Talk:Levantine archaeology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merge

I can't see anything here that can't be properly placed (or indeed, already exists) in the Biblical archaeology article, or Archaeology of Israel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not done yet, is it? It's just a stub. Further, you don't seem to be aware of the fact that most Palestinian archaeologists or Syro-Palestinian archeologists would be deeply offended if people called their work Biblical archeology (an outmoded and outdated concept that has been heavily criticized by recent scholars). Further, while "Palestinian archaeology" get over 600 Google Book hits, "Archaeology of Israel" gets less than 300. It seems if anything, the other two articles should be merged into this one, and not the other way around. But I would warn you that some argue that Biblical archaeology continues to be practiced today as separate from "Palestinian archaeology", so maybe people wouldn't like that merger either. And I'm pretty positive that many Israelis would object to merging archaeology of Israel here. Tiamut^talk 21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, "Palestinian archaeology" can also refer to archaeology practiced by Palestinians, a point I was going to add to the article and which is reflected in one of the articles linked in the see also section. This is a relatively new development given that Palestinian archaeological departments in the West Bank were only established quite recently. So please, remove the merger tag. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 21:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to have an article about "archaeology practiced by Palestinians" - that's fine, but this article does not look the least bit like such an article - it mentions the origins (which were conducted by Europeans), it criticizes work by Israelis, etc... It will have to be rewritten, almost from scratch, to reflect "archaeology practiced by Palestinians". Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, that's not "what I want". What I'm trying to build is an article based on reliable sources that explains the multiple meanings of the term "Palestinian archaeology". As I tried to explain to you, the term is more widely used than "Biblical archaeology" and "Archaeology of Israel" and means something slightly different from both of them. Please look up the terms in Google Book for yourself and do some reading.

That the term "Palestinian archaeology" can also be used to refer to archaelogy practiced by Palestinians is a new and recent development, which I intend to discuss in the article, but that's not the main thrust of the article. Thanks though. Tiamut^talk 21:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The very references you used for the article come from "The Biblical Archaeologist", "A Century of Biblical Archaeology" etc... To the extent that there are some new researchers who crticise the term, and claim that it be more properly be called "Palestinian Archaeology", we can have a section in Biblical Archaeology article that mentions this - but there is no point in duplicating material already found in that article (pretty much the entire "origins" section that makes up the bulk of this article) just to make that point. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, one reference (now removed) was to the Biblical Archaeology Review, but you're ignoring other references such as, Through the Ages in Palestinian Archaeology: An Introductory Handbook and Roger Henry's a Synchronized Chronology: Rethinking Middle East Antiquity. You're also ignoring the article in the external links section Palestinian Archaeology Braces for a Storm which further attests to the usage of the term to refer to archaeological studies carried out by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. And finally, you're ignoring my suggestion that if you find a merge so necessary, that Biblical archaeology should be merged into this article, and not the other way around. But again, as I explained to you above, many Palestinian archaeologists or Syro-Palestinian archeologists would strongly object to being called Biblical archeologists since the new school rejects the old school way of relying on biblical texts, rather than hard data, and indeed conceives of itself as a separate discipline. See here for example.

Please remove the merge tag. This article was created today and it will be expanded further. You have provided no evidence in the way of sources that attest to these terms being one and the same. I have provided a number of reliable sources in this article tht attest to the use of the term and the source I provided you above attests to the distinction between the different concepts. In fact, this article, though shorter than both the articles you feel it resembles, is much better sourced and will retain the same sourcing standard as it develops. (The Archaeology of Israel article is very poorly sourced, using many non-reliable sources not from the field of archaeology. Perhaps you efforts would be better spent improving that article?) Tiamut^talk 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've removed the merge tag myself. The sources make clear that there are many distinctions between Palestinian archaeology and Biblical archaeology. The merge proposal is based on a mis-reading of the sources. Please review the article again and before replacing the merge tag, make a coherent, source-based argument as to why two distinct disciplines should be merged. Tiamut^talk 02:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

And Canadian Monkey just reverted that removal. Care to explain why you're still insisting on a merger? Tiamut^talk 02:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unilaterally removing a merge tag while the discussion is still going on and no consensus has been reached not only violates WP guidelines for merging, but is also rude. Please don't do it again.

Merging two article does not mean they are the same thing. It means that the material is repetitive and could be better presented in one article. I have not claimed that Biblical archaeology is identical with Archaeology of Israel or with this article - I only wrote that this article, as it currently stands, contains no material which could not properly be placed in a section of those other articles. The article currently features an Origins section which is already laregly described in the other articles, and a paragraph that explains that there is more to Palestinian archaeology than just bibilical archaeology - which could be featured as a section in Biblical Archaeology. As I see it, there are three outcomes for this article. One is that it will include all the material currently found in Biblical archaeology and/or Archaeology of Israel - because surely all the material in those articles is part of the archaeology of Palestine. If that is the case, I'm trying to prevent this repetitive work from being done - by suggesting a merge. It is possible that the merged article may be renamed to better reflect the content. If we work to toward that outcome, we can merge whatever material is unique to this article into one (or both) of the others, and then see if a renaming is in order. Another outcome is that this article will exclude all the relevant material in those two articles, pretend that they don't exist, or feature only criticisms of those disciplines. I don't think this is the outcome you have in mind, but that caricature of an article is exactly the state it was in when I first suggested the merge. The third possible outcome is that this will be an article about archaeological studies carried out by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. That is an article worth writing, and for which Palestinian Archaeology Braces for a Storm would be a good reference. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your placement of the merge tag on the very same day the article was created seems vastly premature to me. It cannot be clear where the article development is going, and your speculations based on the content it has held on its first day in existence do not do much to help us reach a resolution. What I suggest, is that you remove the merge tag, wait to see how the article develops, and then decide if parts of it should be moved to other articles or those articles moved here. I'm thankful for your bringing to my attention the other articles on related subjects, but I was already aware of their existence. I'm building this article piece-by-piece using reliable sources. Where it goes and how it should relate to the other articles is something that is evolving as time goes on (less than 24 hours and counting now).

I would deeply appreciate it if you would acknowledge that your proposal to merge this one into others is perhaps premature and possibly inappropriate. Indeed, given the article content now, which makes clear the distinction between Biblical archaeology and Palestinian archaeology, such a merger suggestions (especially this discipline into one it is at war with, so to speak) seems ever-more problematic.

Additionally, I'd like to nominate this article for a DYK, and the merger tag being in place will not allow for that. So please, is it really all that urgent? Could you not allow for this article to have a chance to present itself in full before advocating for its dissolution? The term is clearly notable and can stand on its own. Loads more reliable sources attest to its existence. As I said earlier, a google book search on "Palestinian archaeology" gets 626 hits, whereas one on the "Archaeology of Israel" gets 343 hits (Compare also with "Archaeology of Palestine" which gets 721 hits.) True, "Biblical archaeology" outstrips them both with 1,812 hits, but as the article's content exhibits, it is not the same discipline at all, especially given today's terminology.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. Tiamut^talk 03:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks. You might want to ask for a third party opinion while it's still only the two of you in disagreement. It seems to me that the "Biblical Arch." is different than either "Arch. of Israel" or "Palestinian archaeology," because Biblical has a goal of shedding light on the Bible, whereas the other two are less teleological disciplines both geared to a geographic area. Turns out, they have competing names for roughly the same geographic area, right? I'd suggest choosing one name and merging the "Arc of Israel" and the "Palestinian arc" articles. Merge the pre-modern stuff, include the sections on "Arch. in Israel culture" and the "Palestinian practitioners." It probably should have a summary link to Biblical Arch. As Tiamut might guess from other contexts, I'd recommend a compromise name for the merged geographical area. One reason is that neither Israel nor Palestine seem clearly superior (I used my usual method via Google Scholar). You might try Archaeology of the Holy Land or Archaeology of Palestine and Israel. (Meanwhile, I am sympathetic to the DYK concerns. Perhaps if you temporarily limited Palestinian archaeology to the work of self-identified Palestinians and to the role of archaeology in Palestinian culture/politics, you would get an uncontroversial article and could revisit the full scale version dispute after the DYK, see what I mean?) Hope this is useful. HG | Talk 04:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey HG. First part of your comment is very helpful. I have been trying to explain that Biblical archaeology is not at all synonymous with Palestinian archaeology to no avail. Thanks for reiterating that point.

About merging Archaeology of Israel and Palestinian archaeology into one "neutrally" titled article, I can't say I'm for that at all. I think each one has its own focus as well, even though they sometimes overlap. (Does this discussion sound familiar, or what?) But as I said in the other discussion we had on this subject, I don't think we can artifically paste the two together, nor do I think it necessary. Each one has reliable sources attesting to its existence and each one focuses on the elements in the region that interest it.

About paring this article down only to the work of self-identified Palestinian archaeologists so as to chuck the controversy and win the DYK, I'd also have to say no. I'll give up the DYK application if Canadian Monkey insists on keeping the merge tag. But he should change it to merge with Archaeology of Israel (if he still thinks it should be merged) since Biblical archaeology is about something else.

I deeply appreciate your sage and sympathetic comments, as always. Tiamut^talk 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thing ... a google scholar search on "Archaeology of Palestine" brings up 684 hits, whereas "Archaeology of Israel" brings up 193. Similarly, "Palestinian archaeology" garners 731 hits, whereas "Israeli archaeology" brings up 143. So I don't know how you could conclude that the terms enjoy parity. Palestinian or Palestine seems to be more widely used by about five to one by google scholar and two to one by google books (as per my comments above). If indeed Archaeology of Israel and Palestinian archaeology should be merged, they should be named, according to Wiki naming policies by the most common term; which in this case would be "Palestinian archaeology". But again, I don't think that's necessary and I believe such a merger would encounter resistance from people at WikiProject Israel. Tiamut^talk 05:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Neither specific name is common or relevant, imo. More to the point is search / versus /archaeology israel OR israeli/ vs. /archaeology palestine OR palestinian)/(30400:23100) with maybe an Israel edge. And this search: /allintitle: archaeology israel OR israeli/ vs. /allintitle: archaeology palestine OR palestinian/ is almost equal (125:115). In any case, I think you'll find little or nothing from their naming choice that speaks to their archaeology. Albright and Bliss didn't use "Palestine" claiming that it's different that an archaeology of "Israel." Anyway, the ghits approach has limited value -- whoever gets fewer ghits can just say it's a matter of systematic bias. The real point is that our reader might want to learn about ancient finds and that data isn't really differentiated as Palestinian or Israeli. Your move. ;-> HG | Talk 06:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Call me idealistic, but wouldn't most scientists and encyclopiedists believe that the archaeology is the same, regardless of what you call the place? Reliable sources may employ different names, but do the high quality (archaelogical) sources say they're "focusing on different elements" because its "Israeli" or "Palestinian" Archaeology? (nah) From a wikipedia standpoint, wouldn't it make more sense to have a main article elucidate the best scientific knowledge of the area? (yah) Then, you all could put (POV) interpretations, motivations, politics, etc into distinct Palestinian or Israeli sections or articles. Ciao, HG | Talk 05:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you are trying to convey HG, I really do. But we also have WP:NAMING guidelines that discuss the importance of using the most common name to describe a phenomenon, using redirects to accomodate those searching for the subject under the less common names. As I said, if people feel that the two topics are in fact one in the same, then of course they can be merged. But the naming guidelines indicate that the title of the article should then be Palestinian archaeology since it beats out all other options by anywhere from 2 to 5 - 1. And as I said, I doubt that any of the Israel WikiProject editors would agree to having Archaeology of Israel merged into Palestinian archaeology, despite the scholarly evidence indicating it is the most common name. Tiamut^talk 06:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, don't ABF folks. Now that I've shown you my ghit data, does that mean you'd accept the Israel version? The naming guidelines also expect us to favor encyclopedic and neutral names. So, regardless of whether the Palestinians or Israelis happen to be generating more ghits (depending on one's favored search method), we still have a duty to find a good name. And yes, we should be asking both POV sides to put down their (edit war) arms and find a mutually acceptable name. Thanks. HG | Talk 06:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) HG, I'm not sure that Archaeology of Israel and Palestinian archaeology are in fact synonyms, as I explained above. I only went into the g-hit discussion to note that if people insisted on merger, searches of the terms in quotes (the only way to do it really, since not using quotes brings up many unrelated hits) indicate that "Palestinian archaeology" is clearly preferred.

However, it is my own belief that the two are actually talking about closely related or interrelated disciplines that are subtlety different and distinct. The rationale? Well, for one thing "Palestinian archaeology" is often used interchangeably with "Syro-Palestinian archaeology (per the sources in the article), whereas "Archaeology of Israel" is not. It's a more geographically and I believe, temporally confined term. Indeed, this source describes "Syro-Palestinian archaeology", "ancient Israelite history", and the "Hebrew Bible" as three distinct, yet interrelated disciplines. The "Archaeology of Israel" is more intimately connceted to the latter two discplines, while "Palestinian archaeology" as a term is used interchangeably with "Syro-Palestinian archaeology". I have preferred the former formulation, because I would also like to discuss "Palestinian archaeology" as practiced by Palestinians, and indeed, recent trends in the terms usage indicate that "Palestinian archaeology" can also be used to refer to archaeology practiced by Palestinians.

In short, I believe the concepts are distinct, based on my examination of the sources. I therefore don't support a merger. I merely provided the links to demonstrate that "Palestinian archaeology" (which some people seem to want to wish away) is actually a much more widely established term than "Archaeology of Israel" (which no one had suggested should be merged into anything, before this article came along). Tiamut^talk 06:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can clarify what, in your vision, this article would eventually encompass, highlighting what sections would be unique to it, that are not already included in the xistign articles? Canadian Monkey (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the article as it is now and tell me what you think overlaps with the existing articles? The "Origins" section here and some of the information in the Biblical archaeology article do overlap, but this is natural, given that the two were once very closely related; that is, before the conceptual shift introduced by Dever in the 1970s. The overlap is nonetheless minimal and the focus here is different.

Additionally, half of the article as it is currently composed discusses the role of Palestinian practitioners of Palestinian archaeology (something not covered in either the Biblical archaeology article or the Archaeology of Israel article.

As to where it will go from here, I'm not quite sure. I'm researching the subject further using reliable, expert, sources. I think some expansion on the scope of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" is necessary, given that the term is used in the place of "Palestinian archaeology" sometimes. The sources so far have used them as synonyms (which I have noted in the introduction). Instinctively however, I have the feeling that "Palestinian" may be used when confined to a study of ancient Palestine, whereas "Syro-Palestinian" is used for research into the broader area of the Levant. I have to confirm this by finding a reliable source though, before I can add what are for now my private speculations to the article.

Now back to the substance of the discussion regarding the merger tag you appended. It is still there suggesting a merger to Biblical archaeology, which the sources (and HG and myself) indicate to be a distinct discipline. Do you intend to change the tag to suggest a merger to Archaeology of Israel or will you simply withdraw it? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote, an article about archaeological studies carried out by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is an article worth writing, and if that is the intent, we can rewrite the lead, remove the "origins" section (or at least, shorten it considerably, to a couple of sentences that explain that while archaeology in this region was orginally done by Europeans, in recent years his has chnaged), and then I'll be happy to remove the merge tag. Canadian Monkey (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why you are ignoring that "Palestinian archaeology" and "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" are expert terms for a discipline distinct from Biblical archaeology, nor why you want to expunge this information from this page. It is not covered in any detail in the Biblical archaeology article and it is certainly not covered in the Archaeology of Israel article. Why do you keep arbitrarily delimiting this article to a discussion of Palestinian archaeologists from the West Bank? Are the sources not good enough? What is it specifically that offends you about this term, widely used in archaeological circles? Tiamut^talk 08:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Biblical archaeology and Archaeology of Israel make up a large part (some would say the vast majority of) what would be included in an article about the archaeology of the region called "Palestine". Other than the archaeological studies carried out by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, what will be in this article that is not already covered by Biblical archaeology and Archaeology of Israel? I think I have asked this several times already without getting a clear answer from you. Canadian Monkey (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe I gave you a clear answer above. I repeat, I am still researching the subject, but any additions would be based on reliable sources using the terms "Palestinian archaeology" or "Syro-Palestinian archaeology". I further explained to you above that I would like to find sources that explain the relationship of these two term to one another. I would add that other items that might be included here are details on Palestinian led digs (which are not covered anywhere else). Further, as I already explained to you many, many times, while there is bound to be some overlap with Biblical archaeology in the origins section, this is only logical since both disciplines grew alongside one another (or arguably were one another) until the definitive split inauguarated by William Dever in the 1970s. Have I made myself any clearer?

Now, you have admitted that half of the article (the half on Palestinian people digs) is not covered in any other article here at Wikipedia. Clearly, that information alone is enough to sustain this article's existence. So your proposal to merge the article doesn't make much sense. We can discuss moving parts of it into other articles later on, once it has taken shape further. But to insist it be merged (which is effectively calling for its non-existence) when you acknwoledge that it contains unique information seems rather obstinate. (Pardon my frankness, but this article is barely over a day old and this discussion is draining otherwise useful energy that could be put to developing this and other articles, rather than engaging in circular arguments).

In any case, I've placed a request with Archaeology WikiProject to come check the page out and give their own opinions on the matter. Perhaps outside views will help break this seeming deadlock. Tiamut^talk 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've written more than once, if the intent is to write an article about archaeological studies carried out by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza (what you term "Palestinian led digs"), then fine. That is an article worth writing, and once we rewrite the lead to reflect that, and remove the "origins" section I'll be happy to remove the merge tag. But if you insist on having a lead that describes what is already in the Biblical archaeology and Archaeology of Israel, and content which largely replicates the content of those articles, then I will insisit we merge this article into those which already exist and cover the same material. Canadian Monkey (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then, we seem to have reached an impasse and there seems to be little point in discussing the matter with each other alone any further. I will wait for people from the Archaeology project to show up and provide their opinions. Should no one show up, we can request an RfC. Thanks for your time and comments. Tiamut^talk 12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So, other than the material about "Palestinian led digs", what else do you envision this article having? will it discuss digs led by Israelis? Will it discuss digs led by Europeans? Canadian Monkey (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) As you can see, I have since added some material on other practitioners, which still need to expanded. The section on American and Israeli archaeologists however, in my opinion, should not include too much information on Israelis, since that is better covered in the article on Archaeology of Israel, which I have linked as a Main article at the top of that section so that readers interested in more information on that particular sub-speciality can explore it there. Now, regarding the merger tag you still have appended to the top of the page, would you care to remove it, so that I can nominate this article for a DYK? Clearly, the merger suggestion to Biblical archaeology is inappropriate. As Elonka commented below, if anything, Biblical archaeology might be merged here, but not the other way around, since Palestinian archaeology has a scope much wider than that of the former. Your thoughts? Tiamut^talk 11:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Quote about Yadin

I've removed this quote, since Canadian Monkey wrote on my talk page that is was undue highlighting, citing it as one reason for his proposal of a merger:

S. Buniwotiz in "How Mute Stones Speak: Interpreting What We Dig Up" echoes this critique, applying it to the "Israeli School" of Palestinian archaeology, as epitomized by Yigael Yadin, writing that,

"[...] despite its new scientific arsenal, biblical archaeology during the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s was still parochial, highly pragmatic and bound to traditional interpretative frameworks. Slowly, however, as previous interpretative concepts were discarded, exciting new cultural/historical insights gradually came into view, even through old research strategies."

