Template talk:Graphical Overview of Jerusalem's Historical Periods

Proposed changes

Firstly, the Jebusites never existed. Secondly, there's no evidence of a united monarchy- the 1000 BCE date means nothing.Next the argument that Bar kochba didn't take Jerusalem is just plain wrong. And lastly, there is a significant difference between pagan states and jewish client states of pagan countries. The comment that its the same as later client states was ridiculous.There were provinces of empires with some level of local rule, but never was there a christian client of a muslim empire or vise versa. We're talking about Jews governing over other Jews. Calling the whole period in the history of jerusalem "pagan" because of foreign imperialism is obscene.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Jebusites - source please. our article shows many archaeologists' views on their identity. There is no more or less evidence that the Israelites existed as described inthe bible, just that some people existed in that region at that time.
• Bar kokhba - see the Eshel reference from our article on the revolt which says clearly there is no evidence that BK took Jerusalem
• United monarchy - see chronology of the Bible
• You misunderstood my point on client states. I am saying that the Assyrian, Babylonian and Achaemenid empires had many provinces. There is no evidence to suggest that Judea had any more autonomy than any of the other Assyrian, Babylonian or Achaemenid provinces.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Before we reach any conclusions here, note that this graphic is based on Timeline of Jerusalem. The sources are all in there. If you think things are wrong here, you should work on that article first, and bring sources to support your position. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This article doesn't need to follow another, that's WP:CIRCULAR. There's overwhelming evidence that both Israel and Judah existed in a similar manner as described by the bible, not just that "some people lived there". (you are apparently unfamiliar with the archeology of Israel) The united monarchy is a different matter, but later events are verifiable. It's not a matter of "provinces". If they are client states, they are client states. Self-rule is significant- and I would note it if there were any muslim client states of christian empires. Indeed in some periods, such as the persian, the jews in jerusalem were basically autonomous. As for Bar Kochba scholarship is mixed. The conservative view is that he took jerusalem and restored the sacrifices there. Others say that the coins minted were a slogan rather than a description of facts on the ground.They certainly ruled very near to Jerusalem.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not an article, it is a template. In the template it says the main article is ToJ. That is where the sources should be.

The overwhelming evidence you refer to does not exist. I am intimately familar with the archaeology of the region. There is no evidence that the people who lives there during the Davidic or Solomnic times. considered themselves Israelites. If you have seen any please do share it.

On client states, we cannot make it look like Judea had some kind of special or unique autonomy. It didn't. And they were certainly not "Jewish" client states, defined by their religion. That is deeply anachronistic.

On BK, this conservative view you propose is not held by modern mainstream scholars, as there is simply no evidence to support it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Do you realize I explicitly said, the period after the United Monarchy? Starting with Amos for Israel and Hezekiah for Judah. Next, they were certainly Jewish client states. For instance the Romans rarely involved in the internal affairs of herodian judea.[1] It's anachronistic to call the Israelites or Hebrews Jewish, and wrong to call the Samaritans Jewish. But the "jewish client states" were unambiguously Jewish/judahite/judean. A client state is different from a province- hence the wording here: "...remained a part of the Roman Empire, either as a client state or as a Roman Province."[2]While an empire was the ultimate authority the dominant culture in these eras was Jewish. Next the conservative view is in fact supported by modern mainstream sources."There is no consensus about whether the war spread at all to the Galilee or whether Jerusalem was captured by the Jews. Schafer and Bowerstock think the city remained in Roman hands, but many scholars think it was indeed captured although never rebuilt." [3] We do know the Jews captured significant "suburban" areas of Jerusalem, ie the Judean highlands, which is where the revolt was based. We also know that the roman garrison based in Jerusalem experienced major losses. I'm restoring the client states and lack of jebusites, while bar kochba can be debated. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to discuss this, but don't feel it's appropriate while you continue to edit the template. Will you agree to a temporary pause from editing it so we can make some progress here? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm listening. :) Right now it's really a matter of 1. Should we include jebusites and the united monarchy, rather than "israelites" (iron age southwest canaanites) and later Judah? I argue that its better to be skeptical and not include a united monarchy ever ruling in jerusalem, rather than just a confederation of israelite tribes in the highlands of judea and samaria who "ruled" by virtue of there not being any other polity asserting rule there after the LBA collapse. 2. Should we continue the period of the Kingdom of Judah until its end, or stop when it becomes a vassal of Assyria? I argue that judah was sort of always a vassal of sorts, paying tributes to bigger entities. Whether Egypt or Babylon. Therefore we should continue to the kingdoms end, ie until the last king of judah reigned. and 3. Should we distinguish autonomous kingdoms/provinces from mere provinces? Because Persian Yehud was basically independent as far as domestic affairs went, likewise with herod.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok:

