This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)sockAnkh.Morpork 16:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)