Tiamut^talk 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Should this article be merged into the article on Biblical archaeology?

Note: For background, see the #Merge section above. HG | Talk 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC... Based on my initial assessment, the concepts of "Palestinian archaeology" and "Biblical archaeology" seem sufficiently distinct to warrant separate articles. Not all archaeological research in the area of Palestine is going to be related to the Bible. Plus, calling it "Biblical" can engender strong feelings, since Bible implies Christianity, and there are definitely other faiths in the area. There is definitely some overlap between the two, so a merge could be a good idea, in which case I would recommend merging "Biblical" into this "Palestinian". Or keep them separate, it could really work either way. Hope that helps, --Elonka 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with Elonka. Possibly re-title as Syro-Palestinian archaeology? Jheald (talk) 13:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was considering that. The two terms are often used interchangeably, with one referring generally to wider southern Levant area studies and the other specifically to ancient Palestine. It would require a bit of reworking of the introduction and parts of the article, but it's not a bad suggestion at all. Thanks for your input. Tiamut^talk 13:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Option. Also suggest considering merger with Archaeology of Israel. HG | Talk 01:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. While I appreciate the suggestion, I'd like to discuss the merits of the proposed merger to Biblical archaeology only at this particular juncture. As you know, I'd like the tag to be removed so that the article can be nominated for a DYK. Tiamut^talk 10:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So I decided to be bold and rework the introduction and move the page to Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Clearly, the new title cannot be merged into Archaeology of Israel since its scope is broader. Nor can it be merged into Biblical archaeology, since as others had pointed out the focus is broader. If there are no objections, I'd like to close the RfC and remove the merger tag, so that the article can be nominated for a DYK. Your input and comments are appreciated. Tiamut^talk 14:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is broader and encompasses Archaeology of Israel, then shouldn't it have a summary style link (spin out) to that article? If so, then materials that belongs in Archaeology of Israel should go there, and material for the broader scope alone goes here, right? (Since a scientific-archaeological discovery is no different whether the location is called Palestine or Israel, it shouldn't appear redundantly in two articles to satisfy editors of rival "camps" who prefer one name over another. And this concern is wholly unrelated to any specific editors.)

For whom it may concern: I have no objections to the DYK. (I'd suggest finding a punchier hook, drawing maybe from Palestinian scientists working beyond the Arche of Israel scope.) Thanks, HG | Talk 15:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. Glad you like the new title! As you know, the article is still under development (two days and counting now). For the moment, I don't believe there is much information here that duplicates anything in Archaeology of Israel or that properly belongs there and that article is linked as a "main article" at the top of the section on "American and Israeli" practitioners. Perhaps you are right to suggest however, that as it develops, we create a sub-section devoted to Israeli archaeology. Any additions however, should be based in reliable sources that establish the relationship of the "archaeology of Israel" to "Syro-Palestinian archeology" and use terminology that those reliable sources use. Since I haven't yet found anything on that (I haven't been looking for it specifically as of yet, but will now) I have't included it. But as soon as I do, I will begin working towards its addition.

About the DYK, do you have a specific suggestions for a punchier hook? It was hard for me to come up with the one submitted actually, and so I would appreciate any alternative thoughts. Thanks for your comment. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's adequate sources and logic to insert a third sentence, like the current 2nd: "Archaelogy of Israel is also commonly used in its stead when the area of inquiry centers on ancient Israel." For example, here's a fine book: "The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present" (eds. Silberman, Small)[1] , which includes discussions of the conception of the field and a piece by Dever. However, see my recommendation below for a better name to cover Palestinian arche, Arche of Israel, etc. Perhaps you should think about whether you'd prefer to do an over-arching article on the area (whatever the name) or a more focused article on Politics of archaeology in the Southern Levant, for which you've put together some great stuff. Either way, I'd be happy to help you w/DYK, though the current article is strongest on the political aspects. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

HG, the source that specifies that Syro-Palestinian and Palestinian are interchangeable is this one which explicitly writes "Syro-Palestinian or Palestinian archaeology". Since Rast defined Palestinian archaeology as centered on ancient Palestine, I made the logical deduction that while the two terms are used as though interchangeable in the first source, Palestinian refers only to ancient Palestine (as indicated by Rast), whereas Syro-Palestinian refers to wider area of the southern Levant (not the whole Levant, which is another reason why I rejected your suggestion for a rename below). I'll read the Silberstein text, but I'd appreciate it if you could refer me to the exact page where he says that "Archaeology of Israel is used in the place of Syro-Palestinian when the subject is Ancient Israel". Due to the immense pitfalls involved in using inexact terminology, I want to make sure that we get the introduction right. Also, I wouldn't want to add something to the introduction that isn't covered in the article (per WP:LEAD). So perhaps we should start by adding something to the body, after estbalishing the relationship between the different terms. Logical, right? Tiamut^talk 18:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Belatedly, checked out Davis, who uses Lance, on Palestinian and Syro-Palestinian. Lance (and Davis) are not saying that the terms are synonyms. They're saying that Biblical Archaeology is different than general (i.e., secular) archaeology -- regardless of whether you talk about the general field in terms of Palestinian archaeology or "even Syro-Palestinian" (the broader) archaeology. (Lance quoted) Anyway, I agree with your deduction is correct that the two terms are used as though interchangeable in the first source, Palestinian refers only to ancient Palestine (as indicated by Rast), whereas Syro-Palestinian refers to wider area of the southern Levant. HG | Talk 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, it seems inapt to ask me to find a specific quote that would satisfy you. The fact that Dever argues in a book on "Archaeology of Israel" to promote his term "Syro-Palestinian" speaks volumes. See also Dever's chapter 7 in Blackwell's companion to the Hebrew Bible, where he has a whole section entitled (p.120ff): "Toward a New Agenda for the Archaeology and History of Ancient Israel." Dever is seeking to modify and rename the discipline by tackling its cognate terms, including "Archaeology of Israel" and "Biblical archaeology." Yes, it's an interesting academic positioning/naming debate, but do we need separate encyclopedia articles for every name of this discipline? The big split is between the "Biblical" and secular disciplines, but no matter how many sources refer to different names, it doesn't mean each name gets an article. We just need to choose the best name we can. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think my answer may be that yes, we do need separate articles for each of the sub-disciplines covered by Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Biblical archaeology should definitely not be covered in-depth in this article, since its focus is different. Archaeology of Israel similarly is a sub-discipline of Syro-Palestinian archaeology that is distinct in that it focuses on ancient Israel and/or archaeology within the modern nation-state of Israel (a much narrower geographic and temporal scope). The special problem is posed by Palestinian archaeology. Since it is used as a synonym for Syro-Palestinian (the geographical scope is only slightly narrower, the temporal scope is the same), I would argue it should be covered here. However, once the article has been further developed Palestinian archaeology (in the second meaning of the term, when used to refer to archaeological work conducted by Palestinians) should also have its own article. About your insistence on including Israel as a cognate term in the introduction, as I said before, I'm not for that, when its not discussed at any length in the body at present. When we do add a section that does discuss the Israeli sub-discipline and its relationship to the wider field, we can decide how to reformulate the introduction. Tiamut^talk 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As to your second comment on a "politics of" article, I'm not sure what you mean that. The article is still under development and I do intend to add much more in the way of archaeological information on the different periods. I've only avoided doing so because of Canadian Monkey's claims of overlap. But given the specificity of the terms "Palestinian archaeology" and "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" (which have now been quite firmly established as legitimate theoretical terms), I will soon be able to add more material on digs, the periods, etc. Excuse me for saying so, but I'm getting a little frustrated by all the attempts to modify the article scope, in such a short period of time. I'm sure you can relate (my role in challenging the title of Postal stamps and postal history of Israel and Palestine comes to mind. Aaah, karma). Anyway, unless you have serious objections to the title as is, I'd prefer to leave that debate aside for now and work on developing the article's content further.Tiamut^talk 18:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Recommendation. Here's what may be a better idea. How about Archaeology of the Southern Levant? This would encompass the History of pottery in the Southern Levant and relate to Pre-history of the Southern Levant, both of which were elegant resolutions to naming disputes. Given these existing encyclopedic articles, there isn't much need to start "Syro-Palestinian" as a yet another article name. As an academic POV on the field, of course, Dever et al should be discussed. "Southern Levant" has been used in Wikipedia to bridge the Palestine vs Israel POV on these topics, and it is supported by numerous reliable sources. Just as the pottery and pre-history articles got renamed, I'd guess that the Archaeology of the Southern Levant would be the parent of Pottery-type articles and other spin-outs as needed. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry HG, but I strongly object to that. I was very careful to make sure that the sources I used for the theoretical discussion and scope of the article included the words "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" or "Palestinian archaeology" so as not to duplicate existing articles on Biblical archaeology or the Archaeology of Israel. These terms are scholarly ones, widely used in the archaeological community, and they have very specific meanings. A rename would require an almost total rewrite and with the DYK nomination now in place, I'm not too excited about that prospect. Tiamut^talk 17:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. The problem, as noted above, is that the scope of Syro-Palestinian, Israel, Palestinian, and Southern Levant archaeology are all close enough to be in one article. They all focus on the same basic area. The solution for your article, to avoid a rewrite and still do the DYK, is to find a neutral name that best fits the new content (i.e., new to the Israel, S Levant or Biblical articles). How about the Politics and practice of archaeology in the Southern Levant? You've done alot of hard work on this and I'd just like to see it get a stable home, so to speak. HG | Talk 18:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No HG! Sorry, but this is way out of line. If it means I lose the DYK nomination, so be it. I've gone to considerable lengths to accomodate the concerns raised by other editors. I've worked my ass off (pardon my French) to make clear the scope of the article, which revolves around the terms "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" and "Palestinian archaeology", which the reliable sources used throughout the article indicate are scholarly terms used to refer to a specific discipline. I'm not writing an article about the politics and practices of archaeology in the Southern Levant. I'm writing one about the two terms. How those relate to other archaeological sub-disciplines like that of ancient Israel is certainly relevant to this article and I'm not against adding that information here when reliably sourced. But what you are suggesting now is a complete rescope. I'm not in for that. If you want to open an RfC on the issue you can. But I'm not about to change the title again, right now. Tiamut^talk 18:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to refrain from further responses, hopefully we'll get a range of other comments. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a sense of time pressure here, because of the desire for a DYK nom and how it's only for "new" articles? For what it's worth, I'd be willing to speak up to waive any deadline requirement, since it appears that the title/scope are still in flux. So please don't let the sense of urgency affect these discussions, just work things out, figure out where consensus is, and then we can still go for the DYK nom after that.  :) --Elonka 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh of relief) Yes, indeed, I was feeling a little tense because of the sense that the DYK would be jeopardized by the disagreement over the name. Thankfully, Canadian Monkey (talk · contribs) who was the editor to originally place the merge tag on the page, has withdrawn it. Now, the only problem seems to be reaching agreement with HG (talk · contribs). As I explained to him above, "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" (and its near synonym, "Palestinian archeology") are the accepted academic terms in the field and the article is constructed around reliable sources discussing these two terms and their relationship to other sub-disciplines in the field. The way I envision the article layout developing is, as HG suggested, in a summary style, with links to the different sub-disciplines in sub-sections. So, for example, one sub-discipline currently lacking significant coverage is Archaeology of Israel, an oversight that can be quickly rectified using the Silberman source HG provided above. Biblical archaeology, while linked to in the origins section, should also perhaps have a sub-section in its name. I'm also considering farming out the material on Palestinian archaeology (in the second meaning of the term, as in archaeology practiced by Palestinians) to its own stand-alone article with a small sub-section covering it here. However, given that "Palestinian archaeology" is also used interchangeably with "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" to refer to the discipline itself and given that Palestinian people who work in archaeology to whom the term is applied work in the same field, I'm unsure of whether that is a good or bad idea.

I can't speak for HG about what his thoughts on the current title are as of now, but I think it is an apt one, given the wide scholarly, and even popular use of the term. I'm hoping that we can set about developing the article to cover more on digs, periods, etc. So far, my focus has been on defending the article from merger, which accounts for the heavy emphasis on theory and terminology and material not covered in other articles (like Palestinian archaeologists for example). Hopefully, this can now change. Thanks for your comments Elonka. Tiamut^talk 22:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro and Dever

The article currently is good about describing Dever's pioneering role (among others, who can be added as the article improves). I would put Dever up front in the introduction, too, so that his view helps describe the scope of the article and its relation to other articles. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. I don't really want to mention Dever in the introduction just yet, since the term "Palestinian archaeology" (often used instead of Syro-Palestinian archaeology even today) predates Dever by about 100 years. Thanks for the suggestion though. Tiamut^talk 15:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How to proceed in incorporating Israeli archaeology

I've been doing some research into the relationship of Archaeology of Israel to Syro-Palestinian archaeology. While the source provided by HG from Silberman indicates there is a conncetion, it does not articulate the relationship of the two terms to one another explicitly. Searches on the two terms in parathenses brought up nothing explicit as well. So I changed my search to "Israeli archaeology" and bingo! I hit a mini jackpot.

This source [2] uses the terms "Israeli archaeology", "Palestinian archaeology" and "Syro-Palestinian archaeology", outlining their relationship to one another and respective scopes and this source [3] (already used in the article) speaks of the significant contributions made by "Israeli archaeology" to "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" (indicating that it is indeed a sub-discipline).

I propose that we use the term "Israeli archaeology" in this article. The Archaeology of Israel article should be renamed to "Israeli archaeology". This will help develop this article into an overview of the broader field of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" with sub-sections on each: "Biblical", "Palestinian", "Israeli" with a consistent naming format for each sub-discipline. What do you think? Tiamut^talk 23:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest such a rename would be a bad idea. Given the political touchiness, it is valuable that the article title makes clear that it is about Archaeology of Israel, not Archaeology by Israelis. Jheald (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... not quite sure now to respond to that, (after all "Palestinian archaeology" is used to refer to both the study of ancient Palestine and archaeology by Palestinians, and no one advocated using "Archaology of Palestine" to make the difference between the two clearer). Also not sure how to proceed in including the information on Israeli archaeology without a clear definition of the scope of the Archaeology of Israel and an explicit outline of its relationship to Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Do you have any suggestions? Tiamut^talk 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Both subtopics are useful. However, Israeli archaeology means something quite different than, and is not the only topic of, Archaeology of Israel. HG | Talk 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this article seeks to describe the secular (for lack of a better term) archaeology of the southern Levant and has chosen "Syro-Palestinian" as a name, presumably because it is sufficiently prevalent and neutral. ("Syro-Palestinian archaeology is a term used to refer to archaeological research conducted in the southern Levant.") Accordingly, in "Origins" section (and elswewhere), the article gives a see-also to Biblical Arch and explains the difference. However, the article also includes and should include secular archaeology that goes under slightly different names, such as "Palestinian archaeology," "Archaeology of Palestine" and "Archaeology of the Southern Levant." Presumably it should take into account Akkermans & Schwarz Archaeology of Syria. By the same token, then, shouldn't the article incorporate secular archaeology done under the name Archaeology of Israel?

Perhaps all these terms can be explained in terminology section? Currently, the 2nd sentence is: "Palestinian archaeology is also commonly used in its stead when the area of inquiry centers on ancient Palestine." We can expand this framing, to wit: "Palestinian archaeology, Archaeology of Israel, and Archaeology of the Southern Levant are terms commonly used in its stead when the area of inquiry centers on ancient Palestine, ancient Israel or the Southern Levant, respectively." (This can be modified, it's just an example.) Various archaeologists favor different terminology and they have somewhat different agendas, which we can explain as needed in the article, but the overlap is far more significant from an encyclopedia standpoint. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with better articulating the relationship of ther term "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" to the various sub-disciplines it entails. As I explained to you above however, while we do have a source that indicates that "Palestinian archaeology" and "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" are in fact synonyms, we do not have a source that says the same of the Archaeology of Israel or the Archaeology of Syria. In fact, we have a source that specifically states that the term "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" is not used by specialists in Syria (what is used is not made explicit), and we have reason to believe that the "Archaeology of Israel" is a sub-discipline that is focused only on archaeology in the modern nation-state of Israel or that focuses of ancient Israel (a much more narrowly defined geographical and temporal space). Tiamut^talk 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Re: Syria. On p.2, Akkermans is saying that, though we archaeologists of Syria rarely define ourselves with the term "Syro-Palestinian," we are specialists within the discipline of that area (aka southern Levant). Therefore, he does place his work within the Syr-P framework analytically. (And how rare is it anyway, considering that five of his colleagues use the term!)

