This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.
The reason why I chose to incorporate both articles together was becuase generally speaking, most of the archaeology done here is by Israeli archaeologists. I won't strictly oppose such split, but generally speaking most of these sites are connected some how and the land is studied as a single geographic entity. But if there would be more support for a split, so be it. I do kinda fear this will turn into a "List of archaeological sites in the State of Palestine".--Bolter21(talk to me)14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should be split as has occurred with many other articles. And it's supposed to be State of Palestine or Palestine, not Palestinian territories.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether it should be split, but I'd like to point out that "this article should be split because other articles have been split", completely ignoring the explanation for not splitting given by the person who wrote it, is an extremely weak argument. – Joe (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really an argument, more a summary of what has been happening, which is actually quite logical and follows on from "State of Palestine" becoming a thing some years ago which upended all the categories and otherwise caused general mayhem. "Palestinian territories" is something of an anachronism as a result. So it ought at a minimum to be renamed. As for the split, the problem there is comments like the above, generally made by those of a pro Israel disposition, "most of the archaeology done here is by Israeli archaeologists" (that's because they represent the occupation, they weren't invited) and "fear this will turn into a "List of archaeological sites in the State of Palestine" (why would anyone be afraid of that if it is the case?). These one sided commentaries, which just lead to argument, can be largely avoided by splits. Perhaps a split is not strictly necessary here but we need to keep the nationalism out of it and I am not sure if that's possible.Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some more time has rolled on by. I think the only way we might avoid an article split is to split within the article itself, how about that? And it still needs a rename.Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am totally in favour of keeping it together. If anything, it would make sense to expand it to include all areas that are part of Palestine (region), as archaeologically and historically speaking they firmly belong together. This is about the study of the past, has nothing to do with a modern conflict, and is the last place where the freaking conflict should be allowed to influence proper academic work. It shouldn't be too hard to grasp that current events are not the only and ultimate measure for everything. Avoid all controversial terms, as good as it goes, and keep this gazetteer together, as has been done in the past by luminaries more deserving of respect than all of us taken together. Mountains and valleys create routes and roads, water courses and the rest of topography unite in terms of geography and therefore also of civilisation and history, this all doesn't change in decades and not even in centuries. Let's pull our heads out of it. Be brave and jump over your own, short shadow! Arminden (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bolter21 hi. It's quite a project you've started here. Not sure how it will work out, but for now it's completely "hidden from view": I didn't know it exists until I made a search for a seldom mentioned site. You need to link it through dozens of cross-references with all the other relevant pages, and that means: from both sides. You can use "see also", hatnotes (at least in theory), and definitely create a category called like this article, and add it to all the listed sites. That would push it into the limelight. Since May 2019 you've been more or less the only contributor, there probably aren't too many non-editing visitors either, and it's a pity. Cheers, and keep up the good work! Arminden (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This list is actually already linked to the articles of Israel and Archaeology of Israel. Maybe creating a template for archaeological sites in Israel can be a good spot to put it. At the moment it gets an average of 10 views per day. And it isn't complete yet. Right now it includes all (or most) of the sites that do have an article, except for sites located in modern villages and cities, which is harder to locate at the moment. Hopefully, soon I'll have the time to finish the list and then maybe split it into regions (Negev, Upper Galilee, Samaria, etc.) and maybe give different colors to sites located in the Palestinian territories. My biggest fear is that people will vote to split the list into archaeological sites in Israel and archaeological sites in Palestine, which also creates serious confusion (putting Gath in Israel and Shiloh in Palestine is quite odd with its symbolic implications). Anyway, this is no work for a single person. I'll try to set the framework and map the tasks so other people could potentially take them in the future as my aspirations are too big and I don't have that much spare time and patience.--Bolter21(talk to me)15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Richard. I am happy that you have contributed to this list, which I have abandoned. The column region refers to geographic regions, since the list is so long, I figured that might be a nice way to allow for some queries. I must say in retrospect that was a bit vague. But governorates will take this feature away, because their boundaries cut through geographical regions. The system is generally based on how Israeli Nature Guides divide the land, which is usually the region defined in the sources. Bolter21(talk to me)12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything based on how Israel divides land is by definition POV, I remain minded to split this article to avoid such, per my 20121 comments above. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applying the approach of the Israeli Nature Guides does not seem to be suitable for an article of this nature which spans two countries. Swapping region for administrative location would be more neutral.
