Jump to content

Talk:Mount Gerizim Temple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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 NightWolf1223 talk 14:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Source: Magen, Yitzhak (2007). "The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence". In Lipschits, Oded; Knoppers, Gary N.; Albertz, Rainer (eds.). Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Penn State University Press. pp. 166–168. ISBN 978-157506580-9.
"Perhaps the most fascinating discovery is a small gold bell with a silver clapper from the fringes of the high priest’s ephod (Exod 28:33–35; fig. 13) ... Note the small bells hanging from the fringes of the ephod. The small golden bell (above) was found in the area of the sacred precinct."
Created by Mariamnei (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Mariamnei (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • This looks really interesting! I will review this nomination in the coming week. WatkynBassett (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created on 27 September 2024 and nominated on 30 September 2024. It is thus new enough.
  • The article is written in a neutral and non-promotional tone.
  • QPQ done. Will continue this review later. WatkynBassett (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-check of references: The references are of (very) high quality. I checked four citations, three checked out, one had an (imo) wrongly identified page number (34 instead of 24, I fixed that, please double check).
  • Earwig picked up the names of the sources. This is, of course, entirely unconcering. My spot-check revealed no close paraphrasing.
  • Hook review: I like the hook, but I would strike the half-sentence ", an ancient Samaritan sanctuary,", which is not needed. The wlinking of Samaritan High Priest struck me as a bit surprising: Should not the High Priest of Israel be linked, as he is the subject of Exodus 28?
  • Overall: Mariamnei Thank you for this excellent piece of work, which I liked very much. The very best of free knowledge; you should nominate it for GA! I will approve the hook, if you agree with the suggested shortening and the issue with the linkage of "high priest" is cleared-up. Happy to discuss. WatkynBassett (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WatkynBassett: Oh wow, thank you so much for the kind words! I'm totally okay with leaving the sanctuary part out; I was debating whether to wikilink Samaritan High Priest if we went with the connection to the Samaritan sanctuary or to go with High Priest of Israel, like you suggested, and align it with the mention in Exodus. Honestly, I think both could work, so I'll go with your recommendation! Mariamnei (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariamnei: Perfect, then I approve the following hook as ALT1. Nice work!
ALT1: "... that a small golden bell found at the site of the Mount Gerizim Temple is believed to have been part of the ephod of a high priest, as described in Exodus 28?"
WatkynBassett (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Gerizim Temple/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mariamnei (talk · contribs) 11:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: I will review this article over the next few days; aiming to have feedback here by this time next week. Richard Nevell (talk · contribs) 18:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The 'Bell' section is too short; if it is a significant find then more context is needed – eg: when was it found; to what period did it date; is it typical or unusual – and if it is not significant there is no need to mention it. At the very least a standalone section is not needed in its present state per MOS:PARA "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings". Otherwise, MOS has largely been followed.

    There are some awkward turns of phrase that I have listed underneath this review.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    The article makes extensive use of academic sources. The text is properly referenced, aside from the second paragraph of the 'Archaeology' section and the last sentence of the preceding paragraph which lack citations. I conducted a spotcheck of statements supported by references 9, 19, 35, 48, and 60 in this version of the article. Results are detailed below in a subsection. There was an example of close paraphrasing that needs to be addressed, and I may conduct further checks to see if this is more extensive.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    In most places, the article has a good level of detail, but there are significant gaps which need to be addressed. I have detailed these in a subsection below.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article lays out the evidence and the interpretation. The modern Samaritan interpretation of the site is presented as a secondary view, almost fringe, but this does seem to represent what the sources have said. Additional information about the modern Samaritan understanding of the site may enhance the article's balance.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Coverage and context

