Talk:Baalbek/Archive 1

Archive 1

21st century

I think that the gap between the Ottoman Empire section and the "21st century section" is too great. In addition to that, the first time Baalbek has been heard of in modern times is because of Israeli agression against that town. I find it funny that foxnews puts a story up involving baalbek and not 2 hours later there is a section on this page involving "UH-60 blackhawk helicopters seen dropping israeli special forces into the city." We jumped from the ottoman empire section to a 21st century section which contained a single sentence. Piss on whoever posted that - al Azif

interesting as well that the IP address that posted the "21st century" section resolves to washington DC.

canada, actually. can't blame Bush for this. MarsRover

my apologies. the site i used said it was 99 percent positive it was D.C. I was'nt implying it was Bush.... perhaps just someone who supports aipac.

2 August 2006 Israeli raid

The following info (reversing chronological by the timeline of reports) needs summarising and adding to the article:

source: http://lebanonupdates.blogspot.com/ accessdate=2006-08-03

BEGIN QUOTE

Minute by Minute:: August 2

Source: Tayyar, New TV and other news sources

1. 08:50 Lebanese police announces 11 civilians killed and 6 kidnapped by Israeli unit in Baalbek
2. 07:00 Sources close to Hezbollah: those kidnapped were not Hezbollah fighters
3. 05:55 Hikmeh Hospital in Baalbek destroyed completely
4. 05:45 Israeli army says it has seized three Hezbollah fighters in Baalbek, captives transported to Israel
5. 04:00 as-Safir correspondent: Israeli helicopters still launching air strikes on area around Hikmeh Hospital in Baalbek until after 3:00 am, while Israeli jet fighters launched fake air strikes; four hours after start of operation, explosions still heard in area; Hezbollah source denies Hezbollah Shura member Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek targeted in Israeli landing attempt
6. 03:45 Lebanese sources: second Israeli combat unit advances in outskirts of Baalbek
7. 03:10 Israeli air strikes on al-Jamaliyeh near Hikmeh Hospital in Baalbek, casualties reported
8. 02:30 Lebanese sources confirm Hezbollah surrounding Israeli unit near Baalbek
9. 02:15 Hezbollah denies Israeli army may have kidnapped anyone from hospital
10. 01:50 Hezbollah: Israeli commandos surrounded in Hikmeh Hospital
11. 01:47 Lebanese army foils Israeli landing attempt near Ain Bourday near Baalbek
12. 01:36 Intense shelling and helicopters circle over Hikmeh Hospital in Baalbek
13. 01:35 Fire breaks out in Hikmeh Hospital in Baalbek
14. 01:30 Israeli sources: operation in Hikmeh Hospital aims to kidnap Sheikh Yazbek, Hezbollah Shura member
15. 01:11 Fierce battles around Hikmeh Hospital in Baalbek
16. 00:54 Hezbollah surrounds Israeli soldiers in hospital in Baalbek
17. 00:53 Hezbollah says three soldiers from Israeli helicopter crew hit in Baalbek
18. 00:43 Hezbollah says it surrounded Israeli airborne helicopter crew south of Baalbek
19. 00:29 Lebanese internal security forces: Israeli helicopters circle at low altitude on Baalbek – Homs road, burns three petrol stations
20. 00:26 al-Jazeera correspondent: Israel targets Hikmeh Hospital thinking wounded high-ranking Hezbollah official at hospital
21. 00:22 al-Jazeera correspondent: fierce clashes between Hezbollah and Israel troops foils Israeli landing
22. 00:05 Large fire breaks out in Baalbek after Israeli shelling near Hikmeh Hospital
23. 00:02 Second Israeli landing attempt on Tal al-Abiad near Hikmeh Hospital in Baalbek confronted by Hezbollah

