Talk:Herodium

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herodium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130403140549/http://62.90.240.156/ngedi-new/website/products/herodion-national-park/index.html to http://62.90.240.156/ngedi-new/website/products/herodion-national-park/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herodium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202203004/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2Cq8ky2fCfGD06moCzWPCujGAyw to https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2Cq8ky2fCfGD06moCzWPCujGAyw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Reverting

Debresser

• (1) Sites are manged, not controlled. That choice of word was probably inspired by the Israeli control of the area, but that is not relevant to the site per se.

This was an opinion, preferring ‘managed’ to ‘controlled’

• (2)As I said, sites are manged, not controlled. Sourced do not support the claim.

This is an obviously false claim in your edit summary. Your revert wiped out sources introduced in the meantime which confirm that Israel, an ‘occupying power’ conducted the excavation 'in territories under its military control,’ and the site thus is arguably ‘a cultural settlement –maintained by military force (Ziffer) (2) the excavation took place in territories occupied by Israel, ’supposedly in international law under Palestinian control.(Yigal Bronner and Yonathan Mizrachi)

So the sources both support the use of ‘control’, be it Palestinian or Israeli, and to blatantly deny the evidence of the sources by asserting in the face of this evidence that they ‘do not support the claim’ is source denialism, or the deliberate falsification of the clear factual evidence.

The argument for control is warranted by the uncontested fact that the excavations are conducted under the aegis of the West Bank military authority. The military ‘manage’ territory only euphemistically: 'control' is the default term.

By the way, no one ‘manges’ anything, even in mangled dog-eared prose, unless one is a Frenchman commenting on his interlocutor's appetite .

Lastly, I don’t know how many times I have seen you repeat a revert with an edit summary of the type: As I said, with the recurrent failure to grasp that other editors, with other reasons, exist. You haven’t made an argument: you have, with that language, asserted your personal feelings as authoritative, something that got you into trouble at AE not so long ago.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Archeological sites are managed, geopolitical areas are controlled. That is a matter of good English, not of opinion. The "sources" you provided do not use the word "controlled" in connection with the site, so are worthless. The last stable version is "managed", so the burden of proof is on you. Also, please comment on the subject, not on the editor. Debresser (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but English is my mother-tongue, and your point is patently specious. One manages one's own land, one controls land that is not part of one's recognized territory. When land is disputed, management is euphemistic, and 'control' is, as per the sources you refuse to read, the operative word, true of both the Palestinian and Israeli authorities with regard to land in the Palestinian territories.Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Control may include management and may not. In this case the park authority is responsible for the trash.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I've often told you, don't be vague. Try to answer precisely the arguments made. When you have a military base at the bottom of the hill, it is not 'management' but control. You don't 'manage' a site by barring Palestinians from it. You 'control it.'

I suggest you read the relevant historical sources on antiquity when, as now, the area of Palestine was subject to territorial conflict between insurgent autochthones and a foreign empire. The word 'control' is used in dozens of major academic works for the period of the Jewish revolt, regarding any number of sites, no historian in his right mind would say 'Rome managed Jerusalem'. Specifically, see William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, Steven T. Katz The Cambridge History of Judaism: Volume 4, The Late Roman-Rabbinic Period Cambridge University Press, 1984 p.135:

’Thirteen economic documents and twenty-three letters discovered in the Judaean desert confirm that Ben Kosiba was in control of the Herodium and En-Gedi regions until 135.’

The parallel is precise, and cogent.Nishidani (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That sentence concerns military control, while Herodion is an archeological site. In any case, you can not push your POV against a consensus version, when there are two in favor (you and Malik) and two against (Icewhiz and me). That is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please desist till such time as a new consensus emerges, or risk being reported. Debresser (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This is totally erratic. 2 against 2 in your count translates into the 'consensus version'? I'd advise you to reexamine the word 'consensus'. As for the math, you ignored this edit, which, though a technical rollback by NeilN, restored the version I left, while you were reverting out the same material that I/P wanted out.Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You are consistently avoiding the point raised. The Herodian is an archaeological site outside Israel which is under IDF military control. There is a base at the foot of it. Roads to it under normally referred to as 'under Israeli control'. I am not pushing a POV. Rather than asserting a personal opinion, I have drawn several sources to your attention which explicitly call it a place controlled by Israel. Consensus is worked out on a page and votes are not cogent in WP:Consensus, the quality of the arguments given are. If you wrote, 'the Romans managed Jerusalem', at the time of Bar Kochba's revolt, you would not only raise eyebrows: any editor would pull out red pencil and call a spade a spade. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This site being under Israeli cohtrol does not preclude management - in this case by the parks authority - that cleans the trash, places signs, has park rangers, manages excavations, etc. If Israeli control were limited to a military outpost and lording over Palestinian managers (or lack of any management) you would have had a point. As is the site is in Israeli controlled territory and is managed by the park service.Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Debresser's obiter dictum re English usage - ’Archeological sites are managed, geopolitical areas are controlled,’ -collapses under the weight of sources showing the contrary.

