Talk:Ai (Canaan)

The Ai Subject

68.34.107.47 12:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Ai (Bible): Perhaps I am the first writer on the subject of Ai. I am on the side of Archaeologists who oppose the location of Ai at Et-tell but let us not make a new mistake over an old one. The location itself does not fit the description of Genesis when Abraham is supposed to set Ai to the East (of Hebron) and Bethel to the West (of it). If we look at the map we find the wrong location: both the supposed Ai and the presumed Bethel are far to the north of Hebron. I believe that Edward Robinson and William Albright are honest scholars who wanted to force the map of Palestine to fit the available information. Today we have satellites and sophisticated cartography but also the nation of Arabia has risen from its deep sleep. The Lebanese historians are analysing the etymology of the names of their hundreds of villages and twonships and are finding astonishing resemblance with the Bible stories and names with itineraries. I used to work with a construction company in Juddah who supervised a road construction between Najran and Jabal (Mount) Lubnan in Yemen. Lubnan is the true name of the "English" name of Lebanon. The examples are innumerable to make us forget the works of Edward Robinson with his English tongue. The stories of migrations of tribes from Arabia to the North show priceless similarities between the names of places and townships in Arabia or Yemen and their counterpart in Palestine and Lebanon (Lubnan). That is how you find Sechem and Garizzim in Lebanon, not in Palestine. Also the name of Bettin in Palestine and its similar name of Beiteddin in Lebanon are additional clues. The names of the most eminent tribes (families) in Lebanon give us evidence of these migrations, families like Shimeon, Manassa, Nasser, Issa, Lazar, Pharaon, Ibrahim, Ashkar, Ushaykir, Thabet, Bureidi, Thuwayni, Yammin, Imran, etc... are christian families who migrated from Arabia to Lebanon long before Islam. The remnants of these families are still alive in Arabia although without relations between them. The migration of tribes from Yemen to the North is a subject worth being investigated just like the Lebanese historians are doing today. This includes the name of Bethel, which means the House of God. The region of Mecca [please read my comments about Micah] offers valuable clues as to the country of Abraham location and geography. The name of Hajj itself is a particular term in Arabic specially used for the pilgrimage to Mecca. The local tribes in Hijaz pronounce the J as a Ye and the Ha (as in Hayatt) as a 'Ayn, it is a current permutation in their local dialects. The term Hajj is not only a verb but also a name, a name of place that the tribes utilised to indicate the Heading for Mecca, for centuries before Islam. The name of Hajj is a strong proposal to solve the controversy of Ai. It is not a coincidence that the Mecca area gathers names like Misfilah and Shor in addition to the Kaabah, which is called the "Old House of God". It happens that a town in the actual Jordan east of Petra is called Ai, excatly as the Bible recorded the name, unfortunately this location does not fit the biblical description and geography, it falls on the other side of the Araba valley. I predict that understanding the Arabian tradition and dialects can help clarify a multitude of the controversies surrounding the Biblical events. The barrier between the Modern Hebrew and the Arabic language being only a matter of pronunciation. Respectfully. Noureddine 12:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see Genesis saying the altar between Bethel and Ai is near Hebron. Abraham builds two altars in Genesis 12 (Shechem: 12:6-7, and Bethel-Ai: 12:8). The altar at Hebron in Gen. 13:18 is a different one from these.

In fact, Lot going east to arrive at the Jordan (Gen. 13:10-11) means Bethel and Ai cannot be near Hebron which only has the Dead Sea east of it. Cornelius (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm definitely not a trained archeologist, but did have a fling with Egyptology long ago. It seems odd to me that no one has explored the connection of the city Ai with the Egyptian pharaoah of the same name, spelled Ay. kosboot (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This link suggests the imminent location as Bethel, indicating Ai as an alternate stronghold.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ai-ancient-city-in-the-old-testament

I found this link and thought it interesting. ←Macksfield (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This concerns POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ai as Khirbet Nisya

What about the view that Ai is to be found in modern Khirbet Nisya ? Professors J. Bimson and D. Linvingston had put forth this theory since 1970 (The location of Biblical Bethel and Ai reconsidered, The Westminster Theological Journal, 33). Both the geography and the exacavation that were conducted make it possible to identify Ai with Khirbet Nisya. Source here. May I add a paragraph ? --Squallgreg (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said of nearby Khirbet el-Maqatir. — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as all information from your new paragraph can be found in the scholarly publications you cite, I see no problem with expanding on Khirbet Nisya. I myself want to expand on Khirbet el Maqatir based on scholarly publications. You cannot have any original research in your paragraph, just note. Korvex (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Robots

173.15.120.173 added in something about the Israelite's first attempt to capture Ai failed because 'the robots are too strong.' TheFedExPope (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ai as Khirbet el-Maqatir, expanded

The Wikipedia page on Ai extensively discusses Et-Tell as Ai, but only provides a single sentence to Khirbet el Maqatir, which is an ever growing interpretation of the Biblical Ai amongst scholars because of its vastly superior conforming to the Biblical geo-indicators on the city of Ai than Et-Tell. Khirbet el Maqatir is a very newly excavated site, and so there simply has not yet been time for the consensus to shift. What's worse is, after this very sentence, the page says "Khirbet Nisya may be another location for Ai", making the identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir even less relevant.

Here is what I'm proposing: The 'Possible Location' headline will be split into three distinct categories. One will be for the identification of Ai with Et-Tell, and will be called 'Et-Tell as the Biblical Ai', or 'Et-Tell as Ai' where the current Wikipedia information on Et-Tell will remain the same. The second headline will be 'Khirbet el Maqatir as Ai', and it will explain the scholarly identification of Ai as Khirbet el Maqatir. There will be a third one called 'Other Possible Sites', which will give a scarce mention to Khirbet Nisya and the theory that the Egyptians were the ones who angrily destroyed Ai that is already noted in the Wikipedia page.

The information on the identification of Ai as Khirbet el Maqatir will be greatly expanded on from relevant peer-reviewed publications. One of the publications I'm talking about has already even been cited in the current Wikipedia page (reference 7). Any questions/objections before I go through with the edit? Korvex (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If these are published in mainstream scientific journals, possibly. But I'm guessing you want to use Creationist sources like Associates for Biblical Research, and if so of course I object. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you made an honest mistake, but archaeology doesn't get published into mainstream "scientific" journals, archaeology gets published into archaeological journals. If you find a 10th century BC cemetery in Egypt, you publish it somewhere like the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, not Nature. Aside from that, not only is my point about Ai and Khirbet el Maqatir in a mainstream archaeological journal, one of the references I'm talking about has already been sourced in the current Wiki page on Ai we're discussing! See reference 7, that's the one I'm talking about. So, are we good on Khirbet el Maqatir getting a more comprehensive discussion from this valid citation? Other published papers I may include are published excavation reports on Khirbet el Maqatir, which I probably won't include anyways because reference 7 has all I the info I want to post anyways. Korvex (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought mistakes were always honest. Are you suggesting I wasn't being honest? In the US, the National Science Foundation funds archaeology. In the Netherlands we have http://www.palarch.nl/ - 'Pal' for paleontology, and 'arch' - well, that should be obvious. The Archaeology of Bronze Age Iberia: Argaric Societies says "Gonzalo Aranda Jimenez is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Prehistory and Archaeology at the University of Granada, Spain. He has conducted archaeological fieldwork in different Copper and Bronze Age settlements, and has published in major scientific journals like Antiquity, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Journal of Social Archaeology and Trabajos de Prehistoria, as well as book chapters in peer-reviewed volumes." Tomayto, tomahto, it doesn't matter in this discussion. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are we so willing to provide all the details for why Ai can’t be at one location but not mention the factual reasons another site could be more appropriate? It’s well sourced and I’ve not seen anyone argue that the alternate site doesn’t have a north facing gate or was put to the torch or has appropriate archeological features. Seems very intellectually dishonest to attack a religious source as “fictional” with one piece long description of evidence but to intentionally leave out perfectly appropriately researched facts that could explain an alternative location that is in harmony with a religious text. Lobukia (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Five main hypotheses for location - is this original research?