Anyway, it sounds like you'll accept that Archaeology of Israel is a subdiscipline. That's great. So, reliable sources that prefer that terminology can/should be incorporated here. The article Archaeology of Israel can be treated as a summary style spin-out, if not merged outright. Just how broadly or narrowly the "Israel" term is used may well vary by scholar to scholar, as may the "Palestinian" notion. May I go ahead and put in a terminology section, or how would you like to handle it? Thanks. HG | Talk 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A section dealing with "Terminology," perhaps better entitled "Sub-disciplines of the field" or "Geographical scope" is an excellent idea. Could we work on drafting it together here first? Ideally, what I'd like to see included (which is not included in the article in a clear fashion as of yet) is the geographical scope of each of the different sub-disciplines and their temporal foci, based on definition provided by reliable, expert sources. This would include defintions for the Archaeology of Israel, and whatever term is used by specialists in Syria, more on the relationship between the terms "Palestinian archaeology" and "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" and why they are used as synonyms, etc. The source you provide above which you cite as evidence for the use of the term "Syro-Palestinian" by specialists in Syria doesn't actually establish that. If you notice, the only time the term is used is in relation to studies in Jordan, Israel, and Palestine. We still need to establish what term is used for Syria specialists, and whether it does indeed fall udner the scope of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" or not. Tiamut^talk 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, we have some agreement and a new section below (thanks) to continue this aspect of the thread. I suppose we still disagree on Syria and can start a new thread specifically on this point, though right now it's less pivotal than much else on this talk page, so perhaps we can wait. HG | Talk 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls - Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek

Tiamut has stated "I ordered them alphabetically and I'd like to keep it that way" - but I don't really see a good reason for this order. The vast majority (more than 85%) of the scrolls were in Hebrew, the majority of the rest were in Aramaic, and only a handful in Greek. It seems more logical to list them in order of importance rather than alphabetically. Furthermore, the very source used by Tiamut for this section lists them in that order (Hebrew-Aramaic-Greek) - twice ! ("800 documents in all, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.", and "The works, in Hebrew, Aramaic ­ the language of Jesus ­ and Greek" [4]). Perhaps Tiamut can explain the need to rearrange the order from the one provided by the source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

In general, with listing, I prefer alphabetical ordering. However, I wasn't aware that the majority of the scrolls were written in Hebrew. Considering their dating, it's obviously not modern Hebrew though. Perhaps we can find an expert source (rather than the mainstream media source we are using) that better explains which Hebrew is used in the scrolls. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This however, is not a "listing". It was two sentences taken from an articles used as a source for the section, and in both sentences, the order was H-A-G. I'm curious why you felt the need to re-order them. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I answered your question. I prefer alphabetical listings. Please assume good faith, accept the explanation and move on. Tiamut^talk 11:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

According to this source, the Hebrew used in the scrolls is "sandwiched" betweeh Biblical Hebrew and Mishanic Hebrew. I'm still looking for more information, but I believe it would behoove the article to use the specific expert terms for the Hebrew language involved. We wouldn't want to mislead people into believing that modern Hebrew was used in the scrolls. Tiamut^talk 10:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article in the New York Times, discusses the importance of the scrolls in highlighting the type of Hebrew used at the time:

The third area of impact is the Hebrew and Aramaic languages used in Judea in the last two centuries B.C. and the first century A.D. The dating of the scrolls ranges from the end of the third century B.C. to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Roughly 120 Qumran texts are Aramaic, whereas all the other nonbiblical texts are written in Hebrew (a few biblical texts are in Greek). Qumran Hebrew is now seen as a development from the late postexilic form of biblical Hebrew (500 to 200 B.C.), but it is not yet the same as the Hebrew of the Mishna. Even though Hebrew never completely died out in postexilic Judea, the Jews of Qumran seem to have made an effort to reinstate the sacred language. Their sectarian writings and much of their parabiblical literature were composed in such Hebrew, which was previously unknown to us.

It seems that the Hebrew used is a distinct form now known as "Qumran Hebrew" which scholars now place between Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. That makes sense in light of the other source claiming the Hebrew is "sandwiched" between these two forms. I will try to change the text accordingly, also noting that 120 of the scrolls are in Aramaic, while the remainder are in this unique from of Hebrew, and a handful in Greek. Cool? Tiamut^talk 10:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this level of detail is not needed in this section (it belongs in the Dead Sea Scrolls article), but if you feel strongly about it, I won't object. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I managed to condense it into two brief sentences. I'd prefer we keep it here for now. Perhaps later I will add it the article on the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. Thanks for your understanding. Tiamut^talk 12:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Gaza Artifacts

I've removed the following section:

In the lead up to Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Gaza Strip, Dr. Moain Sadeq, director general of the Department of Antiquities in Gaza, expressed Palestinian fears that Israel would once again confiscate artifacts, this time from a sixth century Byzantine church discovered in 1999 by an Israeli archaeologist on the site of a military installation in the northwestern tip of the Gaza Strip. The well-preserved 1,461-year-old church contains three large and colorful mosaics with floral-motifs and geometric shapes with a nearby Byzantine hot bath and artificial fishponds. Hizmi said that, "No decision has been taken yet to remove the mosaic," but that the mosaics would be removed to prevent damage, if necessary."

The reason for that is that the concerns expressed by Dr. Sadeq were raised more than 2 and a half years ago. Since then, the disengagement has actually occurred, and the mosaics were not removed. What is the point of listing unfounded speculation about events that, as it turned out, did not occur, after all? Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't just his concerns that I found relevant, but the discovery of the mosaic and church itself; i.e. the existence of artifacts important to Christianity in Gaza. However, I managed to find another article about another monastery and mosaic uncovered by Palestinian archaeologists in Gaza and have added it to the article. So I won't insist on the inclusion of this particular piece of information. Thanks for pasting the information you removed here as I requested. I ask that in the future, any sourced material you would liek to see deleted be pasted here before being removed from the article, so that we can discuss whether it warrants removal or not beforehand. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem controversy

I have some rather serious concerns about the section on damage to Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif. According to this source, not all Israeli archaeologists believe that the Waqf damaged the site by via the opening of the emergency exit. Candian Monkey, you keep reqriting the section to make it sound like the damage occurred as a fact - when it is in fact a matter of great dispute. I will try to rewrite the section myself, based on this source, but I would appreciate your help or at least cooperation in the matter. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

After further research, it seems that this section is better covered in the section on the "Contestation over the wonership of artifacts". Both Israelis and Palestinians claim that the other has damaged the site, but the root of these claims an counter-claims seems to stem from the debate over ownership. See, for example, this source which quotes from Silberman's book. Rather than giving credence or lengthy explanations to one or the other's claims, I think we should discuss where these claims stem from (i.e. the contestation over who the Temple Mount or Haram al-Sharif belongs to) and give a brief overview of the issues as they relate to archaeology and the wider conflict. I also think that we should relying on overtly partisan sources, except to enunciate the claims and only with direct attribution. Any objections? Tiamut^talk 15:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right section, as this is not at all a controversy related to ownership of artifacts. The entire area is the subject of a long running political conflict, and a dispute as to who will ultimately gain sovereignty over it, but there is no claim that one side took an archaeological artifact which legally belongs to the other. I'll move it back into the original section. As to the statement of fact, I don't think there is any dispute that damage has occurred, and provided at least two different sources, each naming multiple parties, that say this. Your own source lists 3 different parties that state that damage has occurred:

"Israel Antiquities Authority has expressed concern over damage to Muslim-period structures within the Temple Mount" ; "archaeologists have charged that archaeological material dating to the First Temple Period (ca. 960-586 B.C.) was being destroyed."; and 'Zweig presented some of the artifacts recovered from the Kidron Valley [garabge dump]". The only dispute is with regards to the seriousness of the damage, with a minority view presented by a couple of archaeologist who state that the archaeological artifacts that were dumped in the garbage were not important. I am trying to use equivalent language for accusations against the Waqf and accusations against the IDF. If you prefer, we can change the entire section to 'according to X, Y was damaged. ', but we can;t just state one side's allegations as fact. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have restored my version of this section. I strongly disagree with your very POV presentation of the issues here. You are misrepresenting the views of Isralei archaeologists who were divided over whether or not there were in fact artifacts from the Temple period in the dig. Silberman, for example, clearly states that some archaeologists took sides in a partisan debate. Mazar was one of them, but Silberman himself is an Israeli archaeologist and found the claioms and counter-claims to be rooted in the contestation over the site and nationalist discourses. Further, Romney says that it was Israeli archaoelogical students who claimed that there were artifacts from the Temple period in the fill, but the government itself contested their claims. Everything I added is sourced to reliable, non-partisan sources. I even remoed some of my own additions of Palestinian claims to give a more balanced presentaiton to the issue.

Further, I've already asked you not to delete sourced information without placing it here for discussion first. I'm trying to assume good fiath, but your actions in this regard are deeply disappointing. Please do not restore your version without first placing the information you would like to see removed here first. I frankly resent that you rushed to make the change as well, while the article is being featured on the main page. Tiamut^talk 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, your edit deleted everything related to Palestinian claims of Israeli damage to the compound. You removed this for example:

Neil Silberman, an Israeli archaeologist, has demonstrated how legitimate archaeological research and preservation efforts have been exploited by both Palestinians and Israelis for partisan ends. For example, an archaeological tunnel running the length of the western side of the Temple Mount, as it is known to Jews, or the Haram al-Sharif, as it is known to Muslims, became a serious point of contestation in 1996. The tunnel had been in place for about a dozen years, but open conflict broke out after the government of Benjamin Netanyahu decided to open a new entrance to the tunnel from the Via Dolorosa in the Muslim quarter of the Old City. Palestinians and the Islamic Waqf authorities were outraged that the decision was taken without prior consultation. They claimed that the work was actually aimed at tunnelling under the holy compound complex to find remains of Solomon's Temple and were similar to previous attempts undertaken by Jews in the 1980s. Further, they claimed that the work threatened the foundations of the compound and those of houses in the Muslim quarter. As a result, rioting broke out in Jerusalem and spread to the West Bank, leading to the deaths of 86 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers.

How can you justify that exactly? You made a wholesale revert, deleting everything I added, even though it was all cited to reliable scholarly sources, whereas your own edits were to op-ed pieces and Israeli news sources known for their right-wing slant. That's very very poor form. I made a strong effort to retain most of your additions. Instead of working to make alterations that would improve my changes further, you simply deleted them. I have to say that from the outset of your involvement at this article, it seems that you have tried to undermine my work here in every way possible. I'm very angry actually. I expect an explanation for this non-collaborative style of editing. Tiamut^talk 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you need to calm down, assume good faith, and avoid accusations of POV, which could just as easily be applied to your version and to your edit habits. Ditto for accusations of deleting sourced material, which is what you did to my version – removing material sourced to the Wall Street Journal at to the JCPA.

To the issues themselves: You have again moved this to the section titled "Contestation over the ownership of artifacts" - even though there is no contestation over ownership of any artifacts here. Please don’t do it again. Your claim that “Israeli archaeologists ... were divided whether or not there were in fact artifacts from the Temple period in the dig.” Is wrong, or at least, not supported by the source. There was a dispute with regards to the importance of those artifacts, but no one disputes that such artifacts were in fact found in the dump. As the source says: “According to Seligman and former Jerusalem District archaeologist Gideon Avni, while the material recovered from the Kidron Valley contained pottery sherds dating from the First Temple to the Crusader (twelfth-thirteenth centuries) periods, it was originally unstratified fill and lacked any serious archaeological value.”. I added the material indicating that there was a dispute with regards to the importance, but the damage was not limited to the dumping of artifacts into municipal garbage, but also to damage to (Muslim period) structure, through the use of bulldozers.

There was well publicized rioting following the opening of a new entrance to a tunnel that had existed for many years – but no one is claiming that the opening of this new entrance damaged any archaeological site, which is what this section is all about. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, there is a significant difference between how I edited that section to build on your material, retaining most of the prose you added, and how you made a wholesale revert, deleting everything I added to restore your preferred version. I have repeatedly asked you to place any disputed material here first for discusssion. I have asked you this at Shuafat and here. That you choose to ignore that request means that you are not interested in respecting my requests. That's your choice. But I am entitled to question your willingness to collaborate if that is what you choose to do.

Next, if you notice, I had changed the sub-section to add "sites" alongside "artifacts" to discuss the issue of Jerusalem. It is most definitely a site of contestation. Neil Silberman quoted in Adam and Moodley attributes the claims and counter-claims of damage to constestation over the site. That is why I thought it more appropriate to discuss the subject there. While you claim that the "rioting" over the new entrance to the archaeological tunnel is not relevant, what you fail to acknowledge is that the Palestinians claimed the the opening of the entrance was undermining the foundations of the compound and houses in the Muslim quarter. That is the relevance of this information to the article, and not the "rioting" that ensued as a result of the airing of those claims. People do not riot for no reason. You ignore the reason, focus on the symptom and then claim it's irrelevant. That's patently unfair.

My additions to that section and the rationale for moving it to the section on "contestation" rather "damage" rest on Silberman's analysis and logic. Stratigraphy is essential to determining the age of objects. Since the material removed by the Waqf during their renovations of the mosque was dumped in the landfill before the material could be archaeologically assessed, claims that it contained artifacts form the First Temple period remain just that: claims. It is possible that there were in fact artifacts form that period, but that cannot be confirmed since the items were not found in situ. Similarly, while Palestinians claim that the digging under the Haram al Sharif or Temple Mount compound are damaging the foundations to the mosque, and that is in fact possible, unless the mosque falls into the ground, those claims cannot be substantiated. Accordingly, rather than giving both claims undue credence, I decided the best way to deal with them was in the context of the claims of both to sovereignty over Jerusalem and the competing nationalist claims, as stated by Silberman. This is the most NPOV way of dealing with the section. I am open to discussing other possibilities. What I resent is your refusal to acknowledge the differing POVs on the subject, preferring to highlight the conclusions of selected sources, such as an op-ed, over scholarly sources.

I am going to work on the section more. There are many more claims by Palestinians of Israeli damage to site in Jerusalem that I removed so as to give preference to the scholarly sources like Silberman. If you insist that the Israeli claims be treated as legitimate examples of damage, then the Palestinian claims need to be included as well. Tiamut^talk 09:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gibeon paragraph in "damage to archaeological sites" section

I am removing the following paragraph:

Another site potentially threatened by the projected path of the separation barrier is that of Gibeon in the West Bank. The focus of an Israeli-American-Palestinian initiative funded by a $400,000 USD grant from the State Department to protect heritage sites, there will be almost certain damage to the site if the barrier's construction proceeds as forecasted. Gibeon is slated to be separated from the nearby Palestinian village of al-Jib which relies on restoration and excavation projects in the area for employment opportunities. According to Adel Yahyeh, a Palestinian archaeologist, the IAA is aware of the threat and is sympathetic but may lack jurisdiction to enforce protections.[39]

This is not about a site the was damaged, but rather speculation about what might happen to a site, if a series of events happen (the barrier construction proceeds as thought in 2004, the IAA does not do anything, etc...). At least one of the events in the chain is already known to have not happened: the barrier's route has been changed, following an Israeli Supreme Court ruling in 2005. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we should not be writing "future history" here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's true that articles shouldn't be written as if we are forecasting. However, it may well be legit for an article to describe a concern expressed by scientists about potential future damage. If it belongs in the article, I'd recommend writing up the concern as a quote. (e.g., "Unless plans for it are altered, the wall will certainly damage the site," states XYZ.) thanks, HG | Talk 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

But the plans have already been altered - the barrier's route was modified considerably in 2005 (a year after the concern was voiced). I suggest we either find a more current source (post-2005) that voices this concern, if it still exits, or remove the paragraph. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry if I misunderstood, but isn't there an interesting episode here? Complaints, adjustment, any update about the complainants? Plus, hopefully some background on the archaeological findings or significance so far? HG | Talk 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

well, the background and details about the findings at Gibeon and their significance can be found here. You can see there is no mention of this incident there, which is another indication that it is not all that significant or interesting. If there is any update or adjustment about about the complaints, that is what I mean by a newer source that mentions the controversy, if it still exists. Otherwise, I'd say this is a non-notable tempest in a teacup, and the article would be better off without it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please hold off on removing this information until we can confirm that the site has indeed escaped danger as a result of changes in the barrier's route. The source is the magazine Archaeology. If they saw fit to include mention of the potential damage, I don't see why it's not relevant to an article on archaeology in the region. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

HG, I changed the section to attribute the claims of potential damage as you suggested. Tiamut^talk 12:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have the process backwards. It is not up to the editors who challenge some material of a speculative nature to prove the speculation wrong. As WP:CRYSTAL tells us, "expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - it is up to you to conclusively show that even after the barrier's rerouting, the damage to the site is almost certain to take place. Until you do so, that sort of speculation has no place in an encyclopedia. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

When you insist on deleting new material I have added that is relevant to this subject without discussing it on the talk page first, it makes it very difficult to discuss. Please present your objections to ech of items listed in the section below regarding your deletions. I note once again that instead of discussing first before deleting, you choose to ignore my requests. I consider this to be disruptive editing, indicative of your lack of interest in collaboration. Tiamut^talk 12:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Jersualem section

Line by line breakdown of Canadian Monkey's edits:

• Work carried out by the Islamic Waqf since the late 1990s to convert two ancient underground structures into a large new mosque on the Temple Mount, has caused extensive damage to archaeological artifacts in Solomon's Stables and Huldah Gates areas.

This is sourced to an [Biblical Destruction opinion editorial by Hershel Shanks in the Wall Street Journal. While he is entitled to his opinion, the sentence should be attributed to him directly. Stating it as fact, misleads the reader into believing that the damage is a fact. It's not. The claims of damage are contested.

• During a period from October 1999 to January 2000, the Waqf authorities opened an emergency exit to the new mosque. In the process, they dug a pit measuring 18,000 square feet and 36 feet deep. The IAA expressed concern over damage to Muslim-period structures within the Temple Mount. Archaeologists complained about the use of bulldozers, and about the fact that no salvage excavation was done first.Jerusalem's Temple Mount Flap

What the source actually says is:

"It was clear to the IAA that an emergency exit [at the Marwani Mosque] was necessary, but in the best situation, salvage archaeology would have been performed first," Seligman told Archaeology.

This sentence should be changed to attribute all of these concerns to the IAA."

• Thousands of tons of ancient fill from the site, subsequently found by Israeli archaeologists to contain artifacts dating as early as the First Temple period, were dumped into the Kidron Valley, as well as into Jerusalem's municipal garbage dump, where it was mixed with the local garbage, making it impossible to conduct archaeological examination. [5]

Again, this sentence is misleading and internally contradictory. The Archaeology source writes that:

While the Israel Antiquities Authority has expressed concern over damage to Muslim-period structures within the Temple Mount, other archaeologists have charged that archaeological material dating to the First Temple Period (ca. 960-586 B.C.) was being destroyed. A group of archaeology students examined Temple Mount fill dumped by the Waqf in the nearby Kidron Valley and recovered ceramic material an d architectural fragments dating to this period and later. According to Seligman and former Jerusalem District archaeologist Gideon Avni, while the material recovered from the Kidron Valley contained pottery sherds dating from the First Temple to the Crusader (twelfth-thirteenth centuries) periods, it was originally unstratified fill and lacked any serious archaeological value. "It's the normal chronological sequence you encounter all over Israel," says Avni.Not so, claims Zachi Zweig, an archaeology student at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat-Gan. Zweig presented some of the artifacts recovered from the Kidron Valley at a conference held at the university. Following the presentation, the anti-theft unit of the IAA asked Zweig to return material recovered from Kidron and sign an affidavit that he had no more material. During an interview with an anti-theft officer, says Seligman, it "became clear" that Zweig had material from other sites. A subsequent raid of Zweig's residence turned up additional material from the Temple Mount and other archaeological sites, as well as a metal detector, which is illegal to own in Israel without a permit. "They are trying to invent a case about me that I did some robbery excavation in some cave," Zweig told Archaeology, "This is a joke."