I have an alternative suggestion. Using administrative divisions is maybe the right idea, despite how much I like the geographical divisions (and the hard work I've put in it). Splitting the article would be a mistake as I've previously said, because, from historical and geographical point of view, it the same land, studied mostly by the same schools. This is mainly about the past. There is a precedent for that: Castles in Great Britain and Ireland. There is also a precedent for the length of the list: List of castles in England. I advice we maybe split the list within the article into sections, each for an broad administrative division: Northern District (Israel).... Jenin Governorate... etc.. Bolter21(talk to me)14:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Castles in Great Britain and Ireland is a topic article rather than a list; a list encompassing all the castles in the UK and Ireland would be spectacularly unwieldly. That is despite castles in England and Wales often being addressed together in overview studies. The list of castles in England works (just about) because it has lots of subdivisions to make navigation easier. Those subdivisions are also modern despite it being a historical topic. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and as I've said, subdividing the article based on political subdivisions is adequate, despite not perfect. The term "Israeli archaeology" or "Palestinian archaeology" are used to describe the same thing. I don't think that a list of archaeological sites in Palestine, excluding the remainder of Israel is appropriate, as much as a list of archaeological site excluding the WB and GS is. In truth, excluding Jordan is also wrong, which is another thing I had in mind before, but it became too big of a project and I had other things to do. It may be more appropriate to create a List of archaeological sites in the Levant, to fit the framework of Levantine archaeology. That's what I had in mind when starting this article. Bolter21(talk to me)15:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though a split would resolve the issue, let's leave the article's scope for another day. Are we agreed on using current administrative locations or should we involve folks from WikiProject Archaeology to garner more viewpoints? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 6 districts of Israel includes one for Jerusalem and another for Judea and Samaria, both of which represent illegally occupied territories. Since the Jerusalem governorate of Palestine includes East Jerusalem, that problem is solvable. Judea and Samaria needs to be omitted from consideration per WP:WESTBANK. Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't appreciated that the Jerusalem district would include East Jerusalem but at least Jerusalem Governate would resolve that as you say. As per the Arbcom ruling the governates of West Bank would be used rather than the Judea and Sumeria district. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A sketch model for changing responsibilities.@Richard Nevell I would advise avoiding the issue by creating separate sections for East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, given their unique political and archaeological status. Both are under the supervision of the IAA. As for WB, it might be a good idea to add a column noting to which area it belongs (A, B and C). That way it can be distinguished which area as under the auspices of the Israeli archaeology staff officer or Palestinians Authority.
With that I think it clarifies that the article deal with territories that have been first under the British Department of Antiquities and now administered by two Israeli Archaeological authorities and one Palestinian (I am not sure what's going on in Gaza). Bolter21(talk to me)07:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care what sort of illegal supervisory structures Israel has in place in the occupied territories, they are just to be ignored. Else I revert to my idea of a split so that this constant insertion of Israeli POV may cease. Selfstudier (talk) 10:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What POV again? Could you make your comment clearer?
I said adding a column for Area A/B/C, and adding outside the list, information about which authority is responsible for which area. Is that POV?