• (1) The signing of a sponsorship agreement allowed the British School at Rome, with the support of the Packard Humanities Institute, to undertake directly under its own management and at its own expense conservation work on the archaeological site controlled by the Italian State.

• (2)'One of the most important cultural heritage places in Kenya is Thimlich Ohinga, an internationally significant archaeological site controlled by the National Museums of Kenya that consists of one of the largest stone enclosures in Africa, second only to Great Zimbabwe. The site was designated a National Monument by the Republic of Kenya in 1981, and was nominated by Kenya to be included on the prestigious World Heritage List in 2010.
• (3)'a western cemetery which is currently the village’s archaeological site controlled by the MoA (Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities).

Icewhiz. Wikipedia's whole code of verification demands that editors employ evidence and reasoned analysis, not simply chatty opinions. So far, all we have for exclusion is a vague assertion about English usage from someone whose mother tongue is not English, which, as I have shown, runs against ample evidence to the contrary, including historiographical literature that consistently uses 'control' for sites contested between the Roman empire (the occupying power) and Jewish insurgents, the autochthonous people. Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you all hammer out a wording that captures both the military control exercised by Israel over the site and the management carried out by the parks authority. It isn't just one or the other; it is both acting cooperatively. I believe that both are lead-worthy aspects of this place. Zero^talk 12:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Along the lines, setting an interesting precedent:'East Jerusalem is controlled by the Israeli government, and managed by the Jerusalem Municipal Council'? Nishidani (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Following the recent RfC on the Jordanian occupation, now annexation, there is clear precedent for some wiki wide changes on eastern Jerusalem, which has been annexed by Israel. But that is a separate issue from this site that has not been as of yet.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There has been according to Ian Lustik no formal annexation of East Jerusalem, and use of the word for that area is improper.Nishidani (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani please comment on the issue, not on the editor. My mother tongue may not be English, but that doesn't mean that you are right when you are wrong.

Sites are manged and areas controlled, and your sources only address the area issue, so are not relevant to the site.

There is a consensus version, not because it is 2 against 2, but because that is the version that was in this article till a recent change. Don't be daft.

Now please be a dear and stop being disruptive. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not commenting on an editor to note that their mother tongue is not English. It is a factual statement. That English is my mother tongue does not mean I am right: but unlike you, I have provided substantial evidence that your assertion about English usage is not compatible with the evidence. I have now provided 7 sources to justify my opinion. You have (a) reverted on one occasion, when you thought this might allow you to take me to AE for a sanction over 1R. (b) asserted that 'Sites are manged and areas controlled' when there is evidence you refuse to acknowledge that this is untrue (c) refrained from anything more than reassertions of your personal views, without evidence, or rational argument on the talk page (d) bided your time until you could simply revert the page. It is a classic example of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, confirming the impression that you customarily consider any reasoned challenge to your opinions an outrage. Please desist and confront the arguments and evidence given. There is no 'consensus version,' unless you take 'consensus' to mean, that one other person agrees with your faulty beliefs about English usage.Nishidani (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

And apropos one's mother tongue, please try to memorize the fact that 'managed' is one thing, and 'manged' (afflicted with the mange) is another in English. I have corrected you three times and you still persist in this illiterately dysfunctional spelling. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