In other words, it was archaeology students, and not Israeli archaeologists, who claimed that the material was of archaeological significance. Their assertions were disputed by Jon Seligman, the Jerusalem District archaeologist. Further, there is an implication that the material possessed by Zweig may in fact have come from other sites. Accordingly, this sentence needs to be changed.

• Some Israeli archaeologist dispute the importance of the artifacts that were dumped, claiming that they came from an unstratified fill and lacked any serious archaeological value.Jerusalem's Temple Mount Flap

This sentence is fine, however, because the preceding sentence attributes the concerns of damage to all Israeli archaeologists, it makes little sense.

• Some Israeli archaeologists claim that the Waqf is deliberately removing evidence of Jewish remains on the Temple Mount, or Haram al-Sharif, as it is known to Muslims.[6].

This sentence is fine, as it attributes the concern to some archaeologists, per the BBC source.

• Dr. Eilat Mazar told Ynet news that these actions by the Waqf were linked to the routine denials of the existence of the Jerusalem Temples by senior officials of the Palestinian Authority. She further stated that, "They want to turn the whole of the Temple Mount into a mosque for Muslims only. They don't care about the artifacts or heritage on the site."[7]

This sentence is fine, because it is directly attributed to Mazar, per the source.

I will be restoring some of my changes, deleted by Canadian Monkey again is his last wholesale revert. I expect that before deletig the material for a third time, Canadian Monkey provide a lin-by-line rationale for his deletions. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So I have made a number of changes and restored some of the material I added which had been deleted by Canadian Monkey. I have retained most of the information in Canadian Monkey's edit with the exception of the opening sentence: Work carried out by the Islamic Waqf since the late 1990s to convert two ancient underground structures into a large new mosque on the Temple Mount, has caused extensive damage to archaeological artifacts in Solomon's Stables and Huldah Gates areas, which was sourced to the op-ed by Hershel,Biblical Destruction. I placed this link in the external links section instead. The information however has been retained, but is now attributed directly to the IAA, per the source from Archaeology magazine so that it reads, The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) expressed concern over damage to Muslim-period structures within the Temple Mount as a result of the digging. Jon Seligman, a Jerusalem District archaeologist told Archaeology magazine that, "It was clear to the IAA that an emergency exit [at the Marwani Mosque] was necessary, but in the best situation, salvage archaeology would have been performed first." This is more accurate, as I explained in my comments above. Other changes were made per the sources and nothing else was deleted. I hope the edits meet with everyone's satisfaction. Thanks for your time. Tiamut^talk 13:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some of the concerns inserted by Canadian Monkey. I have not read this in-depth, so i am not taking a stance on all of the issues here. However, the controversy which he refers to was of immense concern, and made headlines around Israel and in jewish communities across the world. The fact that it was students does not matter; what matters is that it was in a valid journalistic source. It woul;dn't matter if it were ordinary citizens with no background at all; what matters here is notability of media sources. We do not scrutitinize coverage in other sources to see if the coverage was justified; we simply notre that it did receive notable coverage. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steve. Did you read the section after I made the changes? I didn't downplay the importance of the concerns raised at all. Nor did I mention that it was Israeli archaeology students who made the claims. If you could review the section and make specific recommendations as to what you would like to see changed, rather than basing you comments on the discussion on the talk page only, that would be very helpful. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The material about the riots started after the opening of an entrance to the archaeological tunnel running the length of the western side of the Temple Mount is not about any damage to archaeological sites. There is a bitter political dispute over there, feeding off of religious sensitivities, which led to severe rioting – but there was no damage to archaeological sites. Please stop inserting this irrelevant passage.

The damage to archaeological artifacts as a result of Waqf construction works is well known, and well documented. The Wall street Journal article currently used is not the only source, and in fact you have already removed another source that was there previously – an article by the JCPA which cited Mark Ami-El. The next paragraph also cites archaeologist Mazar making these statements. But of course, that is but the tip of the iceberg, and there are many, many more references to the damage caused by the Waqf, which I will list in the paragraph, one by one, if you insist. As Steve, Sm8900 wrote, unlike the single reference to a mosaic damaged by barrier construction, this controversy is of immense concern, and made headlines across the world. This source also repeats the basic claims, sourcing them to publications such as Ha’aretz, and to archaeologists Dr. Gabriel Barkay (head of Archaeology Dept at Bar Ilan University) , and Einat Mazar, a professor of archeology at Hebrew University. The icing in the cake, in the case of this source, is that it quotes Seligman, the same Seligman you use to downplay the extent of the damage, as saying ‘It was an archeological crime.’ We can't have one side's claims (regarding the barrier) presented as facts, but selectively attribute the other side's claims to a single source. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You acknowledge that there is a "bitter political dispute" over Jerusalem. Instead of retaining the section I created on the contestation over Jerusalem in the sub-section on "contestation", you moved the material to the top on the section on Damage to archaeological sites. You then deleted the material on Palestinian concerns over the new entrance to the archaeological tunnel. This is a very strange move on your part, considering your acknowldgement of existing contestation. Placing the material where you did is nonsensical and deleting the contestation sub-section on Jerusalem seems to be designed to arbitrarily omit the information on Palestinian concerns. I am going to restore the section on Jerusalem in the contestation section and append the material on Palestinian concerns of damage posed by the new entrnace to the archaeological tunnel there, since you refuse to acknowledge that it constitutes "damage" but are willing to admit that it stems from contestation over the site. Please do not delete the section or its material again. I have asked you many many times not to delete material without placing it here first for discussion. Do I need a megaphone to drive the point home, or are you willing to work collaboratively? Tiamut^talk 12:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you charge that "you have already removed another source that was there previously – an article by the JCPA which cited Mark Ami-El." I did not remove the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs source by Mark Ami-El at all. Please review my edits. You will see that I retained the source where you originally placed it further down in the section. Tiamut^talk 13:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Has anybody looked at Amy Dockser Marcus, The View from Nebo: How Archeology Is Rewriting the Bible and Reshaping the Middle East, which I've heard deals with scholars pursuing their own POV goals? HG | Talk 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Has anybody seen a review article that compares Dever and other views of the field as a whole? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't see Marcus' work, but will look into it now that you've alerted me to its existence. Note that I did include some stuff on this subject by Neil Silberman, as quoted in Adam and Moodley in the sub-section on Jerusalem under the Contestation over sites and artifacts section. Would you like to see more included?

About Dever, I'm still looking for such sources. The only one I did find was a critique of Dever's definition on the chronological scope of the field of study as too narrow. I added that to the section on periodization. Indirectly the Sauer source in the same section challenged Dever's definition, if only implicitly. I will let you know if I find anything else. Tiamut^talk 15:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

HG, two sources you might find useful to your question about Dever's views vis a vis those in the field are: 1) Sense and Sensitivity and Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel. Heady stuff, but worth wading through to better understand criticisms on his approach from both the minimalists and maximalists. Tiamut^talk 15:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

For Silberman, I'd think that it's better to have him speak for himself. The minimalist and maximalist stuff is helpful for understanding esp the relation to Biblical Arch'gy, though I wouldn't try to use those terms in the article (maybe footnotes). On Dever, I wrote more below. HG | Talk 17:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Challenges posed by..." section - fork off?

It seems that the two "Challenges posed by the Israeli-xxx conflict" sections are beginning to overwhelm this article. These sections are also responsible for most of the content disputes related to this article. Perhaps we should spilt these off into a new article? Canadian Monkey (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For now, I would prefer that these remain in this article, until we can decide the layout and scope of this article and whether there is place for this material here or whether it is better dealt with in a companion on article whose title and content have yet to be determined. Tiamut^talk 12:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question to raise, C-M. One question is whether it's a matter of undue emphasis -- and so the growth may be a temporary blip due to the drafting energies here. If not, then a spin-out may be needed. Let's discuss a neutral name here, first, please? Also, the spin-out should be due to notability and size of the subsection, not only because of editors' disputes. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the damage to archaeological sites can be covered in this article. One exception might be Jerusalem, where the long history of contention, contestation and claims and counter-claims of damage threatens to overwhelm both the section and the article. Could we work on identifying a netural and appropriate title for an article dealing specifically with archaeological damage and the contesting claims over the city's built heritage? I think it would be useful since there is much to discuss on the issue and we cannot cover it all here without it taking up half the article. Tiamut^talk 09:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a title for the information on sites of archaeological importance in Jerusalem, past and present digs, damage to archaeological sites, contesting claims of ownership over the site and artifacts, and conflict stemming from archaeological works in the city, etc. : Archaeology in Jerusalem. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 14:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you broach this subject at Talk:Jerusalem since the article there already deals with some archaeological findings etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Strange suggestion HG, given that we are are discussing this article, and not the Jerusalem one. It was Canadian Monkey who suggested that the material on damage to sites to be farmed out. I followed out that suggestion with my own, which focused on the material about Jerusalem, since that seems to be the area with the most discussion surrounding it and which threatens to overwhelm the article given both Canadian Monkey's (and my own) additions to it, which could go on ad inifimtum given the very loose standards being used for inclusion. Might I suggest that Canadian Monkey offer his opinion on this suggestion here first? I'd be interested in knowing how he feels about the issue, particularly given his objection to removing any of the material he has added, even though it is not sourced to archaeological experts in the field? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Gee, not sure why it would be "strange" to suggest collaboration with the folks at Jerusalem. The proposed spin-out does intersect with Jerusalem and it's a difficult enough topic to benefit from more input. Anyway, I feel put off by your wording. I'll raise it there myself and, if they think it's strange, they can ignore me. HG | Talk 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended you HG, it wasn't my intention to do so. I'd just like to get agreement from Canadian Monkey before suggesting the idea to other at the Jerusalem article, so as to make sure that we are all on the same page here first. Is that wrong? Tiamut^talk 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions of sourced material

Despite my repeated requests that sourced material that other editors feel should not be retained in the article be pasted here for discussion first, Canadian Monkey's latest edits have deleted the following:

• An archaeological tunnel running the length of the western side of the Temple Mount, as it is known to Jews, or the Haram al-Sharif, as it is known to Muslims, became a serious point of contestation in 1996. The tunnel had been in place for about a dozen years, but open conflict broke out after the government of Benjamin Netanyahu decided to open a new entrance to the tunnel from the Via Dolorosa in the Muslim quarter of the Old City. Palestinians and the Islamic Waqf authorities were outraged that the decision was taken without prior consultation. They claimed that the work threatened the foundations of the compound and those of houses in the Muslim quarter and that it was actually aimed at tunnelling under the holy compound complex to find remains of Solomon's Temple, similar to previous attempts undertaken by Jews in the 1980s. As a result, rioting broke out in Jerusalem and spread to the West Bank, leading to the deaths of 86 Palestinians and 15 Israeli soldiers.
  • Please note that I have since restored the material above and placed it in the sub-section in "Contestation over archaeological artifacts and sites". Tiamut^talk 13:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another military operation conducted between 15 December 2003 and 6 January 2004 resulted in further damage centered in the Qairoun district of the Old City. Three residential houses were completely destroyed, an additional thirty-five were rendered uninhabitable..
  • I have since restored this passage since as noted below, it is mentioned in the report by UNESCO of damage to archaeological sites in the Old City of Nablus. Tiamut^talk 16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Another site potentially threatened by the projected path of the separation barrier is that of Gibeon in the West Bank. The focus of an Israeli-American-Palestinian initiative funded by a $400,000 USD grant from the State Department to protect heritage sites, according to Archaeology magazine, "Unless plans for it are altered, the wall will certainly damage the site." Adel Yahyeh, a Palestinian archaeologist expressed fears that the wall would also separate Gibeon from the nearby Palestinian village of al-Jib which relies on restoration and excavation projects in the area for employment opportunities. According to Yahyeh, the IAA is aware of the threat and is sympathetic but may lack jurisdiction to enforce protections.

• Concerns over the damage posed to archaeological sites by the separation barrier were raised in the United Nations General Assembly by Mr. Almansoor, the delegate from Bahrain, on 15 December 2006, where he stated: "It [the separtion barrier] will destroy and isolate historical and archaeological sites. It will lead to the annexation of many historical and archaeological Palestinian sites and degrade the importance of certain tourist destinations, including the cities of Bethlehem, Jerusalem and Hebron [...] As I said, it will also damage numerous archaeological sites, as noted by the Gaza Centre for Rights and Law."

• The mission also noted that the souk and some old houses in the Old City of Baalbek that were not part of the property inscribed on the World Heritage List, were damaged by bombs.
  • I have since restored this passage since as noted below, it is in the report by UNESCO. Archaeological sites do not have to be World Heritage sites to be worthy of mention. Tiamut^talk 16:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why each has no place in the article. Thank you. Tiamut^talk 12:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The material regarding the souk and some old houses in the Old City of Baalbek does not belong becuase they were, as your source says, explicitly excluded from the property inscribed on the World Heritage List. They are just old houses. Same goes for residential buildings in Nablus.

I have discussed my objections to the speculative material about Gibeon in the above section. Read WP:CRYSTAL. If you want to include that section, it is up to you to show that after the rerouting of the barrier, there is still near certainty that damage will occur.

Mr. Almansoor's political speech falls into the same category - it is speculation about a future event. It is even worse than the other section, being a political speech by a non-expert, speaking in gross generalities at a political forum, about a future event in which he as no expertise, to an audience which is likewise made up of non-expert politicians.

The stuff about the tunnel is, once again, not about damage to any archaeological site, nor about the contestation of ownership of artifacts. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. Below, you are insisting on the inclusion of material on the destruction of old houses in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, even though the only sources for that information are a letter from the Israeli representative to the UN ("a political speech by a non-expert") and Dore Gold (another partisan "non-expert"). Further, you admit below that what was destroyed was not designated a world heritage site at the time.

On the other hand, you have removed the information about the damage to the souk and the desctruction of some "old houses" in the city of Baalbek because they were "explicitly excluded form the property inscribed on the World Heritage List," despite the fact the source listing their destruction is a reliable, expert source (i.e. UNESCO's team to Lebanon assessing the destruction from the war).

The same goes for Mr. Almansoor's speech. Why is his "political speech" less notable than that of Tekoa's? And why is the "speculative material" from an expert source like Archaeology magazine about the potential for destruction to the site of Gibeon due to the proposed route of the separation barrier not relevant?

Can you explain these double-standards? Tiamut^talk 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, regarding the tunnel, how can you possibly claim that the information is not about "the contestation of ownership over artifacts" or sites? The information is sourced to Cultural Contestation in Ethnic Conflict By Marc Howard Ross and is cited by him as an example of how the contestation over sites relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you would like me to make the point more explicitly, that can be done. But repeatedly deleting the information without acknowledging it's relevance or the reliability of the source is not the finest example of collaborative editing. Tiamut^talk 15:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that you see a double standard here, when we are dealing with two different situations. In one case, we are dealing with comments about well documented events that have already happened, nearly 60 years ago. For such a situation, all we need is a reliable source, and Dore Gold’s book, for one, is such a source. In the other case, we are dealing with speculation about some future event, which may or may not happen. In such cases, WP:CRYSTAL tells us we can only include material if there is near certainty that he event will happen. To establish such near certainty, we need more than a political speech by a non-expert.

You seem ignorant of the fact that the Jordanian destruction of the Jewish quarter is a well-documented historical event, admitted to even by the Jordanians themselves. Here are a few sources for you to read, in addition to the two already provided:

• ‘Within the old city the most fundamental rehabilitation work was necessary in the Jewish quarter, which had been neglected and which the Jordanian authorities fouled deliberately, through demolition of the traditional elaborate synagogues.” [8]
• “The Jewish Quarter's most recent destruction came during and after the 1948 war with Jordan, when all the synagogues and most other buildings in the quarter were severely damaged, and over the next 2 decades fell into almost total ruin; many were systematically demolished.” [9]
• “The Jordanians had blown up the Hurva and 57 other synagogues in the area in `48” [10]
• “The arch, a remnant of the synagogue bombed by the Jordanians in 1948” [11]
• “The Jordanian army destroyed the Hurva during the War of Independence as part of a larger effort to erase the Jewish presence from the Old City” [12]
• “Jewish Quarter now judenrein, was annexed by Jordan, which proceeded to erase the evidence that Jews had ever been there. In an orgy of desecration, 58 synagogues -- the oldest dated to the 13th century -- were ravaged. Those that weren't razed were ransacked, turned into stables and chicken coops, used as garbage dumps... The ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives, where the oldest tombs date from 1st century BCE, was devastated. Some 38,000 tombstones were ripped out and used to build military bunkers and pave latrines. An asphalt road was cut through the cemetery; a hotel was constructed at the top. When the Jews returned in 1967, they found graves gaping open and bones strewn on the ground.” [13] Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, the sources you are listing here are not experts in the field. Nor are they from reputed bodies like UNESCO. I put two issues before, one of which you evaded by repeating you WP:CRYSTAL argument with regard to the second. So I'll put the unanswered issue before you once again:

Below, you are insisting on the inclusion of material on the destruction of old houses in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, even though the only sources for that information are a letter from the Israeli representative to the UN ("a political speech by a non-expert") and Dore Gold (another partisan "non-expert"). Further, you admit below that what was destroyed was not designated a world heritage site at the time. On the other hand, you have removed the information about the damage to the souk and the desctruction of some "old houses" in the city of Baalbek because they were "explicitly excluded form the property inscribed on the World Heritage List," despite the fact the source listing their destruction is a reliable, expert source (i.e. UNESCO's team to Lebanon assessing the destruction from the war).

Can you explain this double-standard? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I have explained the difference between the sourcing needed for the two situations, but I guess it was not clear enough, so I’ll try it again. For a well-known historical event that has already happened and is well documented, we do not need any sort of “expert in the field” or specialized publication to attest to its existence. All we need is a reliable source – and that can be, for example, a mention in a mainstream newspaper, a book published by a mainstream press, or a well known web site which is not self-published. So, for example, to support the claim that the allies invaded Europe on June 6, 1944, we do not need to quote an article by an eminent WWII historian published in the Journal of Military History, nor do we need to cite Stephen Ambrose’s “D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II” - we can reference a USA Today article that mentions this well known fact in an article about the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of D-Day. Similarly, the destruction of the Jewish Quarter by Jordanian forces during and after the 1948 war is a well-known historical event, which happened nearly 60 years ago and is well documented, by the perpetrators themselves, among other sources. To mention this, we do not need to quote a specialist in the field of Israeli or Jordanian history, nor do we need to rely on specialized publications or scholarly journals. We can use a mention in a mainstream newspaper, or a book published by a mainstream press, or a well-known web site, which is not self-published – which is exactly what I have done. I have sourced this claim to mainstream newspapers such as The Boston Globe and Ha’aretz, to a mainstream book by Dore Gold, to a non-specialist guide book (Frommer’s), to respectable periodicals such as The Forward and to on-line publications such as the Jewish World Review, and even to an academic publication by an Israeli scholar. There are dozens more such references, but there’s really no point in listing any more, when even a single one of these would do.