And whether you "care" or not, they are important. These authorities are responsible for declaring and more often then not, excavating these sites and publish excavation results, as well as preserving and maintaining them, and that is especially true in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. I would advice, for the green line areas (i.e. Israel without GH and EJ, to follow to districts of the Israel Antiquities Authority. I'll try to look whether this information is accessible in a citable form. Bolter21(talk to me)11:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli authority structures in occupied territory are illegal and to be dismissed/ignored, that POV. You are welcome to write an article about such illegal Israeli structures of which there are many but this is a list, that's it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That their legitimacy is internationally disputed doesn't mean they should be ignored. Where's the POV in stating a de-facto reality? Especially a reality that is of outmost importance to the subject? Bolter21(talk to me)12:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are de facto and de jure illegal, like I said go write an article about that, it is irrelevant to this list. I can make it clear if you like, if the article is split, I won't be mentioning such illegal structures in the split article. Why would anyone? Selfstudier (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is informative? To ignore realities because they are disputed legally is POV. Most antiquities in the West Bank are under the auspices of the antiquities authority. I would be bald to say that most of the archaeological knowledge acquired for these sites was gathered by Israeli archaeologists in the last 5 decades. Without ignoring or dismissing the political realities, these are facts. Whether somes doesn't like it is not a concern. It is important to have a constructive discussion to see how that information would be incorporated in a manner that respects realities, both actual and formal. Bolter21(talk to me)12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not disputed, they are illegal, full stop, just like everything else Israel does in the OPT, read the recent ICJ opinion on the legal status. The information is gathered by Israeli archaeologists because of that illegality and Israeli illegal practices. It is a fact that Israel has illegally annexed Palestinian territory but I am not going to give it credence in any way, shape or form, it remains illegally occupied territory.
@Selfstudier Why are you so aggressive? I gave a rational explanation, it can't be discredited because someone doesn't like it. Where it is written that illegal situations are to be dismissed in Wikipedia? Surely that's not the situations in other disputed areas. Bolter21(talk to me)12:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-wing Israeli activists have long called for expanding the IAA’s power to the West Bank, and achieved a partial success two years ago (Hebrew) when the Civil Administration began allowing inspectors in the authority’s theft prevention unit to operate in the territory (another illegality). Selfstudier (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about IAA areas of responsibility de-facto. I said that the list will benefit from adding information for which site is under the responsibility of which authority, based on their location in Area A,B,C or in annexed territories, as clearly not all archaeological sites in the West Bank are under the de-facto auspices of the Palestinian Department of Antiquities. It was you who brought up the matter of international legitimacy, which is not to disregarded. But the legal matter does not mean factual realities should not be mentioned. This is an article about archaeological sites. Even if it would be split, it would still be relevant to include under which authority each site is administered. Bolter21(talk to me)15:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish, all that is necessary is RS re the sites/discoveries. Whatever legal baloney Israel uses to justify what it is illegally doing has no bearing here whatsoever. Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:POV, becuase you say that facts are not necessary because they might "justify" some "illegally doing". It isn't. No one is going to justify anything, but to simply state that the IAA de-facto administers antiquity sites in East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, and that COGAT staff of archaeology administers them in Area A. To say they are simply in the Jerusalem Governorate is true only nominally, but not factually. That doesn't mean that it is "right" that it is like that, but simply that it is like that. There are archaeological sites that have never been under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority. Some of them have only been studied by Israeli Archaeologies. To say that they are in the Jerusalem Governorate, and that they de-facto administered by COGAT, is WP:NPOV. Bolter21(talk to me)16:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NPOV: The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weightBolter21(talk to me)16:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to state it, it's irrelevant to the list purpose ie "This is a list of archaeological sites in Israel and Palestine." That's it, not a list of IAA controlled blah blah whatever other irrelevant nonsense anyone wants to insert. Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me for an article obviously on my watchlist. I don't get your question? Where's the problem with nonsense? Don't think you meant that. Look just go read MOS re Lists and satisfy yourself as to what should be in a list article. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF. I am using the "reply" option because it is easier than to go to "edit" and scroll down. If the pings bother you, I will cease, at your request. What I meant is, where's the nonsense in having the list subdivided to sections for the districts of Israel, governorates of the WB and GS, one for East J. and one for Golan H., when in the sections on Palestinian territories, there is also a column for Area A, Area B and Area C, and at the introduction of the list, to write a brief summary of who is responsible for which territories? I am pinging Richard Nevell, as this comment concisely summarizes my proposal, which doesn't go beyond. Does this sound like POV nonsense? I think it provides the reader with enough information, without adhering to any single point of view, and allowing viewers of any POV whatsoever some information. I believe this is also relevant if the list is split between different articles. Otherwise, it is better to just keep the geographical regions, as it is now, similar to how it is in List of ancient Egyptian sites.