This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emmaus Nicopolis redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This redirect 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This redirect 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
This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Emmaus Nicopolis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
From Petra: One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Cooke, George Albert (1911). "Petra". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 21 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 309–310.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So are there any sources that this location was ever historically "Emmaus Nicopolis"? or was it always Emmaus or Nicopolis and modern historians distinguish it as "Emmaus-Nicopolis", "Emmaus/Nicopolis", and the like? We shouldn't be pretending this was ever a formal name in antiquity if it never was.
It's also highly dubious that it was renamed for a victory over the Jews in the 3rd century, given that the actual victories over the Jews were in the 1st and 2nd centuries and formal Christianization was in the 4th. Similarly, the "late Second Temple period" neither extended past AD70 nor involved politically important victories over the Jews. The main victory of the Romans over the Jews was precisely the destruction of the Second Temple (with a name change to celebrate that victory necessarily coming afterwards) or over the Bar Kochba guys in the 2nd century. There were some actions involving Pompey and Antony but neither involved the complete takeover of the area or seems very likely for the formal renaming of a Jewish city. — LlywelynII 21:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article also needs pruning, since it has ended up losing focus (WP:TOPIC) and started trying to cover Imwas. This article should either fully be merged to that page or refocused to fork out the content solely on the ancient site, dealing with modern history only in relation to the ruins and their study. — LlywelynII 22:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit established the usage of the page as BC/AD. Kindly maintain it consistently, pending a new concensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 22:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]