No, Debresser, there is no consensus version or we wouldn't be edit-warring over the language. If you wish to believe that your preferred version has consensus, prove it. Otherwise build consensus. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nishidani Obviously I meant "managed". If I wrote something else, that was a typo, nothing more. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz There is a version that stood before recent edits. Call it "consensus version" or "last stable version", or whatever you like, but per WP:BURDEN you can not change it without consensus, and as this discussion and the reverts clearly show, the is no consensus for a change. So sorry, but I had to report you for being disruptive. Debresser (talk) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't cite policies and guidelines that don't say what you think they do. BURDEN says no such thing. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Debresser, WP:BURDEN really does not say what you claim it says. It puts an asymmetrical onus on insertion versus deletion, not on changing versus keeping. Zero^talk 00:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing articles on Wikipedia means removing one statement and insert another. Therefore WP:BURDEN is imminently pertinent. Debresser (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support use of the word "controlled" because of the evidence provided by Nishidani. A trout to Nishidani for repeatedly mocking Debresser for an obvious typographical error. Not cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I invite you to examine the references of Nishidani once more. I find they support usage of the word "control" only in connection with the general area in the geopolitical sense, and do not not use that word in connection with specific and very limited area of the archeological park. Debresser (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The point is, Debresser, that your edit summary flies in the face of this thread. You have User:Nishidani, Malik Shabazz, and User:Cullen328 supporting control; you have Zero saying there is room for a compromise, i.e. that this is not a zero-sum game, and also reminding you, as others have, that you are misreading the relevant policy; you had NeilN reverting an IP who instantly erased the material I added. You say the material is not specific to the Herodium, which is quibbling because all of the material I added states 'control' in the context of focusing on the Herodium; you have now Jonathan Cook, and Harriet Sherwood using precisely the language of Israeli control over the Herodium, the latter even citing the Israeli Museum that, in response to questions re the Herodium, Israel putatively has control over all archaeological sites in Area C. Your edit summary is therefore a case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT,- you have been backed, with nugatory arguments on the talk page, only by User:Icewhiz. Please desist from this persistent pattern of dragging other editors into edit-warring.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to read the above but I reverted and blocked the IP solely because of disruption [1] - no comment as to content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if that looked ambiguous. I stated earlier that your revert was a 'technical rollback', phrasing which I intended to be taken as indicating you were neutral to the question itself. I repeated this distinction, by specifying above that 3 editors were in favour of retention, two against, something Debresser knew when he did his revert today, in defiance of what was, on the talk page, a provisory majority. In any case, we should not be reverting out a large amount of new material whose RS status, and relevance to the specific topic, no one has questioned, until this discussion is completed. Once this is thrashed out, a large amount of that material should be relocated to the section below, where 'control' is mentioned. It is there pro tempore, some bolded, in order to draw editors attention to the evidence whose validity Debresser contests. Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

In obeisance to Zero's advice on a compromise I suggest the following:

the site is under Israeli military control and is regulated by the Israeli Parks Authority.

This because the civil administration is a military body (b) there is a military base below the site.Nishidani (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

the site is under Israeli military control and is regulated managed by the Israeli Parks Authority as a designated national park.

, as the park authority does not regulate, but rather park authority employees maintain the site.Icewhiz (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The source (Cook) states:'Both the archeological sites at Herodium and Jericho are regulated by the Civil Administration.'Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the Civil Administration is not the Parks Authority and mentioning three bodies at once would make it too unwieldy. I'm leaning towards "managed", but I'd like to hear what "designated national park" means. Does "designated" mean "proposed"; or what? Zero^talk 23:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No. It is an actual national park - since 1968/1985 or so. see - [2] The mountain was declared a National Park in 1968 and has since been visited by many tourists. Lower Herodium was proclaimed as a National Park in 1985 and is at present under the auspicies of the Nature and National Parks Protection Authority - or the description of the site in parks authority - [3] - seems it costs 29 NIS to go in, there is a cafe, gift shop, guided tours, various trails, organized opening hours, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz. When one gets a proposal for a compromise, it is best not to introduce a third term outside the two we are discussing, which you have just done. It just complicates things. If designated = 'actual' what we get in your terms is another standard paradox in usage: an Israeli national part outside Israel. One has to be very careful in conflict studies of allowing one side's descriptors to emerge as the only narrative terms, as your proposal does. The Herodium, like so much of the loot and plunder of conquest, will be eventually in Israel, but not for some time, and it would be deceptive of editors to adopt the official Israeli position of pretending these annexationist projects are already realized. We don't do that with East Jerusalem, and we should not be doing it with any other site in the West Bank, archaeological or otherwise. We had this argument before. Israel calls the West Bank 'Judea and Samaria', we don't. Israel calls the Herodium an Israeli national park, we shouldn't, unless with attribution and a further complication of the Palestinian counterclaim balancing it.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Paradox or not - this is a designated national park, with park authority signs all over the place (e.g. - this sign at the entrance), and a toll-booth at the entrance where you will have to fork over 29 NIS per adult or 15 NIS per kid (However if you paid annual park authorities dues list prices here (181 NIS for an individual, 396 NIS for a couple + 2 kids) - you may enter the Herodium on the annual pass). You will see park authority employees in their uniforms on the grounds, etc. This is the actual reality on the ground. I don't think that citing "Palestinian counterclaim"s will help you very much vs. the park rangers who are on the grounds - but I suppose mileage might vary on use of such claims.Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You can cite Israeli official sources till the cows come home, but they all remain indices of a contested POV. You are confusing the issue by ignoring our obligation to describe things neutrally. To say 'Judea and Samaria' for the West Bank is the preferred Israeli descriptor, whereas we use 'The West Bank' because that is the term established by international usage. Likewise, Israel can declare a patch of foreign or contested land as an 'Israeli park' but that phrase explicitly insinuates what, for the moment, is a falsehood, in that it suggests to the reader Israel has sovereignty, which it doesn’t. The Israeli word does not become a sovereign deed (of title) until this is legitimated under international law. You are citing the Israeli official POV as though it constituted the reality, and not merely a claim.