--Bolter21(talk to me)18:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem with a list structure dividing the sites between Israel, West Bank incl EJ, and Gaza ie geographically, the title already suggests that's what it is going to be and that is all that is needed as an explanation for the list contents. No need for A's, B's and C's or any other politicized divisions at all. Selfstudier (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say divide between A B C but to just add a column to the table with that information. It would still be under Jenin Gov., Bethlehem Gov. etc.. And I still think EJ should be split into its own section. Bolter21(talk to me)21:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a productive way forward would be to organise along the administrative lines and leave the proposed additional columns for now. Bundling the changes together risks nothing happening. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer dividing it by geography. As it is now. It was suggested by Richars to change to administrative divisions - Israeli districts and Palestinian governorates. Which I am also OK with, given the difficulties. Since EJ falls in both, I suggested having a unique section for it, excluding it from both. Bolter21(talk to me)12:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as being divided by geography, I see an alphabetical list with no division. If all we are talking about is filling in a column, that seems much ado about very little.
You want to keep it altogether in one article, I would prefer to split it, the compromise is to split it but keep it on one page. Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been one of my funniest typos. I am also removing the political information from the introduction. The one you marked as "neutrality is disputed"--Bolter21(talk to me)14:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, given all the trouble, maybe it would be better to just delete the list altogether, and focus on topic related lists. For example: List of prehistoric sites in the Levant, List of Crusader archarological sites, List of Bronze Age sites in the Levant, List of Iron Age sites in the Levant etc.. This list doesn't get much traffic anyway and it can barely be associated with anything. We can't seem to reach any agreement, but we are not even discussing archarology. Maybe the solution is to de-politicize this list altogether. By dividing these, we would be able to have more information in the list itself. If we have a list only about Crusader sites, we can add a picture and a column for description, excavation details, etc. I believe that way editors interested in different periods will also find it easier to contribute. Bolter21(talk to me)19:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amend this list, split this list, AfD this list, or any other thing with this list, as long as I have not to suffer an Israeli POV at every turn. Selfstudier (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current scope is good and there is no need to make drastic changes to this list. I wasn't sure about bundling Israel and Palestine together at first, but I think it was a wise decision. Splitting it wouldn't resolve disputes it would make it worse: where do you put sites in Jerusalem, for example? The idea of doing regional lists by period is interesting (e.g. List of Bronze Age sites in the Levant), but it would involve a major restructuring of many articles, be out of line with coverage of the rest of the world (see Category:Lists of archaeological sites by country) and have knock-on effects for other countries in the region. With Jordan, for example, there's no controversy about whether a site is in Jordan or not, and archaeological sites in Jordan is treated as a distinct topic in reliable sources, so it would be weird not to have that list because of a conflict in a neighbouring country. – Joe (talk) 12:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what benefit that would have for the reader, especially when there's about dispute about what belongs in which half? – Joe (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the site is in East Jerusalem its P and I otherwise (possibly some I and P depending on what sort of illegalities the Israelis have been up to, like tunelling) Selfstudier (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the west? On a basic level we have one POV that says all these sites are in Palestine, one that says they're all in Israel, and many that draw the line somewhere in between. The point is that by not dividing the list (which is not so long so far and so doesn't need to be), we don't actually have to have these discussions, because this is primarily an archaeology article not a PI article. – Joe (talk) 08:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latest ICJ opinion has clarified the legal status that EJ/WB/Gaza is illegally occupied, so that's P, the rest is I, there's no confusion here. We do have to identify where the sites are (as implied by the title and list purpose). Also as I have said if we want to redirect this, fine by me.Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we have to represent all signicant POVs, not the ICJ's or the ones that happen to be present on this talk page. – Joe (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not any more, the ICJ opinion is decisive, there is no longer any question as to the illegality of the occupation or which area is occupied. A bunch of other things have also been determined but those need not concern us here. As long as the matters were never addressed by the court, Israel and others could say the occupation was not illegal, blah blah, that game is over. Selfstudier (talk) 06:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot decide here that the viewpoint of the ICJ supersedes WP:NPOV. I know you're deeply immersed in the Israel–Palestine topic area but do try to remember that the primary topic of this article is archaeological sites. Geography is a secondary concern at best and modern political boundaries are only used for familiarity and convenience. There is simply no need to get into the weeds of disputed boundaries or what courts have ruled. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at Bolter's last comment It [EJ] is annexed to Israel but not recognized, and it was never under the rule of the PA. Arguably it is the most visited place in Israeli tourism, with principal archaeological remains, and the most excavated site in the world, which is excavated by Israelis Maybe address your remark to them instead. Selfstudier (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "it would involve a major restructuring of many articles"?
