User talk:Tritomex: Difference between revisions

Demographic history of Jerusalem

Please explain your changes on Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem - you have reverted reputable sources. If you explain clearly what you are trying to say on the talk page, we should be able to understand each other. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC) !

Hy Oncenawhile Yes I made two corrections.Fist I corrected the name of the chapter as all sources given indicate eighter relative or absolute Jewish majority.I don't see any conflicting results given.Second the reference Harrel and Stendel, 1974 was quoted twice,once correctly which I left and second time incorrectly,(showing two different results).I removed it. Third I didn't remove the only source indicating Muslim plurality in section 1830-69: Conflicting estimates regarding Muslim or Jewish plurality ref Yigal Shiloh, 1980 [11]although the page given is nonfunctional. There was one additional quote given which didn't match the source which was given.I would like to see that quote on the page,but given correctly without misleading interpretations

Hi there - let's continue this conversation here: Talk:Demographic history of Jerusalem <= click on the link as i have copied your response over. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, please note that this page is subject to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#General_1RR_restriction - please read this carefully as you have already violated it today. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

History of ancient Israel and Judah

Hi. Rather than edit-war, it would be better if you took you concerns to the Talk page. My problem, by the way, isn't the content of what you're trying to say, but a feeling that it's a level of detail we can't support in this article. PiCo (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

sources

Hi, Maybe you didn't realise that the enotes page you used as a source is just a dump of Wikipedia. crystalinks.com is not acceptable either. Zero^talk 12:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the phrase "Wikipedia mirror" means? Zero^talk 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa

Perhaps you can explain where this page [1] backs your claim of "unequivocally stating that the written in Hebrew alphabet (and Hebrew language" as I can't find the word alphabet, but on a related page on the same site [2] I find "the letters are very archaic in form, in the style known as Proto-Canaanite script." plus two more mentions that it is Proto-Canaanite on that page. There are other sources that say the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription

Hi Dougweller, The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription was analyzed by Haifa university scientists(linguists and archeologists).Here is the link to their findings (press release). http://newmedia-eng.haifa.ac.il/?p=2043

University of Haifa has deciphered an inscription dating from the 10th century BCE (the period of King David’s reign), and has shown that this is a Hebrew inscription. The discovery makes this the earliest known Hebrew writing. The significance of this breakthrough relates to the fact that at least some of the biblical scriptures were composed hundreds of years before the dates presented today in research and that the Kingdom of Israel already existed at that time.

If you have nothing against, I will use this reference, as Haifa university is in the charge of examining this finding.

Considering the site "History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah Iron Age I" The Khirbet Qeiyafa inscription seems to be the most important archeological finding from Iron Age I, regarding the history(and historicity) of ancient Israel and Judah. Therefore, I find important to mention it, in the section regarding that particular archeological period.

Our edits

We seem to be drifting into an edit war again, and I think we both want to avoid that.

Let me set out my basic points:

• The History of Ancient ISrael and Judah article has to make only broad general points, because it's got 2000 years of history to get through in about a thousand words. Individual archaeological finds can only be mentioned if they're extremely important - most of the time, we should put down what scholars are generally agree on as to the course of the history of these two states.
• On the inscription the case is more complicated. Please be very careful in your use of sources - there are many in Israel and America who want to prove a case, either that David existed or that he did not. Many people, even scholars, are quite sincere in putting forward their views, but allow their commitment to their case to colour their views. We need to restrict ourselves to the agreed facts, and to present major viewpoints, but without entering into controversy or seeming to support one interpretation over another.