1. Your version puts Israelite control of Jerusalem starting in 1178 after the Egyptian retreat from the Levant. Yet the first Israelite to control the city was David (according to the Bible). Please explain.

2. You wrote "I argue that judah was sort of always a vassal of sorts, paying tributes to bigger entities. Whether Egypt or Babylon." That's not what the Bible says, and there's no archaeological evidence to support it either way. So please try to evidence your claim.

3. The Yehud province stuff on wikipedia contains a lot of unsourced claims which I have been meaning to fix. There is no evidence for automony. A handful of coins prove nothing, as most Persian provinces minted their own coins too. The question around Herod's reign is more complicated and is worth considering carefully. Do you have any good sources which explain exactly the nature of the local political status of the region under the Herodians?

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The Bible isn't a reliable source for events in Iron Age I. I'm using modern archeology/scholarship. The "Israelites" were originally Canaanites who underwent a societal revolution after the Bronze Age Collapse. That's the modern historical view. Thus I didn't write Kingdom of Israel, I wrote Israelites-there's no evidence of a United Monarchy. Next I'm saying a vassal in the sense of a weaker state relying on the support of larger ones. The Bible does in fact record the numerous tributes the Judahites made to various empires. Again, I don't consider the grand depictions of Israel's might reliable. The fact is there is no "assyrian period" Jerusalem. The Assyrians never invaded Jerusalem and let the Judahite kings govern as usual. It's foolish that we define "period" as "ruling entity" anyway. In reality historians use broader terms that describe the culture rather than the politics. This division makes much more sense: first temple (ie judah), babylonian, persian, early hellenistic, hasmonean...[4] Yehud was autonomous, scholars are pretty much united on that,the question is when did it become autonomous. Recent archeology suggests its from the time of Cyrus.[5] As for Herod's jerusalem he had full autonomy over internal affairs- he was even allowed to mint coins!--Monochrome_Monitor 00:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

1. You are correct re Israelites / Canaanites, as a question of simple nomenclature. If you want to ignore the Bible (which our articles on Jerusalem do not), then how do we decide at what date Jerusalem's Canaanites suddenly because Israelites. I have only seen scholars following the Bible here, but if you have sources stating otherwise (e.g. that Israelites controlled Jerusalem from 1178 BC per your edit) then please provide these.

2. Between the time that the Egyptians left and before the Assyrians turned up, there is no evidence that Jerusalem / Judah was a vassal or pseudo-vassal to anyone. If you disagree, please explain. During the Assyrian period, both the Bible and archeological sources confirm its subordination to the Assyrian kings. A large part of the Neo-Assyrian empire was governed this way, so Jerusalem had no special status. On the name, your proposal is inconsistent. You say you don't want to follow archaeology instead of the Bible, yet you want to use the term "First Temple" as a historical period, when no archaeological evidence of Solomon's temple exists. In addition, we use governing empire for every other period in the timeline, and it would also be inconsistent to use any other type for this period.