And the category of lists is extremely partial. Only some 16 lists there, not all about certain countries and many of them have a scope. Going with geo-political division has two main problems: it is contentious and its limits are arbitrary to the ancient cultures represented in these sites. And in Israel, there's 1.5 million years of archaeology, when the country's position in geopolitical context changed numerous times. I created this list a long time ago without having much thought about these issues.
I think that it would be okay to abandon this list. In Archaeology of Israel or Biblical archaeology there can be a list of major sites. There are over 30,000 sites in Israel alone (I don't think that statistic includes the WB and GS). So this list's scope is a bit too big.
A positive outcome of reframing it into different lists on periods is that we will have more space in the table to include more spesific information.
Sure and when I said the 2 Israeli districts covering occupied territory had to be excluded, you moved the goalposts (again). Just redirect this as you suggested and I agreed, forget all this nonsense. Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand you, but got a bit tired by trying. I've always said to separate by Palestinian governorates, but separate East Jerusalem into its own section. J&S can be discarded. Bolter21(talk to me)17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so just to be clear, there will be a column like the one that was there before and in it, it will say as well which is the appropriate governorate/administrative district?
When you say separate East Jerusalem, how exactly? The same as all the rest are done but in a separate section and presumably without the column (because they will all be East Jerusalem)? Selfstudier (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are exploring options, I see that often we misunderstand each other. I was talking about a logic simmilar to in List of castles in England. There every section is an individual list for an administrative division. I would now suggest to encompass the entire WB into one section, and instead of separating EJ, just give it a unique color within the list. I will try to illustrate:
List of archaeological sites in Israel and Palestine
It is definitely possible. I figured out the WB is not so big and roughly the same size as some districts in Israel. There are 11 governorates in the WB and 5 in the GS. We can use governorates for Palestine but it would mean a total of 16. Using Israeli sub districts is also a possibility, but there are 15. Then we will have some 31 subsections. So out of purely technical matters, I was thinking about using just the districts of Israel, WB and GS. Thus we'll have 8 sections. Bolter21(talk to me)10:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a Jerusalem Governorate ("The list excludes sites in Israel") to match the Jerusalem District, nine sections. Then no need to color highlight. Otherwise, I agree. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understood. My last comment was for one section for J.D one section for J.G.. Is that what you mean?