Is there a good source for this that we can attribute, or is this original research?Doug Weller talk 08:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you're right, Doug. The first and second hypothesis is completely unsourced, but the other three are in fact sourced. Would you like to delete them from the Wiki page or should I do it? I'm not aware of any scholarly research supporting or advocating the first two points. Unless you found a source now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. What problem do you have with singular vs plural? Or the section heading? Is the statement there are "five main hypotheses" original research. And you really need to read it again, the first one is certainly sourced. There's no need to repeat the sources. The Bethel one isn't sourced, nor is the mention of Khirbet Nisya. Note that I removed this link which claims "the absence of any evidence of inhabitation at et-Tell should compel the honest historian to look elsewhere for Ai." - which seems to be an absolute lie if you look at this article and of course Et-Tell. I hope we aren't using bibleplaces.com elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 21:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found a published paper that claims Khirbet Nisya is Ai, http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/85/ -- although there is no evidence that I have seen that the notion of the "five main hypotheses" is anywhere to be found in the scholarly literature. I'm going to edit it out, but if you find an actual reference for it feel free to undo my edit where I remove the reference. I'm also going to add a citation to Khirbet Nisya. Korvex (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bryant Wood and the Associates for Biblical Research

To editor Doug Weller: To editor Korvex: Something has to be done about the destructive insertion of material from this unreliable source all over the place. ABS (Wood's employer) is not a scientific organization. It is a religious organization that describes Woods' position as a Ministry. Amongst other things, ABS and Wood himself support the historicity of the Great Flood. Nobody who does that can claim to be a scientist. Wood openly admits that he starting doing archaeology for the purpose of proving the literal truth of the bible, including miracles and all, and that he doesn't believe the bible contains a single word in error. PhD or not, this might have been mainstream in the 19th century but today it is fringe. We must not present this stuff as if it is respectable. Zero^talk 08:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WP:FTN#Fringe archaeology in biblical related articles. Doug Weller talk 08:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that your biases have been causing you to block allowing factual, scholarly and published information into a Wikipedia page that already explicitly mentions Bryant Wood's proposal of Khirbet el-Maqatir as Ai. Indeed, if anyone looks at my edit, you'll see that there is no fringe information, no bias, and all claims are directly drawn to published material. The funnier thing is, one of my two papers... Has ALREADY been referenced in this Wikipedia page (see reference 7 on the article we're discussing). The second citation is also published scholarly information which I'll get too in a second. It seems that from any reading of Zero and Doug's texts (Doug has been on Wood's back on Wikipedia since 2008, funnily enough) is that Wood runs a Biblical magazine and believes in a worldwide flood. Er... No one cares. This is clearly POV pushing, because none of our discussion whatsoever has to do with the great flood or Wood's magazine. This is about Khirbet el-Maqatir. Bryant Wood is a good archaeologist, no question. He has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology from the University of Toronto and was himself the excavation director of Khirbet el-Maqatir (how many archaeologists have actually directed excavations of entire ancient cities themselves? of course, very few). Wood has a good body of published work, and he has published multiple excavation reports on Khirbet el-Maqatir to the Israel Exploration Journal, a credible archaeological journal if I do say so myself. No word of a lie: What is being done here is quite literally the same as dismissing Newton's scientific work as fringe because Newton believed in alchemy. This is obviously ridiculous POV pushing, and is the same as rejecting Wood's archaeological work because he believes in a worldwide flood, something entirely separate and different. The claim that this published scholarly material (which I repeat, is ALREADY in the references of the current Wiki page on Ai, see ref. 7) is not "respectable" because of irrelevant reasons exposes obvious bias. Any examination of the scholarship of the excavation reports of Ai or Wikipedia's policies shows that not only is Wood's work allowable, but it must be included. Korvex (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nobody cares that Wood believes in things that are impossible? That's a summary of your position and it violates the treatment of reliable versus fringe sources in Wikipedia. The true scandal here is how pseudoscientific outfits like ABS can get excavation permits. Probably the fact that it is in the West Bank plays a part. Zero^talk 02:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Misrepresenting Wikipedia's guidelines is disingenuous. Wikipedia:Fringe theories Fringe theories are theories that are fringe because they have not been published by scholarly sources and/or represent an extreme minority view. A fringe theory is not a view that is held by someone who also just so happens to believe in a global flood. Please tell me how Wood believing in a global flood makes his published scholarly work on Khirbet el-Maqatir published to credible journals like Israel Exploration Journal disappear. As you noted, Bryant G. Wood (not ABS) received an excavation permit for Khirbet el-Maqatir, he was not only excavating there but the director of excavations. This is because Wood is a very good archaeologist, regardless of the accuracy of his non-archaeological views, just like Isaac Newton was a great scientist even though he believed in alchemy. Wood is a great archaeologist with a good body of published material, a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology. Imagine a scientific journal refused to publish the work of a Native American because the Native believes in his cultural creation and heritage stories! The outcry would be immense, and it would be accurately labeled as bigotry. Likewise, you are engaging in pure bigotry, you are dismissing peoples work because of their own personal beliefs that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Please tell me a single Wikipedia guideline that the scholarly excavation reports on Khirbet el-Maqatir violate. Are they fringe? Of course not, they just explain what was found in the site. By the way, rejecting someones argument because of their person (what you're doing) is known to philosophers and intellectuals as an Ad hominem. So, let's not focus on the very credible archaeologist who was so good he received an excavation permit as you pointed out, let's focus on the real discussion, and that is the published, scholarly archaeology. What are your objections to noting pure and published archaeological finds at Khirbet el-Maqatir on this Wikipedia page? There are none, of course. I will soon be re-adding these archaeological bids into the Wiki page.Korvex (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A Creationist archaeologist leading a Creationist organised and funded excavation. Who would have thought? Continually statements about what you "will" do, evidently no matter what others say, aren't a good idea. Doug Weller talk 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't get you anywhere, especially when you are complaining of a bias against Creationism. Yes, I have a pov in favor of science, and Wikipedia is unashamedly mainstream and pro-science. And we do use the work of a creationist Native American, by the way, but in proper context, ie in his article. Wood's religious beliefs require him to reject certain aspects of science and to write nothing that suggests that the Bible isn't literally true. That means that he might be leaving out material or even not noticing it where it conflicts with his beliefs. You're arguing that reports from a Creationist organisation are scholarly. We have very different definitions of scholarly, and I believe that mine are a much closer fit to Wikipedia's than yours. If there are real scholarly discussions by non-Creationists to Wood's work at Khirbet el-Maqatir in peer reviewed archaeology magazines I haven't seen them. But I have found this Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 147 2015 "EDITORIAL: DOCUMENTING ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT", by Adi Keinax-Sciioonbaert:

"for Khirbet el-Maqatir, the main motivation behind the excavations is, according to ABR’s Director of Research Bryant Wood, to “determine if Kh. el-Maqatir meets the Biblical requirements to be identified as the Ai of Joshua”. You may ask yourself, how objective is the collection of data in these excavations? Is it at all possible for an ardent evangelical mission to be impartial in its archaeological endeavours? I will be quick to reply: the answer is a loud and clear “No”" And I do not refer only to the archaeological methodology of stratigraphic exposure or pottery classification, but also to the types of data that are collected more diligently than others. Suffice it to say, subjectivity or selectivity are not limited to archaeologists with religious sentiments, political agendas or personal interests, but are in fact intrinsic to the archaeological discipline and exist at every level of archaeological work, posing a challenge to archaeological documentation, specifically in the region of the Southern Levant but also in general. But whether methodology-driven or value-based, how does subjectivity infiltrate into the archaeological record, and which factors have an impact on our collective corpus of archaeological data of the region?" There's more of course. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

To correct an error of Korvex, excavation permits are granted to organizations, not to individuals. Interestingly, Wood's predecessor David Livingston (the founder of ABR) was dead-set against identifying Khirbet el-Maqatir with Ai. He wrote that el-Maqatir satisfied none of the biblical constraints (apparently his only criterion) and instead believed Khirbet Nisya is Ai. Here you can find Livingston's scholarly dating of the Great Flood. It gets funnier: here is a talk by an ABR guy about the search for Noah's Ark. Zero^talk 11:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And sadly these are sometimes granted (or denied) for political reasons. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that there is a shining glimmer of hope that we are finally making progress. We here see continuous mention of Wood being a creationist, even though this of course has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand. Can someone tell me what believing in a 6000 year old Earth has to do with identifying whether an ancient pot belongs to the MB or LB age? Of course, none can be given. Zero tells us he has a "pov towards science", which is strange considering that no matter how much science is published in scholarly journals on Khirbet el-Maqatir, Zero so far will have none of it because of the man who published it. The great Louis Pasteur was a hardcore creationist, but was also one of the greatest scientists to ever live. Isaac Newton, in my view the greatest scientist ever, believed in alchemy. Should the findings of the great Pasteur and Newton be rejected because of their totally irrelevant opinion on something else? No, of course not. Wood has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and has published all his excavation reports on Khirbet el-Maqatir in valid and credible archaeological journals. Zero makes two points. One, Wood's predecessor (David Livingston) rejected Khirbet el-Maqatir as Ai... But Livingston rejected it decades ago, whereas the excavations in Khirbet el-Maqatir, to my knowledge, begun no earlier than 1998 and that's when all the pottery and stuff started coming in. Not only that, but Livingston never published any of his work against Khirbet el-Maqatir's identification in any scholarly journals to my knowledge, whereas Wood has published a number of papers on it. Interestingly, Zero directed me to a paper by Adi Keinax-Sciioonbaert that basically asserted, without a shred of evidence, that excavations in Khirbet el-Maqatir may be invalid. But where is the evidence to show this? The excavation reports have been published multiple times into scholarly journals. Why didn't Adi even consider actually challenging Wood on the data, but rather frantically dismiss it? This is obviously not any form of scholarly attitude, Adi seems to be POV pushing. Without much surprise, Adi's paper has been cited 0 times. Not only that, but Adi is a scholar who has not been cited a single time in her entire lifetime, and has no more than 3 publications. If you look at those 3 publications, you'll quickly come to realize they have nothing to do with actual analysis of archaeology, but it's basically an "overview" of funding of excavations, raising money, and commenting on where excavations are going. It's basically the equivalent of saying "hey guys, some excavations are going on here and there, we should find out how to raise money a bit...", she never actually discusses any archaeology. But let's put that aside. Let's take a look at some scholarly opinions that are not Wood's, because it seems that a good PhD archaeologist with multiple publications and director of excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir is not good enough here... Of course, it does meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines, the publications are not fringe (the fringe non-archaeological views of the author doesn't change that, as it didn't for Pasteur, Newton, etc).. In 2005, a scholarly book titled Beyond the Jordan written by Peter Briggs says the following in page 157;

"... the three candidate sites for Joshua's Ai that emerges from past research; namely, et-Tell, Kh. Nisya, and Kh. el-Maqatir. Even this very limited three-parameter screen is sufficiently explicit that only one of the candidate sites, Kh. el-Maqatir meets all its requirements."