3. You write "Yehud was autonomous, scholars are pretty much united on that" - the source you provided says the opposite. If you read the paragraph at the start of the section ([6]) it writes "As is well known, A. Alt argued that Yehud was under control of the district of Samaria and only became a full-fledged province when Nehemiah was appointed governor." Nothing about autonomy in this "well known" account. Whilst some others talk about some form of autonomy post Nehemiah, these judgements appear to be based on Biblical evidence only, first because Nehemiah's existence of course is only attested in the Bible, and second because as p.53 of the same source states, there is very little useful archaeological information from the period at all. Either way, this timeline needs to be kept simple and NPOV. As I said above, we should discuss the Herod question when we have some good sources.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I use first temple the way we use second temple because it was the wording of the source. The Bible does say Judah was an Egyptian vassal in the 10th century. That is not corroborated by archeology but the later Egyptian vassalage under Necho II is and we do not mention it, nor should we. The legend says Kingdom of Judah and it is best to include the entire Kingdom which did not end after the assyrian conquest. The Yehud source quotes several sources at which one of the "extreme" ends is Alt. All his other sources argue Yehud was autonomous at some point, and he himself says "Following these more recent discoveries, then, I would suggest that during the first return allowed by Cyrus, Sheshbazzar was indeed governor of Yehud, as the Hebrew word (pehah) implies, and that Yehud and that Yehud may have existed as an independent Persian province from that time". That's the conclusion of the author. And your argument that the only evidence used to support this is biblical goes both ways- the only evidence arguing against it is biblical! And the division between Israelite/Canaanite is perfectly clear- after the bronze age collapse canaanites diversified into israel, phonecia, moab, ammon, etc. The page does not use the Bible as its source- it says "the bible says David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites", but it also gives the historical view. I'm going to change this where it is objectively wrong, we can argue about what counts as jewish sovereignty later.--Monochrome_Monitor 00:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Much of what you have written is factually correct, but I don't see the connection to your proposed edits. You have also yet to provide sources for some of your more questionable claims, such as Israelites in Jerusalem from 1178BC.

I think we can agree that different sources use different nomenclature, and there are thousands of WP:RS covering different periods of the city's history.

At the very least, we should be "internally consistent" in this template, such that our treatment of the periods does not changes as we move through history. Your proposal is muddled in two places:

(a) selective / cherry-picked willingness to use nomenclature or conclusions only found in the Bible, and

(b) inconsistency as to the use of governing sovereign vs. simply the name of the province

Please could you explain how you think about the application of these two points across the whole timeline? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Per-haps it would be better to call it "proto-israelite". You're right that I'm inconsistent about soveriegn vs. province name, this comes from a confusion on my part whether we are talking about periods in the sense of "Persian period" or talking about regimes, since this is how we determine the periods. In some cases it clears things up, like Roman Judea vs Roman Syria/Palestine- both could be called the "Roman period". I'll propose a compromise and say we write "X period" but link to the specific province. So for Byzantine Empire we'd link to Diocese of the East. I believe that's uncontroversial so I'll implement it. Next I can see how you would think my emphasis of jewish local autonomy is unique, but its not. If it were the case that a Christian province is under a muslim empire, I would say the same. I wanted to put a yellow border around a blue bar or vise versa and this formatting could be used for other situations but I have no idea how. Anyway, I'm going to continue the Kingdom of Judah period to its end, I don't believe that's controversial and that's how we divide the history of the land in our infoboxes already.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I would like to continue this discussion, but I don't feel it's appropriate while you continue to edit the template. Will you agree to a temporary pause from editing it so we can make some progress here? I asked you before and I thought you agreed... Oncenawhile (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm frustrated because you refuse to allow any edits. It's unfair. I interpreted your comments as an agreement to elements of my edits and sp I put in the less controversial ones.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my edit comment, I agree with part of your edits. But other parts are incorrect. We will get more agreement by finishing the discussion. Protocol is to wait for agreement before making disputed edits. We are both responding quickly, but if you didn't get a response quickly enough you could follow WP:DISCFAIL. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Please clarify which of my edits are correct and which are not.--Monochrome_Monitor 14:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Are you ok to hold off from editing until we have progressed this discussion? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to immediately enact the changes you say are correct if that's what you're asking, but we have different perceptions of when a discussion has progressed. That's where my frustration comes from.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Best practice is set out at WP:BRD#Bold again: "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes". Oncenawhile (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

