Jump to content

Talk:Petra/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1

Rock manipulation techniques

Can anyone please elaborate on the techniques used to work with the rock? This is more of a science question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.79.150 (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Location

Does anyone know the coordinates of Petra?

30° 19' 22.55" N, 35° 26' 49.99" E. This is a location between the Roman Theater and the High Place of Sacrifice. The main gate (visitor's entrance) is located at 30° 19' 23.90" N, 35° 28' 3.00" E. - Cybjorg 21:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to the template I added

I added this template because it asks critical questions, constantly cites evidence, and otherwise sounds like a high school history textbook. It might even be straight from one. While the information here is good, the language used in this article is almost pretentious. Or plagiarized. For example:

It is thought that a position of such natural strength must have been occupied early, but we have no means of telling exactly when the history of Petra began. The evidence seems to show that the city was of relatively late foundation, though a sanctuary (see below) may have existed there from very ancient times. This part of the country was assigned by tradition to the Horites, i.e. probably cave-dwellers, the predecessors of the Edomites;[1]the habits of the original natives may have influenced the Nabataean custom of burying the dead and offering worship in half-excavated caves. But that Petra itself is mentioned in the Old Testament cannot be affirmed with certainty; for though Petra is usually identified with Sela, which also means a rock, the Biblical references[2] are far from clear. 2 Kings xiv. 7 seems to be more explicit; in the parallel passage, however, Sela is understood to mean simply "the rock" (2 Chr. xxv. 12, see LXX). Hence many authorities doubt whether any town named Sela is mentioned in the Old Testament.

What, then, did the Semitic inhabitants call their city? Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. sacr. 286, 71. 145, 9; 228, 55. 287, 94), apparently on the authority of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews iv. 7, 1~ 4, 7), assert that Rekem was the native name, and Rekem certainly appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls as a prominent Edom site most closely describing Petra.

The first paragraph here has a first person statement "... but we have...". And it also constantly cites its evidence, even though Wikipedia articles all should have their evidence and sources at the bottom. The second paragraph starts with that useless question. Lord GS-41 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Petra is one of the new Seven

http://www.new7wonders.com/index.php?id=633

I can see there's disagreement about whether this is important enough to go in the article, or if it's just another of the many corporate promotions involving Petra. It would be really helpful if, here on the talk page, you could offer some of the big media coverage associated with the "new Seven" and show that the list is truly of international importance. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at the conversation on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taj_Mahal#Seven_New_Wonders_of_the_World It is dealing with the same topic. The new7wonders wikipedia entry classed this event as a scam. So how does it make sense to pollute other, worthwhile, entries with this and replace things like "UNESCO world heritage site" with "being named as one of the world's seven wonders" (with no mention of it being the classical, real, ones or this commercial event) - DanniellaWB 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To say there is no global importance is to keep our eyes closed to international events. For example lets see the articles on it on BBC alone. BBC Pictures, BB Video and the news itself. I do see the point raised by people saying that the ratings are based on financial gains, but isnt that the same with Forbes and others of those kind and dont we have those mentioned on top of the articles on wikipedia? Lets be fair. Cheers ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε †αLҝ 12:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lead section, but is an event related to the modern history of the site and I have no problem mentioning it in an appropriate location. Putting it in the lead gives it undue weight. It is not equivalent to being a UNESCO site in any meaningful way. IPSOS (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I didnt read this before inserting it on the lead. You probably right but seems neither the UNESCO is mentioned on the lead Jor70 14:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
UNESCO and this new thing are completely different. It is entirely appropriate to mention UNESCO in the lead. It is well established, has been recognized for decades, and is not a sensationalist publicity stunt! IPSOS (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree , then, why the UNESCO is not mentioned in the lead ? --Jor70 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't know. Thought it was but clearly I was confusing this article with another. Feel free to add it or I will later. IPSOS (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've included it, I could've sworn it was there some months ago. Thanks for the assistance btw. Cheers, DanniellaWB 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Y're welcome --Jor70 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

News story

New pic of end of siq? Is it good?