END QUOTE

Boud 00:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have my doubts about that blog since it claims that the Hikmeh hospital was "destroyed completely" during the Israeli raid, but if you watch the CNN reports (just go to CNN and look at the video of the raid) or check out reports made after the raids the hospital is still quite clearly intact and standing. The only damage that can be seen are bullet holes in the walls and damaged cars in the parking lot. The blog also claims that Hezbollah prevents the Israelis from carrying out a number of landings but doesn't seem to state when the Israelis actually made a successful landing for there to be fierce fighting at the hospital. 72.27.85.54 02:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

changed text

changed part of the text in the 2006 section to read less like it was written by haaretz. Also changed the word terrorist to insurgent because technically and for all intensive purposes, they are in their own country defending their own ground. (Unsigned post by Anonymity:146.235.66.52: Hezbollah "insurgents"! Cheeky!)

Literal meaning of "Baalbek"

In the article it is noted that "Baalbek" means "Lord of the Beqaa valley", however "Beqaa" itself literally means "valley", so shouldn't "Lord of the Valley" be the more correct literal translation of "Baalbek" instead of the current phrasing which seems a bit redundant to me?72.27.85.54 02:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition to this, the word 'bek' refers to a river in Hebrew (as in Jabbok http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarqa_River ). It seems to mean the same in ancient Egyptian too.

Thus Baalbek probably refers to the 'Lord of the River', rather than the valley. Its just the Bekka Valley has the same name as the biblical river Jabbok (Beqeq in Hebrew).

Incidentally, we have the same word in English, where we call a small river a Beck. Narwhal2 (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

ruins weren´t damaged

I deleted the following:

"During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, ancient ruins were slightly damaged on July 30 and the Hikmeh Hospital was heavily damaged early in the morning of August 2.

On July 30, 2006, the New York Times reported slight damage to the ruins from vibrations caused by Israeli aerial bombing[1]"

[1 - footnote]: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30bekaa.html?ex=1311912000&en=7aef45969c6fe989&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The NY-Times-article does NOT mention any damage of the ruins. (Better you copy & paste the address in your browser to open the NY-Times-article). E. B., 21:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

note from NYT article:

"He pointed out where some of the cracks in the pillars HAVE WIDENED at the Temple of Bacchus.

“Now we have two kinds of ruins in Baalbek,” Mr. Jammal said. “Those that were created by earthquakes in past centuries and those that were created by bombs in past days.” "

Those comments are from the mayor of Baalbek, he seems to be remarking that the Israeli bombs widened existing cracks in the ruins.

Biggest Stone ever moved

I would like to show 'the' stone. Its a puzzle how it was worked and moved. The picture depicted on wikipedia.de givse an idea of its size. Would be wonderfull to have the picture here and on commons. Pitohui (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added pictures of the TWO stones in the Baalbek quarries (plural). I would like to add that the quarries are huge, and seem to demonstrate that many more than the 24 stones mentioned here were used on this site. From the tunnel complex under the temple, it appears clear that the entire podium is manmade - mostly with smaller megaliths, perhaps a couple of hundred tonnes each. These tunnels also demonstrate the two construction eras, one megalithic and a later one that is probably Roman. I have photos of the tunnels, and will upload next week.

I also have the exact sizes of the large stones (taken with surveyor's tape), but they are in another house so it will take me some time to locate them.

It is also worth mentioning that the suggestion that the stones were hauled up an earthen ramp is a non-starter. This has been suggested for Giza too, but even Flinders Petrie observed that an earthen ramp would never stand the weight (and nor would the wooden rollers too). There are a number of references on this, I will look them out when I return to my main abode. Narwhal2 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but we can't use your measurements. See WP:OR and WP:Verify. Everything needs referencing from reliable sources, see WP:RS.