So let me reproduce the contested lead. We have the following:

Today, the site is controlled[5][6][7][8][9] by the Israel National Parks Authority and is a designated national park. Israel asserts that it is entitled to work the area under the Oslo Accords, but Palestinian authorities say Israel has no right to undertake digs there or remove artifacts to Israel discovered in excavations there.

To cover this neutrally we need to simple isolate the three dominant facts, ai.e.

(a) the Herodium is under military control, and (b)administered/managed by the Israeli National Parks authority, (c)both of which jurisdictions are contested by the Palestinian National Authority.

This suggests that we can reorganize this as a distinct lead paragraph along the following lines:

Today, the site is under Israeli military control, administered by the Israeli National Parks Authority, and contested by the Palestinian National Authority. Israel asserts it is entitled by the Oslo Accords to work the area, while the Palestinians contest Israel’s jurisdiction over, and use of, the site and its archaeological artifacts.Nishidani (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

.

If we are to compromise, then this is the kind of language that covers all angles. Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You are giving UNDUE weight to the Palestinian claim while ignoring the reality on the ground - the toll booth that will charge you 29 NIS to enter the site. Sure, the Palestinian claim should be mentioned briefly, but so should the physical reality. At the very least - " and contested by the Palestinian National Authority" should be struck in the first sentence as it is already covered in the second sentence. Should the PA actually contest the physical reality on the ground in a significant fashion (with military or park ranger forces) then perhaps they might bear mentioning in the first sentence. Furthermore, that the site is an actual national park (contested by the Palestinians, but a national park none the less) bears mentioning.Icewhiz (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

reread the above, this time closely. When there are two POVs, one is not 'the reality on the ground' and the other just a POV claim out of touch with reality. The realities on the ground are many, such as that Israel shifted 30 tons of archaeological artifacts out of occupied territory in violation of its legal obligations under international conventions. I'm not going try push that 'reality' into the lead, and neither should you try and get over there that everything there is as the Israeli official position states. Please don't turn this into a chat forum. Long threads lose the interest of precisely those outside editors who may wish to inform the page of their independent judgments on the specific issue here, which they can only do if the evidence is not cluttered by the to-and-froing of opinions. Mine are known as are yours. Okay? Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you are giving undue weight to the tollbooth. It is not just the Palestinians, but the international community and practically all professional archaeologists, who know that under international law and convention, an occupying power is not supposed to be digging -- let alone removing what it finds. That practice was dropped in the early 20th century by the rest of the civilized world. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should expand on the Israeli justification of this being the Jewish homeland, former mandate area, and Terra nullius in 1967. However all these claims and counter-claims serve little purpose. There are two distinct and separate issues here:

1. Legal/diplomatic claims surrounding the site - which are essentially the same as in the rest of the West Bank.
2. What actually exists on the ground.

If we look at our article, and possible readers - e.g. tourists to the Holy Land - that the site is an Israeli designated national park in Area C (West Bank), next to Jewish towns and a military base and some 40kms from Masada - is of immediate practical interest, whereas inter-state legal claims are of little note.Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe your last point is mistaken. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Using Al Jazeera as a source for the word "control" raised a smile, but the Guardian is not a source I want to contest here. I will abide with the word "control". As far as I am concerned, this article can be unprotected. Debresser (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

I removed a few sources for the word "control", for two reasons. First of all, because having 5 or 6 sources for one word is overkill and looks ridiculous, but mainly because those sources specifically do not contain the information needed. They mention the word "control" in connection with the general West Bank area, not Herodium. Debresser (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This degree of sourcing for one word - which is not in doubt (Israel (and the park authority) obviously controls the area - the question is whether we should use a more expansive term and/or add a term - not whether "control" is accurate) - is clearly excessive.Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Debresser removed:

• Harriet Sherwood, 'Israel unveils Herod's archaeological treasures,' The Guardian 12 February 2013:'Herodium is located in Area C of the West Bank, which is under full Israeli control, and the site is administered by the Israeli Parks Authority. . . .The Israel Museum said that Israel was given temporary control over archaeological sites in the West Bank under the 1993 Oslo accords, and that the museum had co-ordinated with the Israeli Civil Administration, which governs Area C.