The end of the siq, Petra, Jordan

I shot this picture 6-2007 at the end of the siq. It's a lot higher res - and has better color than the one up on the page now. Here for everyone's consideration. --KasemO 04:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The "movies and popular culture" section currently includes these items:

These items do not have anything to do with the archaeological site Petra; they just happen to have the same name. That makes them fair game for the Petra (disambiguation) page, and in fact two of them were already listed there. I have just added the third one (the musical play) after editing out some non-NPOV language.

But these three items don't belong in this article, and I am deleting them. [[User:Pat Berry|Pat Berry]] 06:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The first reference is VERY interesting, because the play takes PLACE in ancient Petra...(Fairuz plays Queen Shaqilat, mother of King Rabbel, the last king of Petra before Roman acquisition.) i agree however with the remainder of u'r assessment concerning the last two references. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.249.133 (talk • contribs) 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Re: The Trivia template in the article I suggest removing the section and adding to "Petra today" a sentence like: "The picturesque site is a popular sight and featured in various works of art such as the movies Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Passion in the Desert and Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, the Sisters of Mercy-Video "Dominion", the game Spy Hunter, or the novels Left Behind and Appointment with Death." Comments please, if none come, I'll change the article as proposed in a week. Eliot Stearns 09:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Eliot Stearns 21:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I added a link to the database of excavations at the Great Temple. The content was developed by researchers and has a Creative Commons license. Due disclosure: I helped create that database. If anyone thinks the link shouldn't be there, please remove it, but it seems relevant to me, even though I'm an interested party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.226.236 (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion in Petra

I just finished watching a documentary on the discovery channel on Petra, and they said they found little figurines of Aphrodite in the tombs and that it was a hellenistic culture. This seems to contrast with the article that claims they worshipped Arabic Gods, which is strange as from the rest of the article the culture is clearly hellenistic. --216.110.236.243 (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this could have been vandalized

Sorry, I'm new to this and I could have done some mistakes, but the Petra article was using those templates

  • Template:Multi-video start
  • Template:Multi-video item
  • Template:Multi-video end

that caused the page to be quite out of wikipedia standards....

HTH, --Giupo777 (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Display problems

Does anyone know why the article currently displays with all the other-language wiki articles as red links? It shows up properly when you press on the most recent version from the history page, but not when you go to the article directly. NoCal100 (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Rekem inscription

This inscription is illus. in the article. The following text has been repeatedly deleted:

The only place in Petra where the name "Rekem" occurs was in the rock wall of the Wadi Musa opposite the entrance to the Siq. About twenty years ago the Jordanians built a bridge over the wadi and this inscription is now buried beneath tons of concrete.
Brünnow thinks that "the rock" in question was the sacred mountain en-Nejr (above). But Buhl suggests a conspicuous height about 16 miles (26 km) north of Petra, Shobak, the Mont-royal of the Crusaders, aka Montreal.

In this, "Brünnow" refers to Rudolf-Ernst Brünnow, who, with von Domaszewski, made an early attempt at classification of Petra's architecture. "Buhl" referes to Frants Buhl Geschichte der Edomiter (Leipzig, 1893). Someone seems in haste to suppress this text. Blanking isn't editing. --Wetman (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the inscription but the "buried by the Jordanians beneath tons of rock" really needs some sort of WP:FOOT.Student7 (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

More references needed

There a lot more references needed in this article. The history section is particularly short of them and is full of POV statements such as "More satisfactory evidence of the date of the earliest Nabataean settlement may be obtained from an examination of the tombs". Who says this evidence is more satisfactory? The paragraph then goes on to say: "Two types may be distinguished—the Nabataean and the Greco-Roman. The Nabataean type starts from the simple pylon-tomb with a door set in a tower crowned by a parapet ornament, in imitation of the front of a dwelling-house." There is no corroboration of this by references and so it could be a completely wrong interpetation. Articles in wikipedia are supposed to be verifiable. Also, the Geography section tells you were the treasury and the theatre are located but there is no mention of the Monastery although it is supposed to be the largest building. It also says "at the foot of the mountain called en-Nejr, is a massive theatre, so placed as to bring the greatest number of tombs within view" What tombs? - they haven't been mentioned before. Richerman (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Can someone explain to me why this article is under the Wikiproject Christianity? The people of Petra were hellenized or at least pagans right? Sure, there is some info in the article about Petra being mentioned in the Bible but it's from the Old Testament and related to Judaism, not Christianity. What is the relation to the wikiproject and what info does this article provide to the topic of the wikiproject. 24.182.142.254 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume because of the bit under religion which says

