Talk:Herodium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Which Herod?

The article says:

Herodium is the fortress palace of King Herod

Which Herod is that? Gdr 21:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Herod the great. Deror 12:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Gdr 12:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

--Derwig 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

The current name of the site seems to be Herodion. Why is the article titled Herodium?--Redaktor 05:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

Both articles refer to the same location. Beth-haccerem consists of a few lines dealing with its relevance before the Babylonian Exile, and Herodium has a more detailed discussion of its significance in the Second Temple period. The seperate articles only serve to confuse the reader. Tewfik 04:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC) See:

• http://www.christnotes.org/dictionary.php?dict=sbd&id=733
• http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=972&letter=B

Tewfik 05:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to Herodium - its the common name used to describe the site today. Beth-haccerem is also poorly transliterated to English, and prone to inconsistancy: Beth-haccerem, Bet-Haccerem, Beth-Hakerem, Bet Hakerem, etc... --Shuki 19:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a merge is appropriate anymore, as there are divergent scholarly opinions on the true site. I believe we should leave them as separate articles until a clearer position can be argued. Tewfik^Talk 01:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Herodium No logical reason for separate articles.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Herodium

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Herodium's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "parks":

• From Shivta: Shivta National Park
• From Nahal Alexander: "Nahal Alexander park". Israel Nature and Parks Authority. December 31, 2009.
• From Herod's Palace (Herodium): "King Herod's Palace and Refuge". Israel Nature and Parks Authority. Retrieved 1 December 2011.
• From Tel Be'er Sheva: "Tel Beer Sheva National Park" (PDF). Israel Nature and Parks Authority. Retrieved August 24, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

False text

User Debresser re added that the synagogue at herodim is "one of the oldest synagogues in Israel" with the edit summary: "It is Israel." [1]. But its not located in Israel, but in the west bank as can clearly be seen here: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=31.665906,35.241468&z=15&t=M&marker0=31.665906,35.241468,Herodium Debresser has therefor used an inaccurate edit summary to re ad the false text. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice my next edit? Debresser (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To spell it out. That part of the West Bank is under military control by Israel. Calling it Palestine definitely is impossible therefore, and since it is freely accessible from Israel and under Israeli rule, I think that keeping "in Israel" is our best choice. I did add the link to Ancient synagogues in Palestine, where this site is mentioned, even though that is incorrect. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if Israel occupies it, it still isn't Israel. Its located in the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no "Palestinian territories". That is a non-existing term. There is the "Palestinian Authority" and there are "Israeli occupied territories". Debresser (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The majority view in the matter is that the West Bank forms part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The argument that it's OK to say "in Israel" since it's freely accessible from Israel fails for two reasons: 1) it's original research, and 2) Amsterdam is freely accessible from Belgium, yet it wouldn't be OK to say it's "in Belgium". Why not just say it's one of the oldest synagogues? Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You changed the text to "in the area". I considered that before I made my edit, but it is not a good idea, because "the area" could mean the closest 5 km2, or some region in which it is situated. While in effect it is one of the oldest synagogues in the whole of Israel. Perhaps we should use "in the Land of Israel" or (as a variation on that idea "in the area). Debresser (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In effect it is not one of the oldest synagogues in Israel as it isn't located in Israel. "Land of Israel" can not be used as it is not a real entity and also different areas can be used for the term. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

There are many sources saying it is in Israel. For starters, if you do a Google search for "Herodion", Google will offer you as first term "Herodion Israel". Secondly, the site is managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority. One couldn't want more clear proof. Also, do a search , and find more sources, like bible walks.com/Sites/Herodion.html, saying "It is one of the most exciting archaeological sites in Israel", and also "It is one of the most fascinating sites in the Holy Land", but not "Palestine". Another sources saying explicitly "Its date, of the first century CE, makes it one of the oldest synagogues in Israel." I have already added to the article. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition, my argument about the accessibility is better than you might think. The logic of your argument holds in Europe, while in this area the fact that it is freely accessible for Israelis, as opposed to say Bethlehem, is an argument reflecting the geopolitical realities of this area. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Your argument about accessibility does not contain anything that can be called a valid argument, and since neither you are anyone else have brought any valid argument for the false text, there is no option but to remove it from the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a response to my argument relating to original research? We have sources that describe Herodium as being in the West Bank, and the article must be written according to what sources say. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that neither of you has even tried to search for sources mentioning Israel. Because they abound. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Herod was the king of Judea, and Judea is the heartland of the Land of Israel. There is no such thing as a country called the "West Bank"; that is an Arabian colonialist invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.131.190.170 (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