We should just ask other people on the talk page of Jerusalem.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

To address each of your proposed changes in this version:

• Proto-Canaanite to Canaanite - NO OBJECTION
• Removal of everything between 1178-900 BC - This makes no sense at all
• Removal of Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian between 732-539 BC - this appears to be POV attempt to suggest that Judah was sovereign during this period.
• Continuing the Hasmonean dynasty until 37 BC, ignoring the change to Roman control following the Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) - this makes no sense
• Splitting out the Judean rebel period after the First Jewish–Roman War - Probably no objection, but we need to add a source to Timeline of Jerusalem confirming independent control during this period (which should be easy to find), and we need to consider how to deal with the many other revolts in the city's history.

In the discussion above you avoided giving a clear answer as to whether you propose to:

(1) exclude all, some, or none of the Biblical-only history from this timeline, and as to whether you propose to

(2) show all, some, or none of the "semi-autonomous" states in the region. This could include such autonomies as Zahir al-Umar, Jazzar Pasha, the Tulunids, the Ikhshidid dynasty and the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, and revolts such as the Peasants' revolt in Palestine and the Naqib al-Ashraf Revolt.

I would note that the quality of your edits so far suggest you know very little about the city's history. You appear to be using this as a learning exercise, rather than a valid attempt to improve the encyclopaedia based on any pre-existing knowledge.

Please could you provide a detailed view on the points above and the questions (1) and (2) previously asked, so that we can proceed?

Oncenawhile (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks flatter me. Your comments so far suggest you comprehend very little of what I have said thus far. I deleted that span of time because you objected to me correctly labeling it as Israelite and it is simply not Jebusite. The legend distinguishes between pagan, christian, jewish, and islamic "periods". The peasants revolt was not a change in status- while the periods of jewish autonomy were. The fact is the periods characterized as "ancient pagan" were periods where jews were the majority and jewish culture flourished, while muslims were not a majority until the Islamic conquests. In contrast the switch in power from the Rashidun to the Umayyads is a political superficiality- the city went from being controlled by Muslim Arabs to being controlled by Muslim Arabs- that's why the period is often called "Early Muslim". This is going nowhere, we should just use a sourced timeline.--Monochrome_Monitor 23:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Some more corrections: If the First Jewish Revolt was a change in status as you are proposing, then so were other more recent revolts in which the city no longer reported directly to the empire. To say that the city was "Jewish" during the ancient pagan periods is deeply confusing - they were Judean based on their location (see Ioudaioi) but the meaning of "Jewish" evolved significantly during the Hasmonean period (see Ioudaioi), and most importantly, there is no evidence of the religious breakdown during these periods so it would be pure speculation to suggest they were Jewish in the religious sense. The move to the Ummayad empire was a seismic event - only someone who knows nothing about Islamic history (or doesn't care for it) would suggest otherwise. And the capital of the empire moved to Damascus, just 200km from Jerusalem.