Christianity found its way into Petra in the 4th century AD, nearly 500 years after the establishment of Petra as a trade center. Athanasius mentions a bishop of Petra (Anhioch. 10) named Asterius. At least one of the tombs (the "tomb with the urn"?) was used as a church. An inscription in red paint records its consecration "in the time of the most holy bishop Jason" (447). The Christianity of Petra, as of north Arabia, was swept away by the Islamic conquest of 629–632. During the First Crusade Petra was occupied by Baldwin I of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and formed the second fief of the barony of Al Karak (in the lordship of Oultrejordain) with the title Château de la Valée de Moyse or Sela. It remained in the hands of the Franks until 1189. It is still a titular see of the Roman Catholic Church.[13]

It also says under the wikiproject banner above that it is supported by the Syriac Christianity work group, which is particularly interested in eastern Christianity. The fact that a project takes a passing interest in an article doesn't really mean very much - many articles have multiple wikiproject banners on them because they have various elements of interest to different groups. Richerman (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Richerman is on target. Petra is significant to Christians, just as the Old Testament is, and articles in these areas are of interest to Wikipedia editors who work in the area of Christianity. The project banner is not a topic of discussion in the article, it is only a matter of convenience for editors who specialize in these areas. --KP Botany (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct translation of Greek πέτρα

The Greek word πέτρα simply means rock, not cleft in the rock. Reviewing this article's history shows that this spurious translation was added January 2009 by an editor (Rktect) who was blocked soon afterward for "disruptive editing." Before that edit, the translation had been given correctly as simply rock. I am going to remove the spurious and wholly incorrect "cleft in the."--Jim10701 (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that!Student7 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Petra in Biblical prophecy

I question the necessity of the following statement: "There is even some speculation that some Christians have been slipping Bibles and many essential survival items into Petra in preparation for that moment." It seems extremely speculative and unnecessary. I have been to Petra recently and saw nothing to corroborate this statement. - Cybjorg 15:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I changed the title to better reflect the subject of the section: The Speculative Future of Petra. The Bible never mentions Petra in the end times, and to use such a title simply reflects scholarly conjecture. I also removed the following controversial line:

There is even some speculation that some Christians have been slipping Bibles and many essential survival items into Petra in preparation for that moment.

– Cybjorg 13:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Is it included in this article that in the book of Isaiah the Bible prophesied that Petra would fall and that wild animals would dwell there, as they do now. Invmog (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Not helpful for this particular article.
There is no way to prove that what Isaiah was talking about was a city that had not yet been built.
Even if it could be proven, so what to this article? Says more about Isaiah than it does about Petra. It would be off WP:TOPIC.
The way that prophets and scripture are selected are as follows: a) "Tom" predicts that City X will fall before the year 200, "Dick" says it will fall after the year 1000, "Harry" says it will fall after the year 2000. If it fell in 1500, we throw out Tom's and Harry's predictions. We know now that they were not inspired. We think Dick is inspired. There is a potential fallacy here. I suppose the bible avoids this by Isaiahs followers writing down everything and not just what they remembered as being correct. We can hope anyway. Student7 (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, when was it built?

With a case of a subject like this, one thing pretty much anyone reading the article is going to want to know is: when were the buildings constructed? It should be right in the lead, or otherwise easily discoverable early in the article. The History section here is full of info, but damned if I could find a simple statement along the lines of, "Current estimates place the construction of Petra from ____ to _____ BC." In fact, the History section overall seems too focused on sources and not focused enough on presenting a clear, approachable narrative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NonsuchDan (talk • contribs) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the buildings are 1st century BCE, the info box says 1200BC and links to the Jordan tourist office site which says the first evidence of inhabitants was 1200bc. This has nothing to do with the site as it is now, it's like describing the Tower of London as 50,000 BC because Neanderthal remains were found on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.93.229 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Aramaic-speaking?