Did you go to the museum in the tunnels? By the way, I thought that brick was (also?) used for the podium. The German Archaeological site says that the Temple of Jupiter was built on an existing Tell and that the Arabs built a sanctuary over it not long before the Romans came. [1]. I don't understand 'probably Roman', it's definitely Roman whatever is under it. The problem with this article is both lack of information and too much misinformation exists on the web and in print. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they were interesting. The trouble with all sites of this nature, is that even the professional explanations are no better than guesses. With the tunnels the lower sections are obviously megalithic, and this was not an Arab style of architecture - in fact worldwide we know it is the most ancient of styles. The arched roofs where possibly Roman, but there was nothing specifically Roman to fully justify this. I will upload a tunnel picture soon. Narwhal2 (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Size of Biggest Stone Contested

The largest trilithon stone is aproximately 3.4 meters by 4.5 meters by 19 meters. (source: http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htm ) That comes to 290 cubic meters. If the measurements from sacred sites are right and it is limestone (average density 2.4 tons) then the stones should be about 696 tons. If it is high density limestone (density 2.9 tons) then the stones should be about 841 tons. If the stones are granite and the measurements from sacred sites are right then they should weigh about 870 tons.

Another source shows slightly higher dimensions and claims it is limestone perhaps high density limestone. but it still wouldn't be over 900 tons.

This is not what I have seen posted on this site or heard from other sources. If any one can confirm the measurements of the Trilithon stones please do so. If any one knows what type of stone they are please post that. thanks. Zacherystaylor (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the reports are in German, but a friend should be able to help. Doug Weller (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I put a range of estimate in. The history channel once estimated them over 800 tons. There is no doubt these are huge but the 1,000 ton estimate is probably an exageration. the column drums and architraves are also an enormous weight perhaps 70 to 100 tons each but I don't have a precise source to site on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacherystaylor (talk • contribs) 06:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad.

Alouf, Michael M., 1944: History of Baalbek. American Press, p. 139:

"At the entrance of this quarry, a little off the road, lies the enormous stone "Hajar-el-Hibla" (The stone of the pregnant woman), so named because of a legend told about it by the inhabitants. 69 feet long, 16 wide, 13ft 10 in. high, or 433 cubic meters, this enormous stone weighs about 1000 tons. Although not completely detached from the rock, it is hewn and squared; ..."

The Trilithon p. 129:

Higher still are the famous stones, which were intended to support the last row, that should have been the higher edge of the terrace, but was never built. The first of these blocks to the right measure of 65 feet in length, the second 64 feet 6 inches; the third 63 feet 2 inches. They were all 14 feet 6 inches in height and 12 feet in thickness. Each block is about 350 cubic yards and weighs about 750 tons.

Doug Weller (talk) 06:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks providing a reference isn't a "bad" I put it in the article. I assume these are the maximum height width and depth since volume comes to 418 cu. yds. if it isn't a full cube it would be right. Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The stones are not granite; they are a of a very rough conglomerate limestone. If my memory seves me right, the specific gravity of limestone is about 2.3, so just multiply the metric cubic volume by 2.3.

If you use the dimensions above you get (in meters, converted at .305 per ft) 21 x 4.9 x 4.2 m giving 432 cu m. Multiply by an sg of 2.3, the answer is 994 tonnes. Near to 1000 tonnes as dammit. And the second stone is larger still. I will get my measurements later, to compare. Narwhal2 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

However, we have to rely on measurements from reliable and verifiable sources, we can't use yours, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Its been a while since I checked these numbers but I'm faily sure that I had several sources with the dimensions that confimed the math. The problem seems to have been that many exagerations were repeated numerous times and no one bothered to checked the math. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not accurate to call any of these gigantic stones a trilithon. Kortoso (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Distance from quarry

I noticed that the distance from the quarry was changed to a 5 minute walk from 3 miles. I have seen several sources that claimed it was either several miles away or in one case it said specifically 3 miles. This source is History Channel "Mega Movers: Ancient Mystery Moves". I don't remember the other sources off the top of my head but since I'm sure it came from several sources I suspect the 3 mile estimate is more reliable. It sounds like they may have confused a 5 minute drive with a 5 minute walk. If there is no objection I'll change it back with this source. good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If History Channel says it, I wouldn't trust it with a barge pole. But seriously, it isn't 3 miles. I guess we can ignore the person who was actually there as a reliable source, but see [2] and [3] [4] [5]- I'm dubious about old weight estimates, but as you know, some modern writers have an interest in exaggerating the distance (and weight), but the sources I've found that look 'authentic' are all around 1 mile or so, not 3. I agree that it shouldn't show time (the 5 minutes isn't a walk no matter what distance). Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