Conversely, when we are talking about speculation about a future event, the policy guiding us is WP:CRYSTAL, which states that ‘expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. ’In order to establish that an event is almost certain to take place we do need an expert to testify to the event’s near-certainty, and for such a claim we can not rely on political speech by a self-interested party who is not an expert, who is speculating using vague generalities while speaking to a political audience. This is true wherever such speculation is attempted, and I would no more support Mr. Almansoor’s political speech being used in this article to put forward a claim that Israel will damage archaeological sites, than I would support claiming that Iran will use its nuclear weapons to destroy Israel in this section of the Iran article, based on nothing more than a speech by evangelical pastor John Hagee, speaking on Fox News, [14] or on a similar allegation by Israeli Knesset member Dr. Arieh Eldad [15] in an interview to NewsMax.

I hope this clarifies any confusion you might have had regarding what you mistakenly saw as “double standards”. I will shortly address the other part of your question – regarding the relevance of the section as a whole to this article - in the section below, where you have proposed its complete removal. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you evaded the question by focusing only on the future events. I was talking about these edits: [16] and [17]. They deleted information from a UNESCO report, with edit summaries saying they were "just old houses" or something to that effect. But since you haven't deleted them again, I guess you've come to recognize the double-standard. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Third time: there is no double standard, see above. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the destruction of 3 residential houses is relevant to an article about archaeology. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple really. Because the destruction is mentioned in the UNESCO report assessing damage to the Old City of Nablus, an area with many structures of archeological significance. Unlike many other places in the wo]=rld, there are a number of houses in Nablus and other old cities where people still live in arahaeologically significant buildings. The destruction of these houses was mentioned in the expert assessment report. That leads me to believe that they are of archaeological significance. If they weren't why would they even mention them? Tiamut^talk 08:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Additions of material improperly sourced

Canadian Monkey, you have added new information to the article that is not sufficiently sourced. I speak of this passage:

• During the 1948 Arab Israeli war, and throughout the period of Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem which ended in 1967, Jordanian authorities and military forces undertook a policy described by their military commander as "calculated destruction", aimed at the Jewish Quarter of old Jerusalem, a UNESCO World Heritage site. Their actions, described by Yosef Tekoa, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, as a "policy of wanton vandalism, desecration and violation" resulted in the destruction of all but one of 35 Jewish houses of worship. The synagogues were razed or pillaged. In the ancient historic Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives, tens of thousands of tombstones were torn up, broken or used as flagstones, steps and building materials in Jordanian military installations. Large areas of the cemetery were levelled and turned into parking lots and gas stations.

Where is the source establishing that the Jewish Quarter of the Old City (Jerusalem) was a UNESCO World Heritage site at the time of the destruction? I ask primarily because you deleted information (as listed in the section above) regarding the desruction in Nablus and Baalbek with an edit summary claiming that these were not archaeological sites, presumably because they were not world heritage sites. I disagree with your assessment (archaeological sites do not have to be world heritage sites to be of archaeological value) but if you are going to insist on the application of such a narrow definition, it should be applied across the board. So please provide the sources that attest to theser being either a) archaeological sites, or b) world heritage sites (if you are going to insist on the use of such a narrow definition. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand why I removed the material related to the Nablus residential buildings and the souk in Lebanon. I allow that buildings of great historical and cultural value can be mentioned here, even though they are not, strictly speaking, 'archaeological sites'. That is why I am ok in general with the section on Nablus, even though it is neither an arcaeological site, nor a UNESCO world heritage site. But that does not extend to any old building, or to residential buildings, which is what I removed. The Old City (Jerusalem) article makes it clear that the entire Old City, including of course the Jewish Quarter, is a UNESCO world heritage site. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I asked you for a source that says that the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem was a world heritage site at the time of the destruction. Wikipedia articles are the subject are not reliable sources. Please provide a source that says that the Jewish quarter of the Old City was a designated world heritage site between 1948 and 1967.
2. If UNESCO's expert team saw it fitting to mention the destruction of "old houses" in Nablus, I don't know why you would decide that those houses were not archaeologically significant. If they were not, why were they mentioned? Why should we excise parts of the report based on your personal opinion? Tiamut^talk 14:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether it was such a site at the time. the point is that it is a heritage site now. the destruction which he was referring to was clear, calcualated, and directly at the items which make it a site now. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Steve, I am not advocating for the removal of this information. I am only asking that we be specific about the site's status at the time of the destruction. It is highly relevant to determine whether it was a world heritage site at the time or not. Destruction of world heritage sites is a much bigger "crime" than the destruction of sites not designated as such. Please understand that this distinction is an important one. I'm still waiting for the source. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. finding such a source, wheter or not it was such a site, should be fairly simple and a matter of official record. so that sounds fine. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

the site was obviously not designated a UNESCO world heritage site in 1948, since that UNESCO program was formed in 1972. However, I assure you that the cultural value which makes it a world heritage site today was not created between 1948 and 1972. I'll edit to reflect that it is such a site TODAYCanadian Monkey (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is that relevant? The buildings in question were destroyed long before designation as a world heritage site. We have no way of knowing whether they would have been considered a part of that or not. It's inclusion seems to be WP:UNDUE to make a WP:POINT. Further, I'd like to see the source that designated the Old City a world heritage site so as to know what it encompasses exactly. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 15:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also stil waiting for an explanation as to why the old houses destroyed in Nablus and mentioned in the UNESCO report which were not world heritage sites are not relevant to the article. Tiamut^talk 15:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since there are no answers to any of my questions, on the subject of Jerusalem, I went ahead and found a source for Jerusalem's world heritage status [18] and added something about to the section on contestation. Note that I have also opened a section below to discuss the inappropriateness of the passage cited to Tekoa and Gold, for which I would like some feedback. I've also suggested above that we farm out all the material on Jerusalem to an article that focuses solely on the contesting claims over ownership, its status as a world heritage site, and archaeological damage in the city itself. I think this is necessary given the volume of material on the subject. (There is much I've encountered that I have not added to avoid giving the subject undue weight in this article.) Your thoughts on all these issues are appreciated. Tiamut^talk 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tel Dan

Tel Dan is not in the Golan Heights, and is not in territory captured from Syria in 1967. See this source, which describes how it was excavated by Israelis in 1966, as well as Tel Dan the Wikipedia article. Canadian Monkey (talk)` —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We need better sources. The source you originally provided said Tel Dan is in the Golan Heights. This source also says,

Tel Dan, one of the more important sites in the Golan Heights near the Israel-Lebanon border, is better known for the world's oldest intact arched gateway, a 4,000-year-old, mud-brick structure now protected under a modern shelter, but the site is under possible threat from a possible errant Hezbollah missile.

Please do not rely on Wikipedia for sourcing. It is not a reliable source. the other source you provided does not explain the relationship of Tel Dan to the Golan Heights either. Let's look for more. Tiamut^talk 14:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not relying on Wikipedia for sourcing, I provided you with an external source. If it was excavated by Israelis in 1966, it could not have been part of Syria in 1967. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You are making a logical deduction that is prohibited by WP:OR. Please provide a source that states explicitly that Tel Dan is not in the Golan Heights. We have two so far which state explicitly that it is. Your logical deduction (original research) does not cancel out the validity of those sources. Tiamut^talk 15:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Another source [19] which says "Tel Dan, in the Golan Heights, of northern Israel." Tiamut^talk 15:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This source says Tel Dan is part “of northern Israel." Which supports my position, not yours. The interesting question is not if Tel Dan is in the Golan Heights, a geographical designation without well-defined boundaries, but if Tel Dan is Syrian territory captured by Israel in 1967, as you claim in your unsourced editorial comment. It is clearly not. In addition to the two sources I’ve already provided you with, have a look at this, and note the map in the upper-left corner, which places it well to the West of the border with Syria. Or at this, an academic source that clearly states “Serious scientific archaeological excavation began at Tel Dan (at that time called Tell el Qadi) in northern Israel”. Or this source, which describes how it was Syria which attacked Tel Dan in the Six day war. I will not dignify with an answer the wikilawyering claim that relying on a source which clearly says Israelis excavated Tel Dan in 1966 is original research, because it doesn’t say the area was in Israel. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, accusing me of wikilawyering for calling you on original research is not right. The source you yourself provided to support the inclusion of this material in the article states:

Archaeologist Ryan Byrne, speaking by telephone from Memphis, Tennessee, says he was forced to leave Tel Dan, one of the more important sites in the Golan Heights near the Israel-Lebanon border, after two of Hezbollah's rockets hit a megalithic cemetery nearby.

I am willing to consider removing the the note regarding Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights in 1967, but you cannot deny that Tel Dan is located there, unless you are questioning the reliability or accuracy of your own source, in which case we shouldn't be using in the article. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 08:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be two questions here. (1) How might the location of Tel Dan be briefly described? Readers normally like to know the location of places. To what extent is this a factual question? To what extent is this a question about not leaving a wrong impression with the term Golan Heights? (2) Does the article need to discuss the political-legal history/sovereignty of the location? I wouldn't assume that it's germane to an archaeology article. Anyway, perhaps you could both define the disputed questions and submit it either to WikiProject Israel or an WP:3PO? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. There's no need for mediation on the subject. As I said above, I am willing to consider removing the the note regarding Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights in 1967, but you cannot deny that Tel Dan is located there, unless you are questioning the reliability or accuracy of your own source, in which case we shouldn't be using in the article. If Canadian Monkey is willing to accept that the site's location in the Golan Heights should be mentioned, I am willing to remove the note regarding its having been occupied by Israel in 1967, which as you note, is information that may not be germane to an archeology article. Fair enough? Tiamut^talk 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the information about the occupation of the Golan Heights as a good will gesture, I hope that settles things. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds very helpful. If I understand the two views here, the problem is that Golan Heights can refer to both the plateau and somewhat smaller area of the Israel-Syria conflict. Is that right? If so, maybe we can find an elegant compromise through a footnote. Either we (I) write "Golan Heights" but footnote that it wasn't part of the 1967 war area, or (II) omit "Golan Heights" but footnote that it lies in the plateau by that name. How does that sound? Thanks, HG | Talk 16:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Without a source explicitly specifying that Tel Dan was not part of the Golan Heights area occupied by Israel in 1967, I wouldn't support the inclusion of such a note. Call me a stickler for details if you will, but with deeply contested issues, I feel that high quality sources that speak directly to the issue are required. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is ridiculous now. After I made a good faith effort to compromise on the issue of the Golan Heights by removing the statement regarding its occupation in 1967, Canadian Monkey made these edits [20] removing mention of the Golan Heights altogether. Note that the source he is using for this information clearly states: Tel Dan, one of the more important sites in the Golan Heights. Note also, he hasn't bothered to respond to any of our suggestions here. This is the very essence of WP:DE. Please self-revert Canadian Monkey, or I will report you to WP:AE for this and your history of deletions of relevant and sourced material here. Tiamut^talk 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the mention that Tel Dan is in the Golan Heights. I've already provided you with several sources, textual and maps, that show that this part of the Golan was in Israeli hands prior to 1967. In contrast, there was not a single source to support your editorial comment tah this was an arae Israel captured from Syria in 1967. I have discussed all my edits here in detail, and backed them up with sources. By all means go to AE, and be prepared to defend your POV pushing, constant reversions, deletion of sourced material and wikilawyering there. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring clearly and reliably sourced material regardig Tel Dan's location in the Golan Heights. There is one problem however, the source does not say that the site is in Israel. It does say that rockets hit Israel, but it doesn't specify the site's location beyond "the Golan Heights". So that might need to be removed from the top of the section. As for the rest of your comment, it's not worthy of a response. Cheers. Tiamut^talk 17:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Tel Dan is NOT in the Golan Heights. I have been there; it's close to Kibbutz Dan. It's not far from the Heights, but they are a distinct highland area (to which I have not been, but have seen them in the distance). Liskeardziz (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining the geographical and temporal scope of the field and its relationship to other sub-disciplines

Dear HG, I have found something on the scope of the field as defined by Dever here. He writes:

Its geographical purview is not the "Bible Lands" as such, but ancient southern-central Syria and Palestine, both west and east of the river Jordan (i.e. modern Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and parts of Syria), or more properly ancient "Greater Canaan". Its time-frame extends far beyond the "biblical period," embracing everything from the Lower Paleolithic to the Ottoman period.

Strangely, Dever does not mention the Palestinian territories (i.e. the West Bank and Gaza Strip). I don't think that he means to exclude these areas. I suppose that in his opinion, they are covered under the term "modern Israel". (I guess as an archaeologist and not a political scientist, he feels its okay to do so, but it leaves me personally with questions regarding his biases.) Now Rast, who is used in the article to determine the geographical scope of "Palestinian archaeology" describes the term "Palestine" on page 16, as the term commonly used by archaeologists in Jordan and Israel to refer to the region encompassed by modern-day Israel, Jordan and the West Bank, omitting mention of Gaza. On page ix, however, he defines "the land of ancient Palestine" as that encompassing modern Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan.

Anyway, what we have here is the beginnings of an outline of the geographical and temporal scope of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" as a whole, and a definition for "Palestinian archaeology" that is slightly more limited in its geographical scope (i.e. excluding Lebanon and parts of Syria - even though this source uses "Palestinian archaeology or Syro-Palestinian archaeology" as though they were perfect synonyms). I will now look for more on the geographical and temporal scope of the Archaeology of Israel and get back to you. Tiamut^talk 14:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, the section on the temporal scope of the field should be changed to reflect this new information from Dever. As it is, it stops at the Byzantine period and then notes two sources who advocate for the inclusion of later periods, one of which accuses Dever of arbitrarily delimiting the temporal scope of the field. Clearly, that accusation is unfounded, given his clear statement above that everything up to Ottoman times is part of the field. I will make the appropriate changes and discard the source that makes the false accusation. It's reliability was dubious to begin with (as she is not an expert in the field), and I probably should have refrained from using it at all. Tiamut^talk 16:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided to keep Hoppe's critique in place, since it was made in 1987 and Dever's extended temporal definition is provided in his 2001 work. It's possible that his views underwent a change during that. Until it can be definitively established that prior to 1987 his temporal definition did include stuff from after the Byzantine period, Hoppe's critique remains relevant. Particularly since after looking more into her own credentials, it seems that she is an expert in the field. Tiamut^talk 16:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I like your suggestion (way above) that we draft a terminology or subdisciplines section here. Did you notice my comment here? Anyway, I should say I think you are relying too much on Dever. He's prominent but advocates a strong pov, I certainly don't get the sense that everybody feels bound to his definitions. More generally, whatever definitions we find, they should be seen as exemplifying the scholarly understanding of their subfields, not as strictly delimiting it for all their colleagues. In terms of the subfields, I think we explain (1) the scope of the southern Levant, (2) how Palestinian Arch focuses on Palestine, and the semantic range it might entail; (3) how Archaeology of Israel focuses on Israel, and the range it might entail; (3) the study of Syria focuses on Syria (I think the range is more stable and may not need further description); (4) Jordan if necessary. All of this "secular" (non-Biblical) archaeology over and against the Biblical -- which is different in terms of geographic range (e.g., Egypt, Persian), timeframe, usage and presuppositions with Biblical texts, telos, etc. More later. See ya, HG | Talk 17:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did notice you comment above and replied to it there. I fully agree about Dever. I've been relying a lot on him for lack of other sources explicitly defining the scope, but am very open to looking at others. Indeed, it's preferred. Fully agree also with your rough outline on how to proceed. I've been trying to look for more sources, but as you can see from the discussion above, I've also been dealing with the deletion of much sourced material of great relevance to the article. Defending its inclusion has been taking up a lot of my time which could otherwise be better spent developing these theoretical aspects essential to the article's development. For now, I'm totally exhausted and will have to sign off. But I'll try to pick up where we left off on this subject soon. Thanks for your thoughts.Tiamut^talk 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, don't get worn out. An aside about definitions: Many scholars in the mainstream of a fairly stable field, like archaeology, don't bother with definitions -- they mostly do their field work and research write-ups. The definitions may be a preoccupation for a few folks who are off to the side (some marginal to the field, some not), but the definitional arguments aren't much of a distraction to most archaeologists. This makes it somewhat challenging for the encyclopedist -- we don't want to give to much weight to a side argument, but it's hard to pin down the broad mainstream of the field, because so many folks take the definitions for granted. 3 cents. HG | Talk 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. I understand what you're saying about the scholars, but without reliable sources that define the temporal and geographical scope of Archaeology of Israel, I don't see how we can properly represent it in this article as a sub-discipline of Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I've been reading Silberman's work for clues on how to proceed. What struck me is that his book indicates that "Archaeology of Israel" is in fact "Israeli archaeology" or as described on the back cover of his book, [21] his book "represents an overview of the current state of archaeology in Israel." (emphasis mine) In other words, while you stated in teh above section that "Israeli archaeology" and an "Archaeology of Israel" are two separate concepts, the leading work on the subject (the very source you pointed me to as an example of "Archaeology of Israel" constituting a sub-discipline of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology") in fact indicates that the term can be used interchanegably with "Israeli archaeology. Am I reading wrong? Can you clarify where an alternative definition exists? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to define the scope tightly, because the scholars don't do so. But that doesn't make it difficult for us to write the article. For instance, we can include info from the the following source:

• Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na'aman, From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archeaology and historical aspects of early Israel.
• "Israeli Archaeology" Ofer Bar-Yosef; Amihai Mazar in World Archaeology, Vol. 13, No. 3, Regional Traditions of Archaeological Research II. (Feb., 1982), pp. 310-325.
• "Archaeological surveys of Israel" and other IAA publications
• Hershel Shanks and Benjamin Mazar, Recent Archaeology in the Land of Israel, Biblical Archaeology Society 1985, ISBN 0-9613089-2-3
• Studies in the archaeology of Israel and neighboring lands in memory of Douglas L. Esse. ed. Samuel R. Wolff. Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago 2001
• The archaeology of the land of Israel: from the prehistoric beginnings to the end of the First Temple period Yohanan Aharoni; edited by Miriam Aharoni ; translated by Anson F. Rainey. 1982
• Any list under "Excavations (Archaeology) Israel" in the U.S. Library of Congress, etc.