IP, you may be confusing Israel with the ancient country with the same name. As an additional point, your argument also suffers from original research and lack of sources. --Dailycare (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is from a proxy server. Likely an old user. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The user makes many anti-Israel and anti-Jewish edits. Also has a hatred of Kurds.[2] Likely an Arab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.131.190.170 (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are confusing Israel as being a new country. Just because it has a new government does not mean it is a new country. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for over three thousand years. But I don't blame you for this common mistake. You are a European, and your people don't have much of a history because they came into being in the Middle Ages after stealing their land from ancient Rome. We Jews are a very ancient people who go much farther back than the Middle Ages; we have longer memories than you Europeans. And I do not need sources for common knowledge.

There is a point in what the IP user says. The site is historical, so it might make sense to use historical terms. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources are always key, especially (as is the case now) we already have sources which say that the site isn't in Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You are very selective in choosing your sources, and that raises POV questions. In any case, see my commentary above for sources. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Joy is always on everyone's side, and reading you talk of selectivity brought mirth to my day. Which source are you proposing to use? Google's keyword suggestion or "Jewishmag" don't seem substantive at all compared to the BBC source cited in the lead, which states bluntly that Herodium is in the West Bank. Recall that we're after the most reliable sources, and even the Jerusalem Post says point blank it's in the West Bank: source. --Dailycare (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the reason of your joy, and I had considered it likely from the moment I wrote that. My pleasure.

First of all. It is not true that we need to pick a single source and go by what it says. If various sources say different things, then we can bring both. That is in general.

In this specific case I have brought 2 sources. And the fact that the site is managed by the Israel Nature and Parks Authority is also very relevant here. In addition, the BBC is know for its anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian stance, and I do not consider it a reliable source in this field.

As a compromise, and because I do understand that there is definitely an amount of truth in both statements, perhaps we should write "in the West Bank and Israel" or "in the west Bank and in Israel"? And source both parts. I'd have no problem with that. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If one source says its in Israel, then the source is wrong since Herodium is not in Israel, so there is no reason for us to use it or repeat the falsehood it is claiming. Since Herodium is in the West bank and not in Israel, there is no need for us to ad a falsehood like "and Israel" or "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is summarily reverted. Your claim is "you are simply wrong, and so is your source". That will not do on Wikipedia. Please also note my personal warning to you on your talkpage. If you are not interested in discussion, consensus, and compromise, you will find yourself blocked very quickly. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on Debresser. Let's keep things happy, huh? Look, I'm guessing this kind of issue has been raised before. Hasn't some kind of compromise previously been arrived at? Can we call is "Israel-Palestine" or something? NickCT (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to keep things happy. But the edit referred to above does not fit that pattern. In any case, I actually made a very workable proposal above: mention both Israel and the West Bank. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, you didn't comment on the Jerusalem Post source, I assume you don't consider it to have an anti-Israel bias? Not that that matters hugely, since if we took this to e.g. RSN the result would be that also the BBC is reliable for the statement that Herodium is in the West Bank. Concerning the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the first sentence of that article is "The Israel Nature and Parks Authority (רשות הטבע והגנים)(Rashut Hateva Vehaganim) is an Israeli government organization that manages nature reserves and national parks in Israel, the Golan Heights and parts of the West Bank." Therefore, any argument that the site would be in Israel since they manage it must fail. (or, analoguously, if the Chinese government runs a hospital in Nairobi, is the hospital in China?) Why not say "in the Middle-East"? Or "Herodium is also the site of an exceptionally old synagogue". --Dailycare (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, I am open for compromise and have no problem with something like "in Israel and the West Bank". It is not me who tried to change a text that has been here since May 14, 2010. Debresser (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, this site is not in Israel by any reasonable definition or any authority. The Israeli government does not consider it to be in Israel. The High Court of Israel does not consider it to be in Israel. Never mind the entire international community. You don't have a leg to stand on here. Zero^talk 08:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

