- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
DYK toolbox |
---|
Mosaic of Rehob
... that people returning from the Babylonian captivity to the Holy Land and to their places of settlement in the Holy Land at that time left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?Source: Mishnah (Tractate Shebiith 6:1 )- Reviewed:
Created by Davidbena (talk). Self-nominated at 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mosaic of Rehob, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting: - n
QPQ: Done. |
Overall: @Davidbena: Welcome to DYK! Now, when I say the hook isn't interesting, i mean that the hook is confusing. I'm not understanding what the hook is supposed to say and I think that's because the hook doesn't have any links to other wikipedia articles in it. Also Mosaic of Rehob Isn't linked in the hook either so i'm not sure what the mosaic is. Also, i'm not sure what citation that's supposed to be as i'm not used to the citation style of the article. Also, I'm stumped specfically on "left an indelible mark on how the Jewish nation is to perform certain religious practices?" because i don't know what you mean by "indelible mark", what "Jewish nation", and what "certain religious practices". Also the hook is too long, it's at 220 characters when it should be less than 200. I know I said a lot but hopefully it doesn't scare you. I saw this "The mosaic contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text" in the lead that could work as two possible hooks if this doesn't work. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- So, should I go ahead and re-submit a nomination for this page "Mosaic of Rehob" at DYK, using your suggested hook? I'm willing to do so. I'll also link the name "Mosaic of Rehob". If you give me the go-ahead, I will re-submit it, with the hook reading this time as follows:
"Did you know that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?" Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: I might have confused you but that's not what I'm asking. I'm mainly asking you to make your hooks more specific and do add some links to other wikipedia pages not to do a whole other nomination. Like for example, something like this.
"... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any mosaic in the region, and also the oldest known Talmudic text?"
- Though if we are going to work with this hook, there are two minor problems I kind of have with it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, that's also fine. Can I empower you to help me with this? Your suggestions are good, and since I have never done this before, you seem to be better fit to fix all the small problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Here's my two problems.
- It says "in any mosaic in the region" but what region? I can't tell if you mean the palestine region, the holy land, or some other region I don't know about.
- The hook needs to be stated in the article, not just the lead, with an inline citation. I might be dumb but I can't see these mentioned in the article at all other than the lead.
- These are generally pretty easy to fix and answer so I hope to see them done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- The obvious answer to that is "... that the Mosaic of Rehob contains the longest written text yet discovered in any Hebrew mosaic in Palestine." I will make the correction now in the main article, and I'll find a way to incorporate the text, besides in the lead, also somewhere else.Davidbena (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Onegreatjoke:, At your directives, I have just now amended the text to read "...in Palestine," instead of "in the region," and I have also repeated the claim that it is the largest Hebrew mosaic found in Israel, with a source, in the section entitled "Description of mosaic".Davidbena (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- Alright that's pretty much it. Now, since the hook we worked on was technically my hook, I'm going have to give this review to someone else since i'm not allowed to review my own hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: Here's my two problems.
- Okay, that's also fine. Can I empower you to help me with this? Your suggestions are good, and since I have never done this before, you seem to be better fit to fix all the small problems.Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: I might have confused you but that's not what I'm asking. I'm mainly asking you to make your hooks more specific and do add some links to other wikipedia pages not to do a whole other nomination. Like for example, something like this.
@Onegreatjoke:, Wikipedia allows only seven days to submit a nomination for DYK after an article has reached "Good Article" status. Should I re-submit the nomination before this time-frame has expired?Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- You've already submitted the nomination you don't need to submit it again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena and Onegreatjoke: BuySomeApples (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- @BuySomeApples: How about "... that the Mosaic of Rehob is the oldest known Talmudic text?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- I like it! @Onegreatjoke and Davidbena: I'm approving this hook if there's no objections. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's perfectly fine with me.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena, Onegreatjoke, and BuySomeApples: The wording of this hook is not OK. First of all, the passage cited in the footnote does not seem to directly support the claim that this is the oldest known Talmudic text. (And ideally, it would be better if you had additional sources verifying the "oldest known" claim, including one more recent than 1975. Are we sure no other older texts have been identified since then?) Furthermore, isn't it awkward to say that it's simply "the oldest known Talmudic text"? What about the (central text of the) Talmud itself? (I appreciate the effort in simplifying the hook, but it now seems completely out of context.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching this and putting it back on hold @Cielquiparle: I interpreted "This is the first time that we have access to any Talmudic text inscribed close to the time of its inception" to mean that it was the oldest surviving text. That's probably a better wording anyway since I see how this hook is unclear. I don't think the original Talmudic texts are still extant but I agree that a clearer / more recent source would be good. @Davidbena: what do you think? BuySomeApples (talk) 08:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps a clarification is needed. When the article says it is the "oldest Talmudic text," the implication is that it is the oldest EXTANT Talmudic text. The only Talmudic texts that come closest to it are the excerpts of the Jerusalem Talmud discovered in the Cairo Geniza and which date back to circa 800 of our Common Era. And while the Jerusalem Talmud was originally compiled earlier, no extant manuscripts of that early work are available.Davidbena (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: do you know of any more recent sources that confirm the mosaic is still the oldest extant example of a Talmudic text? I definitely think the wording in the hook and article should be clarified to specify either surviving or extant. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- My suggestion is to add "oldest surviving Talmudic text." No one disputes this, as the Babylonian Talmud only came into existence in 500 CE, although the oldest known text of that Talmud is the Munich Ms. dating to the 14th century (1342 CE). The Jerusalem Talmud, although written about 200 years earlier, in circa 300 CE, has no surviving original texts, but only copies made some centuries later.Davidbena (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: do you know of any more recent sources that confirm the mosaic is still the oldest extant example of a Talmudic text? I definitely think the wording in the hook and article should be clarified to specify either surviving or extant. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Davidbena, Onegreatjoke, and BuySomeApples: The wording of this hook is not OK. First of all, the passage cited in the footnote does not seem to directly support the claim that this is the oldest known Talmudic text. (And ideally, it would be better if you had additional sources verifying the "oldest known" claim, including one more recent than 1975. Are we sure no other older texts have been identified since then?) Furthermore, isn't it awkward to say that it's simply "the oldest known Talmudic text"? What about the (central text of the) Talmud itself? (I appreciate the effort in simplifying the hook, but it now seems completely out of context.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- @BuySomeApples: How about "... that the Mosaic of Rehob is the oldest known Talmudic text?" Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)