• Morag M. Kersel, 'Fractured oversight: The ABCs of cultural heritage in Palestine after the Oslo Accords,' Journal of Social Archaeology, Vol. 15(1) 2014 pp.24–44, :’(a) From 1967 onward, legally and administratively, the West Bank was subject to an occupying Israeli military government, with military commanders in each area empowered with administrative, governmental, and legislative powers (Cavanaugh, These powers were executed through a series of Israeli military orders. ‘‘Orders codified Israel’s control of the Occupied Territories far beyond the concern of its military forces,’’ (Gordon, 2008: 31) which resulted in two of these orders directly affecting cultural heritage (nos. 1166 and 1167), well beyond the mandate of the Israeli military. pp.26-27;(8) Area C remains in the control of the Israeli Archaeological Department of the Civil Administration (ADCA). . . In an ideal world, Palestine should now be in control of the archaeological sites within its territorial boundaries. p.29; (c ) Lawfare, the strategy of using—or misusing—law in asymmetrical situations, has resulted in Israel invoking law (Israeli Military Orders, the Oslo Accords, and the UNESCO Hague Convention in Area C) to control cultural heritage in order to capitalize on potential tourism revenues and to cultivate support from varied constituencies (i.e., evangelical Christians). At the same time, Israel is concerned with controlling the histories and narratives being presented at the various sites in Palestine. Narratives at the site of Herodium concentrate solely on the life and death of the ancient King of Judea, no displays of the pre- and post-Herodian period.p.32

• Yigal Bronner and Yonathan Mizrachi, 'King Herod, long reviled, finds new love among Jewish settlers,' The Forward 19 May 2013:’ Since Herodion and Herod’s palaces in Jericho are located in the territories that Israel occupied in 1967, they are — according to international law, the codes of ethics for the preservation of antiquities, and even the Oslo Accords — supposedly under Palestinian control and responsibility. One could imagine a very different scenario. The exhibition at the Israel Museum could have been based on joint Israeli-Palestinian research, performed both in Israel and in Palestine, and, as is standard throughout the world, it could and should have loaned the artifacts from the Palestinian Antiquities Authority. Instead, the museum opted for the dominant “no partner” approach and simply appropriated tons of artifacts from West Bank sites, as if this were merely a matter of transferring Israeli property to its rightful place in the national museum. Indeed, the museum preferred to partner with the so-called “Civil Administration,” which runs the occupation of the West Bank and turned Herodion into a profitable settlement (from which Palestinians are barred). ‘

My comment: Firstly, the Sherwood article, which is presently not in the article at all, and which mentions that Herodium is located in Area C of the West Bank, which is under full Israeli control should be re-added to where it was. Secondly, the Kersel and the Bronner/Mizrachi articles are presently mentioned elsewhere in the article, except that the Kersel reference currently lacks all the commentary above. That should be expanded. Huldra (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

First, Debresser and Icewhiz edit-war because they argue "control" is the wrong word, now they argue there are too many sources that support the word "control". Make up your minds, boys. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not edit war, please retract. The correct place to present evidence that this POV slant is due is on the talk page - not by stuffing the article with every ref you could find supporting this slant.Icewhiz (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz As soon as the word "control" was established with reliable sources, I accepted the word. You can't blame me for following Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Once that was established, however, there was the issue of the number of sources and, mainly, the lack of relevance of some of them. Again, can't blame me for following Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Please stop commenting on the editors. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources should stay for a very simple reason: to avoid the repetition in the future of the same edit-warring. It is a reminder that what was once bitterly contested as inappropriate language has strong source backing. Remove the sources that made this case beyond dispute just opens up the paragraph or section to further challenges by editors who don't take the trouble to consult the archived talk pages. There are precedents for this, and it is sound practice. If, having 'lost' the case, you chip away at the evidence that remains, it looks like a propaedeutic to return to the same refusal to face the evidence that caused the dispute in the firs place. See the lead definitions of Palestinians and Jews (the latter has 9 sources, and they used to be stacked together, and the passage is an egregious case of WP:OR, but editors who back that synthetic and misleading definition insist on retaining those 9 sources, against all talk page evidence that the definition thus constructed is flawed. The second point is that there are growing traces of attempts to jump at the Area C articles and anticipate the future by bolstering the idea that this is Israeli territory. Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: Debresser above claimed that he removed sources as They mention the word "control" in connection with the general West Bank area, not Herodium. I showed you that in Sherwood example that is simply not correct. At a minimum that source should be reintroduces, also as it is not presently in the article. And having many sources is not an argument against adding other sources. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

