User talk:Skimtaro

Welcome!

Hello, Skimtaro, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Large Stone Structure (Bronze Age Jerusalem) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Introduction tutorial
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Introduction to referencing
Help pages
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Large Stone Structure (Bronze Age Jerusalem), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. No source for “ can therefore be critisised as lacking proper scientific foundation.” Doug Weller talk 17:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doug, I dont get your point on this. Your first delet I can partly accept as I did only reference the statements given above that part. But would you be so friendly and explain, why you keep deleting my comment, even after I inserted a reliable source? The article by Avraham Faust is cited on the same page only a few lines above it. Skimtaro (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the bit I quote. There’s no source and you’re wrong anyway. You seem to assume the dating is not accepted but in fact it’s disputed, and to meet WP:NPOV we’d have to show the rebuttal. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are misunderstanding my point, maybe it is not clear as I normaly do not write or speak english. But the article by Faust and the statements by A. Mazar make it very clear, that the dating as suggested by Finkelstein was proposed before the analysis of the material was published. He just assumed on the basis of what he saw when he visited the site.

So therefore I have to say, that his position concerning the datin does lack proper scientic foundation. At least in case of the article from 2007. If there is a later source, that is including those findings by E. Mazar then that should be qouted.

And you assume, that I assume that the dating is not accepted. but that is a conclusion drawn from maybe unprecise use of the english language. The way I read it the article does not include a discussion but rather proposes the position of Finkelstein as the correct one. To make it clear, that there is an ongoing discussion, the sentence at the end should be "He suggested that circumstantial evidence seemed to suggest the dating of most elements to the late Hellenistic period".

Skimtaro (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that Faust's dates are challenged, so we can't use them to prove anything right or wrong or that it lacks scientific foundation (and you would need a reliably published source saying that, editors are not allowed to use their own opinions or conclusions. I'll try to see if I can improve the article today or tomorrow. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks foor your answer. I get your point that the dating is under discussion, but there also should be a note concerning the arguments against Finkelstein, which can be found within the articel of Faust. The article of Faust also does not publish his own findings, but is based on the publications by E. Mazar, A. Mazar and Finkelstein. As the title says: He reexamines the findings.

The source is for sure reliably published. The magazin is published by a german scientific community (Deutscher Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas (palaestina-verein.de)) and I know for a fact, that the current Head Prof. Jens Kamlah) is a professor for Archealogy and Theology at the well known University of Tübingen, as I have studied there.

And if we exclude any articel proposing the opinion of it's editor, shouldn't the article by Finkelstein et al. be excluded in the first place?

I don't try to mock you, but I want to understand, as I found those information to be relevant as it is part of the bigger discussion concerning the united monarchy. Skimtaro (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein refutes Faust.The "Large Stone Structure" in Jerusalem: Reality versus Yearning eg "An examination of what was actually found 13 versus the reconstructions 14 is revealing. In his plan, Faust makes an attempt to distinguish between finds and reconstruction. Yet, his drawing of the actual remains goes far beyond what was found, including some crucial points: the full eastern line of Wall 20 in his plan does not exist in E. Mazar' s plan (this includes the critical point of connection between the SSS and Wall 20); Wall 107, which has an angle in its northern face (an angle which makes it difficult to accept its full length as belonging to a single wall), appears in Faust's plan as a straight-line wall; Faust's drawing of the northwestern corner of the area also shows more than what was actually found."

"4. In many places Late Hellenistic and early Roman pottery was found as deep massive walls interpreted as belonging to the LSS 18. In one spot a complete Herodian cooking pot was found among the large boulders 19; in another place a late Iron was found between the stones 20". Doug Weller talk 14:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. As I said: I see that there is a debate. I think the source you have given now is much more relevant and can underline the argument of Finkelstein as given in the Wikipedia Article. Still I do not see, how the article of 2007 hould be sufficient, as the articles by Faust and Finkelstein show that there is debate, that is not reflected by the article and the dating that Finkelstein produces is based on a very problematic field: the dating of pottery.

In any case: I would suggest to add, that the dating is still scientifically debated and much of the problem is basd on the different reading of the findings.

To return to one of your arguments: Is the article by Finkelstein not proposing his own view and should therefore be excluded? I do not understand that part of your point. Skimtaro (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No to the last, and we can’t give our own analysis. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that woudn't be our own analysis. It would only state the point, that there are articles with differing opiniions on the topic. The debate is not settled as you can see. If we exclude this from the article, then we work against the goal of thruthfulnes. You surely can see this? Skimtaro (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]