@Debresser & Supreme Deliciousness - Ok. Well, for the record, I like the "in the West Bank and Israel". Here's my rationale; 1) the de facto situation is that the differentiation between the West Bank/Israel is sometimes a little ambiguous and a point of constant contention. Calling out the "West Bank and Israel" avoids any WP:NPOV issues and 2) It strikes me that this bit of trivia (i.e. the fact that it is the biggest synagouge) is sorta relevant to the whole Israel-Palestine region, and not just to the West Bank. Calling out "West Bank and Israel" signifies that. Anyways, as always, let's try not to hate on each other. Peace out. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I too like that compromise proposal. Statements like Zero0000's are hardly contributive. I'll await further reaction to the compromise proposal. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd be OK with "... in the West Bank or Israel". That way, we're comparing it to synagogues in these two areas without implying the synagogue would be in two places. --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We have sources for both. So we should say "and", not "or". Debresser (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sooooo close to successful compromise. I'm not sure I have a strong opinion on the "and"/"or" issue. This seems like an attempt to play with language in such a way that it makes the West Bank and Israel seem like the same or distinct places. Without commenting on whether the West Bank and Israel are actually distinct places, I tried to look at the lingual issue here. Looking at how "US and Canada" are used, it seems fairly common to say things like "biggest in the US and Canada" even though the US and Canada are clearly separate entities. I'm not sure using "and" does infer that the region is actually the same place, and if it does, the inference isn't very strong. There may be some cocky grammar experts out there who want to correct me, and they are welcome to do so.

My sentiment is that this is really the type of non-issue wording contention that so typifies I-P battlegrounding on WP. It would be nice if one of the parties in this debate simply conceded the point. NickCT (talk) 02:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll help. I didn't look at the context properly when I wrote before, thinking this was an argument over whether Herodium is in Israel (obviously it isn't). Apologies for that. I'll be happy with "one of the oldest in the West Bank or Israel". About "or" versus "and", actually I think "or" is correct English and "and" is not, since we are referring to the union of the two places, not their intersection. The synagogues being compared are each either in WB or in Israel, they are not in both WB and Israel at the same time. Zero^talk 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Israeli ruled part of the West Bank"? Or "in the Land of Israel", which is a historical term and leaves the whole modern dispute behind us. But saying "or" and leaving this unresolved, seems like a bad option and will likely invite further problems later on. Better find a solution now. Debresser (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually understand your objection to "or". The interesting thing about the Herodion synagogue is that it is one of the oldest in the entire region (Israel+Gaza+WB+Golan, even Jordan and Lebanon). Restricting the statement to only a part of the region weakens the statement unnecessarily. How about "one of the oldest synagogues in the Levant"? Zero^talk 08:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the Levant option is acceptable, too. I'd also be OK with "Israeli-occupied West Bank". --Dailycare (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support using "the Levant" in this particular case. I would have supported Israeli-occupied West Bank but that wouldn't appropriately serve the sentence's intent which is that Herodium is the largest synagogue in both Israel and occupied Palestine. Since it's also the largest synagogue in the region, using "Levant" would be the most fitting and would address all concerns. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "Levant" is that it is unsourced. But by way of compromise, I think we could write it, and add both sources (the one we have now saying Israel and the BBC article saying West Bank), and consider the word "Levant" sourced by the two words "Israel" and "West Bank" together. Debresser (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like we have some consensus around Levant. Funnily enough, despite earlier pushing for consensus and compromise here, I'm not sure I like the solution we've arrived at. "Levant" doesn't strike me as simple vocabulary. I had to look it up. Is this really a commonly used term? I'm a tad worried the average reader won't get the term. Regardless, my objection here isn't strong. If other folks are happy with it, we could just go with it.

Do we want to setup a quick straw poll here to establish which proposal has the most support, or do we want to just go with Levant? NickCT (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that as Levant offers a way to close this discussion, let's go for it. If a reader doesn't know the term, he'll anyway gather that there is an old synagogue there. --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The lack of an explicit source for "Levant" is indeed a problem, but we can adopt it for now. Looking further ahead, I wonder if "one of the oldest in the Middle East" is (1) true, (2) sourcable. That would be better than Levant. Zero^talk 13:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That is also an idea. Somebody wants to make the edit (don't forget the sources)? It was a pleasure coming to consensus through our varied opinions, even though I would have preferred another compromise myself. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Likewise Debresser, and I can add that us coming to consensus demonstrates once more that this project has something going for it. I think Zero first proposed "Levant" so doing the edit should be his prerogative. --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Area C