They wrote in Aramaic in the earlier phases of their history, but does that make them Aramaic-speaking? They had Arabic names, for one thing, and the Wikipedia article on Nabataeans says: "This Aramaic dialect was increasingly affected by the Arabic dialect of the local population. From the 4th century AD, the Arabic influence becomes overwhelming, in a way that it may be said the Nabataean language shifted seamlessly from Aramaic to Arabic. The Arabic alphabet itself developed out of cursive variants of the Nabataean script in the 5th century.". Slacker 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That part of the article is quoting sources from biblical times, when they were Aramaic-speaking. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


The inhabitants of Petra clearly were speaking Aramaic in the early days. But the Nabatu as they called themselves as well spoke and wrote an Aramaic dialect, Nabataean. During the later stages of the hellenistic period especially 1st century BC greek also gets attested more frequently. Arabic which is a semitic language as well, comes quite a bit later. 91.177.163.228 (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabic architecture?

I removed the category:Arabic Architecture. reason is, this is an ancient site. and what is usually called Arabic architecture dates from the seventh century.Broad Wall (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unsustainable" Tourism

The reference provided for this claim (16) doesn't seem to say anything about unsustainable tourism in Petra. 89.211.80.208 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"Rediscovery"

In the article I see that the Romans, Byzantines (admittedly not Westerners under some definitions), and Crusaders knew of Petra. So in what sense can a Westerner have discovered or rediscovered it in 1812? It seems akin to saying that a British travel writer "rediscovered" Vietnam in 2003 by writing about it in a magazine and making it an object of interest again. 98.243.172.27 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Century old EB material in history

I've just fixed a problem with the article where Mada'in Saleh was identified by an almost untraceable name. There's a serious problem in that a large chunk of the history comes from a 1911 encyclopedia. Not only are encyclopedias bad sources for history - they almost always represent one author's understanding, this is far too old, but it's only been tweaked since it was added in 2002.[1]. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And the Walls Come Tumblin' Down

Does anyone have verifiable information on the recent (2015) threat to Petra by triumphant terrorists/Islamicist invaders? Recent network news broadcasts implied that the same fate as had befallen other archaeological sites overrun -- mass defacement so as to impose Mohammedan strictures against certain images -- was in process against the architecture at Al-Batrā. A tragedy, if true...! While one ought not automatically assume such evil acts ARE true without data, it should surprise no one if proven. Again -- anybody have verifiable info?

67.55.154.8 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

67.55.154.8 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted text and where it was copied from

"More satisfactory[dubious – discuss] evidence of the date of the earliest Nabataean settlement may be obtained from an examination of the tombs. Two types of tombs have been distinguished: the Nabataean and the Greco-Roman. The Nabataean type starts from the simple pylon-tomb with a door set in a tower crowned by a parapet ornament, in imitation of the front of a dwelling-house. Then, after passing through various stages, the full Nabataean type is reached, retaining all the native features and at the same time exhibiting characteristics which are partly Egyptian and partly Greek. Of this type close parallels exist in the tomb-towers at Mada'in Saleh in north Arabia, which bear long Nabataean inscriptions and supply a date for the corresponding monuments at Petra. Then comes a series of tomb fronts which terminate in a semicircular arch, a feature derived from north Syria. Finally come the elaborate façades copied from the front of a Roman temple; however, all traces of native style have vanished. The exact dates of the stages in this development cannot be fixed. Few inscriptions of any length have been found at Petra, perhaps because they have perished with the stucco or cement which was used upon many of the buildings. The simple pylon-tombs which belong to the pre-Hellenic age serve as evidence for the earliest period. It is not known how far back in this stage the Nabataean settlement goes, but it does not go back farther than the 6th century BC." is from the 1911 EB.[2]