Your remark is important because it brings us back to the issue of Jerusalem, which was not addressed in the last suggestion I made. In that case, I would suggest a separate section for EJ. It is annexed to Israel but not recognized, and it was never under the rule of the PA. Arguably it is the most visited place in Israeli tourism, with principal archaeological remains, and the most excavated site in the world, which is excavated by Israelis. I think that a separate section accommodate all the complexities. Bolter21(talk to me)10:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My last comment was for one section for J.D one section for J.G.. Is that what you mean? No, you said there would be 2 sections, WB and Gaza- Anyway, I just gave you what I would agree to, if you don't want to accept it, that's fine, let's go back to the redirect solution. Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just a single Jerusalem section? I don't think anyone is proposing to nest the district sections under "Israel" or "Palestine", so calling the section that doesn't make any POV claim. Jerusalem was not divided into east and west historically so doing so in this list hinders understanding. – Joe (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier Yes it was? Ottoman sanjaks? Jund Filastin/Urdun? Palaestina Prima/Secunda? Roman Provinces? Hellenistic Toparchies? Persian districts (forgot their English names)? Kingdoms of Israel, Judah, the Philistines, Phoenicians, Damascus...? Canaanite city states? The country was always divided somehow... This isn't relevant to Joe's comment. Bolter21(talk to me)11:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, apologies I got lost in my own comments. I said that it is possible to have 6 districts/15 subsistrixts of Israel and 16 Palestinian governorates, but maybe it would be too much. I still didn't get your reply to that.
I already replied. You wanted to include...[Jerusalem District The list excludes sites in East Jerusalem] as an Israeli administrative district and proposed 2 sections for Palestine, WB and Gaza.
To which I said, and repeat here, I would accept 3 sections, WB, Gaza And EJ. Then you moved the goalposts once more and that's where we are. Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "it would involve a major restructuring of many articles"? For example if we replace this with, list of prehistoric sites in the Levant, it doesn't just affect coverage of prehistory in Israel and Palestine, we'd have to restructure articles on Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Cyprus too (minimally). Fair point that many of those 'list of archaeological sites' of those countries don't yet exist, but in my mind it's only a matter of time: we have list of archaeological sites by country, which is far too long that needs to be split, and modern country is the main we divide archaeology and history across categories and overview articles. For most countries this is completely uncontroversial and, while arbitrary in relation to ancient geographies, it's not arbitrary in relation to archaeology, because as you've pointed above the documenting, studying and preserving archaeological heritage is usually strongly structured along national lines. – Joe (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm completely lost in the rapid back and forth between Bolter21 and Selfstudier above. Let's reset. I propose splitting the list geographically into sections with the following titles, which will make it easier for readers to find what they are looking for as the list grows:
Jerusalem
Northern District
Haifa District
West Bank
Central District
Tel Aviv District
Southern District
Gaza Strip
At the same time we should adjust the lead to the following, to explain the structure and address any potential NPOV concerns up front:
The status of Jerusalem is disputed between both countries Why is this relevant to this list? What are the borders of Jerusalem? If it is the modern Israeli municipal border, I object as that includes illegally occupied territory (as part of an illegal annex). If the argument is that this is supposed to be historical, then use historical borders.
Why is this relevant to this list? – it contextualises why Jerusalem is in its own section and not divided into east and west.
What are the borders of Jerusalem? – it's not necessary to specify this for the purposes of this list. If a site is described by reliable sources as being in Jerusalem (or one of its subdivisions), it goes in this section.
If it is the modern Israeli municipal border – it isn't, it refers to the city of Jerusalem, as commonly understood.
If the argument is that this is supposed to be historical, then use historical borders – it isn't.
The term West bank includes East Jerusalem so it would have to be West Bank (excluding East Jerusalem) – I'd suggest we handle this with a hatnote under West Bank, e.g. "Sites in East Jerusalem are listed under § Jerusalem". – Joe (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to have a unique section for East Jerusalem, and keep West J. under Jerusalem District. Another option, especially if we just use WB, then include EJ inside, but highlight the EJ somehow. Maybe with a color background. Bolter21(talk to me)12:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that people who aren't familiar with the modern political geography (i.e. the vast majority of readers of this article – I know you are both knowledgeable about that topic, so please remember that!) will be confused that there is a section called "Jerusalem" or "Jerusalem District" but that it doesn't include sites in half of the city, including very famous ones like the City of David. It would also give the impression that sites in the west and east are in different places, when of course in reality they are very close together, geographically and historically. More broadly, we simply do not need to hold to the complicated and contested modern geography in this article, because this is not an article on modern geography. Modern boundaries are only useful here insofar as they're convenient and familiar – if they stop being either, there's no reason we can't deviate from them.