"The site is Area C, a term used to describe 60% of the West Bank that is under full Israeli control under the 1993 Oslo Accords." Actually there is nothing about "full Israeli control" in the 1993 accords. On the contrary, the accords stipulate that long before now most responsibility for archaeology in Area C would be transferred to the Palestinian side. (Appendix I, Article 2). It didn't happen because implementation of the accords stalled soon after they were signed. So this text is misleading and has to be modified or removed. Zero^talk 00:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then that text is indeed misleading. But the sources clearly use this text, see [3] and [4]. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I found another source, from the BBC, [5] which uses "since the Oslo Accords" instead of "under the Oslo Accords". I think that resolves the abovementioned issue. Debresser (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

All the sources that use the terminology of "Israeli control" also indicate that the control is that of occupation. If it so important to cleave to the language of the sources in discussing "Israeli control" it is also important to cleave to the language in discussing that the control is that of occupation. Cherry picking "Israeli control" but omitting "occupied" from the same sources is misleading. Dlv999 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, saying something like "full Israeli control" may give readers the impression that the Accords would have agreed to give the area to Israel. The source says "exclusive Israeli administrative and security control". Concerning the flow of text, Debresser's version mixes the 2013 and 2008 sources by placing one sentence from the 2008 source between two sentences that describe the 2013 exhibit. Debresser's version also juxtaposes the Area-C control issue with the occupation, which the sources don't do. In other words, that's a clear error since none of the sources suggest the Area-C issue modifies the presence of occupation in any way as far as the digs are concerned. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The sources suggest very clearly that the fact that the site is area C is a legitimation of the digs and the Israeli ownership of the artifacts. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources use "occupied". I still think it is superfluous in light of the fact that the article West Bank makes that issue clear in a better way, but so be it. Debresser (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the sources about Israeli ownership of the artifacts. Nothing in the Oslo Accords saying that either (they say that the return of artifacts will be discussed in the final status talks). It is clear that being in Area C is relevant to Israel's behavior regarding this site, since in practice Israel does whatever it likes in Area C. But we must not say or imply that the Oslo Accords justify the behavior. Zero^talk 00:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that changing the word "under the Oslo Accords" to "since the Oslo Accords" made that clear, don't you think so? Debresser (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "under full Israeli control since the 1993 Oslo Accords" is that it was also under full Israeli control before the Oslo Accords. Since 1967, to be precise. Zero^talk 09:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

And if we remove the words "since the 1993 Oslo Accords" altogether? It is in all sources, but I personally have no problem with such a resolution of the issue. We two have a history of reaching compromise. :) Debresser (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the AFP source only has the Israeli archaeologist say that there will be negotiation about the future, and then again that the Area-C aspect limits Palestinian archaeologists from the site. That is the kind of text that we can say in the article using the AFP doc as source. And, the AFP source isn't about the 2013 exhibit so I still feel it's incorrect to insert the tidbit in the middle of text describing the 2013 exhibit. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to my comment immediately above, the edit war needs to stop. While we agree on a new text, the earlier text remains. The AFP source starts thus: "HERODIUM, West Bank (AFP) — Sprawled across a hemispherical mound where the Judaean Hills meet the desert, ancient Herodium lies deep inside the occupied West Bank but has borne up a treasure trove of finds for Israeli archaeologists." There is no mention of "Area C" next to, modifying, or as equally central as the notion that the site is in the occupied West Bank. --Dailycare (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

So stop reverting the addition of sourced material for unclear reasons. Explain your reasons here clearly, establish consensus, and then edit. Also, please remain from asserting your wishes as though they were facts (the earlier text remains). Especially since I am not removing the old text at all. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, the "Area C" statement is also in the BBC source. And then a second interesting thing is that the "Palestinian officials" is the same as the minister quoted two sentences later. So in these 4 edits I merged the sentences AND the sources, and now there should no longer be any problem. Debresser (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Debresser, since it is you who is suggesting changes to the article, it is you who needs to build build a consensus for the changes, see WP:CONSENSUS. Therein is also specified that absence of a new consensus "results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal". I'll have a look at your four recent edits. --Dailycare (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am confident you will find my edits reasonable. I just had a good look at the sources. Something others have neglected so far. Debresser (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, I'm OK with the present version. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2013 (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/20160404065115/http://www.parks.org.il/parks/ParksAndReserves/gerodium/pages/default.aspx to http://www.parks.org.il/parks/ParksAndReserves/gerodium/Pages/default.aspx

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) 22:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)