If you answer my questions above we can make progress here.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

You obviously don't care about Jewish history. Of course Jerusalem had a primarily Jewish population- it did until the revolt was crushed. The "just 200km" comment is laughable. As I said before, we should just used a sourced timeline.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If you respond to the points in my post we might make some progress here. To describe Jerusalem as primarily Jewish in the centuries prior to the Hasmoneans requires clarification as to what you think the term meant back then. This issue is described at Ioudaios#Translation_implications. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Editors don't need to provide "clarification as to what they think". Wikipedia is based on sources, not on what editors think. The section linked to is largely unsourced, and Wikipedia isn't a source, so there's no relevance. As an aside, Jew is an English shortening of Judean. Not sure what relevance the Greek name has, it's the same name in Hebrew as it was thousands of years ago: יְהוּדִי (yehudi). Drsmoo (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points here. I really don't mind how this discussion progresses, so long as it actually moves forward in a contructive fashion so we can agree on some changes. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@@Drsmoo: This division of jerusalems historic periods should be the skeleton of our timeline, with subperiods where necessary. The current timeline includes ahistoric history (ie jebusites) and is needlessly complicated for an overview at select points. (for instance, the independent jewish herodian kingdom is not distinguished from "roman" rule, while the different arab regimes are all distinguished. very unsuspicious) Then we'd mark specific key events at certain dates. And the coloring scheme naturally favors imperialist christian and muslim powers over indigenous Jews and Samaritans, even when they make up the majority of the population. This should be about periods, not powers. I'm pinging you because I can never get any edits past onceinawhile.--Monochrome_Monitor 08:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

You should read the essay you linked to in your last sentence. Getting edits "past" another user is easy if you engage in good faith discussion. That means you need to respond to challenges and questions raised.

As to the source you posted, that relates to Middle Eastern history as a whole. This template focuses on the history of one specific city.

I continue to believe this template will benefit from further improvement and discussion. It would be helpful if you could answer my questions raised above at 10:41, 16 October 2016

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

By the way, you should read this recent research about wikipedia. It explains the beauty of wikipedia being one of the only places on the internet where people do not get stuck in the echo chamber. The way you worded your cavnassing of Drsmoo above suggests you would prefer Wikipedia was an echo chamber reflecting your pre-conceptions, because working with editors with opposing views is just too much effort.

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I posted first so lol at "canvassing". My recommendation is to ask for comments and input on relevant history and archaeology wikiprojects. Drsmoo (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem is your definition of good-faith discussion means working out every issue at once, whereas I want to get the stuff we agree on on that map. I apologize, I can't have antipathy for you while you're being so gracious. But I am still bothered a bit about how you scuttled Semitic peoples despite our long discussion which was going in my favor until someone else joined you. (someone else agreed with me, but were making points I didn't agree with which kind of threw me under a bus.)--Monochrome_Monitor 20:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I think we have explicit agreement on a couple of points above, which we can fix in the template. On Semitic peoples, the only difference as I saw the debate was on sources - one side of the discussion had many sources, the other did not - sorry if I am mis-remembering. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

And as for canvassing I'm actually very-non-canvassy, I generally only ping people who commented before me. Plus I ignore the several people who email me asking me to make ARBPIA changes because they aren't allowed to.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

OK. You might be interested to note that in 6.5 years of editing here I have never had anyone ask me to make edits because they aren't allowed to, or anything similar. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you insinuating something? You're lucky though, it's very annoying.--Monochrome_Monitor 03:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No - I genuinely can't explain why there's a difference between our experiences. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

And I read a piece about that. It made me happy. :) Much better publicity than the usual coverage about edit wars and porn.--Monochrome_Monitor 20:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Since it seems to have been ignored, I'd definitely recommend asking on wikiprojects in order to get more feedback. Drsmoo (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Good template but it's so small how about enlarging it

I posted a request to enlarge this template on Jerusalem's talk page because I didn't know how to enlarge templates but now I figured out (somewhat) how to do it but it doesn't enlarge the type, should we do it? Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Enlarged the type and increased width a little bit but changes aren't showing up on pages where template is used Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Took awhile to show up on pages but I see the font size was reverted to small ("S") Raquel Baranow (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed this. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

UshankaCzar comments

Hi @UshankaCzar: I have developed your edits further, with comments where appropriate. Please see the Timeline of Jerusalem article for details and sourcing for the specific dates. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)