So... Am I purporting that we publish a Bible and Spade article that says Noah's flood covered the whole Earth written by a popular Christian blogger? No. So what am I purporting? I am purporting to expand the section on Khirbet el-Maqatir by using information published to scholarly journals written by the excavation director of Khirbet el-Maqatir himself who has a PhD in the field and many publications. The amazingly funny thing is, the citation I want to use... Has already been cited in the current Wikipedia page on Ai (Canaan)... Scroll down to the 7th reference. It's literally already there, and it's a scholarly publication. Which Wikipedia guideline is there that rejects any of this published scholarly information? There is none. If the publisher of this information was anyone but Wood with the exact same credentials, this conversation would not even be happening. Let us all admit that this scholarly information deserves to be in the current Wikipedia article, especially considering that the citations are ALREADY IN IT... Korvex (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, you say "basically asserted, without a shred of evidence, that excavations in Khirbet el-Maqatir may be invalid. But where is the evidence to show this?" I'm guessing you've never been on a dig and have only a vague understanding of archaeology. Excavations destroy much of the evidence. It would be almost impossible to prove that something had been overlooked. You're asking too much. She's saying that someone who is digging to prove something may be doing bad archaeology. And she's right. It can happen in non-biblical contexts as well. An archaeologist who goes in convinced that there are things that won't be found, or that will be found, isn't objective. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Doug, do you not see the gaping hole in your argument? Let's remember that one -- Adi is a scholar that has been never cited. Nada. Not once. Ever. She has no more than 3 publications throughout her career, and not a single one of them has ever dealt with the archaeology of any site. In her whole life. Talk about a fringe, it doesn't get more fringe than that. It's interesting that you have repeatedly asked me to show my citations for my works, but that seemingly does not apply when Adi's paper is being discussed. Aside from Adi, let's take a look at the objection you've basically inherited -- no matter what evidence is ever produced, no matter what is ever found in the site of Khirbet el-Maqatir, no matter how many scholars find it credible, you will reject it because one of the excavation directors also owns a Biblical magazine. That's called an Ad hominem, there is literally no other way to describe your objections. Bryant G. Wood is not someone to make up their own evidence. Wood was originally excavating Khirbet Nisya alongside David Livingston to see if it fits with Ai. But it didn't, so he rejected Khirbet Nisya. In other words, it can be clearly shown that Wood is not inventing false locations, rather Wood is just trying to find Ai. He has looked in other places, and he found that the evidence doesn't stack, so he rejected it. This was just another dig for Wood at Khirbet el-Maqatir, but the evidence worked out. You also seem to think Wood is the only archaeologist at Khirbet el-Maqatir. This is not true, numerous scholars (and many more volunteers) are needed to excavate a site, especially a city like Khirbet el-Maqatir. So Doug, is there a grand conspiracy going on over there with everyone on the site? Does the pottery there just magically date to the Late Bronze Age I Period? Are C14 dates and Egyptian chronology dates also in on this? I don't know how to get through to you, Doug, you are POV pushing. The fact that these excavations have been published to neutral archaeological journals says something. Wood isn't some Ron Wyatt, and Wood certainly isn't a liar. You cannot name a single Wikipedia policy that these findings overlook, and the truth is that if any other archaeologist on Earth had published these exact same findings aside from Wood, we would not be having this discussion. Doug, you can clearly see that the current Wiki page already has cited the exact reference I want to use. It's literally already there. Korvex (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I looked into your Peter Briggs quote and found that he is just another Associates for Biblical Research instructor, as well as "Minister of Church-Based Theological Education at THE FOOTHILLS, a Conservative Baptist church" and other religious roles. Let's get real here: show us an argument for Khirbet el-Maqatir = Ai made by someone who is definitely a scientist, not associated with ABR, and not a minister of religion. (Incidentally, it was someone else who said they have a pov towards science, but I admit it: I am for reason and against superstition, and proud of it.) Zero^talk 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Zero continues to push that he is for reason, whilst demanding a citation from a scientist when we are discussing archaeology. Does Zero also want mathematicians to cite archaeological finds before they make it on Wikipedia pages? Scientists have their own thing to do, whereas it is the archaeologists who do archaeology and cite archaeology. So Zero really wants an archaeological reference. Apparently, Briggs doesn't count, not because of his credentials, but because he was part of ABR a decade and a half ago! But aside from the fact that Briggs' citation violates no policies, and I'd hate to be harsh on Zero, but apparently Zero needs a little more knowledge on how books work. Indeed, the book in discussion, Beyond the Jordan, has more than one author and editor, aside from Briggs. Another of them is Dr. Keith Shoville. Shoville is not part of ABR and not a minister. Shoville is a PhD archaeologist with a professorship in the University of Wisconsin and president of the Near East Archaeological Society, as well as vice-president of the American Oriental Society's Midwest Section. He even has his own Wikipedia page, if you want to see it.There are a few other considerable achievements he has made, but I think this is enough. So, the very book in discussion has been co-authored by a non-minister and non-ABR member! Another editor was Dr. Glenn Carnagey, who also has nothing to do with ABR and is not a minister of any sort. So, it seems that even though Zero not only wants me to fulfill Wikipedia's policies for an edit, he wants me to fulfill his own! Now, although that is ridiculous, it seems to have been fulfilled anyways. If Zero advocates for reason as he claims and even against superstition, he will have to fully concede that the section on Khirbet el-Maqatir has to be expanded in coordination with modern scholarship.Korvex (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Now you claim that the quality of one article in a collection is confirmed by who wrote a different article in the collection. This gets sillier by the minute and I note that you failed my challenge. And why are you here if you don't know that archaeology is a scientific discipline? Not prejudiced against "science" by any chance? In an effort to find out what non-ABR types think about it I spent an hour searching and came up with rather little. What I did find was negative. Here is archaeologist Robert Mullins:

"Recent attempts to relocate Ai at Khirbet el-Maqatir near Bethel are not convincing (Wood 2008)." In a footnote: "The pottery that Wood has published from his “LB fortress” is actually MB IIC, making his settlement typical of Middle Bronze Age sites found elsewhere in the hill country at this time." [1]

Here is Aren Maeir (review of Critical Issues in Early Israelite History):

"The final paper, by B. G. Wood (“The Search for Joshua’s Ai,” pp. 205–40), is an extensive discussion of what is, by and large, an idiosyncratic approach to the identification of the site of biblical Ai, and an attempt—in my view, rather crudely and unconvincingly—to “harmonize” the biblical description of the conquest of Ai with the supposed remains of a Late Bronze Age site at Khirbet el-Maqatir, supposedly destroyed at the end of the Iron Age. Without going into an extensive critique of this supposition (and this reviewer cannot see any reason to reject the accepted identifications of Ai and Bethel—e.g., Rainey and Notley 2006: 125), one can note that in the supposed Late Bronze Age pottery in his Figure 12, there appear to be several types that are more appropriately dated to the Middle Bronze Age." [2]

Actually I think that the el-Maqatir theory should be mentioned, but quite briefly due to its fringe nature, and the mention should be accompanied by Aren Maeir's assessment. Maeir' credentials are about as good as they can get. Zero^talk 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Zero^talk 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

(WARNING: LONG RESPONSE INCOMING BUT IT WILL BE WORTH IT) Zero, it seems that in your last comment, you have greatly broken through the overwhelming POV pushing you were inciting in just your last comment. Indeed, it seems your mind has opened to new ideas as a rose blossoms, I am very happy to see this (Doug might be still catching up). Archaeology is not a science, although archaeometry certainly is (search that up). I have already very clearly fulfilled your challenge -- you asked for a single non-ABR and non-minister to confirm the notions of Khirbet el-Maqatir. In the very same book we were discussing previously, I found two. Now, once we realize that one cannot dismiss an actual good archaeologist just because they worked at ABR at one point in their lives, or even to this day, we realize that any dismissal of Peter Briggs on this is biased. Wood has convinced most of his colleagues on this issue as well, such as Eugene H. Merril and Gary Byers. In page 92 of the scholarly book 'The Authors of Deuteronomic History', published by Brian Neil Peterson in 2014, Brian gives credit to the possibility of Wood's valid identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir as Ai. He says the following.

"In the case of Josh. 8:28, the chance that Ai was left uninhabited for close to nine hundred years is unlikely. We know that Ai was resettled sometime prior to the exile in 586 BC. Furthermore, if Bryant Wood is correct in identifying Khirbet el-Maqatir as the location of Joshua's Ai, then archaeological evidence shows that it was partially resettled in the Iron Age I..."

But there's more that I at least know of. For example, in a 2013 paper titled 'RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES THAT LEND CREDENCE TO THE HISTORICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES', Michael Grisanti, who is a professor of Old Testament (and has a number of theological credentials for full disclosure on my part), Michael notes that "In a recent essay, Bryant Wood listed the topographical and archaeological features one should expect at the site of Ai in light of Joshua 7–8. He concludes that et-Tell does not measure up to the biblical parameters for the site of Ai. 33 After ruling out some other possible sites, he argues that Khirbet El Maqatir possesses all the topographical and archaeological features that relate to biblical Ai.34 Here are just a few of those features that are evidenced at El-Maqatir." -- so I do not see how any possible interpretation of the data enlists this view as "fringe" by any reasonable conception. If by "fringe", you mean that some people in the academic community agree and some disagree (I've noted several times more that agree then you have for disagreeing... just saying), then I guess it does qualify as that sort of "fringe". Now, there's something important to note about your two quotations (just a by the way, your link to Robert Mullin's quote isn't working for me), it seems that Mullins and Meier basically attempt to redate some of the pottery found at Khirbet el-Maqatir from the Late Bronze Age to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Meier's publication, if I'm not mistaken is the more recent one, being published in 2011. Mullins apparently thinks all of that pottery is late middle bronze, whilst Meier takes a more easy "several" of the pottery, perhaps conceding that some of them are indeed Late Bronze Age pottery. This reminds me of a recent lecture I watched from Bryant Wood (which was released in 2014), where I remember towards the end of it, he notes that some people have in fact challenged him on his classification of the pottery and apparently, these guys want to bring the pottery in Khirbet el-Maqatir from a dating from the LB I to MB IIB. Indeed, the most recent paper you showed was from 2011, but excavations in Khirbet el-Maqatir did not end in 2011, of course. They are ongoing to this day if I'm not mistaken. In 2013, which was after Meier published his paper, a quite grand discovery was made -- a discovery of a scarab that directly dates to the Late Bronze Age, not Middle Bronze Age. A number of further LB discoveries have been made since and in recent excavations, and especially this scarab (which Byers focused heavily on in his lecture on Khirbet el-Maqatir) completely erode Mullin's and Meier's criticisms. Indeed, since 2011 a number of LB I findings have been made, especially refited pottery. I was able to find a paper by Wood that was published just in 2016 noting some of these findings, and it was published with Aharon Tavger and Zohar Amar -- Amar is presently an Associate Professor at Bar-Ilan University and served as head of the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology for several years... There are also others who helped publish the paper that I'm too bored to write out. So this is not fringe. Every year that passes by, Khirbet el-Maqatir continues to yield findings that definitely establish a dating of various finds, such as even a fortress in the last few years apart from the aforementioned scarab that dates to the Late Bronze Age.