A period follows in which the dominant civilization combines Greek, Egyptian and Syrian elements, clearly pointing to the age of the Ptolemies. Towards the close of the 2nd century BC, when the Ptolemaic and Seleucid kingdoms were equally depressed, the Nabataean kingdom came to the front. Under Aretas III Philhellene, (c.85–60 BC), the royal coins begin. The theatre was probably excavated at that time, and Petra must have assumed the aspect of a Hellenistic city. In the reign of Aretas IV Philopatris, (9 BC–40 AD), the tombs of the el-I~ejr[clarification needed] type may be dated, and perhaps also the High-place. is copied from the same source or the 1926 version[3] or een a later version.[4] Copying broke some the text so that "el Hejr" which is Mada'in Saleh became "el-I~ejr". All of this was easy to find. We have a lot of articles with material from the EB1911 but I'm not happy with that. On the other hand, this article clearly states in the references that "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "article name needed". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press." Doug Weller talk 12:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dan Gibson

Does anyone other than Lecker discuss Gibson Doug Weller talk 14:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)'s ideas about Petra?

There is a brief but critical review by Daniel C. Waugh in the 2012 issue of The Silkroad Journal. AstroLynx (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. Also this review does avoid any direct rejection of Gibson's claim. Also this review makes a lot of noise about Gibson's mistakes in the surroundings of his central claim, yet shows some cluelessness concerning the central question. I wish that established academics would set up a project to test Gibson's hypotheses. It is about numbers, and it is about soil examination. It cannot be so difficult. But exactly that this does not happen is the real scandal, in my humble opinion. Gibson puts sound pressure on a veeery reluctant academia.
Back to Wikipedia criteria: The public, non-academic attention drawn on the topic by Gibson can be a justification to mention him, and that the reviews do not outright reject his central claim, too. If Gibson is successful to place his TV docu on known TV stations, there will be a certain duty to mention him to set things straigt for the public: Yes, Gibson has an interesting idea, but no, he has also major flaws, and his central idea is not yet academically verified (or falsified). --IbnTufail (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Early mosques faced Petra

Dan Gibson's book Qur'anic Geography indicates through mapping that early mosques faced Petra, not Mecca. Islam came from Petra, not Mecca. Should this be a heading?

Find this discussion below under "Dan Gibson". --IbnTufail (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Petra. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 07:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Arab Nabateans

@Doug Weller: The Nabateans were Arab, [5]. And I put this because there are some people who mistake the Greek name of Petra into thinking that Petra was built by the Greeks.--Makeandtoss (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit more and it seems to be the general consensus. It never occurred to me that people might think they were Greek. Petra's a lovely place, I'm lucky to have been there. Doug Weller (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
It probably was built with the involvement of at least greek architects. For example, this and this and this source say so. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It is. But in the past few days I was shocked to hear that some Europeans thought it was made by Greeks!--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Greek raids

