpretted by ourselves. Sorry to tell you things you know, WK, it's just that absence of this basic wikicraft is the problem in this article at the moment. Zerotalk 07:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Pluto, regarding your question at the start of this section, I'm struggling to find time for Wikipedia at the moment. I believe that the only path to saving this article is at ANI and that arguing here is useless. Zerotalk 00:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes of course, because the process of arguing requires logic and evidence, of which there is a great scarcity exhibited so far, by Pluto2012.
Can POETRY be used as a source? What exactly is your problem with the psalms? Would you be happier with a song (Hebrew mizmor)? If you dispute the author's perceptionof his physical environment ~3,000 years ago, you can bring alternative contemporary documentary evidence that disputes the heights identified in this article being mountains.
However, Pluto2012, you are arguing with a geological fact, and you are not going to make the proverbial 'mountains into molehills'! The psalm simply states the OBVIOUS because for comparison the author had the Judean hills, located below the mountains, hence the foothills article.
And, NO, goblins do not inhabit Moriah, and this article doesn't mention them either.
So, for wasting everyone's time, you are indeed the troll here Crock81 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Zero0000, SAVING! Saving from what? The theory that the mountain "moved" three times?, or the blatent bias in the editing? Or maybe the LOW QUALITY of editing as a whole? Or maybe you just have a personal agenda, one shared by a great many other Wikipedia admins, called Anti-Judaism? Certainly that is where Pluto2012 is coming from with this remark "Why would the Judaic beliefs be genuine ? And why would people who oppose to them consider these practice as inferiors ? They may just consider these as useless." What Pluto2012 ASSUMES is that Judaism is based on beliefs, which it is not. In this he makes an ass out of u and me. However, as I said, bring on your ANI or any oither Wikipedisms :-) Crock81 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that made the decision easier, see you at WP:ANI. Zerotalk 07:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I refer all to WP:LAME. :) Debresser (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

By the way, this edit introduced a grammatically incorrect sentence. I'll fix it according to its editor's intent (mountain), without any prejudice to whether it should say mountain or hill. Debresser (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Uncompleted sentence[edit]

In 'Geology', the following appears to be an uncompleted sentence: "The author of Psalm 125 however considered the location of Mount Zion "..that does not topple, but forever abides." Please either complete it or rewrite it. Akld guy (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion based on what I think it's trying to say: The author of Psalm 125 however considered the location of Mount Zion to be such "..that [it] does not topple, but forever abides. Akld guy (talk) 21:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
No, if you read the Psalm you will see that the location of mount Zion is not specified except that it might or might not be included in "the mountains round about Jerusalem". Both interpretations are possible if no other information is brought. This is a fine example of why using poetry as a source for anything factual is a useless pursuit. Poets in those days enjoyed poetic license just as modern poets do. Zerotalk 01:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
It's an English sentence that quotes a Psalm, but the sentence makes no point because it is incomplete. Is English your first language? Akld guy (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not my sentence and I don't think it should be in the article at all, let alone in the geology section. Now that Crock81 is blocked, we can try to get this article back into shape. Zerotalk 10:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The scope of this article[edit]

Until Crock81 (now blocked indefinitely for being unable to edit according to policy) came along, this was an article about the hillside south of the south-west corner of the Old City that has been called Mount Zion for at least 1500 and maybe 2000 years. Now it is a mess, largely created by Crock81, starting with a map of the Temple Mount. It is true (by consensus of scholars) that in the bible "Mount Zion" meant either the Temple Mount or the City of David. However, both those places have their own articles already and don't need another. I propose to put it back the way it was and improve it from there. The history of the name "Mount Zion" clearly deserves a section. Any actual improvements which were made in the interim can be kept. Any objections? Zerotalk 00:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I came here after following the ANI discussion which resulted in the blocking of Crock81. I had no prior involvement at this article. Looking back at its state on 7 October (revert by User:DVdm), I see that it was in a far more encyclopedical state. In its present form, it contains a lot of unreferenced waffle, confusing me. I have no objection to going back to that version, keeping any good content that has been added since. Akld guy (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I support taking it back to a reasonable past epoch, such as Zero and Akld guy suggest, and rebuilding the article, rather than trying to sort out the present state of disarray. It may take considerable work to find and restore the subsequent improvements, but should be worth the time and effort. The 7 October 2015 version looks like a good starting point. I think it will be important to point out clearly that this "mountain", per the biblical literature, is a hill per modern usage. Words evoke mental images, and in the mind of a present-day WP reader a hill looks very different from a mountain. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You're quite right, 7 October 2015 is what I meant. Good catch. Akld guy (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I kept the edits of Arminden too, as Arminden is a good editor. I also added a topographic map showing the various hills. The images need to be shifted around. The history is very weak, with only a synagogue mentioned for the Byzantine period when it had Christian structures of extreme importance for the origins of Christianity. Another issue is how to word the lead section. Zerotalk

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Zion. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 01:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)