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 Yoninah (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inscription in the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum

• ... that the first ancient Semitic inscription ever published, the Carpentras Stele (pictured), was considered to be Phoenician for decades, until it was reidentified as the first known inscription in ancient Aramaic?
  Source: Kopp, Ulrich Friedrich [in German] (1821). "Semitische Paläographie: Aramäische ältere Schrift.". Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit. pp. 226-227 (§168-169). Irre ich nicht, so hat man die Benennung „phönicische Schrift" bisher etwas zu freygebig gebraucht, den Phöniciern alles gegeben, und den Aramäern nichts gelassen, gleichsam, als ob diese gar nicht hätten schreiben können, oder doch von ihnen nicht ein einziges Denkmal aus ältern Zeiten sich sollte erhalten haben. Selbst Schriften, in welchen sich die aramäische Mund-Art gar nicht verkennen läßt, nennen die Orientalisten phönicisch (§. 195), bloß weil sie noch nicht geahndet haben, daß eine Verschiedenheit vorhanden seyn könne... Unter solche gehört vor allen die Inschrift von Carpentras, welche ich hier um so lieber vornehme, als ihre Aechtheit über allen Zweifel erhoben ist... §. 195 Die Schrift darauf nannte man ehemals ägyptisch, welches freylich, weder in Vergleichung mit der ägyptischen Buchstaben-Schrift eine angemessene Benennung, noch der Sprache wegen eine zu wagende Vermuthung war. Schwerlich richtig ist aber auch die bey neuern Gelehrten (Gessenii Gesch. d. hebr. Spr. 139. Bibl. der alt. Literat. VI. 18. Hammer Fund-Grub. V. 277 °°) aufgekommene Benennung „Phönicisch". Ja Hartmann (II. II. 540) nennt sogar unmittelbar nach der ersten malteser diese „eine andere phönicische Inschrift". Schon die Mund-Art, welche nicht phönicisch, sondern aramäisch ist, würde uns vermuthen lassen, daß die Schrift den Aramäern ebenfalls gehöre; wenn nicht in dieser sich zugleich auch Merkmale einer Verschiedenheit von der phönicischen zeigten (s. oben §. 100. 168). Ich habe daher mit gutem Vorbedachte unser Denkmal von Carpentras aus meiner kleinen Sammlung phönicischer Inschriften (B. I. 195) ausgeschlossen. §. 196 Es scheint, als ob zur Zeit des oben (§. 193) mitgetheilten babylonischen Denkmals Aramäer und Phönicier eine und dieselbe Schrift gehabt hätten.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dina Pomeranz

5x expanded by Onceinawhile (talk). Self-nominated at 08:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]

• The 5x expansion began on 25 September and it was submitted on 3 October, which is beyond the 7 day window. I think this is the first time I've reviewed a 5x submission, so it's entirely possible I'm just not understanding the criteria correctly. If so, please correct me. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RoySmith, thanks for looking at this. If you measure it between 28 September and 3 October, that was 5x. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, WP:DYKcheck says on 28 September, the "readable prose size" was 699 characters, and on 3 October it was 1438 characters, which is only about 2.1x -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, RoySmith, as of the edit prior to the 28 September expansion start, which was the last of those on 25 September, the size of the article per DYKcheck was 557 prose characters; it's from this base that the expansion is counted. So a 5x expansion from 557 is 2785 prose characters. As of last check, the article is at 2401 prose characters, so another 384 will be needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and RoySmith: many thanks. I have now fixed this and it is ready for review. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still not sure I understand the "how to count 5x expansion" rule, but I'll AGF that it meets that criteria now. No copy/paraphrase problems in the main body, but I'm concerned about the extensive quotes in the references. Are these really needed to understand the citation? I'm looking at WP:FOOTQUOTE; it's not clear to me if these extensive quotes are within the bounds of what that allows. Article is neutral and appropriately referenced. I found the Shea article in JSTOR and confirmed the basic facts. Never been on the front page. The hook is 214 characters (i.e. too long). How about one of:

• ALT1: ... that the first ancient Semitic inscription ever published, the Carpentras Stele (pictured), originally thought to be Phoenician, is actually in ancient Aramaic?
• ALT2: ... that the Carpentras Stele (pictured), thought for decades to be Phoenician, is actually in ancient Aramaic?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

@RoySmith: many thanks. I am happy with ALT1. On the quotes, there are two types: (1) the public domain sources (e.g. Kopp and Barthelemy) where I have been reasonably liberal with the quotes because there is no restriction on doing so and it is helpful because the sources themselves are quite difficult to penetrate; and (2) the quotes from modern sources which fall under WP:COPYQUOTE and Right to Quote – I have used a few sentences for each to explain a small number of complex points, where paraphrasing does not do it justice. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile, OK, that seems reasonable. The long quote in reference 19 to Jaggi might still be a problem, but I'll go ahead and give this a tick and if somebody else objects, they can do so. It's not a DYK issue per-se, but you might consider translating those long quotes into English, for the benefit of our readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]