[edit]
  • The infobox has no coordinates although the article presents the excavation led by Magen as having found the temple enclosure.
  • Looking through the list, it seems like none of the names actually refer to the Temple itself. Jebel et-Tur is the Arabic name for all of Mount Gerizim, while Tell er-Ras appears to refer to one of the mountain's extensions, located north of the mountain's summit, where the ancient Samaritan precinct was located. As for Kh. esh-Sheikh Ghanim, the name seems primarily connected to a medieval shrine near the sanctuary site, so I'm not sure it can be used as a synonym for the Temple itself. Mariamnei (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was near the temple when it was first built? What (Samaritan) community did it serve?
  • Not much; I noted in the article that the temple was the first structure erected at the site. Archaeological evidence, particularly epigraphic, indicates that Samaritans from both their homeland of Samaria and diaspora communities, including those as far away as Delos, sent offerings to the temple (see the last paragraph under History#Seleucid period). Mariamnei (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of the site's state of conservation.
  • There are also two paragraphs that are just a sentence long. One sentence paragraphs may indicate that the text is not sufficiently integrated into the article.
  • What did the temple consist of in its early phase? A precinct is mentioned as having survived Alexander the Great's activities in the area but is presented without explanation. This may be linked to the issue of terminology detailed in the #Copyedits section below.
  • You can check out the details about the findings from the Persian period in the "Archaeology#First Phase" section. Basically, that same area stayed pretty much unchanged for 250 years after it was built, spanning the time of Alexander and the Ptolemies, right up until it was rebuilt during the Seleucid period, under the rule of Antiochus III. Mariamnei (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Ptolemaic period, a significant construction initiative commenced on Mount Gerizim Can we be more precise about this? Or at least indicate in the text the start and end dates of the Ptolemaic period?
  • Magen doesn't give specific dates for that construction wave, but he does mention various coins from various Ptolemaic kings. I've gone ahead and copy-edited the text to include start and end dates for the entire period. Mariamnei (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precinct, measuring 136 x 212 meters with 2.6-meter-thick walls, incorporated Greek architectural elements, distinguishing it from the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. Which of these features was different to the Jerusalem Temple? Or is it all of them?
  • I decided to drop the comparison because the details in the source seem a bit fuzzy. Magen does highlight some similarities between the first phase and the Jerusalem Temple, especially regarding the overall plan of the Gerizim temple, which appears to align with Ezekiel's vision for a future temple in Jerusalem (a plan also followed on the ground). However, the comparison with the Hellenistic-era precinct is a bit less clear, since the Second Temple, after its renovation by Herod, also incorporated Greek architectural elements. Mariamnei (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When individuals are mentioned for their opinion, eg According to Gary N. Knoppers, an indication of their background would contextualise why their opinion or conclusions are highlighted.
  • I generally mention individual scholars only when discussing different theories that address the same question. I've added a brief indication, but I believe we should avoid getting too detailed about each scholar, focusing instead on the substance to keep the reading accessible. Mariamnei (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we be more precise about when the Byzantine church was built?
  • The context is missing for the establishment of the church, namely the Samaritan revolts.
  • What happened to the church?
  • It was abandoned and ended up in ruins by the 11th century, and later, the tomb-shrine of Sheikh Ghanim was built right on its fortifications. Adding all this to the article now. Mariamnei (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The destruction is not recorded in the Book of Maccabees or in Samaritan literature, and the only evidence for it comes from the writings of Josephus So to be clear, there is no archaeological evidence of the destruction of the temple?
  • ...though replacing his means of persuasion with coercion So what coercion was used?
  • The coercion used was the physical destruction of the Gerizim Temple to compel the Samaritans to worship in Jerusalem, but unlike his actions toward the Idumeans, he didn’t enforce conversion or displacement. Bourgel says that this was a change from Jonathan's earlier, softer approach, which relied on offering tax exemptions as a means of persuasion. Mariamnei (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Samaritans appeared to be prohibited from rebuilding the sanctuary What is this based on? Knoppers appears to be suggesting that because the temple was not rebuilt the Samaritans were not allowed to rebuild it. If the reasoning cannot be expanded further, I would suggest clearly indicating that this is Knoppers' view.
  • The presence of the Hasmonean garrison really shows that they didn't want the Samaritans to rebuild the site, but that doesn't mean Herod or his sons explicitly stopped them from trying. I'm adding an attribution to Knoppers (he, by the way, used the term 'evidently'. I think he thought that the Samaritans would have rebuilt the sanctuary if they had been allowed to do so). Mariamnei (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedits

[edit]
  • Perhaps the biggest issue is that the term temple may be used inconsistently. For example:
    The physical remnants of the temple have yet to be located
    yet
    The temple's initial phase was constructed in the mid-5th century BCE and functioned for around 250 years
    and
    Archaeological excavations have revealed that the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim was constructed during the 5th century BCE
Are the second and third quotes referring to the temple building or the temple complex (which appears to include courtyard, chambers, and more)? The contradiction needs to be addressed head on and other uses of the temple checked and clarified as appropriate.
  • The second and third texts address historical statements on the temple in its broader sense, encompassing both the central building and surrounding complex. I'm revising the first text to clarify that it specifically refers to the building, but I believe the others are fine as they are, since they make general statements about the history of the entire temple complex in this broader sense. Mariamnei (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Samaritan priestly class rose to prominence among the Samaritans The first 'Samaritan' in the phrase can be dropped as the second one makes it clear that the priests are part of Samaritan society.
    Right! fixed. Mariamnei (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precinct was significantly expanded and constructed with smooth stones quarried from depth 'At depth' is an unusual phrase, what is meant?
    It's meant to say that these weren't just stones collected from the field, but actually quarried from underground. I'm changing it to say: "using smoothly cut stones quarried from below the surface." Mariamnei (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the construction of a monumental guard tower and double fortifications What are double fortifications?
    Pilgrims traveling from Shechem, situated to the east, would first encounter two successive walls upon reaching the site. This is illustrated in Magen (2007), at the top of page 164. Mariamnei (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be worth explaining. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote this part to focus only on the most important aspects. Hope that's clearer now! Mariamnei (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

[edit]
Some detailed comments with resolved issues
  • 9: The Wikipedia article reflects the source, with no original research, copyright, or close paraphrasing issues.
  • 19: According to 2 Maccabees (6:1–6), the king sent an official "to pollute the temple in Jerusalem and to call it the temple of Olympian Zeus, and to call the one in Gerizim the temple of Zeus-the-Friend-of-Strangers, as did the people who lived in that place." This is cited to Knoppers 2013, p. 176. Knoppers does not include that quote, but does cite 2 Maccabees (6:1–6); having checked the relevant chapter and verse of 2 Maccabees, this is correct but Knoppers was not the source of the quote, at least not directly; as a reader I would expect that a quote like that would be present in the reference text and is either Knopper’s translation or Knopper notes which translation is used.
  • 35: The cited chapter covers pages 67-80, so there is no page 88 as currently cited. Otherwise the Wikipedia article reflects the source, with no original research, copyright, or close paraphrasing issues.
  • 48: The Wikipedia text is quite close to the cited source; while it is not word-for-word identical, I think it approaches close paraphrasing.
Wikipedia article: An inscription written in Paleo-Hebrew script features the Tetragrammaton, seemingly included in the phrase "[the house of] Yhwh",[48] however, this usage is quite rare; the more commonly used divine names in the inscriptions are "God" (אלהא‎) and "the Lord" (אדני‎)
Knoppers 2013, p 128: One of the inscriptions written in paleo-Hebrew script contains the Tetragrammaton, apparently as part of the phrase “[the house of] Yhwh” (no. 383). The use of the Tetragrammaton is, however, relatively rare and is not found among the extant cursive Aramaic inscriptions (Magen, Misgav, and Tsfania 2004: 22–23). The common terms for the divine are Elaha, “God” (אהלא) and “the Lord” (ינדא).
  • 60 The Wikipedia article reflects the source, with no original research, copyright, or close paraphrasing issues.

With all the above, I have put the article on hold for seven days. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further source checks

[edit]

Prompted by the above, I decided to take a deeper look at the use of Magen 2007 as a source. There were some short sentences in the Wikipedia article which were close to the source, but I think these typically fall under WP:LIMITED. However I did find two passages which closely paraphrase Magen 2007 and need to be rewritten. They are reproduced below for reference.