So Zero, let's come to an intellectual agreement here. This is what I want us to do. First, I will insert an edit to the Wikipedia page, expanding the academic resources on Khirbet el-Maqatir from the aforementioned scholarly publications. Then, you will make an edit. You will not that Wood's pottery findings have been criticized for dating to the Middle Bronze Age rather than the Late Bronze Age in a brief sentence or two. Finally, I will conduct a third edit where I note these very recent findings that put actual findings from the Late Bronze Age in a brief sentence or two. I do not want the portion of the Wikipedia page on Khirbet el-Maqatir to be too large. Your thoughts?

References

- Korvex (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

If you add this based on those sources it will be reverted per the discussion below. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Korvex: If you can't express your opinions succinctly, don't expect anyone to read them. And nobody cares what your opinion is about el-Maqatir, so quit that. Everything you need to know is at WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is the thing you need here that you don't have any of. Now you are going to show us a relevant paper authored by Wood, Tavger and Amar, right? Zero^talk 04:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

sourcing generally

this article was very badly sourced. Starting going through and sourcing it. The last three paragraphs (starting with "There are five main hypotheses about... and ending with .... Kirbet el-Maqatir." appears to be WP:OR, assembling a narrative from what are really primary sources. Am looking for scholarly sources that summarize current views; this will help us determine what to mention and how much WEIGHT to give it. This is the classic solution to problems like this. High quality secondary/tertiary sources that summarize the views in the field. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, a number of things lack citations. If you want to remove the claim that there are "five main hypotheses", go ahead because I found no evidence of this in any scholarly literature. By the way, for the line that mentions Khirbet Nisya might also be Ai, this does in fact appear in the scholarly literature. If you don't mind, add this scholarly reference to the claim on Khirbet Nisya for me: Livingston, David Palmer, "Khirbet Nisya 1979-1986: a Report on Six Seasons of Excavation" (1989). Dissertations. 85. --- the link to the paper can be found here: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/85/ ---- what are your thoughts?Korvex (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

And his thoughts on Ai are cited in how many scholarly publications? Can't you find any non-Creationist sources? Doug Weller talk 19:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Doug, I do not at all support the identification of Khirbet Nisya with Ai, so I am not possibly biased when it comes to a paper on Nisya... But Livingston's remarks have been published. If they weren't, I would be the first person to denounce the mention of Nisya in the Wiki page, but Livingston's paper (which I gave a link to above) has, according to Google Scholar, been cited 7 times. I can confirm 3 of these are scholarly, whereas the rest are either non-scholarly or just other papers written by Livingston himself (I'm sure we can agree self-citations don't count). So I see no problem with adding a quick citation to a scholarly source that devotes literally under 10 words to Nisya. If you're talking about the citations to Khirbet el-Maqatir being identified with Ai or just excavation reports on Khirbet el-Maqatir in general, there are numerous papers on this, not just one, which have all been cited. For example, reference 7 in the current Wiki page, one of Wood's many publications on Khirbet el-Maqatir, has 10 citations according to Google Scholar. 9 of them are scholarly (I'm not sure about the 10th). A second paper you might be interested in on excavations in Khirbet el-Maqatir is the one Wood published in 2000 to the Israel Exploration Journal titled ' Khirbet-el-Maqatir, 1995-1998-Excavations and surveys-Notes and news' -- this one has 6 citations, and at least 5 are scholarly. Your thoughts?Korvex (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

But didn't Livingston fail to prove his identification of Anissa with Ai? At least that's what someone who acted as his external examiner says.[3] So I don't see the point. More tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Korvex what you personally think is irrelevant to anything in Wikipedia - please stop expressing your opinions here. As I noted in the first post of this section, what we need to move forward is to look at multiple secondary/tertiary sources that summarize current thinking, and we give WEIGHT according to them.' It doesn't matter if person X has published on this topic -- at all -- what matters is how experts in the field summarize views. If you are unfamiliar with WP:WEIGHT please read it. It is policy. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Jytdog, not only are there multiple excavation reports published in credible archaeological journals on the Khirbet el-Maqatir as Ai, but it does in fact have weight in academia. Wood's publications have been cited many times and I've not yet seen a single Scholar claim that Khirbet el-Maqatir is in fact an invalid identification of Ai. These publications have been cited many times in scholarly publications and multiple publications have in fact been published. So this is not some sort of 'fringe' thinking, and it certainly isn't unreliable. Please read through my sections on this Talk Page to get some relevant info. For example, in 2005, a scholarly book titled 'Beyond the Jordan' by Peter Briggs writes the following in page 157;

"... the three candidate sites for Joshua's Ai that emerges from past research; namely, et-Tell, Kh. Nisya, and Kh. el-Maqatir. Even this very limited three-parameter screen is sufficiently explicit that only one of the candidate sites, Kh. el-Maqatir meets all its requirements."

So, as you can see, academia does consider the identification of the Biblical Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir as valid, the excavation director of Khirbet el-Maqatir has published many excavation reports in credible archaeological journals like Israel Exploration Journal noting what is being found at the site (such as pottery, walls, etc) and these credible publications written by good PhD archaeologists have in fact been cited a good number of times. So what is obvious is that these findings that I am discussing are obviously not in violation of WP:WEIGHT or any other Wikipedia policies here. I clearly gave a detailed explanation and analysis above of the citations to published articles that show they are taken seriously, so I see no excuse for your response here. I hope there is no POV pushing going on with you, as that itself is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Please explain to me how multiple published excavation reports to credible archaeological journals that have been cited and given weight to by the scholarly community on several occasions somehow does not qualify as having weight within academia. It obviously does, Wikipedia is better than this. As for Doug, who I'm very glad to see is much more neutral -- I really don't know if Livingston "failed" or not. I think he is dead wrong, but I wouldn't say he "failed". The current Wiki page devotes less than 10 words to Nisya and so I see no problem with throwing in a quick citation. Anyways, I care not nearly as much about Nisya on the Wiki page as el-Maqatir, which should really be under discussion. If you don't want Nisya cited, then I do not care and I think it's a waste of time taking focus away from expanding the section of Khirbet el-Maqatir with valid and published archaeological sources from good archaeologists that are taken seriously in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You are continuing to ignore WP policy. I will ignore further comments you make along these lines and edits you make along these lines will be reverted by me and others. If you continue to advocate policy-violating edits, you will end up topic banned. You will do as you see fit. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

