From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleJerusalem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2007.
Article milestones
April 2, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 21, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 28, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
August 7, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Shuafat, (pre)historically, still is NOT Jerusalem[edit]

Why do we need to go back to that? (See here: Talk:Jerusalem/Archive 25#Shuafat, (pre)historically, is_NOT Jerusalem - from 2016!) Who gets a nationalistic orgasm out of a clear mistake? The age of a city is given by the oldest layer of its own HISTORICALLY DEFINED HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AREA. In the Chalcolithic era, as throughout pretty much all of the next SEVEN THOUSAND YEARS (see Third Wall if you doubt it), Jerusalem was defined by the Gihon Spring and Eastern Ridge, including the Temple Mount, the Central Valley, and the Western Hill, with various expansion areas, which never, until several millennia after the Chalcolithic, did include what's now Shuafat (and let's not fight over Second Temple to Byzantine period, it's still a good 3400 years gap between the end (!) of the Chalcolithic period and Herod & family, who expanded the city northwards). So no, Chalcolithic-period Shuafat can never be the same as Chalcolithic-period Jerusalem. Cities grow nowadays at scary rates, they swallow up other historical towns and even cities. This doesn't make the history of those places be their own. Motza is for all intents and purposes part of Jerusalem, but the Israelite temple discovered there was a sensation precisely because it ISN'T considered to be a second Jerusalem temple, but a distinct one at a distinct, but not geographically distant, site in the Judean Hills. But Motza isn't claimed by Abu Mazen, so we have no argument over that one. Arminden (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: @Power~enwiki: I see it was you who removed the separation (headings, etc.) and mixed up the two very distinct Chalcolithic sites ([[1]]). I am sure you meant well and didn't know the specifics. Please don't remove it again, it has a whole range of implications and is factually totally wrong. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

{{Citation needed}} The locations are 3 miles apart, a claim that Shuafat is a historically separate town needs some sourcing, particularly on a topic so prone to POV-pushing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to ask for a source to prove the absence of a relationship. What's needed here are reliable sources that a) say there was a Chalcolithic site in Shuafat and b) connect it to historical Jerusalem in some way. I'm not seeing that; press releases and news reports are poor sources for science, especially for archaeology, and especially for archaeology in such a politically-loaded context. The section on Shuafat ought to be removed until there are scholarly, reliable sources available.
(And for what it's worth, three miles was a long way in the Chalcolithic, when even the largest cities were no more than 20 hectares.) – Joe (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is this over-detailed?[edit]

Debresssr, re his incomprehensible removal: The section has far too little data (b) it is an important historical note on intercommunal relations relating to demography. Your edit summary saying it is far too detailed ins inadequate, since it assumes that the a section without significant detail doesn't require more.Nishidani (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

There are several problems with that addition - the two most notable ones being that the source was referring to the early 20th century and that the source itself attributed this to an estimate in the memoirs of Ya’akov Elazar. So it can't be said in our voice, and needs to be scoped to a very particular period in history.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nishidani My edit summary assumes least of all the completely illogical statement you ascribed to me. As i said clearly, that was too detailed. If you want to add details, add more general details. I, for one, do not necessarily share your assumption that the section is lacking detail. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)