PiCo (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(A little later) This is an excellent example of what I mean: You have just made this edit to History of Ancient Israel/Judah:

• During the reign of Hezekiah, between c. 715 and 686 BCE, a notable increase in the power of the Judean state can be observed. This is reflected by archaeological sites and findings such as the Broad Wall, defensive city wall in Jerusalem, Hezekiah's Tunnel, an aqueduct designed to provide Jerusalem with water during an impending siege by the Assyrians, led by Sennacherib. Siloam Inscription, lintel inscription, found over the doorway of a tomb, has been ascribed to his comptroller Shebna. LMLK seals on storage jar handles, excavated from strata formed by Sennacherib's destruction as well as immediately above that layer suggesting they were used throughout his 29-year reign, and Bullae from sealed documents, some that belonged to Hezekiah himself, while others name his servants. King Ahaz's Seal is a well-preserved piece of reddish-brown clay that belonged to King Ahaz of Judah, who ruled from 732 to 716 BCE. The seal contains not only the name of the king, but the name of his father, King Yehotam. In addition, Ahaz is specifically identified as "king of Judah." The Hebrew inscription, which is set on three lines, reads as follows: "l'hz*y/hwtm*mlk*/yhdh", which translates as "belonging to Ahaz (son of) Yehotam, King of Judah.

I have no objection to saying "During the reign of Hezekiah, between c. 715 and 686 BCE, a notable increase in the power of the Judean state can be observed", and your referenced source is a valid one. But I see no reason for all the supporting detail: if someone of Carr's stature says that we see a notable increase in the power of the Judean state in the reign of Hezekiah, I'll take his word for it. PiCo (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is the ONLY site on Wikipedia where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is a myth. As you see below the sources of other sections are solely Biblical. This is something you may challenge. There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections.

We are speaking about the The History of Ancient Israel and Judah and we are speaking about IRON AGE=ARCHEOLOGY

I have to confess that I simply do not understand what you're saying. Let me take your points one by one:

This is the ONLY site on Wikipedia where we can show what has been archeologically verified from ancient Israel, and what is a myth. First, the article on the history of ancient Israel and Judah is NOT the "only site" (I think you mean article) where we can show what has been archaeologically verified" from these two kingdoms. There are other articles which are specifically about the archaeology of the kingdoms. This one is about history.

As you see below the sources of other sections are solely Biblical. This is one of the sentences that I simply do not understand. Are you saying that the section on the Iron Age uses archaeology and the others use the bible? This simply isn't so: the section on the Iron Age does make reference to the bible, and the other sections equally make reference to archaeology. What do you mean?

There are no places at Wiki (and shouldn't be other places) to give the summary of archeological facts, ESPECIALLY if we are speaking about strictly archeological sections like Iron Age sections. No places on Wiki to summarise the archaeology? There are many articles on the archaeology of the two kingdoms! There's one on Syro-Palestinian archaeology, and there's one on Biblical archaeology, and there are others also. Nor is the Iron Age "strictly archaeological" - the bible's Book of Joshua and Book of Judges are about the Iron Age I period, and the Books of Samuel and Kings are about Iron Age I and II respectively. Again I don't see what you mean.

As I've said before, and perhaps you missed it, my problem with your edits is to do with the way you approach writing - I actually agree with you about the historicity of the kingdoms, but we don't need all this detail. PiCo (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Pico's point about detail. As for the inscription, there are two aspects (besides its content and significance). One is the language it is written in, which may be Hebrew. The other is the script, which is so far as I can see not suggested to be Hebrew but Proto-Canaanite or perhaps Phoenician. It's 'Hebrew writing' just as this is 'English writing', but 'French writing' uses the same script as we are using right now. None of your sources have suggested a Hebrew script, and your latest edit will just confuse the reader. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not working collaboratively. Your last edit was disruptive. Sources don't have to be accessible on the web. It's enough they exist and can be obtained. PiCo and Doug are right about the terminology for the script. It seems like you're pushing an agenda and that's not how Wikipedia works. Deleting a big chunk of text like that is nearly vandalism, especially because of what you've done before and that others are trying to explain the problem to you. Take it easy, try to talk it out and come to an agreement before making such edits again. MichaelNetzer (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather it wasn't the case, but I have to agree with MichaelNetzer. It may not be the case, but it looks as though you have an agenda here. Please note that now you have 3 editors opposing your edits on the terminology, any further attempts to add those edits to any articles will be considered editwarring. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ok