If the presence of too many footnotes is an issue, and I'm skeptical that it's what's motivating editors here, see WP:CITEBUNDLE and Help:Citation merging for possible solutions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz I explained my two motives above. Please do not be skeptical. 18:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra Sherwood says "the West Bank, which is under full Israeli control", so control goes back to the West Bank, not Herodium. So I showed you that my claim is correct.

In addition, there is simply no need to have that many sources, and we don't do that on Wikipedia, bring all sources. I have seen other cases where there were many sources, after a previous conflict or otherwise, and the less relevant were simply removed after a while. 18:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, providing readers with as much relevant information as is required for a topic. When a point is subject to doubt, as I noted with several articles, we get multiple sourcing. It's reasonable to keep them: clicking on any of them opens up wider horizons.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It is precisely as you say. More than 2-3 sources is more than "as much relevant information as is required for a topic". Widening horizons can be done, if necessary in a "Further reading" section. Sorry, but your post goes contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and practice, as well as common sense. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant references

In synagogue section, reference to the jpost website is irrelevant and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moughera (talk • contribs) 07:01, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Debresser (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Wholesale revert

@Onceinawhile: If your bold edits are reverted, with an explanatory edit summary, making a wholesale revert and asking for more detailed explanation, is not the right thing to do. The right thing to do is take it to the talkpage. Please review WP:BRD. In any case, I appreciate your edits, and have made 3 smaller reverts with very detailed edit summaries. I expect you to discuss, in case you disagree with anything. Debresser (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, thanks. Note that "Keep this balanced and neutral, please" is NOT an explanatory edit summary. It is a vague comment. I will address your helpful more-focused edits now. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser Please note that you have broken 1RR, which I assume you will self-revert.

To try to make progress:

1. [4] The site is in the West Bank, not in Israel, so it is highly notable that it is designated an Israeli national park. Why hide the reason for the notability of this fact? Hiding it is non-neutral.
2. [5] your edit changed the Arabic name without explanation? The source giving Jabal al-Fureidis as the Arabic name is 150 years old, prior to the excavations. Arabic Wikipedia uses هيروديون. Why on earth should a site which is not in Israel have the "best known in Israel" as its first descriptor?

So to summarize, the site is NOT in Israel, so Wikipedia must not pretend it is. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I am happy that we are discussing here. Before going into the specific edits, let me just state that IMHO "Keep this balanced and neutral, please" is a clear enough reason to revert, since WP:NEUTRAL is a core policy of Wikipedia.

1. Your comment does not make sense. Nobody is hiding the fact that it is an Israeli National Park. To the contrary, it is you who want to add to that that it is in the West bank, which is not related to the fact that it is an Israeli National Park.
2. Sorry for missing the change in Arabic. I hope I fixed it now. If not, please do so yourself, since my Arabaic is not so good. Your question "Why on earth should a site which is not in Israel have the "best known in Israel" as its first descriptor?" is overly naive, since you know very well that the same lead says "Today, the site is controlled by the Israel National Parks Authority and is a designated Israeli national park.[7][8] Israel asserts that it is entitled to work the area under the Oslo Accords", and that Israel is therefore not only relevant, but arguably even most relevant.

I kindly ask your permission to not self-revert, since even if I self-reverted now, I would simply redo the edits later, and in the mean time it is you who should show consensus, in view of the fact that your recent changes to a long-standing consensus version are being contested. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, please read the following sources:

• On which Side is the Grass Greener? National parks in Israel and the West Bank
• Fractured oversight: The ABCs of cultural heritage in Palestine after the Oslo Accords

Both contain detailed case studies on the nature of this site, and confirm that the your version of the lede here is unsupported.

You are proposing that the lede is structured as: "Herodium... in Israel... in the Judaean Desert, West Bank... Israeli national park.... Israel asserts... Palestinian authorities say...".

The sources, however, follow the following structure: "Herodium... in the West Bank... Israeli occupied... Israeli national park... controversy... Palestinian authorities say... Israel asserts...".