Reference 12

Wikipedia: During the Persian period, the sacred precinct at the site was relatively small, covering an area of about 96 by 98 meters, not including its gates.[3] The well-preserved western wall extends 84 meters in length and stands 2 meters high, built from large fieldstones sourced from the bedrock, unlike the later Hellenistic precinct made of smoother quarried stones.[12] Excavations revealed unroofed courtyards at both corners of the western wall: the southern courtyard measures 12 by 21.5 meters, while the northern courtyard is 12.5 meters wide, with its length undetermined.[12]

Magen 2007, p. 160: During the Persian period, the precinct measured, not including its gates, some 96 x 98 m (fig. 5). Its western wall, preserved in its entire length and to a height of 2 m, extends for some 84 m and is 1.3 m thick. It was built of large fieldstones wrested from the upper layers of the bedrock, in contrast to the Hellenistic precinct, which was constructed of smooth stones quarried from farther down. Unroofed courtyards were unearthed at the two corners of the western wall: the southern courtyard measured 12 x 21.5 m, and the northern one, the length of which has not been determined, is 12.5 m wide.

Reference 22

Wikipedia: Inscriptions reference priestly titles in both singular (כהן‎, כהנא‎) and plural (כהנים‎, כהניא‎) forms, with one example mentioning "Pinhas the Priest" and "their brothers the priests."[22] Many inscriptions contain formulaic phrases such as "before the God in this place," "before (the) God," or "before the Lord," which are typically associated with temple contexts.[22] One votive inscription in Hebrew reads: "that which Joseph offered for his wife and his sons before the Lord in the temple."[22] One inscription refers to a "house of sacrifice," echoing terminology used for the Jerusalem Temple in the Books of Chronicles (2 Chronicles 7:12).[22] An inscription written in Paleo-Hebrew script features the Tetragrammaton, seemingly included in the phrase "[the house of] Yhwh",[48]

Magen 2007, pp. 166–168: Some contain the titles of the priests who served as religious functionaries (fig. 9), while others contain the formulas “before the God in this place,” “before (the) God,” or “before the Lord,” which are always indicative of a temple (fig. 10). An additional inscription in Hebrew notes “that which Joseph offered for his wife and his sons before the Lord in the temple” (fig. 11). Yet another inscription mentions the “house of sacrifice,” an expression that parallels an expression used to refer to the temple in Jerusalem (2 Chr 7:12). An inscription in Paleo-Hebrew script contains the Tetragrammaton, apparently as part of the phrase “the house of the Lord” (fig. 12).

In these instances the wording has been changed, but the structure is the same: presenting the same information in the same order, including all the same examples. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Example provides a useful comparison. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts on the changes I applied for both? Do you think that solves the issue? Mariamnei (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariamnei: The rewording of the text which used to be from reference 12 (the numbering has changed, which is unavoidable) is better, and closer to a summary. For what used to be reference 22 the text looks similar but is more widely distributed. Close paraphrasing is a tricky one, but I think that the text may have been changed enough to not be problematic.
Thank you for working on this.
However, these examples arose from a close inspection of one particular source. The spot check in the DYK process didn't identify a problem, so I don't necessarily expect this to be more widespread but it would be helpful to reflect on how this came about and whether there may be passages from other sources which are very close to the original material. What do you think? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell I think everything else is good. Describing specific archaeological findings can be the trickiest part, it's always the most challenging part to balance a clear and complete explanation that differs from the original source when it comes to the most specific examples. If there's anything else you think could use reworking, please let me know. You’re definitely the expert here! 😊 So, do you think we’re ready to go? Mariamnei (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell hey, is there anything new? Mariamnei (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mariamnei. These examples have been addressed, but I thought it prudent to do another check detailed below. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source checks

[edit]

Given the issue with Magen 2007, I thought it worth checking another commonly used source in the article: Knopper 2013. The version I check was last edited on 2 December 2024, and reference numbers may change in the interim. The use of the source is mostly fine, though there are two instances where the source text and Wikipedia are similar enough to be problematic.

