|WikiProject Palestine||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
A map was deleted on the assertion that "remove map pr Undue. This is probably just a Biblical myth. Not backed up by archeology. Read Israel Finkelsten". There is no requirement that the map had to relate to archeological evidence. I see no such requirement. The map relates to the text. Which relates to the history from the Bible. There is simply no requirement that it be based on archeological evidence. And we are tasked with not engaging in OR about it "probably" being a myth of the Bible.
I am fine at the same time with this edit. And addressed the concern in this edit (an appropriate one -- good catch -- "Mukaddasi did not live in the "Biblical period") by adding a title rather than deleting one -- in conformity with the lower sections. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- The practice of adding maps of biblical mythology to articles about locations has to stop. Zerotalk 00:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confused. We have an RS. Written by an author who is notable (he has a wp article about him). Why would Zero be asserting that it must be deleted -- and deleting it? On the assertion that "It is not biblical history but recent mythology." It's without question worthy of reflection here -- as we have a notable author writing it, in an RS. If Zero has a different notable author (with a wp article about him), writing the opposite in an RS about Dura, he is welcome to reflect that as well. But there is zero reason to delete it, other than OR.
- As to the map, what I have written above holds.
- Your comments and that of your colleague are tantamount to saying that we must strip out of all articles of cities mentioned in the Bible what the Bible -- per an RS -- says about the city. Why would you want to erase from Wikipedia all such references to the Bible?
- If you two editors will only mimic each others' OR assertions that the notable Professor is wrong, and his RS book is wrong, can you suggest what forum we might bring this to for dispute resolution?
- Like I wrote in my edit summary, the tradition about Noah's tomb is already in the article, in the "Ottoman" section, as it was reported by Guerin in the 19th century. More detail is there too, not just a useless "some people believe". If you can find a good source for an earlier tradition about this tomb, that would be interesting and we could include it. But we can't call it "history" since it isn't. It is just a tradition. There are other "tombs of Noah" in Kerak and Atab as well. Besides that, the awful tertiary source you used is not acceptable when there are scholarly sources available. Zerotalk 11:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
At presently, ref 7 gives "Avi-Yonah, p. 96" ....but there is no Avi-Yonah in the Bibliography. Could someone please inform this ignoramus who/what Avi-Yonah refers to? Preferably in the Bibliography section, Thanks, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Probably it means the book mentioned in ref 6. But I don't have it handy. Zerotalk 11:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the book, and your intuition is as reliable as ever: the text is not supported by the source. I'll read it a bit then get my scalpel out. Zerotalk 10:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, not so much intuition, as experience. I have lost track of how many badly sourced Bible or Torah sources I have found. Look at Beit Furik: I see you reverted some uncited. They then come back, and "sourced" it. To wikisource and a settlers website....
- The other thing is that the "classic scholars" (Robinson, Guerin, SWP) were also basically guessing, and disagreed between themselves. Wikipedia could be great to at least "clear up" the differences between them. The mix-up continues to this day; have you seen: User:Huldra/Dauphin & Finkelstein? The Dauphin mistake on Talk:Al-Qubayba, Hebron took some time to figure out... Cheers, and good luck with Avi-Yonah, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)