History channel isn't the only source but it is the one I remember. I agree that it has a spotty reputations some of what they say is much more reliable than others. Unfortunatly little of what is presented to the masses is very reliable and discretion is needed every where. The distance shouldn't be too hard to determain I'll look around when I get the chance. If it is shorter then there is more that needs to be changed in the theory about megalith section which is based on the 3 mile estimate. Since it is a theory it is a lower standard of proof than fact. This is based on commentary presented by the History channel. If I find a better source I'll change it accordingly. Your doubts about the weight estimates are almost certainly right but I'm not sure it matters that much in the case of the stone of the sout since it was never removed from the bedrock. why is the weight of this more important than the weight of the Great Sphinx or Ayer's Rock? Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. Did you follow up the references I gave above? Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I will some other day. I'm working on something else right now. When I get around to it I'll fix the discrepency one way or another unless someone beats me to it. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to 1 mile on both locations based on your sources which seem to report the distance consistantly if not the weights. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Good night. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a 10 minute walk, in my estimation. Google Earth will confirm this.

The weight of the stone is important, because someone was planning on moving this stone (unlike Ayres Rock). That gives us an insight into the technology being used. Narwhal2 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They may have planned to try and failed. This may have occurred on others that are smaller and after failing with the larger ones they may have cut them down to size. The Ayer's rock comment wasn't intended to be taken to serously. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Theories about moving Stones

my english is not very good but did I understood this point in the article right, that Roger Hopkins try to prove the possibility of transport with wooden rollers by using steel rollers? If yes: LOL -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. It's like saying "I demonstrated how ultrasonic jets are build by constructing a paper jet myself." Completely out of common sense. 62.33.188.17 (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- .

Source of Information: https://journals.openedition.org/syria/5002

Indian Elephant Fossils were found in BaalBEK. Only Indian Elephants can be tamed & made to work. Indian Elephants are largest land animals and could be used to work/carry heavy load. Also Indians are known to have made Angkor Wat temple complex in Cambodia. There are many ancient stone carved buildings made by Indian Sculptures still found. eg: Buddhas of Bamyan, Kailasa Temple (The Massive Temple Was Chiseled By Hand For More Than 20 Year) etc. There are more than 50 examples which i can write. Also notable is the fact that no such monuments are found in Africa which rules out the possibility of African elephants.

Source; . . .

Other important points for discussion could be : The stone lotuses carved on the ceilings of Baalbek. That is intriguing, because there were no lotus Plants in Lebanon those days. Lotus plants grow in places with lots of water. But in India lotus is the most common symbolism of spirituality. You will rarely find a temple without Lotus. Also 16-cornered stone is found in baalbek seems to have some connection with India because such geometry has a purpose & meaning in Indian culture. Indian civilization is very old enough to be co-related & with similar large monuments made of stone carvings.

In my opinion possibility of Indian culture & Influence shouldn't be ruled out till it is confirmed that it was built by "XYZ" using "ABC" technique for moving stones. 139.5.240.92 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- .

References

Fortification of site

There is no mention on this site of of the Temple of Jupiter being turned into a fortress. This is evident from the columns being felled and stacked into walls to act as protection. This is the same as at the Roman temple and city complex at Sbeitla http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sbeitla where the whole temple complex was surrounded by a hastily built wall formed from every stone imaginable.