Sources in the Antigonid–Nabataean confrontations all view the confrontations as raids against Nabataean wealth.
"But the wealth of the Nabataeans brought the envy of their neighbors and were forced to repel several attacks on their capital during the late 4th century BC by the Seleucid King Antigonus". [6]
"...but profit was on Antigonus's mind more than strategic considerations." [7]
"The immense wealth of Petra had become the envy of neighboring kingdoms as early as the third century BC." [8] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
"Antigonus probably intended to try to take over the Nabataean trade in frankincense and bitumen" "Antigonus wanted to cut out the middlemen" [9]
"Demetrius insisted that the Nabataeans provide him with political hostages from their leading families and offer him precious gifts to be displayed as tribute. Demetrius then abandoned the campaign claiming that Nabataean territory was not a viable acquisition for his father's domains" "When Demetrius returned from the campaign, his father Antigonus rebuked him for not taking more aggressive action against the Nabataeans" [10]
The campaign of the "second confrontation" was clearly aimed at subjugation or conquest of the area, not just "ransacking".
As for "envy", although the the sources may contain such colorful expressions, "an envious Greek dynasty" is a needlessly ambiguous and polemic expression. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What drew the Antigonids to attacking Petra, in the first instance, was its wealth. Therefore, there's nothing problematic with saying that the earliest recorded historical reference to the city was when an envious Greek dynasty attempted to ransack the city in 312 BC. It was both the first instance and the earliest recorded reference. As for "envious", its certainly not ambiguous. It clearly states what it implies. I don't find it "polemic" either−at least not to an unacceptable extent. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't find it "polemic" either−at least not to an unacceptable extent
Is that a joke? "Greeks be jelly hhh" is not encyclopaedic.
It's not an "envious Greek dynasty", it's the Antigonid Kingdom. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 07:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes “Greeks be jelly hhh” is directly what “envious Greek dynasty” implies, and what the sources imply. The term is encyclopedic enough that it is used in several reliable sources and does not go against Wikipedia’s words to watch. Please seek consensus here from other users before reverting to your preferred version as this constitutes edit warring. We can write “draw the envy of the Greek Antigonids”.Makeandtoss (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is it so important to keep the "envious" there? It's at best a colorful, "personal" description that seems more suitable for a tourist guide than a serious encyclopaedia, while "envious Greek dynasty" is ambigous and unnecessarily national. Should articles also use "an envious Arab dynasty" etc? Also, "several reliable sources"? Look at the sources you quoted: "Seleucid King Antigonus"? That's a very poor source.
Secondly, the army of Demetrius was clearly out to make the area at least a tributary part of the Antigonid domains, and that fact should be accommodated.
Let's at least have "drew the interest of the Greek Antigonids" or something similar. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Based on the above arguments, I propose changing the contested part to "when its wealth attracted the interest of the Greek Antigonids who raided the region"
If no reasonable arguments are presented against this proposal, I will consider it to have attained consensus. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
For any third parties out there, note that the user demanding me to seek consensus has done sweeping changes to the article without as much as an edit note, including adding the whole contested part. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is required when there is a conflict only, obviously. I hope the modified version is to your liking. Thank you for your cooperation and your constructive edits are always welcomed. Wikipedia guidelines do not prohibit the use of such terms, here are the two reliable sources that use the term "envious": [11] [12]. Both are peer-reviewed reliable pieces of scholarship. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
It's less bad now. However, "attempted to ransack" is still wrong; for example, the second source you mentioned [13] directly says Antigonus "captured Petra in 312 BC", as the first expedition did capture and sack the city. Also, the sources technically say the city attracted the "envy" of neighbors by the 3rd century (200s) BC or by the Roman times, both after 312 BC.
The "attempted to ransack" should be changed to "raided the city", "attacked the city", or just "captured the city" like the source says. 91.157.10.191 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Done, put both. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Animal Abuse at Petra

Hi everyone, I was just wondering why my paragraph on the animal abuse at Petra was deleted?? Thanks in advance for your feedback (OliCharlton (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC))

@OliCharlton: Read WP:REF, please. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added in more references now. Can you please check it is ok to be published now? Thank you OliCharlton (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please advise why my paragraph on the animals at Petra has been removed? Thanks [```] — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliCharlton (talk • contribs) 21:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Makeandtoss may want to answer that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

TV Show Jinn

Petra and Jinns Mammyounas (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

You need to provide a bit more than just three words. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Jokteel is NOT Petra, remove autodirect!

Petra is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible/OT, at least there is no certainty about it, and the only contemporary Edomite village there the one at Umm al-Biyara, was a tiny site, so no surprise that it's not in the OT. Arminden (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

What is Petra Roman Road? Remove autodirect!

Petra Roman Road wikilink links right back to Petra article. Never defined. What is it? All I can think of is the Roman-period main street (not road) in the city centre, leading to Qasr el-Bint. Or is some trade road connecting Petra with, say, Via Nova Traiana meant? Please, either fix or remove the autodirect!!! Thanks. Arminden (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)\

Was not offering a description a conscious decision?

We don't have here a proper "Description" paragraph - was that a conscious decision? Yes, there are lots of good online descriptions, but so what, this is WP!