Yes, there's some a difference as well as overlap among: (a) archaeology done by Israelis, which I suspect is mostly called "Israeli archaeology" or the like; (b) archaeology of/about a place sometimes called, historically, Israel or the Land of Israel or Eretz Yisrael, etc; (c) archaeology performed in/within the boundaries of a place called, currently, Israel. (I think b&c are sometimes called "Archaeology/archaeological history/ of /ancient/ Israel" , but "Palestine" and "Southern Levant" are also common.) All of these can be mentioned under terminology, but we don't need to fret about precise definitions because almost none of it is rigidly adhered to by scholars. Perhaps we can site the Israeli antiquities law, but even that doesn't have a rigid definition from what I can tell. So, let's just try out some drafting language, ok? Thanks. HG | Talk 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Drafting the terminology and scope

Suggested start of our draft:

Terminology and scope

Syro-Palestinian archaeology is a term used to refer to archaeological research conducted in the southern Levant. This term encompasses archaeological excavations, research and other scholarship. Scholars and public discussions of archaeology may also refer to Palestinian archaeology, particularly when the area of inquiry centers on Palestine, to the Archaeology of Israel when the inquiry centers on the Land of Israel, to Archaeology of the Southern Levant, and similar terms.

The field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology differs from biblical archaeology in several important respects. Notably, Syro-Palestinian archaeology may examine the post-Biblical period. In addition, Biblical archaeology may cover areas relevant to the Bible outside of the southern Levant (e.g., Egypt or Persia) and it tends to focus more on the use and explanation of Biblical texts. Nevertheless, much archaeological research is relevant to the general field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the understanding of the Bible and Biblical period. Besides its importance to the discipline of biblical archaeology, the region of the southern Levant is one of the most important to an understanding of the history of the earliest peoples of the Stone Age.[3]

This article also covers archaeology conducted by Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the institutions, collaborations, and conflicts involving Israeli and Palestinian efforts.

Just a draft. Please comment below, thanks. HG | Talk 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. This seems to repeat much of the material already in the introduction, (though without the appropriate sourcing). Are you suggesting we remove information currently in the introduction to place it in this section? Tiamut^talk 16:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's repeating because I'm/we're doing reverse engineering. Let's draft this section. Then amend the lede so that it recaps (or repeats, concisely), the gist of it. No need to remove the intro for now. Eventually, we'd place the sourcing and details in the section not the lede. HG | Talk 16:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay .... might I suggest instead that since the introduction is very well-sourced, that you add a sentence or two (sourced) that explains what the Archaeology of Israel is and which adds this: This article also covers archaeology conducted by Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the institutions, collaborations, and conflicts involving Israeli and Palestinian efforts. It would seem to me that we would save ourselves a lot of unnecesary energy and effort that way. No? Tiamut^talk 16:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on. Above, you said such a section was an "excellent idea" and we talked about it and I just put up a draft. Are you saying you don't want it at all? Or that we don't have the energy for this right now? What's up? HG | Talk 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For "archaeology of Israel" I already drafted a sentence that covers it. If you want, we can expand it to cover "excavations, antiquities, social history, ethnicity, and other archaeological methods for reconstructing and understanding Israel, Palestine, and the southern Levant." (See back cover of Silberman book, as you suggested.) I do feel exasperated by the way this is proceeding. HG | Talk 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain. If you noticed, at 12:52 today [22], I added a bit on the geographical scope of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" and made a few other changes to the introduction, using Dever's 2001 definition. After seeing your draft above, I realized that all that is missing from the introduction as it stands now, is a sentence or two on the Archaeology of Israel that defines its scope and area of interest, and a sentence explaining the scope of the article (per that which I italicized above). After these additions, a section on terminology and scope would be somewhat redundant, no? I'm sorry you feel exasperated, and I appreciate your efforts here, but why should we work backwards when we already have a well-defined introduction with in-line sourcing that is only missing what I've suggested here? Tiamut^talk 17:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The lede is going to have to cover alot of ground. We shouldn't take up much space in the lede to explain alternative terms and geographic scope. Esp if there's some scholarly/political debate over terms. I think it's pretty obvious by now that this isn't simple, it will require some nuance, and any decent/good/FA article would cover it. Most aspects of the lede, at least in a significant article, are covered by the article content. So, when it comes to polishing/revising an article, we work backwards and forward, to and fro, to try to coordinate or correlate the lede and the content. From WP:LEDE -- "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. ... In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction." Just because we happen to have bogged down with these terms, doesn't mean we should bog down the reader in the lede. So, let's either collaborate in drafting it here or just give me some kindly encouragement to edit the article directly. Bye now. HG | Talk 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay HG. If you feel strongly about it, why don't you just go ahead and add whatever it is that you want to directly to the article. I don't see the need for it anymore, but I won't resist its inclusion. Please do however make sure that everything is sourced. Given that it's a terminology section, it shouldn't be vague or general and should be rooted in reliable, expert descriptions. Okay? Tiamut^talk 17:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me like there is a bit of cross-editing going on here. Is that correct? ...in other words, would it be correct to say that Tiamut changed the scope of her own material, while someone else was changing the scope on their section? If it's possible that that is correct, i would suggest maybe to let Tiamut do all her edits first, and then for others to go ahead with their own revisions, criticisms, etc. It sounds like there are two versions of reality clashing here, and I'd rather let one be fully formed before we all go ahead and voice our (highly probable) objections to it. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No cross-editing Steve. I made my changes three hours before HG posted his draft for the terminology section. Afte reading it, I realized that all that was missing from the introduction is what I have specified above. Tiamut^talk 17:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New terminology and scope section

Ok, based on above, I've put in a new section. It can be pared down (or expanded). Moved some relevant stuff from intro, started to try to mesh it w/the intro. I've tried to write in a broad, encyclopedic style, while relying on specific sources. The five subtopics here are: (1) archaeological methods, (2) geographic scope, (3) temporal scope, for which not much said yet, and (4) shifts in the discipline, by name, especially the (4a) national-oriented schools, and (5) difference with biblical archaeology, hopefully w/segue to Origins section. Please place constructive criticism and comments here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HG (talk • contribs) 14:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've shifted around some stuff myself after you made your additions. Note that the temporal scope of the field is outlined in full in the section "Archaeological periods covered in the field". If you want to compose a brief summary paragraphy to place in the "Terminology and Scope" section, that might be a good idea. Alterntively, we can put the prose material from that section into the "Terminology and scope" section and expand the list format in the "Archaeological periods covered in the field section" using the names used for historical periods after the Byzantine through to the Ottoman (if we can find a source that details them by name, since the Mercer Bible Dictionary stops at the Byzantine). Good work by the way. Tiamut^talk 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I did add the temporal scope material to this section. Do you have any concerns about its structure or potential overlap issues with the intro, or have we come to a place where we feel comfortable with the division? Tiamut^talk 12:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good and relevant temporal discussion. You are also to be commended for asking us to register our comfort level. I've what I believe are only minor concerns about how we represent the degree of uniformity among scholars. (E.g., "definitive split" in intro, or how we handle Syria.) I've a more significant disagreement about the restoring of the second sentence. (Palestinian archaeology is also commonly used in its stead, particularly when the area of inquiry centers on ancient Palestine.) As noted partly above, I read the sources (Davis, Rast, Lance, Dever, Sharon) differently as to whether that sentence is precise (i.e., Syro- is/may be broader, etc.). I also doubt that we should privilege the Palestinian term in the intro over other cognate terms (e.g., A of southern Levant, Biblical A, A of (ancient) Israel). I haven't commented so as to be patient and let us collaborate on the article as a whole. However, since you asked about the intro and scope section, I just want to register my disagreement for now. Thanks for all your hard work on this increasingly strong article. HG | Talk 13:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you comments above, HG, with regards to privileging the Palestinian term in the intro. Canadian Monkey (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think that it is quite clear that Palestinian archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology are cognate terms, often used as synonyms. In fact, that was the subject of the DYK for this page, and when Gatoclass (talk · contribs) challenged that definition, he/she concurred that it was supported by reliable sources after reading Davis, who writes on page 192: William Foxwell Albright regarded Palestinian archaeology or Syro-Palestinian archaeology as a small, if important, section of biblical archaeology...

Further, given the geographical scope of Syro-Palestinian archaeology (as defined by Dever) versus the geographical scope of Palestinian archaeology (as defined by Rast), it seems that the latter may not include Lebanon and parts of Syria, but that they otherwise cover the same ground, temporally as well.

The archaeology of Israel (modern-day or ancient) is much more geographically circumscribed and in the case of the latter (i.e. ancient) is temporally circumscribed as well. Further, given the lack of a source using the term "Archaeology of Israel or Syro-Palestinian archaeology" in the same way, I do not think it can be viewed as a comparable cognate term. Indeed, I've asked a number of times for a source that clearly defines the relationship of "Archaeology of Israel" to "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" and there isn't one that is explicit on the subject.

Finally, much of the material in the origins section deals with works using the term "Palestinian archaeology" only, which was the primary term used for archaeology in the region, prior to Dever's introduction of "Syro-Palestinian archaeology" in the 1970s. The main distinction in the field is between the non-secular ("biblical archaeology") and the secular school ("Palestinian" or "Syro-Palestinian" archaeology). This article, as you both know, was originally drafted under the title of "Palestinian archaeology". While I agreed to a name change to "Syro-Palestinian", I cannot agree with the de-bolding of the term "Palestinian archaeology", or attempts to deny that it is in fact a synonym for "Syro-Palestinian archaeology. That would be unduly downplaying its very prominent usage. Tiamut^talk 17:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agreed to not dispute this issue before the DYK as a courtesy to you, so I think that aspect is irrelevant. I also want to clarify that I personally am NOT seeking to "downplay its very prominent usage" -- indeed, depending on how one analyzes the data, all three approximate cognates -- Palestinian Ar., Ar of Israel, and Biblical Ar. -- are more prominent that "Syro-Palestinian." Yet all three are circumscribed in various respects (w/ Biblical broader in some respects).

We're on a steep (=good) learning curve in improving this article, so let's revisit this question in a week or two. In the meantime, since two editors disagree with you, Tiamut, you might consider the courtesy of allowing what you deem The Wrong Version to be in place. It's ok by me if you don't, because I recognize that you've done the lion's share of the work here. Thanks for your consideration, HG | Talk 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that you put aside your problems for the DYK. I only mentioned it to point out that Gatoclass found the source to be sufficient evidence for the interchangeability of the terms. In other words, an uninvolved, impartial editor found that one source to be sufficient evidence in establishing their use as synonyms.

I don't agree to the change at all. I also have to say that I find edits such as this one, where you've added the term "Syro" before Palestinian in two places where the source cited uses only the term "Palestinian" (i.e. Rast), to be inappropriate, given this ongoing discussion. I have asked you many times to make sure that when you add information to the article that you base it on reliable sources and use in-line citations that establish who the idea is attributed to so that others can check and see what the source says. Your addition of "Syro" here would be fine if you accepted that "Palestinian" and "Syro-Palestinian" are in fact interchangeable. But when you are denying that fact, I view such edits as highly inappropriate, since it seems to be attempting to gloss over the ubiquity of the term, as we are discussing the issue.

Finally, I think that before you de-bold "Palestinian" again or try to minimize its use as synonym for "Syro-Palestinian", we should open this subject up for an RfC. I'm not going to change my position based on the objections of two editors, one of whom tried to merge this article into "Biblical archaeology" (against all logic) and only dropped his opposition after the name was changed from its original title of "Palestinian archaeology" to "Syro-Palestinian archaology". While I respect your view HG and am willing to hear the views of other as well, based on the other editor's track record here, I simply can't respect his. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

When Dever (the big advocate of 'Syro-Palestinian' as a term) came to write an encyclopedia article in 1999, Dever himself merged Syro-Palestinian and Biblical archaeology. So your claim that Canadian Monkey's proposed merger was "against all logic" does not strike me as a balanced assessment of the situation.

In terms of interchangeability, please look again at what I've written. (So should I!) I am NOT disputing that "Palestinian Ar." is basically interchangeable, I refer to it as a rough cognate, and a prominent one at that. I'm merely saying that "Biblical Ar" or "Ar of Israel" and "Ar of the southern Levant" are also basically interchangeable, with some nuances/history with each. However, once we choose an article name -- currently Syro-Palestinian -- then the article should use that term consistently throughout. (Exceptions include quotations and where the terminology dispute itself is described.) You've reversed my edits -- and reinstated "Palestinian" over "Syro-Palestinian" -- not because of a substantive concern (the sentence is about the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology) but because you (mistakenly) think I deny their interchangeability. If you don't mind my saying so, doesn't this look like you're editing to advance a viewpoint (unrelated to the sentence content)? Plus, frankly, the logic is odd. You are reverting my use of the terms as synonyms because you believe I don't accept them as synonyms?! Let me reiterate that I am (to the best of my ability) your warm, fuzzy, kind, patient, nerdy, and collegial ally in all things Wikipedian. If you would restore my wording there, it would reflect better on all of us. HG | Talk 19:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Dear HG, Dever did not merge Syro-Palestinian arcaehology with Biblical archaeology. As you can see in the origins section, he argued that there was a distinction between the two. I refer specifically to this passage:

Frank Moore Cross, who had studied under Albright and had taught Dever, took issue with Dever's critiques of the discipline of biblical archaeology. He emphasized that in Albright's view biblical archaeology was not synonymous with Palestinian archaeology, but rather that, "William Foxwell Albright regarded Palestinian archaeology or Syro-Palestinian archaeology as a small, if important section of biblical archaeology. One finds it ironical that recent students suppose them interchangeable terms."[1] Dever responded to the criticism by agreeing that the terms were not interchangeable, but differed as to their relationship with one another, writing: "'Syro-Palestinian archaeology' is not the same as the 'biblical archaeology'. I regret to say that all who would defend Albright and 'biblical archaeology' on this ground, are sadly out of touch with reality in the field of archaeology."[18]

I think my claim that C-M's merger proposal was against all logic was a fair one. Indeed, those who commented for the RfC on the issue said that if any merger was to be carried out, Biblical archaeology should be merged into this article, but that since there seems to be an ongoing distinction between the two terms, that might not be a good idea.

As to your second point about all three terms (i.e. Syro-Palestinian ar, Palestinian ar and Israel ar) being "bascially interchangeable", I remain unconvinced, due to the lack of reliable sources using all three in an explicitly interchangeable fashion. We have a source that explicitly uses Syro-Palestinian and Palestinian interchangeably (i.e. Davis) and another (i.e. Levy) who uses them essentially the same way as well. Nuance is incredibly important to the discussion here, and generalities don't serve the discussion well, in my opinion. I don't mind further clarifying the development of the terminology, but it should be clear by the sources we have reviewed together that Palestinian archaeology and Syro-Palestinian archaeology are often used as perfect synonyms, and per WP:LEAD, [23] variations of the subject name should be bolded in the lead paragraph. This allows for the variations to be used as is later on in the article, which is why I remove "Syro" before "Palestinian" in the cases where "Palestinian" was used alone (i.e. by Rast). This is sticking to the usage per reliable sources and is line with Wikipedia policies, per WP:LEAD, WP:MoS and WP:ATT.

I don't think it's wise to restore "Syro-Palestinian" there, when the sources cited use "Palestinian". I shouldn't have said that my concern about that change was related to my bad faith assumptions about your intentions. That's not my overriding rationale. Rather, it's to stick to what the reliable sources cited actually say. Thanks for explaining your position. How shall we proceed from here? Tiamut^talk 08:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How to proceed? Well, I'm curious about your words above and recent edits. You seem to have restored "Syro-" at least once in response to my concerns (e.g., the interdisciplinary sentence), though you don't mentioned that above or explain why you've done so. Why the change? You mention your own "bad faith assumptions" about my intentions -- is that, um, like an apology (or regret that you said it)? (If yes, thank you; if not, what else might I do to help restore your confidence in my good faith?)

Let's plan to do an RfC in 2 weeks if we don't settle this otherwise. Meanwhile, we can put up "disputed" tags. The tag can go on the "Origins" section, esp given that the lead sentence is about "Palestinian" archaeology rather than "Syro-Archaeology." I suppose we should tag the intro, too.

(3rd point) Meanwhile, maybe let's clarify our modus operandi prior to the RfC. Based on what you say above about Rast, you apparently want to use "Palestinian archaeology" for any statement ref'ed by a source that uses that term. Presumably, then, you'll be sure to use "Archaeology of Israel" or "Biblical archaeology" or "archaeology of the southern Levant" for every statement ref'd by a source that prefers those terms?? I believe that's a recipe for disaster -- and edit warring. (And it's not required by WP policy.) Wouldn't that just leave the article splattered with the competing terms? (Further, it's an incentive for editors who favor one term to then favor sources that use that term?) Plus, this approach isn't solved by sticking only to quotes that use the term. Even if we stick to quotes, then editors would be motivated to insert quotes that reflect their favored term.

(4th) Instead, I propose that all the nuance be kept constrained within the terminology section. Elsewhere, we are writing an encyclopedia and using certain generalities -- including whatever term is favored as the article title. (As you know, Syro-Palestinian is not my first choice. However, in good faith I am willing to use it consistently as long as it remains the title.) So yes, certain key selected generalities make the encyclopedia readable and avoid edit wars. Accordingly, I propose that all editors be expected to use the article name (currently "Syro-Palestinian") and, except in the Terminology section, to utilize statements and quotes that don't carry out our dispute into the article. That's how I'd recommend we proceed. Thanks, HG | Talk 12:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear HG. In response to your first point, yes, that was an um, apology/regret/acknowledgement that I should not have questioned your intentions. And I restored "Syro" in the second case of usage, because if you notice, I removed Rast (who uses "Palestinian" only) and retained Levy, who uses both interchangeably. I am trying to stick by the usage established by reliable sources.

I don't think the "disputed" tags are necessary, but you are welcome to add them if you think they are. An RfC now, rather than in two weeks time, is in my opinion, the best way to proceed. I don't think delaying for two weeks serves any purpose, since I'm not confident that we are going to able come to an agreement between ourselves. You seem pretty firmly entrenched in your position, and me, in mine. I think opening the subject up to outside input now is preferable since I forsee no changes to either of our positions without it.

About you third and fourth points, it is my view that since we have gone to the trouble of writing a terminology section that defines and explains the different and competing terms used by the different reliable sources, it is preferable and indeed, by my reading of Wiki policy, required to use the terms provided by each source. Readers can refer back to the terminology section if they are confused, where the different terms and the rationales for their use is explained in full.

And so, again, my "fuzzy, kind, patient, nerdy, and collegial ally in all things Wikipedian," your "detail-oriented, well-intentioned, sometimes needlessly impatient, undoubtedly nerdy, and collegial ally in all things Wikipedian" would like to ask again, how we proceed from here? Tiamut^talk 13:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that's very sweet. I think my 3rd/4th point is more important. Would you be willing to do an RfC that includes them? Let's do a subpage with sections for evidence; relevant policy quotes; and (disputed) analysis. Without this, it's hard for an outsider to evaluate the issue. Plus, a section to draft the RfC question.