At Sbeitla this late fortification just before the fall of the city is acknowledged in the site literature, but not at Baalbek. I would estimate the same cause for the fortiication, being the Arab invasions in the 8th or 9th centuries. Same era as the demise of the Dead Cities of Aleppo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Cities. Narwhal2 (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly - not the best of sources, but see [6]. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Venus and Bacchus

The German Archaeological Institute web site [7] says "The third temple, the so-called temple of Venus, was - just as the temples of Jupiter and Bacchus - always visible and in use for the last 1800 years. It is a small round temple with "baroque", concave outer walls constructed in the 3rd century AD. Although its attribution to the goddess Venus is certainly wrong, this traditional name will be used until a more secure identification is possible." and "The temple is preserved up to the level of the roof support and conveys a good impression of the rich architectural decorations of the temples of Baalbek. Its supposed dedication to Bacchus was based on two reliefs flanking the stairway leading up to the cella, but this attribution remains open to discussion." Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

More on the archaeology

Found these excerpts from archaeological reports on a forum:

First results of the current research on the multifunctional complex consisting of a monumental Roman bath (probably built at the end of the 2nd century AD), an elongated banquet hall and a largerbuilding with a peristyle courtyard to the south of the area. All of these buildings are situated along a partially preserved street that leads to the centre of Baalbek. The monumental baths (around 100 x 100 m in size) were investigated intensively from 2001 to 2003 and again in 2008; from a courtyard with porticus the entrance in the main axis of thebuilding leads into the actual bathing area, of which only the substructions, water basins and few remains of the hypocausts are preserved. An odeon on the southern side of the bath complex was probably built towards the end of the 4th c. AD.

In the banquet hall further south soundings were undertaken in 2004 and 2005 in order to gain information on the different building phases and their date. At least five phases were distinguished, with a change into a monumental façade with a different orientation in the 2nd phase, and later added porticoes that gave way to the colonnaded street leading to the city. Remains of podia arepreserved on the inside have led to the interpretation as a banquet hall, possibly oriented towards the temple of Mercury and connected to its cult."

(Bulletin d'Archologie et d'Architecture Libanaise)

Again some later excavations and research on the site during the 1960's - 70's included in a report published 2002-03.

"In the temenos of the Temple of Venus additional cult buildings had been uncovered in the excavations of the 1960's and 70's. Since the summer of 2002 this area is the focus of a new investigation which will conclude with its final documentation.

In this area a second temple, the Temple of the Muses, as well as the temenos surrounding both Temples were discovered in the 1960's and 1970's. At least fourconstruction phases of the whole area have been detected to date. The first phase involved the construction of the temple of the Muses at an early stage of the Roman building program for the sanctuary of Baalbek. Later, the Temple of Venus was added (3rd century AD) and the porticoes surrounding the two Temples was oriented towards the Temple of Jupiter through a propylon. They already belong to a later phase probably to be dated to Late Antiquity. The floors of the porticoes were raised considerably in the fourth phase and decorated with Byzantine mosaics. Possibly from this time onward the Temple of Venus was used as a Christian church."

("Archaeological Research in Baalbek. A preliminary report on the 2001-2003 seasons")

Some mentions on some of the actual finds of the Complex.

"The finds during the excavation comprising pottery, bones, stone tools and soil samples were collected stratigraphically. In the section floors and even walls could be identified through detailed observation and provided important insights into the settlement history. The oldest finds are dated by C14 analysis to the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period around 7200 BCE. The settlement mound was only abandoned in the late Hellenistic period due to its transformation into a Monumental Roman Sanctuary and Temple Complex"

(Archaeological Research in Baalbek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also see [8] - not, I emphasise, a source that can be used, but perhaps a lead to useful sources. Note the suggestion about winches. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Vince Lee