My sources do not violate WP policies, and my previous thoroughly written comment to you was an explanation why it doesn't, as you're baselessly asserting it does. You are clearly POV pushing, for all materials I've shown have been published by credentialed archaeologists in respected journals, as well as have been cited numerous times in other scholarly material and considered valuable by the scholarly community. This does not violate Wikipedia:Fringe theories or WP:WEIGHT -- it does not violate Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- so which one does it violate? You've been shown by my extensive previous comments that it does not violate a single policy. Does anybody know what to do with a user that blocks out material regardless if it doesn't violate any policies or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 23:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that your sources violate policy. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Err.. So... If it does not violate WP:WEIGHT or any other Wikipedia policy, as shown by the multiple references to it in scholarly material... Why is it in your wishes to undo all my edits? I think there is no reason. Korvex (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No that is not accurate. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, you're being too vague. The material I am advocating for has been published into credible archaeological journals. The material I am advocating for was published by a good archaeologist who has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and was quite literally the excavation director of Khirbet el-Maqatir himself. The material I am advocating for was published by a man with an extensive publication record on Khirbet el-Maqatir and other subjects. The source I want to cite... Is already in the citations on the current Wikipedia page (scroll down to references and look at the 8th one... That's it right there). This information that I want to expand on passes all Wikipedia policies with flying colors. What are the problems with my intentions? Jytdog, you should take my side, as you are clearly POV pushing right now. You should take my side and stand by Wikipedia's policies. What are your thoughts?Korvex (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You are the one insisting you understand NPOV/WEIGHT and arguing. You don't understand it and I am not interesting in trying to shout over you. I explained what is needed here in the opening post and in my second post in this thread. More detail is here. Jytdog (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, Jytdog wants to be as vague as possible when denying the expansion on the current Khirbet el-Maqatir discussion on the Wiki page. As I have shown above, I not only have multiple primary sources, I also have secondary sources from multiple archaeologists who accept my proposition. So I have numerous scholarly sources by scholars, and numerous scholarly references to these scholarly sources, and thus I have easily fulfilled all of Wikipedia's policies. Jytdog refuses to have this, even when his own standards on secondary and tertiary sources have been confirmed. All Jytdog needs to do is stop threatening me with reversions for my enlisting of scholarly material and we can actually go on with our lives. Apparently, I am being accused of inciting a "shouting" session because I called Jytdog's remarks vague. WP:WEIGHT has most certainly been fulfilled here. Any thoughts?Korvex (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There are some subtleties to WP policy; the key thing you are not failing to understand is what "secondary source" means in WP. You are bringing what we call "primary sources" and OR based on them. I know you believe you aren't, but this is based on a misunderstanding of these technical terms. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have never spoken to someone as vague as you in my life. I did not even think it was possible to devote an entire comment to the meaning of the term 'secondary source' without actually explaining what you define as by the term 'secondary source'. In your next comment, define what you mean by 'secondary source', and then show me a link where your exact definition is corroborated by Wikipedia's policies. Otherwise, my proposals violate not a single Wikipedia policy and you should support them being added in.Korvex (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I am referring simply to WP's policies and guidelines, which you agree to follow every time you save an edit per the Terms of Use (see the text just above the "save" button, and the link there). The ToU also allow the community to block or ban people who persistently ignore the policies and guidelines. I have provided you plenty of links to places where you can learn and have briefly summarized the relevant policies and guidelines here for you. If you continue as you have been, you are heading to a block or a topic ban. As I said, it is your responsibility to learn (and providing links for people to read, is how we teach) and your responsibility to understand and follow the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So, to oblige the request, see WP:SECONDARY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What a miracle! Jytdog continuously has refused to send any notions of what a secondary source actually is, but Tgeorgescu has actually done it himself. Finally, it's about time we've got a source on this. A secondary source is a source based on the original primary source that contains no primary information. I have a number of secondary sources for Khirbet el-Maqatir on Ai. I have noted a number of these previously. So my identification clearly is confirmed by both WP:WEIGHT and WP:SECONDARY. So, when is this POV pushing going to end? I have shown scholarly publications by good archaeologists that have been cited and discussed on several occasions in scholarly material in which none of it is fringe. Therefore, every objective person should clearly take my side and advocate for the expansion on the current Wikipedia's page on Khirbet el-Maqatir.Korvex (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I had already provided you already everything you needed, and no, you do not understand how NPOV works. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Korvex says " I've not yet seen a single Scholar claim that Khirbet el-Maqatir is in fact an invalid identification of Ai." The first hit on this search challenges it[4] and that book is by someone who thinks there might be some evidence of an Israelite conquest.2015 review by Aren M. Maeir This 2015 book says Wood's identification is not convincing. So I think we can mention Wood's identification in a sentence, showing with sources such as these that it has not yet gained acceptance. 14:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)talk

Thinking about it and the importance of using secondary sources, I've gone ahead and made the change. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Fringe & religious archaeology

Although Korvex cites WP:FRINGE, I don't think he understands it. Adi Keinax-Sciioonbaert's comments are mainstream, not fringe, when she writes " Is it at all possible for an ardent evangelical mission to be impartial in its archaeological endeavours? I will be quick to reply: the answer is a loud and clear “No”" And I do not refer only to the archaeological methodology of stratigraphic exposure or pottery classification, but also to the types of data that are collected more diligently than others. Suffice it to say, subjectivity or selectivity are not limited to archaeologists with religious sentiments, political agendas or personal interests, but are in fact intrinsic to the archaeological discipline and exist at every level of archaeological work, posing a challenge to archaeological documentation, specifically in the region of the Southern Levant but also in general." Creationist archaeology is thus intrinsically suspect. It isn't just a Christian issue, as this quote from The Oxford Companion to Archaeology" says: "The search for religious truths in alternative archaeologies is not only a Christian phenomenon. Jewish nationalist archaeologists have interpreted ancient sites in Israel in light of biblical readings, while Hindu nationalist archaeologists in India have done the same with elements from the Sanskrit Ramayana and Afahabharata epics. The malicious interpretation of structural remains around the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya as a Hindu temple, in light of the Ramayana. led to its destruction and the murder of thousands of people, most of them Muslims, in the ensuing riots."

This doesn't mean that all biblical archaeology done by Christians or Jews is wrong, of course, and Keinax-Sciioonbaert is clearly being specific about the type of religious motivation she is discussing. But that done by biblical literalists/Creationists is, even those who sometimes get their material published in real peer reviewed journals. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

As you probably noticed in your reading, religious-Jewish archaeologists are not rushing to endorse Wood's claims. The reason is that his claims rely on a dating of the Exodus&conquest that contradicts the rabbinical chronology. Zero^talk 22:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This is to both Zero and Wood. I want to respond to Zero first -- Zero, I am writing here as a continuation from the other section. It is not that I am "unable to explain myself succintly", it's just that I listed so many peer-reviewed sources and academics validating the identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir that my comment became very long. It was very succint, there's just too much evidence and peer-review to note quickly. In that post, I have shown all publications by Tavger, Wood and many others. As for Doug -- Doug, I understand that academics do realize there may be religious bias. But Adi's claim that the excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir in specific are religiously guided dismissable nonsense is in fact fringe, there's a reason why Adi, someone who has never been cited in her lifetime, is the only academic I have seen to not only single out Khirbet el-Maqatir excavations in specific, but outright dismiss them without even one comment on the archaeology being produced at the site. That is in fact in violation of WP:FRINGE and is a classical Ad hominem. I have shown in a recent response to mine of Zero (the one I noted to him earlier) that there is considerable peer-reviewed and academic support of Bryant Wood's identification. It's only common sense that Adi's remarks violate WP:FRINGE. Not only that, but you make a big deal out of asking me for the # of citations for almost every publication I bring up, so why do you not apply it to Adi's paper? Adi's paper has no citations. So Adi's remarks and her paper belong nowhere within a mile on the current Wiki page.Korvex (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfair citation removal