Timing. I'll try to input evidence soon, at least by Friday or Sunday. Also, I'd like to think I'm not entrenched in a position but rather, as we excavate the discourse archive, I may flexibly revise my position. (If only to ensure that my position is ultimately the Correct One.) I'm willing to work on the analysis and RfC more after the evidence is all put in play, though I may be busy Mon-Tues. How's that for flexibility? HG | Talk 14:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the subpage: Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology/Terms and scope. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear HG. I would be willing to do an RfC that includes whatever you think requires feedback, including the third and fourth points you raised. I will try to input things in the coming days. Who knows? Maybe as we both review the evidence again there, we will find a way to bridge the gap between us, belying the need for an RfC altogether. Thanks for your responsiveness and kudos for finding a creative way forward. Tiamut^talk 15:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, too. Meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't add stuff to the section, e.g. Franken, while we're doing this. I don't want to fill up the section with competing quotes and I'd rather we not use the section to try to document/further our viewpoint. Of course, presumably we'll end up with some coherent understanding of the situation and then we'll choose the best refs and quotes needed to elucidate that understanding for readers. Thanks. HG | Talk 17:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to q on my user Talk, to clarify: We're searching for and adding quotes to the subpage about who uses what term, the scope or the terms, etc. (I assume that whatever data we come across, whether it supports our current position or not, we'll add.) But let's not put these quotes or paraphrases (etc) into the article to expand its discussion of terminology/scope. This self-restraint shouldn't put a chill on adding to article content overall; there's still plenty to do. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, I've stopped adding material to the article related to the RfC questions and added a bunch of stuff at Talk:Syro-Palestinian archaeology/Terms and scope. Given the new sources, I've refined the articulation of my positions on the two questions you raised as rough guides for the RfC, and made a summary that addresses both points at the bottom. I guess you're still busy and given your comments above, I suppose I might have to wait until Sunday to get a better understanding of where your position stands now. As to question three which I added there on the structuring question, we may need a separate page or section on that page to deal with it. I guess it can wait until you get around to dealing with questions one and two. Regards, Tiamut^talk 14:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Archaeology and Jordanian destruction of the Jewish quarter

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and throughout the period of Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem which ended in 1967, Jordanian authorities and military forces undertook a policy described by their military commander as "calculated destruction,", aimed at the Jewish Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem, which is today a UNESCO World Heritage site. The Jordanian actions were described in a letter to the United Nations by Yosef Tekoa, Israel's permanent representative to the organization at the time, as a "policy of wanton vandalism, desecration and violation," which resulted in the destruction of all but one of 35 Jewish houses of worship. According to Tekoa, synagogues were "razed or pillaged" and in the ancient historic Jewish graveyard on the Mount of Olives, tens of thousands of tombstones were torn up, broken or used as flagstones, steps and building materials in Jordanian military installations. Tekoa also reported that large areas of the cemetery were levelled and turned into parking lots and gas stations. Accounts of the destruction are also documented in The Fight for Jerusalem (2007), authored by Dore Gold.

Both of the sources used for this paragraph are partisan, non-expert sources. Neither one mentions if there was archaeological value to what was destroyed. While the material is interesting, it's not relevant to a sub-section on "Damage to archaeological sites" within this article on Syro-Palestinian archaeology. I would like to remove it. Objections? Tiamut^talk 08:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I object. The deliberate destruction of what is today a world heritage site is clearly as relevant to the article as the damage to houses in Nablus, which is neither an archaeological site, nor a world heritage site. I will add sources that explicitly describe the value of what was destroyed, since you would like to pretend that there was none. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

One, I am not pretending anything. Based on the two sources you had provided for this edit (i.e. Tekoa, the Israeli representative to the UN and Dore Gold a partisan politician) which mentioned nothing about the archaeological value of the sites destroyed, I did not think this paragraph was relevant to this article. It is certainly relevant to other articles on Jerusalem, but not not on archaeological sites. Two, the fact the the Old City is world heritage site today is irrelevant. The destruction described took place 15 years before that designation and it's speculative and undue on your part to claim the site's status as a world heritage site today is somehow relevant. I will however, review carefully the new sources you have provided, and let you know if I think they are reliable, expert sources that establish the archaeological value of the sites destroyed. Tiamut^talk 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you have cause and effect somewhat reversed. A site does not become an important cultural heritage site because it is so designated by UNESCO, but rather, a site that already has outstanding universal value is, sometimes, recognized by UNESCO. In other words, any site that (eventually) gets designated by UNESCO as a “world heritage site” is clearly one that had outstanding universal value well before such designation was awarded. The Old City of Jerusalem was not on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1948, for the simple reason that not one site in the whole world had that designation in 1948, because the UNESCO program was only initiated in 1972. Do you seriously mean to suggest that the whole world did not have any sites worthy of the title ‘World Heritage Site’ in 1948? The Old City of Jerusalem was awarded this designation in 1981 because for millennia, it possessed outstanding cultural importance to the common heritage of humanity. More specifically, it meets criteria (ii), (iii) and (vi) for cultural sites (per UNESCO’s listing), which means that it “exhibit[s] an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; bear[s] a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; and [is] directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance; No serious person would suggest that these three criteria magically appeared in Old Jerusalem between 1948 and 1981. Even more specifically, in its justification of the inscription decision back in 1981, the ICOMOS explicitly named at least one of the sites that the Jordanian authorities had severely damaged – the cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

Thus, the issue of whether or not Old Jerusalem had the UNESCO designation in 1948 is a Red Herring, intended to divert attention from the fact that it was (and is) obviously a site of great cultural value.

Additionally, you will note that I do not object to your edit which included damage done to cultural assets in the Old City of Nablus – even though they are not an archaeological site, nor even a UNESCO world heritage site. It is obvious to any editor who is interested in writing a quality encyclopedia article (rather than a political screed) that a site can have cultural value even if it is not officially sanctioned as a world heritage site by UNESCO. I am at a loss as to why you would not extend the same consideration to the much better known Old City of Jerusalem, which is such a site. Perhaps the final touch, to address your inexplicable hunger for an “official” UNESCO document which says the same thing , have a look here: “a) The restoration of the 'Jewish quarter' //section begins://

(ix) This work is nearing completion. Most of the houses have been rebuilt or restored. Paving of the streets and the layout of squares is in progress. 'Archaeological parks' have been created in order to show off the historical remains, which include those of Crusader churches discovered during the restoration work and synagogues destroyed during the l947-l948 war. Canadian Monkey (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey (and Tiamut) -- it seems to me that the heart of Tiamut's disagreement here is whether the sites destroyed by the Jordanians can be considered sites of archaeological rather than, say, anthropological (political, historical, etc) interest. To be archaeological, it seems like the major criterion would be the dating. Which of the sites are from a time period relevant to archaeologists? The Mount of Olives tombstones -- isn't this an ancient site that would be archaeologically relevant? The Hurva synagogue -- built in the modern period, so the building destroyed was not within the archaeological period. However, the Hurva site has been excavated for archaeological purposes, so maybe we could mention that archaeological work has been conducted on the ruins of the cultural sites destroyed by the Jordanian administration. (Hurva source.) What about the synagogues etc that were damaged/destroyed? How old were they? Are there any sources that discuss these sites and refer to them in terms of "archaeology" or "antiquities"? If we can answer these questions, then maybe we can proceed on inclusion/exclusion of info in a manner fair to the article (and the editors). Thanks. HG | Talk 11:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly HG. Thank you reading my comments carefully for assuming good faith. Given the new material you've provided regarding the archaeological significance of the sites in question, my concerns regarding the appropriateness on their inclusion are no longer valid. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 09:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to speak for Tiamut, but I doubt that this is the heart of her disagreement, becuase she has added a rather lengthy section on the Old city of Nablus, which is not an archaeological site either, but an anthropological or cultural one. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with part of Canadian Monkey's position, namely that some past of the destruction of the Old City should be reflected here. I am open to some sort of compromise on this though, based on fairness and balance for both sides. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, per Tiamut's last note, this thread can be closed and archived, right? Maybe put the item below with the rest of the Jerusalem thread. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Like I said, all I wanted was a reference attesting to the archaeological significance of the sites in question. Thanks to you, I got one to excavations and surveys in Israel which includes the Hurva synagogue and other affected sites in the Jewish quarter. Well done. Tiamut^talk 01:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archaeological research in Jerusalem

To see the archaeological relevance of the Mount of Olives, and to get some thorough data on sites in Jerusalem, look at the IAA excavation surveys. For instance, in the 2005 journal listing you'll see links to descriptions of many Jerusalem sites, including M o Olives and Hurva. Besides working on the political aspects, how about summarizing or at least listing some of these archaeological projects? Or recap from a secondary/tertiary summary? Thanks. HG | Talk 12:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Viewpoints on Jerusalem

In trying to address the preceding thread, I stumbled across the following article in Jewish Quarterly by an Israeli archaeologist (presumably peace camp type). He describes the Isr-Pal conflict aspects of archaeology in the city, for instance::

Can Archaeology Further the Peace of Jerusalem? // Archaeologist Hillel Geva wrote an introduction to one of the main showpieces of the Israeli archaeological effort in Jerusalem, Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. He described this work as revolutionary and inspired by ‘a free academic spirit and a deep sense of the trust borne by the scholars engaged in [it]’. Nadia el-Haj has called it a project of physical transformation ‘co-implicated in the Jewish-colonial-nationalist project’. The truth of these views, which are not mutually exclusive, lies very much in the eyes of the beholder. Our review of the history of Israeli excavation in Jerusalem shows that there is neither a single outlook nor an overarching plan in its conduct. But almost all the excavations carried out in Jerusalem since 1967, have been conducted by Israeli institutions, and virtually none by Palestinians. Haphazardly, archaeology has become part of the conflict of identities in what is still a divided city.

While every report will have its slant, I think this quote (not the whole article) might be a fairly neutral way to recap the contestation. Perhaps the last sentence can be a drop quote? Anyway, let's try to avoid letting this article add to the editing conflicts in a sometimes divided wikipedia. Thanks, HG | Talk 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversies within article structure

You all have been putting alot of work into the article, including much expansion of info on archaeological site damage and disputes. However, after such expansions, I think we should step back and look at the article. It seems to be it's becoming rather skewed. Yes, the controversies are notable and referenced, definitely deserve inclusion. But what about the basic archaeological findings and research? On any given place, like Jerusalem or Gaza or Nablus, shouldn't we first tell the reader about what archaeology has learned about the site(s)? Then go into the disputes?

In helping out with an editorial dispute at another article (Psychiatry), a strong effort was made to integrate the various controversies into the narrative of the article. In fact, I think there's some WP guidelines or MOS about why it's better/preferred not to create separate controversies section. Therefore, I'd like to suggest the following: Instead of structuring so much of the article under a separate top-level "Challenges posed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" section (with multiple subunits), why don't we structure it by site or region? For instance:

Archeology and Jerusalem //example of area or region

Overview of major findings by period

Bronze and Iron age

Second temple period

etc Byzantine period

Key archaeological sites within Jerusalem

Temple Mount //example site within region

Archaeological research and findings on the Temple Mount

Challenges, controversies ....

(etc, other key sites)

Well, maybe the above outline isn't so clear. But do you see what I'm trying to suggest? For an article on archaeology, I'd encourage folks to put the cart before the horse, the scientific findings before the political (etc) contestations. Thanks muchly, HG | Talk 12:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am all for this suggestion, which, I think, is an improvement on my earlier suggestion to move the "challenges.. sections into a different article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Great suggestion HG. I still think that we will find the information on Jerusalem will be much more extensive than that on other areas, which may require its being spun-out to a companion article on Archeology in Jerusalem, as I suggested above. However, that can wait for the time being. Once we have developed the article further, we can judge whether or not the spin-out is necessary. Thanks for the suggestion. Tiamut^talk 09:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

So I have begun a reorganization of the article by region, and added some information on a site of importance in Gaza to the new section on that region. Each region requires much more in the way of expansion regarding the actual sites, rather than the contestation over them or the destruction of them. I will begin looking for material to add to each section. The only exception (for me) right now is the Archeology of Israel section, where I'm not sure if we should replicate the material in the main article or leave it as linking to the main article. For now, I've moved the information regarding the postponement of the archaeological expedition by Byrne into that section since that information is not in the main article on the subject. Thoughts on how to deal with the Israel section, in light of the existence of an article devoted to that subject (and in light of the section of Israeli practitioners in this article which already draws upon material in the main article) would be appreciated. Tiamut^talk 10:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. We might want to reconsider, though, how much the article relies on subregions bounded/named in terms of modern national units. For my work on the terminology, I've started looking at archaeology encyclopedias. The Elsevier talks about geomorphological units, which later diverge due to (ancient) cultural factors. Dever wrote an encyclopedia piece (1999) that ofter refers to Canaan and defines Syro-Palestinian as "archeology of the southern Levant (ancient Canaan; modern coastal and southern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel)." I'm not saying this to restart the terminology/scope discussion here, but for us to structure the article more in archaeological than contemporary-political units. For instance, a section on the Stone Age (Paleo/neo-lithic) evidence could cover the whole southern Levant and only use contemporary nations to help identify the current location of the evidence. By this logic, we might eventually have Babylonian, Persian, Roman, Byzantine sections, right? The Archaeology of Israel article only has substantive material on what it calls the "Israelite Period (Iron Age)." While I applaud your enthusiasm and hard work, Tiamut, you still might want to develop this outline further in Talk, if only to avoid frustration if other editors (including me) happen to disagree with your section choices. Sending you positive reinforcement, cheers, HG | Talk 12:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi HG. Your suggestion above was why don't we structure it by site or region? For instance: Archeology and Jerusalem //example of area or region...

On that basis, I went ahead and began structing the broad outlines of the sites or regions in question, using geographical terms: For example, "Archaeology in Gaza", "Archaeology in Jerusalem", "Archaeology in Israel", "Archaeology in the West Bank," and "Archaeology in Lebanon". Eventually, I'd like to add sections on "Archaeology in Jordan" and "Archaeology in Syria", per the definition of the geographical scope of Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Note that given the large amount of material on Jerusalem and the contestation over the ownership of the Old City, I figured it deserved a separate section (besides which, your proposal above used it as an example). Note that the sub-sections for each geographical area still need development, along the temporal lines you proposed above. That can't happen until we have material tht can fill out the different sub sub sections you proposed, which is the only reason I haven't yet added them. I hope tht addresses the concerns you've raised. Feel free to add sub sub sections as required. Tiamut^talk 12:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

One further note, besides the Archaeology of Israel, none of the other geographical regions have their own articles. While you note that the Archaeology of Israel only covers the Israelite period as of now, I would suggest that any material on the other periods in that regional area of study be added there and not here. That is, unless you are suggesting that the Archaeology of Israel aricle be redirected here, and the current entry deleted. I would hoever suggest that as the material for each regional sub-section becomes larger, each one may warrant articles of their own, with this article serving a a summary style article pointing to each spin-off article for more information. Regards. Tiamut^talk 12:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, earlier I said by site/region. My second comment I suppose was backtracking or qualifying, in the sense that the sub-regions might be better organized within time periods. Sorry. Anyway, it's much easier to read a broad-scope article on archaeology as a chronological narrative. I suggest//Now I'm wondering whether we should follow time periods, such as those in the article, with site/regional variation within each time period. Maybe they'll be exceptions (like Jerusalem). I can try to resubmit a draft outline here later. Thanks. HG Revising comment because the structure is hard to figure out. Right now, the article still needs lots of material, either added or via summary style. I think it needs more of a chronological narrative. Not sure how to cover the dozens of sites. I don't think we should overplay the contemporary political borders and the "West Bank" subdivision seems especially out of place for an archaeology article. Still, I see that there is strong interest here in putting in much of the political/conflict aspects, which is easier to integrate by site/subregion than by historical period. Hmmm. Let's keep thinking/talking here, as collegially as we can. I'd like to encourage Tiamut and Canadian Monkey, et al., to keep adding material, but try to stay ope-minded about some significant restructuring as the content gets filled in. Ok? HG | Talk 13:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Plaigiarism?

Hi Canadian Monkey. I noticed that some of the text you added to the Archaeology of Israel section (specifically, all of this) seems to be plagiarized from other sites. Could you change it so that it is more of an original composition on your part? In-line citations would be nice too. Also, think about adding the material to the Archaeology of Israel article as well, since it definitely needs some work. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello? It's obvious you are still here. You just added another unsourced section on Tel Dan. Would you mind addressing the issues I've raised about your previous edits before continuing to add more unsourced material to the article? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What's this nonsense? Wikipedia content is not copyrighted, and the practice of copying materials from one Wikipedia article to another is not only widespread, it is encouraged. What do you think you are doing when you are merging content from one article to another? I have edited all those sections to make this article be a shorter overview of the more detailed material found in the various articles, and I 'll add the references shortly. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. This is what lead me to believe that WP:COPYRIGHT also covers material from within Wikipedia. Tiamut^talk 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT says "Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement).". This is exactly what I have done. An accusation of Plagiarism is a pretty serious breach of civility. An apology is in order. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. As I explained to you, I thought that copying the material was not allowed, in which case my "accusation" (i.e. "seems to be plaigarized" was a good faith inquiry. And you did in fact copy most of the material from other Wikipedia articles, almost verbatim. Most of it is not sourced in the original articles either. So, since you removed my top of section tag request for references, I have tagged each individual item separately, so that you can see which sentences are problematic and need to be addressed. Please do not remove each fact tag without adding a source in its place. Also, you might want to check your writing for WP:NPOV. You often present biblical events as if they were reality when archaeologists in the field actually dispute them based on the hard data found. That is rather inappropriate in a serious archaeological article on a secular field of inquiry. Tiamut^talk 00:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, AGF, the Wikipedia rule that tells you what you must do when you encounter an editor who systematically tags every reference to Jewish presence in this area with {{cn}}, further similarly tags every archaeological artifact which might link back to biblical times, and who deliberately reverses the order of languages listed in two separate sources lest Hebrew be the first one mentioned. I assume this is all just some chance happening, for I must abide by WP:AGF. Now, since you good faithfully made an accusation based on a misunderstanding of WP policy, and you have since been educated about it, would it be too much to ask for a good faith apology, rather than further accusations of violations of WP policy? Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Innuendo and special pleading will get you nowhere with me. You deleted sourced information cited to expert sources over and over again. When I was faced with your unsourced verbatim copying of other Wikipedia articles, I didn't delete a thing. I only added fact tags for what struck me as "exceptional claims" and you deleted a lot of those too. Despite the fact that you still haven't provided reliable sources for all of those claims, I have not deleted a thing. The only person who selectively deletes material representing one POV in this debate is you. So no, there's no apology coming your way. Actions speak louder than words, and yours have been nothing but bad faith.Tiamut^talk 05:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Monkey, from what I understand, if you cut and paste text from another article, per GFDL you should include the link to the article in the edit summary. (Can't find the WP page for you, but it's out there somewhere...) Looks like you've added lots of relevant info (thanks!) and maybe you can ask an admin to correct the edit summaries (or otherwise advise you). Best wishes, HG | Talk 01:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've quoted WP:COPYRIGHT - which says "a direct link back to the article" is all that's required, it does not say it needs to be in the edit summary. All my edits have a direct link back to the original. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I placed some verify source tags on a couple of items, which Canadian Monkey has removed. I have a problem with using non-expert sources for the dating and description of sites, particularly since they tend to use terminology more apt to an article on Biblical archaeology than the secular school of Syro-Palestinian archaeology. My problem, in particular, is with this section, sourced to a non-expert by the name of Jacqueline Schaajje and published by Jewish Magazine:

Archeological finds indicate that the site was inhabited from the Chalcolithic period, around 4000 BCE, to the sixteenth century CE. This was probably due to the abundance of underground water, as evidenced by the numerous wells in the area. The settlement itself dates from the early Israelite period, around the 12th century BCE.