I have found several sites referring to Vince Lee including one from PBS and National Geographic that cite him and his work or theories about megaliths. They are here: one, two and three. They don't specifically refer to Baalbek but they do indicate that he has been recognized in this field by several notable institutions. Also since his work is presented as theory not conclusive fact the standards don’t need to be quite as rigorous. Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems impossible to verify the Baalbek claim however, I searched and you've searched. So it shouldn't be here. The ability to verify is essential. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't search very hard and I probably won't but I did view the original source cited and the words came from Vince Lees mouth when he personaly appeared on the show. This is amoung they best I could find to theorize on how they were moved so I put it in even though I didn't fully agree with it. that is why I presented it as theory. I thought it was better to have this than nothing. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We still need to be able to verify it. So I've added fact tags, perhaps someone else can find a way to verify it. Although you could take this to WP:RSN, maybe just a link to the show would suffice. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll get back to it when I have more time. Vince lee is an author although I haven't read his book(s) (including "Forgotten Vilcabamba") there might be something in one of them or if I can find a online source without more than 10-15 minutes searching I may do it. aparently someone else cited him on the Vilcabamba, Peru page for what it's worth. Part of the problem is that most of the traditional academic sources don't do much if anything to address this that I know of so I put the best I could find up there even though I didn't even think it was as good as I would like. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't quite understand why this was even in the article. We don't know how they cut and moved these stones. It's OK to say that. We don't have to have these people with clearly failed attempts to duplicate these feats. This guy's ideas and demonstrations are flawed. He himself used steel rollers with a much lighter rock on a solid cement platform. Why did he not use wooden rollers? Probably because they would crack and splinter. So we are expected to assume the 300 ton rocks were moved on wooden rollers? What size and from what trees that grow in the area? If he was talking about Egypt, what hardwood trees did they have? So none of these people have really demonstrated how to move large cut stones, only on how to move, with great difficulty, much smaller cut stones on hard cement surfaces, or two flip a stone, even though it was clearly not how it was done. Also if it was so difficult to use such large cut stones, why would they? Why not make smaller stones or use bricks, as we do today? That would imply that their technology made it practical to do so at the time. These two men prove nothing. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, state facts not guesses. Tests of theories of how these stones were moved or intented to be moved are only valuable if done with equal stones. The tests mentioned in this article are as much relevant as stating how to brush your teeth, so please remove them, as they only clouding the view.

We simply don't know, so state that: We don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.123.150 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 30, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-01-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 23:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Baalbek in Lebanon is famous for its exquisitely detailed yet monumentally scaled temple ruins of the Roman period, when, then known as Heliopolis, it was one of the largest sanctuaries in the Empire. It can be counted among the wonders of the ancient world, containing some of the largest and best preserved Roman ruins. Seen here is the Great Court of the temple complex.Photo: Guillaume Piolle

Name change? Baalbek or Baalbeck?

The editor who made the changes from Baalbek to Baalbeck has pointed me to [9] and (with no url), Lebanon's Ministry of Tourism, but there I find [10] (Baalbeck in the url) but that uses Baalbek, although [11] uses Baalbeck. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Lebanon uses Arabic letters, then they are probably using someone else's transliteration. Should we think instead of the most common spelling in the Roman letter-using (if not English-speaking) world? Kortoso (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Why, yes, we should. That appears to be "Baalbek". — LlywelynII 23:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow. And whatever editor did those changes to Baalbeck had absolutely no idea what they were doing. It's perfectly correct to change the running text to whatever the article's new title is but you never change around the formatting or spelling on the quoted material and article titles... — LlywelynII 01:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

A bit too tourist brochure-style?

The first couple of paragraphs are quite well written, but not exactly neutral POV, however impressive the ruins may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.188.28 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Harfush emirate

Professor Stefan Winter states in his book The Shiite Emirates of Ottoman Syria (MID 17th –MID 18th Century),page 236:

“The abrupt disappearance of the Harfush emirate left the shiite community of baalbek bereft of any anciently – rooted , indigenous social leadership , making it that much more of likely venue for the rise of foreign-inspired ideological mass movements such as communism, Nasirism ext…in Lebanon’s tumultuous 20th century”

I kindly advice you to read the above mentioned book, where I’m sure that this book will change all the miss concept of the history of the Ottoman in Baalback and Bekaa Families, bearing in mind that Harfush’s family ruled Baalback and Bekaa for 350 years.--Mharfouche (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Mharfouche

