Talk:Silat ad-Dhahr

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

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

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

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!

Latin sources:

User:Nishidani: may I ask you a great favour? Could you please check the Latin sources in this article, and translate them for us? Huldra (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typos:

Clermont-Ganneau, 1888, p. 331 writes 1778, when the correct is 1178. Huldra (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vague sources

@Huldra: Can you show how ref-9 supports the related paragraph? Thanks --Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: ref-9 is used twice; which use do you refer to? Also, the Latin was translated by Nishidani...I do not speak/read it. Huldra (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did not see that you had removed the Conder-ref before I reintroduced it. It is referenced in the RHH-#566; and the Conder-ref place it on SWP map XI, that is here, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Thanks but in fact I would like to know how the ref you re-inserted supports the second paragraph of "Histoy" section. Mhhossein (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Ah, right, actually it doesn´t. BUT: it does support the info given in the third paragraph, where it is also used. One solution is to divide that unified ref into two: in paragraph two, ref-9 becomes <ref name=RHH566a>Clermont-Ganneau, 1888, p. [http://archive.org/stream/RecueilDarcheologieOrientaletome1/Recueil_d_archologie_orientale-8#page/n364/mode/1up 331]; cited in Röhricht, 1893, RHH, p. [http://archive.org/stream/regestaregnihie00rhgoog#page/n157/mode/1up 151], #566</ref>

....while ref-9 in paragraph three becomes: <ref name=RHH566b>Conder, 1890, p. [http://archive.org/stream/quarterlystateme21pale#page/35/mode/1up 35]; Clermont-Ganneau, 1888, p. [http://archive.org/stream/RecueilDarcheologieOrientaletome1/Recueil_d_archologie_orientale-8#page/n364/mode/1up 331]; both cited in Röhricht, 1893, RHH, p. [http://archive.org/stream/regestaregnihie00rhgoog#page/n157/mode/1up 151], #566</ref>

Would that solve the problem? Huldra (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra: Well, that's a good idea if the links support their paragraphs. Mhhossein (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Mhhossein (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Shilta stuff doeing here?

Shilta cannot have been at Silat ad-Dhahr, as there are no pre-Byzantine remains found there. It might have been located at the nearby Neby Lawin, but special info (like "Therefore, agricultural produce obtained from the area could be taken by Jews without the normal restrictions imposed during the Sabbatical years, or the need for tithing") is totally unwarranted in this article. (It could be relevant in a Neby Lawin article)

Also, User:Tombah: re-introduce Zertal, 2004 reference, when that book is already mentioned in "Bibliography" section; what is the point of that?

Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the reference to Demsky before noticing this comment. If it was Shilta then it wasn't a Jewish village, the opposite of what Tombah added. Jewish villages were subject to the tithing rules, but non-Jewish villages were not. So its designation as a "permitted village" is evidence against it being Jewish. Demsky proposes the list was intended to inform Jewish travelers where they could eat despite the local produce not being kosher. However, this material should be removed completely if there is better evidence that Silat ad-Dhahr is not Shilta at all. Demsky did not cite any archaeological data in his identifications. Zero^talk 02:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the definition of Shilta as "permitted village," I believe I once read that these permitted villages were Jewish settlements that were surrounded by non-Jewish settlements and were therefore exempt from some laws that applied to Jewish settlements in Jewish areas. But in any case, the existing explanation should be kept as long as we only have Demsky's theory. Probably other articles contain the same error. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the identification - We now know that there are at least two scholars who have mentioned the identification with Shilta. I have previously read about a number of instances where an identification was questioned due to an absence of archeological evidence, only for the evidence to be later discovered and support the identification (see Hizma for example). In any case, the other identification we have is Naby Lawin, which is situated 1 km to the north of Silat's center and most likely on village land. This fact suggests that we should include this identification on this page, as does Zertal's explanation that the name may have moved to the incredibly nearby site of Silat. Tombah (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read a little more about the ancient village and its connections to Shilta. I'll soon be adding it. Tombah (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]