Can someone please find a reliable source to support the usage of this terminology? I am going to replace the {{verify source}} tags until that happens. Tiamut^talk 04:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to preclude this article from using terminology which is used by Biblical archaeologists. There is further no requirement the reliable sources be from 'the secular school', or that they be written by archaeologists. I've provided you with a reliable source. Feel free to look for additional sources, but don't deface the article with tags in the meantime. Canadian Monkey (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you're going to add unsourced material to the article, I have the right to tag it. When you use unreliable sources that not specialists in the field, I have the right to tag those sentences with requests for better sources. You have again removed the verify source tag I added to this sentence:

The settlement itself dates from the early Israelite period, around the 12th century BCE.

I'm not going to edit war over a tag because I'm not a child, but if you don't provide a reliable source for this information, I will delete the sentence outright. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

All the material I've added is sourced, to reliable sources. Once again: There is no requirement the reliable sources be from 'the secular school', or that they be written by archaeologists. feel free to look for more sources, but do not deface the article. If you delete the sentence, which is sourced, be prepared to defend that action at AE. Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

After all the material I added, sourced to expert sources no less, which you repeatedly deleted without discussion, I'm not that worried about that. In fact, please do go to WP:AE so that other eyes can see some of the stuff you've been shovelling here.

As to the unreliably sourced material, I've attributed the "Israelite" terminology and 12th century BCE date to the non-expert author Jacqueline Schaajje of Jewish Magazine. I do suggest however that you find a better source. Tiamut^talk 05:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please. The material you've added most recently is sourced to "Focus" - a glossy, non-academic, non-expert publication of a UN aid program, with a guest column by the Palestinian Minister of Tourism, which reads like a travel brochure. I've had just about enough of this game. I've provided you with reliable sources. If you want to do better than what I've provided - go and search for it.Canadian Monkey (talk) 05:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Focus: Cultural Heritage is a UNDP funded journal that at least has articles by experts in the field, like the director of the Department of Antiquities in Gaza. Jewish Magazine doesn't even come close and the author of the article is a non-expert. Just make sure that the information stays attributed to her, since there is no expert source making the same claim. Tiamut^talk 07:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

yes, that's what I said - the UNDP is a UN aid program, and as part of their handouts, they finance a nice glossy, full color, non-expert popular magazine, which provides a forum for Palestinian government officials, like the Minister of Tourism and the head of the Antiquities dept. It is quite telling that when you first introduced this source, in the Palestinian Practitioners section, you appropriately and correctly attributed its claims as 'According to the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Tourism and Antiquity" - but I now it has suddenly metamorphed into an expert source. None of this is relevant though, because I have added a scholarly source that describes the site as an Israelite site. This description is provided by an academic reviewer of Aharoni,John S. Holladay, Jr., who twice describes it as Israelite, and says "this [Aharoni's book] is the most important single publication of primary data bearing on the Israelite Iron Age", and, "Four chapters [by Aharoni]...discuss...various aspects of the Israelite city." And of course Aharoni himself, a well known archaeologist who is the one who excavated there calls it an Israelite city - he did not 'dub" it such, that's the result of several years worth of scientific research there. We have three sources, two of them impeccable academic sources published by academic presses who describe the site as an Israelite site -please stop playing this game of yours. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally adding reliable expert sources to support that information. That's all you needed to do from the outset, and we wouldn't have wasted all this time discussing the issue.

About the UNDP source, I still think it's reliable, but if you have a problem with it, I have no problem with attributing the information from it to the source directly and/or finding additional sources that say the same thing. I will begin working on that immediately so as to respond to your concerns. Tiamut^talk 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One more thng, I can't access the full text of Aharoni's article here. Could you recopy the text in that article which indicates that the site dates to the 12th century BCE on the talk page? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The UNDP glossy might be a reliable source (though we know nothing of its editorial oversight, its track record of accuracy and error correction, etc...), but it is quiet clearly not an expert source, nor is it an academic one. Despite that, I have no problem with you using it as a source for various claims, because that is consistent with Wikipedia policy – all we need is a reliable source, not necessarily an expert one. All I ask is that you apply your standards consistently – if the UNDP glossy is a good enough source for your claims, Jewish Magazine should be a good enough source for the claims I introduced. If we are going to insist only on academic peer reviewed material (which is not Wikipedia policy), I’m afraid that the bulk of the material you added will have to be removed which would be a shame, since I think it is quite relevant to the article. The 12th C. claim is sourced to the Jewish Magazine article you removed – feel free to re-add it. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the UNDP source, I have found additional sources that support most of the information cited there and added then to the article. The only information currently sourced exclusively to it are minor details regarding the plans to turn the water tunnel in Belameh into an archaeological park. In terms of the claims regarding dating, naming, and excavations, other expert sources had been found and added.

Wikipedia guidelines on attribution state that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The claim that the Tel Beersheva is an Israelite site dating to the 12 century BCE is an exceptional one. The reason is that there is a ongoing debate within archaeology centered around whether or not any remains of early Israelite settlement (pre-10th century BCE) have been found. Using a reliable, but non-expert source, like Jewish magazine to state that claim as fact, is inappropriate, which is why I asked you to provide the same information from Aharoni's text. If Aharoni said it, I'm willing to accept it, though I still think it should be attributed specifically to him, particularly if no one else makes the same claim. You have already restored the Jewish magazine source and the text stating this information as fact, even though it is not attributed to an expert source, so your request that I "feel free to re-add it" is a moot one anyway.

I would ask once again that you either remove the 12th century BCE information until such time as you can find an expert source supporting that claim or that you attribute the dating claim directly to Jacqueline Schaajje of Jewish Magazine. The latter is less preferable, since she is not qualified to make such claims, being a non-expert. But I'm willing to accept it, if attributed, for the time being, until you can find an expert source that makes the same claim. Tiamut^talk 08:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Canadian Monkey, the more I think about it and read the sources cited, the more implausible Schaaje's claim becomes. The Israel Nature and National Parks and Protection Authority source, which you also cite in tht section, says quite clearly that the site dates to the early Israelite period in the 10th century BCE. I have changed the text to highlight that contradiction here [24]; however, I think that Schaaje should simply be removed, since her dating of the site contradicts the others listed there, and she is no expert. Your thoughts? Tiamut^talk 12:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have now ref formatted all the refs you added in the Archaeology of Israel section. I would appreciate it if from now on you would take the time to format the refs yourself, in line with the format used throughout the article. You can copy the code and fill in the fields - it's pretty straightforward. This would save me hours of work cleaning up the refs after your additions and allow me to focus on expanding other sections of the article that need work. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 12:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally clarifying what it is you object to. I've removed Schaaje and sourced the claim to a scholarly reference book, which in turn cites Ahroni. I hope we can now move on. Canadian Monkey (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally providing an expert source for that claim. I've ref formatted it properly (please note that books get a full listing in the bibliography section and the inline citation after the sentence should be structured <ref name=Authorpx>Authour, year, p. x.</ref>). I also added material about other time periods covered in the remains found. Thanks again. Tiamut^talk 14:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

major sites vs. major findings

The article currently mixes up these two concepts - listing major sites (e.g: Megiddo under the "major findings" section or "Christian Sites" under the major findings section of Gaza). Some geo-political sections have both "major findings" and "major sites" sections, others have only "findings" or only "sites". I'd like to suggest the following: 'major findings' should be a list of notable finds - their notability being established by their having a Wikipedia article of their own (eg: Gezer calendar, Dead Sea Scrolls). These should be taken out of the artificial geo-political subdivisions we currently have, and be placed in a section of their own, "Major Finds". All the rest should be listed under "Major archaeological sites", keeping the current geo-political subdivisions. Thoughts? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. I think maybe we don't need to use the word 'major' so much in the article. There's no point in using article space on minor sites. I wouldn't depend on Wikipedia (i.e., the existence or not of an article) as an indicator of notability, but your basic idea is well taken. This is an overview and only notable sites are worth describing here. We probably should exercise some editorial judgment about which sites get mentioned in the lede, or the lede for the major sections. Perhaps we can rely on some tertiary sources to aid our judgment, but it's pretty clear that few relatively few sites have been as significant as Qumran. I also agree that the geopolitical divisions aren't helpful, but some grouping would be useful. The divisions could be geographical (e.g., coastline, Jordan valley) and it'd be terrific if we could start to work on a chronological narrative. Maybe some sites are more instructive about the Iron Age whereas others are more useful for the Roman period, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 20:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that removing "major" and combining the two ideas "Major findings" and "major sites" into one, along the lines of "Notable sites and findings" sounds like a good way to solve the problems raised by Canadian Monkey. The distinction between a notable finding and a notable site seems moot anyway, since a notable finding often then becomes a notable site.

About the geographical distinctions, I do think they should be retained. Using modern day geographical terms, like Gaza, Israel, Jerusalem, Jordan, Lebanon, West Bank, and Syria, also makes much more sense to me, since the average reader understands these terms and their locations much better than coastline, Jordan Valley, etc. Further, who defines these nebluous goegraphic terms? What does "coastline" refer to exactly? Does it include Gaza, part of Israel, parts of Lebanon, and parts of Syria? I prefer that we keep the terminology clear and current and discuss items in their geographical context. It also allows for a discussion of the evolution of archaeology in each geographical area, something I began working on for the West Bank section and which I would like to see developed for each section. Tiamut^talk 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the "article structure" thread, I happen to agree w/ C-M that the geopolitical divisions shouldn't be the organizing structure of the article. Two reasons -- 1st, there are dozens of sites, we've just begun to scratch the surface, and little summaries of each aren't so informative; it's hard for the reader to make sense of the whole. Second, archaeologists are trying to teach us about the modern political partitions, they're trying to teach us about ancient cultures and peoples. HG | Talk 13:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, proposed: How about if we reshuffle things to make this more of a narrative about time periods (e.g., Stone Age) and ancients cultures/societies (e.g., Roman)? Each period/culture would have a section with an Overview of archaeological findings and then subsections, as needed, for key sites or sub-findings. This reorganization shouldn't be overly difficult -- I notice that most every site is notable for contributing to our understanding of a single Age or society. (Jerusalem and a few others might be mentioned in more than one chronological section, and/or get their own special section.) The emphasis shouldn't be to list all the sites but rather to draw readers attention to what has been learned via archaeology, which depends partly on sites. Of course, we can locate for readers the specific geopolitical location, plus any geomorphological designation (e.g., coastal) used by archaeologists. If what's learned has come from ceramics or inscriptions drawn from many sites, then we needed overdo it on specific sites. Within each period, we can mention scholarly or political disputes over sites, etc., without giving them undue emphasis. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Here's an example:

"Iron Age" section

Overview. Discusses: What do we know about Iron Age societies, cultural practices, artifacts, technology, religion, wars, etc? The subdivisions (e.g. Iron Age IIB) and how they signify cultural changes. Major differences in scholarly representations of the Iron Age.

Major societies in the Syro-Palestinian region.

The XYZ society. Its technology, religious artifacts, etc.

Tel Hazor. here? (besides findings, mention dating dispute)

Israelite society. Its technology, religion, governance, etc. Scholarly disputes over the archaeological interpretation of Biblical texts and inscriptions. Etc. etc.

Rehov.

Tel Arad

Tel Be'er Sheva.

Key sites (if not listed above), including:

Belameh. here?

Rehov. or here?

This isn't meant to be an exhaustive example, just illustrative. Thanks. HG | Talk 13:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear HG. I have a couple problems with the restructuring you are proposing. First, there are some sites that span all the different time periods and which would reappear many different times in the chronological organization you are proposing leading, in my view, to needless repetition and fragmentation. Second, I was hoping for each section of the different geographical regions to lead to the creation of spin-out articles on each. Given that there is already an article on the Archaeology of Israel, this seems like a logical and desirable outcome. Indeed, I found Canadian Monkey's additions of material to that section strange, particularly since the main article on Israel lacks all the information he included. I would have added it there, for example, and then composed a short summary paragraph that had links to each of the different sites with brief explanations of their importance. Indeed, I forsee the nformation being added to the different sections being spun out into articles on the Archaeology of Jordan, Archaeology of Lebanon, Archaeology of Syria, and the Archaeology of Jerusalem, with summary paragraphs here. For the Archaeology of the West Bank and the Archaeology of Gaza, I 'm not sure how to proceed, but I think we have enough reliable sources to indicate that at least the more recent excavations conducted since the 1990s, form part of the field of Palestinian archaeology which may eventually be covered in an article on Palestinian archaeology, devoted to this second meaning of the usage of this term. So it seems we have two very differing views on how this article should be structured. I should note that my view developed as a result of your much earlier comments that this article should be a summary style with links to the different spin-off articles. I don't know why we are having so much trouble seeing eye to eye here, but perhaps this is another issue that we should raise in the RfC. Tiamut^talk 14:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. We're a tertiary source and we should be able to generate a chronological narrative -- besides useful for readers, it's a common approach in many secondary and tertiary sources in archaeology. Anyway, your comment here does persuade me that we need to focus on the RfC on terminology and scope. I don't think most archaeology is focused on explaining things as divided by contemporary geopolitical boundaries, they're hopefully more focusing on old shtuff. Plus, it'd be confusing -- if we write here that Palestinian archaeology is a synonym for "Syro-Archaeology (the current title here), then we shouldn't use that phrase to name a different article. I think Archaeology of Israel needs to be a redirect with content merged here. (Yes, despite the 1 or 2 outside comments we got.) I do agree that there could be a series of articles on nationally-organized efforts, but maybe for clarity sake call it Archaeology by Palestinians, Archaeology by Israelis, Archaeology by Syrians, etc. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For contemporary places, archaeology is part of the history. So, there could be archaeology in the history of Jerusalem or Syria or Gaza. Another natural spin-out would be something like "Archaeology of ancient Israel" or "of the Israelite period" or "of Canann" or whatever. And Archaeology of Roman Palestine/Israel, etc. HG | Talk 15:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... deep thought provoked by these lastest comments. I'm not sure people would be comfortable with a series of articles organized by nationality. We don't have Archaeology by Americans or Archaeology by Greeks or Archaeology by Tibetans (to give some potential examples). I think we should get more feedback, particularly from the WikiProject on Archaeology, before making such a bold move. I realize that the suggestion is not very different from my own for articles on Palestinian archaeology (as in archaeology practiced by Palestinians) or my earlier Israeli archaeology suggestion (which was rejected by others), but those suggestions were based on reliable sources using both terms (I'm a stickler for sourcing on article naming) and they didn't go down very well.

Also, I don't think Archaeology of Israel should be merged here. You are free to suggest it at the article page there, but I think, as you pointed out, that there were a couple of uninvolved editors who felt there was in fact a need for that article. Based on that expressed need, I thought the logical outgrowth for other similar articles would be Arhcaeology of Lebanon, Archaeology of Syria etc. The only exception being Archaeology of Palestine which people would object to because of the lack of recognition os a state of Palestine in the present-day. Oh, the minefield of naming politics in this tiny disputed region!

I don't know how to move forward on this, but I guess we can discuss it in a separate section on the page you set up to draft the RfC. Perhaps we can bounce around ideas there on the article's overall structure and its relationship to possible spin-out articles, what they would be named and include, etc. If we can't come to agreement, we can define the problem as a sub-set for the RfC. Goodness gracious, we do have a lot of work to do! Looking forward to tackling these conunudrums with you. Tiamut^talk 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. About Jerusalem, What do you think about starting the spin-out article on Archaeology of Jerusalem? We could use the information currently in this article, plus the source you provided above and those I provided below. It also makes sense to have it as a separate entry, given the volume of material on the subject, and the contestation issue. It seems like a pretty safe, stand-alone spin-out that would have enough material to justify its stand-alone status. What do you think? Tiamut^talk 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you define the scope as ancient Jerusalem -- or as covering all sites within the (contested?) boundaries of Jerudalem today? If the former, then I would see this as a plausible name for an article on an archaeological site. If the latter, then it may fall under the concerns above about framing an article according to today's political borders. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would define it as neither. In order to avoid that entire discussion, I would limit it only to the Old City of Jerusalem, since that's the focus of most archaeological inquiry anyway. So the proposed title would be Archaeology of the Old City of Jerusalem.Tiamut^talk 16:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem section - lack of balance

I've been doing some research on Jerusalem. This article outlines a number of important issues that seem to be missing from our section on the city in this article. We seem to have privileged Israeli claims of damage over Palestinian or Arab ones. I'd like to add some material from this article, and others ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). Your help in incorporating the information would be appreciated. Tiamut^talk 09:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was especially struck by the fact that there was no mention of the destruction of most of the 800 year old Moroccan Quarter in 1967. (And the Moroccan Quarter is one of the better researched Jerusalem articles).

Also: under "Archaeology in Israel", "Notable findings and sites"; shouldn´t we add Eleutheropolis? (Got interested in that place as Bayt Jibrin was built on/by it). Anyway: this article has expanded enormously! Congrats! Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Biblical archaeology (the article, not the subject) and this article

I see there's a lot of discussion about a possible merger of this article with the article Biblical archaeology. Biblical archaeology is now purely a set of tables setting out the various excavations, surveys and artifacts relating to the bible. Most come from ther Syro-Palestinian area, but some do not, which is what you'd expect given the definition of biblical archaeology as that which concerns the bible. I see no reason for a merge. But, I'd be most grateful if you extremely learned people could look at the tables and make sure the information in them is accurate. Please remember, if you do, that that article is trying very hard to avoid anything in the way of interpretation - just the facts, please. Thanks. PiCo (talk) 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)