Considering that, I think we at least need a well-visible list of the main sites, not hidden in the "Petra category", which hardly anyone looks at & which contains some topics only remotely connected to the Petra site. For that reason I added to "see also" a list of already existing WP articles under the heading "Petra monuments, findings, and nearby related sites", adding "(see also "Petra" category below)". Please don't remove or change this useful item in major ways until we do have a description of Petra containing wikilinks to all the listed sites. Thanks! Arminden (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Are Sela' and Petra really the same?

I was of the understanding that Petra and Sela' were not one and the same place. Sela' being a sort of natural fort (close to the old Edomite capital of Busheira) used when being attacked (for example the Macedonians in 312BC), described as being a large flat rock on which the defenders took place and that was only mountable by a narrow stairway like path. While Petra lies in the center surrounded by large rocks (which is quite the opposite), and while accessed by one small entrance as well, the suq, it really doesn't seem to fit the description.

Doing a quick search it seems that nabataea.net seems to agree. will try to reference an Academic work in the future to back this statement up. Of course a lot of work just writes and assumes that petra and sela are the same, I guess it's just a common mistake based on outdated information due to a lack of research in many books. 91.177.163.228 (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgot the linky: http://nabataea.net/sela.html 91.177.163.228 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The latin "Petra deserti" of Isaias 16 in the Vulgate is rendered "Sela" in the hebraica. ThvAq (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed from the lead the unsourced claim that "The earliest historical reference to Petra was an unsuccessful attack on the city ordered by Antigonus I in 312 BC and recorded by various Greek historians." This theory, identifying this "Petra" with the one attacked by the Macedonians in 312, has been largely discarded. See the article Sela (Edom) for more on this. Arminden (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Infobox picture

The treasury has to be part of the infobox picture. Petra is almost synonymous with the treasury for many people. A collection of different pictures for the treasury, little Petra and other structures in the city of Petra can serve as an inclusive infobox picture. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed Ego Photos

The "tourism" section contained two photos of some brits who finished some trail race that ended in petra. There were two photos of the same couple - which is one more photo than the whole page has of petra itself. these photos and the accompanying text added zero to the article and are reasonably understood to be ego-based vandalism and hence were removed. The "tourism" section deserves legitimate expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:6484:DB00:E556:641F:5778:70F1 (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Well done. —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Petra

Hi my name is Lea I am going to tell you about Petra. The Petra names come from the Greek rock. It is a historic and archeological city in souther Jordan. 188.247.79.10 (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Location of the "rekem" inscription

I am questioning this line 

"The name 'Rekem' (rqm) was inscribed in the rock wall of the Wadi Musa opposite the entrance to the Siq. However, Jordan built a bridge over the wadi and this inscription was buried beneath tons of concrete."

First of all, it is not clear where the inscription is (or was) nor when is was found or inscribed - surely this can be reworded, eg. "an inscription reading .... was found ... " Also "Jordan" the country built the bridge? Wouldn't the passive be better here? It doesn't say when the bride was built. Is there a photo of this bridge? Also, the "tons" on concrete sounds like criticism or rhetorical exaggeration - is it important how many tons? 2A02:8108:48BF:F214:6DD6:386D:5C3F:B686 (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The part about the bridge is going out until a proper source is provided. The current source is a tourism company, which is a type of source notoriously unreliable. Zerotalk 07:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm also removing the image as the only inscription visible on it is some modern graffiti in English letters. From the snippets I can see of the source, the inscription is there but if it isn't visible in the photo there is no point in having it. The source doesn't suggest any age or spelling of the inscription, which sort of makes it hard to justify. I'll look at the source in a few days. Zerotalk 07:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
The "tons of concrete" part was a copy-paste from the tourism company. Zerotalk 07:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I found proper sources and they explain why I couldn't find the inscriptions in the photo: they are about a meter underground! I have to sort out the details, then I'll rewrite that section. Zerotalk 08:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Petra on mosaic map in madaba

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)

Treasury Image

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

Geology??

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Petra/Archive_1&oldid=1240092894"