Wikipedia follows the sources, not irredentist dreams. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your argument, however disagree with it for three reasons:

1. Of course Wikipedia goes by sources, but not to the extend of shaping the structure of sentences or paragraphs according to sources. We use sources to gather information, which we then rework into a text according to principles of encyclopediality [if you'd allow me to invent this word].

2. The present structure of the first sentence of the lead makes sure to mention all variant names. This is common practice, and makes imminent sense.

3. The sentence places "Herodion" right after "Herodium" because they are essentially the same name, just that one is in Latin and the other in Greek. That makes sense too. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

When you say that I propose a lead of the following structure "Herodium... in Israel..." that is misleading, since it looks as though I am talking about Herodium being in Israel, while I am only talking about the name of the site as it is know in Israel. Please do not try to mislead the casual reader of this discussion. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, but this is exactly my concern. It reads as "Herodium... in Israel...". Let's keep this simple. Which do you think should be mentioned first - the place where it actually is, or the country that militarily occupies it? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your concern is unfounded. Only if you leave out all the other words of the sentence is this a concern. In the sentence there is no room for such a misunderstanding. Sorry, but that is not a serious argument. "Let's keep this simple.", but that doesn't me we should write keeping in mind people who do not understand English, or are overly allergic to the word "Israel". Debresser (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, so you have no justification for the Israeli name coming before the Palestinian name? In the absence of a justification, I will fix it.

As to the sentence about the Israeli national park, you ignored my point about notability. Do you have any justification for excluding the particularly notable part about the fact that this Israeli national park is not in Israel?

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

1. Thank you for fixing the Arabic. 2. I accept your edit putting "Herodium" and "Herodion" next to each other without mentioning Israel. I wouldn't call that "fixing", as you did, but okay... 3. I don't think that the fact that it is administered by Israel even though outside of Israel its jurisdiction is disputed needs any more mention than the already very clear sentences in the lead and the dedicated section. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser on 3, it turns out our text is wrong. I will fix it with a source. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

This is so not lead material. Not to mention that it is general material, not specific to this site. You really don't seem to get the point, that this article is not the place to vent your opinions regarding the IP-conflict. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, in the eyes of the world this is an illegally occupied cultural site. I empathize with your feelings on this, but facts are facts. The two sources that you have deleted cover this site in detail; they are not "general sources". If you read them, you will see. Of the cultural sites in Area C this is undoubtedly one of the most notable, and the one that gets the highest profile in these sources. I am willing to accept that we don't need all the detail in the lede, but these sources will be added into the main body of the article unless you can provide a valid argument. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

You really need to stop using phrases like "I empathize with your feelings". You don't fucking know my feelings. Also please stop saying what "will be added". You don't get to decide on your own "what will" or will not "be added. This is a community project, and consensus rules, so please get down from that tree of yours. I am sorry for having to put it in such strong words, but you really need to get off your high horse, because it is becoming very annoying. Debresser (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: There is a good article on The pot calling the kettle black. Remember above you wrote that "this article is not the place to vent your opinions regarding the IP-conflict". That was an unacceptable and frankly absurd comment.

I am sure we can find an appropriate comprise on the article text, as we always manage to. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

As long as your posts will be regarding content, not editor, and with proper respect for me and other editors, I am sure that we can. We always have so far. We already settled some issues here. What is left? Debresser (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Great. What is left is a proper explanation of the nature of the Israeli control of the site, and the related modern history. All that we have at the moment is a section on a controversial 2013 exhibition. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me try an edit, to restore part of the consensus version, while at the same time keeping part of your recent addition. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, I have resisted the temptation for an immediate revert because you have added this in good faith. But the sentence you added is simply incorrect - look at the quotation in the text here - the place is neither "administered by the Israel National Parks Authority" nor a "designated Israeli national park". It is a designated "park" administered by the military's "Civil Administration". Onceinawhile (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for resisting that temptation. Why would you say that the site is not administered by the Park Authority? Isn't that what park authorities do, administer sites? Debresser (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, see this quotation: "One of the units of the Civil Administration is the Staff Officer (SO) for Nature Reserves and National Parks. Since Israeli law does not apply to the West Bank, the Staff Officer for the Nature Reserves and National Parks operates under Order 373, a military order that regulates their operation." This is not the Israeli Parks Authority. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Herodium is on the website of the Parks Authority. Maybe you are talking about some formality, but actual administration is in the hands of the Park Authority. That is what I imagine, but I have no proof. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, the connection with the Israeli Parks Authority is explained in the source. I even quoted it in the citation which you deleted. I have been talking with you on this for a week and you still have not read the sources. Unbelievable. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing unbelievable about this. It is a source that demands a subscription. Which, by the way, you really should have indicated with {{Subscription required}}. In any case, the connection should be explained, in a clear way and without turning it into a political statement, in the article. Had you done so, I probably would not have needed to revert you edit in the first place. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, just to double check, are you ok for me to fix this description in line with the source? If you would prefer to do so, that is fine with me too. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile Could I ask you to specify what precisely you would like to replace with what? Debresser (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I propose to amend the first sentence of the final lead paragraph to: "The site is administered by the Israeli Civil Administration, part of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, under Military Order 373, with the support of the Israel Nature and Parks Authority." Onceinawhile (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Instead of "with the support of" perhaps "and is run by"? My problem with the proposed text is that it puts emphasis on the administrative side of things, while I think the most important information is who actually runs it. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Debresser, I am not sure we know exactly who "runs" it. The quote below says that "In practice, the parks in the West Bank are managed by the [military] Staff Officer for Nature Reserves and National Parks and by the [Israel] National Parks Authority". It seems they run it together.