As an aside we shouldn't encode information in colours, for accessibility reasons (not everyone can distinguish them, likely won't be read by screen readers or text interfaces, easily lost when copying between formats, etc.) – Joe (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is trying to artificially elide reality in favor of a rose garden that doesn't actually exist. If we agree that there should be a Jerusalem district and that EJ should be identified (as it is everywhere else on WP) then why not just go with that. There is plenty of space in the notes columns and what have you to explain stuff, give wikilinks, flesh things out (eg City of David is not quite what you seem to think it is). Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reality is that? There is a city that is called Jerusalem, with a long history and a lots of archaeological sites. That is the aspect of reality this article is trying to depict. There is a city that is called Jerusalem, that is currently the subject of an intense territorial dispute, and as a result is divided into overlapping claims. That aspect of the reality is covered in status of Jerusalem and dozens of other articles.
I understand that you are trying to achieve a neutral point of view, just like Bolter21 and I are, but please do consider whether this topic really needs or benefits from the level of precision with regards to current legal status that articles on current affairs do. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect the rationale here. It is important to note that the Jerusalem District is much larger than the city. Maybe a section called "City of Jerusalem" to make it clearer?
Generally speaking there's is a lot of mess regarding the archaeology of Jerusalem. I have had conversations in the recent past with the two leading archaeologist of Jerusalem right now, and when asked what framework should be used to describe the archaeology of Jerusalem, and they said they have no idea, and it is likely that the next decades of their career would be dedicated to that endeavor.
I am OK with a separate section for "City of Jerusalem" for the sites of ancient and historical Jerualem e.g. City of David, Givati, Ophel, Wide Wall, Gihon Spring etc. (and not based on the municipal boundaries).
The rest of the territory of EJ with sites such as Tell en-Nasbeh which is not ancient Jerusalem, will be incorporated into WB, no color highlights.
Not OK, sorry. I am happy with what I said before, this is just a n other (about the tenth, I lost count) proposal. If there is Israeli identification then there must be East Jerusalem identification.
We have been having a constructive discussion, which allowed us to map out many issues and suggest several solutions.
It's fine. We are making an effort to tackle a difficult situation. It takes time and a lot of moving back and forth. This is how discussions are done. I dont know a better method than these dialecitcs.
Most users in this talk were mostly in agreement except for you. For the most part it was you who turned this into an I/P discussion, sometimes with cynical and hawkish POV and ad hominem remarks rather then arguments concerning archaeology. We are talking about a convenient way to arrange a list of archaeological sites, attempting to address the political situation in a manner that is neutral and most relevant to the topic of archaeology. I am not the God of neutrality, and I am happy to hear objections to my opinion. I can't be right all the time.
But you have repeatedly expressed a high degree of impatience and unwillingness to engage in a real discussion and to find any compromise. Besides, it doesnt seem to be that archaeology is your primary concern. If you won't accept any solution other than your initial statement, I get it. Your view will be respected as oppose, no need to continue commenting your objection to any solution. Bolter21(talk to me)13:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been proposing a split here for more than 3 years, I'm very patient. I'm happy with a redirect too, as you suggested and I agreed to. So go ahead and misrepresent the situation as much as you like, I won't be paying much attention to that. Bfn. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: What if we add an introductory note to the Jerusalem section like:
Drop the sentence in the lead with the link to status of Jerusalem, and include a hatnote in the West Bank section linking to the Jerusalem section, as discussed above? Does this address your objection? – Joe (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm just hearing a wall of "no"s from you. I have no idea what you actually want to happen with this article, other than that it stop existing (which is not what we're discussing here). You don't have to participate in discussion if you don't want to, but please don't expect your objections to stop changes to the article if you refuse to engage in constructive consensus-building. – Joe (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