To editor Doug Weller: Doug, I like your recent edit, but I have one problem. I like your edit, so I did not undo it (for now). In your edit, although you cited of the criticisms on Wood's identification, you completely removed this citation -- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd?file=The+Search+for+Joshuas+Ai.pdf -- from the Wikipedia page that was already there, and is the sole citation that explains Wood's identification of Ai. Why did you remove it? It's peer-reviewed and has been plentifully cited, and was already on the Wiki page. It's only fair to re-add the citation, because I think you accidentally removed it. It needs to be re-added because at right now, all we have are the critical sources of Khirbet el-Maqatir and none of the positive ones, which clearly violates WP:NPOV.Korvex (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you cite it, you have to cite it properly. Hess, Klingbeil and Ray are the editors, Wood is the author. People who see the citation need to know who actually wrote the source being cited. In this case it is Wood himself. Zero^talk 01:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

There is not consensus that this is a reliable source, Korvex. You will have to bring this to RSN. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I've posted it on RSN. Until responses come in there, what lead you to conclude it wasn't reliable?Korvex (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

As Zero0000 says, you haven't cited it properly - you FOUND it on BibleArchaeology.org, but it's FROM a book, "Critical Issues in Early Israelite History". The author is Richard Hess, who's quite a respected archaeologist and scholar. Being peer-reviewed doesn't come into it. The book doesn't seem to be available at google books, so the version you found is acceptable. There's a reference to it in Moore and Kelle: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Qjkz_8EMoaUC&pg=PA100&dq=%22The+Jericho+and+Ai+of+the+Book+of+Joshua%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq5_bXn_XRAhVIe7wKHSBRAOIQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Jericho%20and%20Ai%20of%20the%20Book%20of%20Joshua%22&f=false PiCo (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo: No, that's not correct. Hess is only one of the editors of the book, not the author of the chapter being cited. The author of the chapter is Bryant Wood. Zero^talk 07:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

WHen I looked at the table of contents I saw two articles on this, one by Hess (who is also and editor) and one by Wood. I think the one we're talking about is the article by Hess. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be legitimate to mention the view that Albright mis-identified Ai, it needs to be couched in the terms used by Moorre and Kelle in the link I posted above - i.e., it's not accepted by the majority of scholars. PiCo (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo: The only chapter available at the link Korvex posted at the start of this section is the chapter by Bryant. As you say, there is also a chapter devoted to Jericho and Ai written by Hess. Here is everything Hess' article says about Wood's theory: "Although some would relocate the city (see the essay by Wood in this volume), the tendency to connect Tell Beitin with Bethel makes possible the identification of et-Tell with Ai." (p.34) So Hess is politely dismissive. Zero^talk 11:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As I read this thread, Korvex's problem is with the use or non-use of the pdf from BibleArchaeology as the source. Personally I think the Moore and Kelle page in my link is a better source, as it places Bryant's suggestion in an npov context - conservative scholars raise these ideas but they fail to convince the majority of scholars. Just a single sentence is needed, and there's no reason or need to mention Bryant Wood by name.PiCo (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit I just reverted

Korvex wrote "However,scholars are not entirely certain that Et-Tell is the location of Ai. Koert van Bekkum says that there is scholarly discussion on the location of several biblical cities, including Ai, citing Bryant G. Wood who has recently come to identify Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir."

The source actually says that "The stratification of Jericho is complex, but it looks as if the conclusion that the city was uninhabited during the Late Bronze Age is hard to avoid.113 Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I." van Bekkum then writes "In some of these cases, this interpretation of the evidence is challenged or the identification of the excavated mounds with the biblical cities is questioned." and cites not just Wood by Livingston also. He then adds "But although a number of the alternative proposals may be plausible, none of them is entirely convincing. Most of the time the claims of the biblical account are more or less modified, and the material remains are tended to be looked upon as tangible proof of what is supposed to have happened. As a result, the conclusions find clear support in neither the Bible nor archaeology. Therefore, the debates about the non-existing cities show that in the case of the conquest, archaeology can not function as undisputed ‘external evidence’."

As this seems to be a violation of NPOV, I've reverted it. I'll try to rewrite it tomorrow using what the source actually says. It can be found here.

References

-- Doug Weller talk 19:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug, you have made some serious accusations (and your 'tomorrow edit' must receive its own agreement if I am not to undo it). You say I either have not read the source, or have misrepresented it -- both of these are false. In order to see what I am talking about, we must examine exactly what my edit said, and exactly what Van Bekkum said. Here is the wording of my edit:

However, scholars are not entirely certain that Et-Tell is the location of Ai. Koert van Bekkum says that there is scholarly discussion on the location of several biblical cities, including Ai, citing Bryant G. Wood who has recently come to identify Ai with Khirbet el-Maqatir. Bryant G. Wood's identification has been accepted by some, although rejected by others.

So, what did I specifically say, word for word about Van Bekkum's book? I said he states that there is scholarly discussion on the identification of Ai. So, what does Van Bekkum say, word for word? Let's quote the entirety of the relevant parts from pp. 41-42 of the book:

Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I. Similar problems become apparent with respect to the archaeology of Arad. Additionally, the mound in Transjordian identified with Heshbon produced no evidence at all for an occupation earlier than the 12th century BCE. At last, Gibeon, Jarmuth, and Hebron have such meagre Late Bronze remains that they could have been merely small hamlets or only burial grounds at the time. In some of these cases, the interpretation of the evidence is challenged or the identification of excavated mounds with the biblical cities is questioned.

Van Bekkum specficially states that "In some of these cases, the interpretation of the evidence is challenged or the identificatiion of excavated mounds with the biblical cities is questioned", and then cites Wood's discussion on Khirbet el-Maqatir. That is exactly what my edit reflects, it says that Bekkum notes scholarly discussion on the location of several biblical cities, including Ai -- and that's what he does. Now, you seem to take something out of context -- the next statement Bekkum says. He says that "none of these are entirely convincing", and that some of the time, the data is skewed. However, he gives a citation for this "skewing" of biblical/archaeological data -- he specifically cites Albright's work on Et-Tell, not Wood's work. Bekkum does not state Wood's work is skewing any data, he says Albright is -- at best, he calls the identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir "not entirely convincing", which does not conflict with my edit. All I pointed out is that Bekkum noted actual discussion on the identification of these cities, and that's exactly what he does. You note he mentions David Livingston -- again, actually read the citation. In citation 116, he says he will reference discussion on both Ai and Bethel. Livingston's paper discusses the identification of Bethel, whereas Wood's paper discusses the identification of Ai. Livingston's cited paper has nothing to do with Ai.