The Shiite Emirates of Ottoman Syria (MID_17th MID_18th_Century).pdf Book

Dear Sirs
This is the link of the book " The Shiite Emirates Of The Ottoman Of Syria" By Professor Stefan Winter , must be read when we tolk about Baalbek during the Ottoman period because we are talking about documented facts not a point of views. Best regards Mharfouche --Mharfouche (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The-shiites-of-lebanon-under-ottoman-rule-1516-1788/book-reviews

Please see this link: http://www.insightturkey.com/the-shiites-of-lebanon-under-ottoman-rule-1516-1788/book-reviews/21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mharfouche (talk • contribs) 06:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? It has nothing on Baalbek. — LlywelynII 23:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR & ERA

This edit (a paste of the EB11 article) established the usage of this page as British English and BC/AD. Kindly maintain them consistently pending a new consensus to the contrary. — LlywelynII 00:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

This pronunciation at Forvo certainly sounds closer to /'bʕælbɛk/ than what we have now. Granted, it's by an Arabic-speaking American, but locals must speak (or have spoken) something closer to that than BAHL-beek (/ˈbʕalbik/), which is what we have now. The "Lebanese pronunciation" especially needs double-checking and sourcing because it's certainly WP:OR: the page used to list the pronunciation as /ˈbʕalbak/ and an editor changed it with no explanation/sourcing whatever. (Normally, I'd be fine with leaving all of the IPA goop for the Wiktionary entry, but we should explain the glottal stop [done] and the proper local pronunciation, I think, since Lebanese Arabic can turn MSA /a/ into several distinct sounds... albeit none of them /i/.) — LlywelynII 10:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for article expansion

But don't return that to the top of the page: it needs to be noted that the Arabic page is almost entirely unsourced and can only be used as a guide for topics to look at for further expansion. — LlywelynII 07:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Saladin's Syrian campaign

The EI has it falling after a 4 mo siege in 1174; Lock says

1175...

Mar. 28: Baalbek surrenders without a fight, but the force from Mosul was approaching Hama. Negotiations ensue.

That doesn't say who took it but a later entry mentions Saladin offering to "hand back" Baalbek.

So, same deal with the initial conquest by Abu Ubaidah: did it fall in one year with a siege or a different year bloodlessly? and why are the sources so confused on the point? — LlywelynII 23:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ptolemaic map

Nicolaus Germanus's 1467 edition of Ptolemy's 4th Asian Map

A 19th-century interpretation of Ptolemy's geography

Probably not focused enough on Heliopolis, but interesting enough to link to here anyway. Could possibly be included if article expands some or if Heliopolis gets split off. — LlywelynII 14:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Baalbek. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dainst.org/index_12_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Heliopolis in Phoenicia

FYI a new article has been created on Heliopolis in Phoenicia. It should probably be integrated with this one in some way. Joe Roe (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baalbek. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131012071936/http://www.chinci.com/ to http://www.chinci.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090605035347/http://www.dainst.org/index_2951_en.html to http://www.dainst.org/index_2951_en.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baalbek. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515020154/http://lebanon360hd.com/videos/video_baal_en.html to http://lebanon360hd.com/videos/video_baal_en.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Garbled text?

Under the Name section we have "A few miles from the from which the Litani . . ."

from the from? I think we're missing a name here.50.43.39.82 (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixes. I'm not sure if the edits that did that are ok otherwise.][12] Doug Weller talk 20:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

events of 2006

I have removed the background to these events [13], which did not represent a balanced summary of 2006 Lebanon War. I am not convinced that it's appropriate for us to get into that on this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Current religious demographics

Does anyone know the current religious demographics of Baalbek? The statistics from 1998 are probably too outdated for this article in my opinion.

Rainfall

Again, the climatic description writes: “450mm on average” and the chart shows 389mm on average. דולב חולב (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)