Talk:Qasr al-Hallabat

Jordan Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan 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.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks YOU can help with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Major copyright infringement; a second mosque?

The text about the castle was copied word by word from ArchNet. That's crazy. Done by anonymous editor (he knew why). No time to deal with it. Added some info.

Besides, ArchNet did a VERY poor job, mixing up names (Creswell calls Qasr al-Hallabat "Qusayr al-Hallabat", but it's one and the same site) and possibly structures: that mosque at a distance of "1400 metres to the east" is nowhere else to be found except at ArchNet. The only associated mosque regularly mentioned is the one right next to the qasr, 15 m to the SE, certainly not 1400 to the E - I am pretty sure that this is just a plain mix-up. Or does anyone know of a lonely mosque in the landscape, two-thirds of the way between Hallabat and Sarah?Arminden (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5 (!) years later - same sh... Nobody seems to care. Arminden (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to care. Huge problem, as

ArchNet copyrights have been blatantly disregarded
ArchNet has proven to be unreliable, so questions arise at every step of the way. A reliable source is urgently needed.

No 2nd mosque: ArchNet has gotten it wrong. No other source mentions a 2nd mosque at "1400 m east of the palace", just one 14 (!) m SE of it.

"Recent reconstruction works have added back the collapsed elements."

Collapsed? Is that a fact? At nearby Hammam Sarah, much of the masonry was pilfered after 1950 to build new houses. Here it wasn't? Were the stones found laying among the ruins? No source is indicated, not even our beloved ArchNet. Arminden (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080101135107/http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx to http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/mapcenter/map.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The modern town doesn't belong here; Hammam as-Sarah does

The topic is the world-famous Umayyad castle. The modern town should be separated from this article. The inbox is hugely weighed down and complicated by the town-related ballast: WHOSE establishment date, history, leaders, etc.? The two are far too distinct from each other to be dealt with together.

Hammam as-Sarah, on the other hand, is part of the same Umayyad complex (same date, same architect & building technique, related purpose) and only a short distance away. That article is little more than a stump and should be made part of this.

Any comments please? Arminden (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]