In other words, you seem to have misread Van Bekkum in a number of areas, and have ended up taking to accusing me of misrepresentation (not a very good way to presume good faith). I can only expect an apology for the accusation that I have deliberately tried to lie about what Van Bekkum says.Korvex (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of lying. I may have misunderstood what he said about Livingston but I'm not able to look at the source just now. I still say that by leaving out his comments on Ai you misrepresented the source. I made no comment on what he said about who was doing what to sources. IIll look at it tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the edit misrepresented the source; it also gave UNDUE weight to discussion of Wood's view in that source. Thanks for reverting. Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Van Bekkum's paper does state that there is scholarly discussion on the identification of Ai, and cites Bryant Wood's identification as an example, and so the existence of misrepresentation is rather curious, Doug. The only part that you have suggested to include is where Bekkum states that he is not "entirely convinc[ed]" by these identifications, however this statement does not conflict with my statement about Van Bekkum's book. I merely stated Van Bekkum references the discussion on the identification of Ai, and that's Van Bekkum did. Van Bekkum does not make any of his own criticisms against any of the identifications, and so including that Van Bekkum is not "entirely convinced" of certain identifications is a useless endeavor. In fact, that's exactly why we have Maier and Mullin's criticisms on Wood's identification. Jytdog seems to not know what UNDUE weight is.Korvex (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again you are saying that you know more about policy and guidelines that much more experienced editors. Misrepresentation is the omission of "Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I." That's key to his argument about Ai. and this is an article about Ai. I disagree that his statements about not being entirely convincing and "As a result, the conclusions find clear support in neither the Bible nor archaeology. Therefore, the debates about the non-existing cities show that in the case of the conquest, archaeology can not function as undisputed ‘external evidence’." don't refer to Ai. Anyway, I've replaced his statement about Ai. That's all we need. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug, do not make any edits yet until we have a consensus. I disagree with your edit and therefore have undid it. In order to understand whether or my edit qualifies as "misrepresentation", we must understand 1) exactly what misrepresentation is, and 2) take into account what is already on this page about Ai.

1) What is misrepresentation? Misrepresentation is "the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something" -- does the statement "Koert Van Bekkum states there is scholarly discussion" on this give a misleading account of his claims? No, that is what he says. You apparently also want to add in the part where he says "most scholars support the identification of Et-Tell", but that would be redundant, because the Wiki page already states "Fifth, although most archaeologists support the identification of Ai with et-Tell, there is some disagreement" -- repeating that there is a majority is redundant and therefore should not be included.

2) So, what did my edit say? It specifically stated that Van Bekkum, a scholar in the field, notes that other scholars are still debating the identification of Ai, where most scholars support the traditional location of Et-Tell, recent claims have included Wood's identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir (just to note to you, the final excavation report on Khirbet el-Maqatir has not even been published yet, only the first two have been so far). What is meant here is to cite the scholar Van Bekkum in order to make the Wikipedia reader understand that this is not a closed discussion regarding what scholars think of where Ai is. No one is citing Van Bekkum to establish any one location, let alone Ai which had just had three paragraphs devoted to it in the page -- Van Bekkum is specifically being cited in order to convey to the readers of Wikipedia that scholarly debate is happening. Van Bekkum's personal opinion that not a single location (including Et-Tell) is not "entirely" convincing is irrelevant to the page about Ai (Canaan), because we want to give the arguments from both sides of the debate as to which place is Ai, not note anyone's opinion. So, Van Bekkum's reference is to note that there is discussion, and THEN Wood is cited to note exactly where this discussion is happening. Finally, my edit cites one source that agrees with Wood, and retains two sources that disagree with Wood. It's a 100% valid edit and qualifies all of Wikipedia's policies.

And it left "Most archaeologists support the identification of Ai with et-Tell" unsourced. I'm not interested in the "not entirely" bit and didn't use it in the article and hadn't planned to, I was just providing context. I can't see what was wrong with " Et-Tell, identified by most scholars with the city of Ai, was not settled between the Early Bronze and Iron Age I." Except perhaps that you don't like the last bit. It left it clear that Wood disagreed. We don't need him van Bekkum to tell us that, it's already in the article and I didn't touch it. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "identified by most scholars" is not the same as "there is scholarly discussion". This is slippage, akin to saying "there is no scholarly consensus on climate change" because there's a few that disagree. If we accept the authority of a scholar like Van Bekkum, who seems to be a pretty decent scholar (if this means anything), then stating it the way Korvex does is undue. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, you cannot simply decide to force Doug's edit by undoing my revert when there is no consensus it is valid. Trying to force Doug's insertions of material by undoing my reverts is edit warring, please stop.

As for Van Bekkum's book, please read the pages in discussion (41-42) before stating such errors. Van Bekkum clearly states 1) "In some of these cases [identification of several biblical cities such as Ai that was just mentioned], the interpretation of the evidence is challenged or the identification of excavated mounds with biblical cities is challenged", and then he cites Wood's work. THe second quote 2) is, in the actual citation 116, Van Bekkum writes "For literature concerning Ai and related discussion about the identification of Bethel with el-Bireh instead of Beiten... (citations of Livingston on Bethel and Wood on Ai)" -- Van Bekkum specifically calls this "literature concerning Ai", and the "challenge" to the identification of places like Bethel (by Livingston) and Ai (by Wood). The book makes it very clear, especially if you actually read pages 41-42. By the way, the book you cite to prove Van Bekkum's scholarship is coincidentally the very book in discussion. Noting Van Bekkum's view that Et-Tell is the current "majority" view, if that could be said, is fine, but trying to dis-attach his references to current scholarship on the identification of Ai is incomprehensible.Korvex (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, there is something here that's very basic and that you don't seem to grasp, or want to grasp--it's under discussion, yes, but that does not mean you get to have your way while discussion lasts. By reverting you I have indicated my disagreement with your edit, and I have explained my rationale here. It should be obvious to anyone that you don't have consensus that your edit is valid either. In fact, you're one, and your opponents are three. I also think, having read your rebuttal, that you don't get my point. My problem is with the wording of your edit, which I think is undue and tendentious, and favors fringe. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Those are some fair criticisms, Drmies. But I have two important notes to make. 1) It is not my edit. Look at the edit history. It was Doug Weller's edit that he made without a consensus, before you or Jytdog ever entered the conversation. I undid his edit because we were still discussing the issue. I was not making any positive edits, Doug Weller was, and I reverted his edit. Then, you decided to undo my revert of his edit. 2) I'm glad to hear your only disagreement is regarding the wording of my initial edit. What is your own opinion on how my argument should be worded, so it removes the "fringe"? I'd also like you to identify which part was actually fringe too.Korvex (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

My dear Korvex, I'm really not interested in who "owns" the edit "originally". I reverted you, because I think that the text as you left it was inferior to the text that was there before. And it really doesn't matter, in most such cases, what was there a year ago or ten years ago. As long as we're discussing stuff we can't chisel the text in stone, but that doesn't mean that we can't have the text reflect a kind of provisional consensus, and I think we have that here. I noted above, in my first comment, what my problem was with the edit, which I think is undue in that it suggests that a rather fringey view is presented as if it were a valid alternative with a roughly equal amount of scholarly support behind it. PS, between you and me, you would fare much better here, and with much less conflict, if you had stopped this revert business earlier. We discuss things here, and, to cite a wise woman, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. If you're right, you'll prevail at some point (I'm a liberal, I guess, and therefore an optimist), and in the meantime you don't want to get blocked for appearing to be so combative people don't want to work with you. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)