On which Side is the Grass Greener? National parks in Israel and the West Bank: "The national parks and nature reserves in Area C of the West Bank are managed by the Civil Administration and are designated as “parks.” The parks cover an area of 498,500 dunam, approximately 14.5% of Area C... One of the units of the Civil Administration is the Staff Officer (SO) for Nature Reserves and National Parks. Since Israeli law does not apply to the West Bank, the Staff Officer for the Nature Reserves and National Parks operates under Order 373, a military order that regulates their operation. This order came into effect in 1970 and replaced a previous order (Order 81 regarding Parks) which came into effect in 1967, at the end of the Six-Day War. Order 373 states that once an area in the West Bank has been declared a park, it is the duty of the commander of the area to appoint an authority to manage its affairs (section 4), such as determining rules of conduct in parks, carrying out various construction activities, setting entrance fees, and appointing inspectors (sections 5-7). Order 373 does not stipulate who can be appointed as a managing authority. In practice, the parks in the West Bank are managed by the Staff Officer for Nature Reserves and National Parks and by the National Parks Authority, which the former appointed to manage many parks. Visitors to the parks and reserves in the West Bank can use membership cards issued by the National Parks Authority, and observe the National Parks Authority flags that line the entrances to many of the parks. The blurring of the boundaries between the National Parks Authority and of the Staff Officer obscures the physical and legal boundaries between the West Bank and Israel."

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That is interesting material. Based on that, why don't we say something like "managed by A and B" or if we really want to be precise "although formally administered by A, managed jointly with B"? Debresser (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This came up before at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_Qana#Nature_reserve You can as well look at the notes and refs I added there.Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that there it was decided to have "operated by the INPA" and the administrative stuff in a footnote. I would not oppose that, although I have a dislike of footnotes, and think that "administered by A, and operated by B (or A and B)" in the text proper is more informative and looks better. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: thank you for this, which I had not seen. In footnote h at Wadi Qana it says "The Director of the "Judea and Samaria Area" [West Bank] District at the INPA is also the Nature Reserve Staff Officer in the Infrastructure Division of the Civil Administration." Do you know where that comes from? I could not find it in the underlying source. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

That should have been matched up with the Yesh Din (Kanonich) ref ie it's on page 7 of that. I put it in the right place now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Selfstudier, thank you, that is very clear. I am bringing the verbatim quote from Kanonich here to help the discussion: "The staff officers, who are, for the most part, civilians working as civil servants, are the professional representatives of various government ministries and Israeli authorities in the West Bank. Most staff officers have a double, and sometimes vague, function.8 On the one hand, they work within the Civil Administration, under the heads of the various divisions and, ultimately, the Head of the Civil Administration. On the other hand, they are appointed by the specific Israeli governmental authority they belong to, and receive their orders and salary from these agencies as well. So, for instance, the Agriculture Staff Officer works under the Head of the Civilian Division at the Civil Administration, and he is a civil servant who gets paid by the Ministry of Agriculture. The Nature Reserve Staff Officer works in the Infrastructure Division of the Civil Administration, and also holds the office of Director of the “Judea and Samaria Area” [West Bank] District at the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, and so forth.".

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile Does that give you any ideas for a new proposed text here? Preferably without a footnote. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, sorry for the delay here. And happy new year. How about: "The site is formally under the jurisdiction of the Israeli Civil Administration, part of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, under Military Order 373, and in practice is administered jointly with the Israel Nature and Parks Authority." Onceinawhile (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sure. Debresser (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)