Talk:Petra

This article currently says that "Petra may be seen on the Madaba mosaic map from the reign of Emperor Justinian." As far as I know the mosaic map currently doesn't include Petra. Wondering what this is referring to? Is it known that Petra was on a part of the map that's missing? 188.247.70.218 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The Treasury image is inverted/upsidedown. Mrericsully (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in terms of real geological background: what formations, their age and composition, tectonics - nothing! Sandstone & erosion is far too superficial. Arminden (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

“‘A little hyped up’: experts downplay claims over Petra archaeological find” Doug Weller talk 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And The Discovery of a Tomb in Petra Was Hailed as ‘Significant.’ Experts Are Unimpressed Doug Weller talk 19:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was a Jordanian-American-orchestrated PR stunt to boost tourism because of the ongoing regional war; two tombs were first discovered in 2003/2005, left side was caged while the right side was buried with sand, the one which was recently rediscovered. Jordan is holding a big press conference in the upcoming weeks, ostensibly to uncover new findings from the rediscovered tomb. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Doug Weller, good to see you around!

Good catch. I have two issues:

1. The publisher, Lulu something, is flagged as blacklisted. Do you think in this case the book can qualify as RS? The material looks 100% academic, at most it's copied from some real RS, which we should probably look for.
2. Rather than remove the very interesting material, I'd much rather see it paraphrased and kept. Would you be interested? I'm hugely lagging behind with my real-life duties. Thank you.

Maybe there's some standard tag for "to be paraphrased, or else"?

Many Jordan-related articles have this problem, and this one for instance copies copiously from the 1911 Britannica; if we start axing everything tarnished by this problem, we'll end up with very little around here. And if others don't learn, those who care will be spending endless amounts of time rephrasing till kingdom come.

All the best, Arminden (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Doug's catch concerns two passages:

"A stele dedicated to Qos-Allah 'Qos is Allah' or 'Qos the god' .... although the crescent above the stele is also a bow."

and

"Nabataean inscriptions in the Sinai and other places .... Amat-allahi "she-servant of god" and Halaf-llahi "the successor of Allah" (Negev 11)."

Arminden (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The passage re. Qos is quoted elsewhere as being from "Browning 28" (here). I couldn't find anything serious on neither Qos-allah, nor any "Browning" beyond a "generalist" by the name of Daniel C. Browning, apparently a 2nd- or 3rd-tire academic, with alk due respect. Losing hope... Doug, this Edomite passage might be plain BS, not just a copyright violation. Let's see the Nab. part. Arminden (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Nabataean part: I found on Nabataea.com "Another god was ‘Allah (perhaps a later expression of Allat). This was sometimes written as ‘Illah. Some of the Nabataean names were: ‘Aush’allah (Allah’s faith), ‘Amat-‘allahi (she is a servant of Allah),...". Do you consider them RS? Some contributors there certainly qualify, but the websiteas a whole not so much. Arminden (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

As the domain is for sale, I don't think so. There really should be enough genuinely good sources to back this article. But I wonder if because it's such a popular place (my wife and Ivisited), people go there and come back to write something with no idea about RS. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Just removed stuff by Dan Gibson (author) and CESNUR] Doug Weller talk 14:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Removed the lot.

"Better source needed" tag for M. Gray website, RS added. Following your lead :) Arminden (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)