Jump to content

Talk:Gezer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debris Measurements

[edit]

Do we really need to list every rock and grain of sand removed (and how much each bit of that debris weighed) while clearing the tunnel? The Canaanite Water Tunnel section has a full paragraph listing how much dirt, how much rock was removed (all of this is debris, not archæologically significant items) while excavating the tunnel, as well as bothering to mention how much that dirt weighed and how the dirt was bagged. If your hobbies are watching paint dry and weighing dirt pulled from the ground, maybe this paragraph is right up your alley, but I don't see how this adds anything for the average reader (nor even for the more in-depth readers). — al-Shimoni (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't trivial, it does indicate the large scale effort going into clearing the water works, and also says something about the huge effort that must have going into creating the water works in the first place. Besides, I would be more inclined to discussing the necessity of specific content were this article 100K long instead of a mere 11K. Gezer is an important site and this article has a lot of potential for expansion. We should be thinking about all we can add to it before deleting content by someone who was kind enough to contribute. Poliocretes (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"first positively identified Biblical city"

[edit]

What does that mean? What about Jerusalem, Jericho, etc? There is no source and as it stands this is meaningless. Zerotalk 12:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Bible

[edit]

The term Hebrew Bible is NPOV between Christian belief in the Old Testament and Jewish belief in the Torah. It is the recognised academic term for use when referring to this document on its own, when one is not including what Christians call the New Testament. see the wikipedia entry the Bible and History, where this document is referred to as the HB. Hope this helps.Do not collect (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC) sock Ankh.Morpork 16:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bible shouldn't be used as a source for history at all - it was a work of theology, written long after the events it describes. PiCo (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

I've been trying to reword the lead to conform with our NPOV policy and WP:LEAD. I've added a more specific location, removed 'Land of Israel' as a phrase that in most of our articles is pov and confusing to most readers. Added some stuff about it becoming a major city, etc. I don't see why we should have a paragraph listing major biblical discoveries in the lead, why are these being made more prominent than the Bronze Age discoveries? Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When someone gets time the citations need to be fixed, eg James F. Ross, The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 30, No. 2 (May, 1967), pp. 62-70 is the first reference. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

The article is a bit light on sources. I'm particularly interested in where this comes from: "Verification of the identification of this site with Biblical Gezer comes from Hebrew inscriptions found engraved on rocks several hundred meters from the tel. These inscriptions from the 1st century BCE read "boundary of Gezer"." Hebrew in the 1st century BC? What's the source for this? PiCo (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Later: It's from the Jewish Virtual Library. This isn't a reliable source. They might be right, but it sounds wrong, and a more academic source is needed. PiCo (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Excavation of Ancient Gezer" by E. W. G. Masterman in "The Biblical World" Vol. 21, No. 6 (Jun., 1903) seems helpful w.r.t. all the "citation needed"s. AlgorithMan (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Gezer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gezer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MFA

[edit]

Alaexis I said it was unreliable. And per WP:ONUS you need consensus for the restoration of challenged material. Ill revert you later if you dont do the correct thing and self-revert absent a consensus for inclusion. nableezy - 15:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also have previous discussions on the MFA, eg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#Israeli_Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_is_not_reliable_source?. A government agency is not a reliable source for anything other than the views of that government, more so when that agency is specifically the chief propaganda agency for that government. nableezy - 15:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that this page by the MFA is unreliable? It's not in WP:RSP and bias does not equal unreliability. Please note that I agree that it's not an ideal source and should be replaced by academic sources, however it does not justify blanket removal. Alaexis¿question? 15:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The MFA does not have any expertise on the topic of archaeology, history, or anything other than promoting the Israeli government to the world. Beyond that, you have the onus backwards here, you need to demonstrate that it is reliable, not that I demonstrate that it is not. An RSP entry is not a requirement for a source to be removed as unreliable, that is asinine. A government propaganda outfit is not a reliable source for ancient history. It is shocking that this needs to be stated. Self-revert the clear WP:ONUS violation please. nableezy - 15:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks. I've added {{bettersourceneeded}} tags to make it clear that this source is problematic. This is not how WP:ONUS works: this is longstanding content reflecting the current consensus and you need to provide at least some evidence that the source is not reliable. Have they published falsehoods? Are they called unreliable by other RS? Alaexis¿question? 16:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which personal attack? And yes, that is how ONUS works, and WP:QUO loses any standing once there is a challenge. I have already provided that evidence, a past RSN and basic logic. You havent even claimed that it is reliable. I am going to revert and if you think it should be retained you need to establish consensus for it. nableezy - 16:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis and a lot of the long-standing had even worse sources. Restore them too? Bad sources, misrepresented sources, etc get missed. That’s not a reason not to fix it. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the old version had 12 CN tags, what do you suggest doing about them? Doug Weller talk 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue about tags. I do hope someone will find good sources for all these claims. Alaexis¿question? 19:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late for me to submit a DYK for this article?

[edit]

@Richard Nevell:, in March of this year, I worked extensively to improve this article, but for reasons unbeknownst to me - perhaps even because of the vicissitudes of work on other topics, I downright forgot to submit a DYK on this article. Is it possible for me to receive a waiver to submit a belated DYK on this article, even though 3 months have now passed?Davidbena (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best place to ask would be Wikipedia talk:Did you know as it would need community consensus. Since DYK is intended to showcase new content (either from scratch or expanded so much as to be unrecognisable) there may not be much flexibility at this far on but there's no harm in asking. The worst that can happen is folks say no.
As an alternative, if the article is passes the Good Article process then there'll be another window to make a nomination. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gezer&oldid=1229467620"