Reference 3 - Knoppers 2013, p.123 (used 6 times)

Wikipedia: The persecution led by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 BCE) against the Jews initially targeted both the cult practices of the Jerusalem temple and those of the Gerizim temple.

Knoppers doesn't mention Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The rest is fine as a summary. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's on page 176, fixed. Mariamnei (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 5 - Knoppers 2013, pp. 124–125 (used 7 times)

Fine as a summary

Reference 22 - Knoppers 2013, p. 176 (used 3 times)

Fine as a summary

Reference 25

Reference is fine as used.

Reference 30 - Knoppers 2013, p. 213 (used 4 times)

Original: Indeed, the archaeological remains attesting to the extensive incineration of the temple site suggest that there was no intent to resettle the site or to rebuild it

Wikipedia: The archaeological evidence indicating significant burning at the temple site implies that there was no plan to repopulate or reconstruct the site

These are too similar. How about Investigations at the site found extensive archaeological evidence of destruction caused by fire. Based on this, Knoppers suggests that Hyrcanus had no intention of adapting or reusing the site.? I think it is worth saying that the interpretation is Knoppers'. The second proposed sentence is based on a particular reading of Knoppers: I think that Knoppers was referring to the people who were active in this scenario, ie: Hyrcanus, as it is possible that the Samaritans may have intended to rebuild at some point but in the absence of evidence that would be speculative. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's tied to how names are structured in Hebrew. When speaking of Yahwistic names, it means they include elements referencing Yahweh, the God of Israel. Mariamnei (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this reply might have been accidentally duplicated, but the issue has been addressed. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original: A Hasmonean garrison remained at the site until the time of Alexander Jannaeus or some time thereafter. Similarly, in later Herodian times, the Samaritans were evidently still forbidden from reconstructing their central sanctuary.

Wikipedia: This garrison remained at the site until the reign of Alexander Jannaeus or possibly later. Likewise, Knoppers suggests that during the later Herodian period, the Samaritans were prohibited from rebuilding the sanctuary

To address the issue, I'm removing the second part about the Herodian period, I guess that's pretty self-evident. Mariamnei (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken separately similarity in either sentence would have been acceptable but, by my understanding of close paraphrasing, the structure and wording are too close. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 36 - Knoppers 2013, p. 214 (used once)

Clearly attributed quote, no problem

Reference 48 - Knoppers 2013, p. 11 (used once)

Sentence fragment; fine as a summary of a fact from the source

Reference 60 - Knoppers 2013, pp. 125–126 (used 5 times)

Fine as a summary

Reference 61 - Knoppers 2013, p. 128 (used once)

Ok as a summary

Reference 64 - Knoppers 2013, pp. 126–127 (used 3 times)

Yahwistic names featuring the divine element 'Yah' or 'Yahu,' such as Hananiah (חנניה‎) and Shemaiah (שמעיה‎), are prevalent. The issue here isn’t close paraphrasing, but that the first part of the sentence is not supported by the source. Knoppers mentions that the names Hananiah and Shemaiah (and others) are “of a Yahwistic character” but doesn’t specify particular elements of the names.

That's tied to how names are structured in Hebrew. When speaking of Yahwistic names, it means they include elements referencing Yahweh, the God of Israel. Mariamnei (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since that's what is meant by 'Yahwistic names' it's fine to leave that as it is. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 65 - Knoppers 2013, pp. 128–129 (used once)

Fine as a summary though should Pinehas by spelt Phinehas as that is the spelling the source uses?

Actually, I'm not sure it really matters. You'll find both spellings in the literature 😊 Mariamnei (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, good to know! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked Angel 2022 and it was used to support one of the same statements as Knopper 2013. There was no problem close paraphrasing but I did adjust the page numbers of two of the references to more accurately reflect where the information could be traced to. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell: Thanks so much for the extra inputs! I've gone through everything. check out my answers and fixes when you get a chance! Mariamnei (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wraps up the review, time to promote. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where is it?

[edit]

There's no indication in the first para of the lede exactly where this temple is in the modern world. Ericoides (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Gerizim_Temple&oldid=1261379927"