Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Bulldozer Archaeology

Bulldozer Archaeology

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. Naustin1980 (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Dougweller (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Bulldozer archaeology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

• [[1]]

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

1. Should the two articles be merged? No

(Naustin1980 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC))

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. Naustin1980 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Disagree. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Naustin1980

I am an award winning film producer and the owner of my company has been blogging about Bulldozer Archaeology. I found it interesting and I submitted a very balanced entry to Wikipedia. Dougweller brought up two points that he thought were not accurate and even though I disagreed, I modified the entry. He then totally censored the article, removed the controversy, removed the quotes and removed most of the references. When I reposted my original entry and asked him to explain to me what exactly was wrong with it, he opened it up for public dispute. At this point, a certain Dr. Cargill - who is a party to the dispute - got involved, stating that I work for Simcha Jacobovici who has written about it. Dougweller has now blocked me and reverted my entry into his version of it i.e., some kind of strange Soviet style rewriting of what I had posted. I still don't understand why. He says that I work for Simcha Jacobovici. So what? I'm not entitled to have opinions? Does Dr. Cargill not work for anybody? All that the original entry says is that this is a controversial way of doing archaeology and then it quotes a pro and con opinion from Professor Yuval Goren and Dr. Robert Deutsch. That's it. There's absolutely no libel, defamation, ad hominem arguments or anything. I thought Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia of the people, not a place where shadowy thought controllers censor uncomfortable controversies. I paste here the original entry. I'm quite willing to correct any inaccuracy but I would like my entry reinstated and the present entry deleted.

Bulldozer archaeology, a term reintroduced into modern debate by filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici[1], refers to a controversial[2][3] method of excavation using a bulldozer or other heavy machinery at an archaeological site. Recently, the issue has become a point of contention in Israeli archaeology.

A variety of tools are used during an excavation, including shovels, picks, trowels and brushes.[4] According to some archaeologists, heavy machinery is commonly used in controlled situations for excavation.[5] Professor Yuval Goren (Tel Aviv University) states that "Controlled trial trenches, made by diggers, are executed under specific circumstances in excavations..."[6] In response, Dr. Robert Deutsch placed an ad in the September/October 2013 issue of "Biblical Archaeology Review" (BAR) strongly questioning the practice. According to BAR, Deutsch claimed that as a member of the excavations at the Megiddo archaeological site, he never witnessed the use of bulldozers over a twenty year period.[3] Most archaeologists agree that the use of heavy machinery at archaeological sites should be limited to removing debris and sometimes moving heavy objects such as overturned pillars.[7] Archaeologists carefully investigate and record stratum at a site, working down each stratigraphic layer, with the top most layer representing the youngest and the bottom layer the oldest. Since a stratum can provide a wealth of information, it is important to record artefacts in situ. As a result, excavation is generally a time consuming process, sometimes taking decades. Although using a mechanical excavator is the quickest method to remove soil and debris, the danger lies in keeping track of where the material culture originally lay should the machine penetrate an archaeological deposit by accident.[8] There is also potential to damage artefacts.[9]

REFERENCES

1. ^ "Bulldozer Archaeology" (http://www.simchajtv.com/bulldozer-archaeology/). SimchaJTV.com. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

2. ^ "Bulldozer Archaeology" (http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/bulldozer-archaeology/). The Times of Israel. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

3. ^ab "BAR Accused of Publishing "Defamatory" Ad" (http://biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/bar-accused-of-publishing-defamatory-ad/). Bible History Daily. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

4. ^ "What tools do archaeologists use for excavation?" (http://www.archaeological.org/education/askexpertsfaq#faq9). Archaeological Institute of America. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

5. ^ "A Statement By the Faculty of Tel Aviv University Concerning an Advert in Biblical Archaeology Review" (http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/a-statement-by-the-faculty-of-tel-aviv-university-concerning-an-advert-in-biblical-archaeology-review/). Zwinglius Redivivus. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

6. ^ "Story Telling Photos" (http://scribd.com/doc/138952498/Story-Telling-Photos). Scribd. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

7. ^ "Simcha's Hypocrisy: They Used a Big Pillager at His Own Dig at Beth Saida" (http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/simchas-hypocrisy-they-used-a-big-pillager-at-his-own-dig-at-beth-saida/). Zwinglius Redivivus. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

8. ^ "How to dig?" (http://www.pastperfect.org.uk/archaeology/how2dig.html). Past Perfect. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

9. ^ "Bulldozer Archaeology" (http://www.simchajtv.com/bulldozer-archaeology-2/). SimchaJTV.com. Retrieved 04 September 2013.

Statement by Dougweller

The WP:COI issues here are major - the article first said that Jacobovici coined the term, than that he reintroduced it. Both of these statements are flagrantly inaccurate (bulldozer archaeology is a term used from the middle of the 20th century and has been a controversy, although a different one, in Israel for several years before this current issue). The article was created not to have an article on bulldozer archaeology but to showcase this current controversy. There are serious WP:BLP issues in having editors who are deeply involved in a controversy editing. And of course WP:NPOV - we don't integrate controveries into a description of the issue, we don't suggest it's the only one by omission, etc. I personally don't want to engage in mediation with someone who views the actions of those trying to keep this article focussed on its primary topic as 'soviet archaeology' and it seems obvious from Talk:Bulldozer archaeology, if it wasn't before, that this is being used off-Wiki in the controversy. I note that yet another WP:SPA have tried to revert to the original version. Wikipedia is not a place to bring off-Wikipedia controversies in this way. I've also pointed out to XKV8R (Cargill) that if he edits the article I want him to stay away from mentioning this controversy. I haven't blocked NAustin, I've told her I want her to refrain from editing the article and to stick to the talk page and that WP:BLP applies there also. Dougweller (talk) 05:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• In light of one (of only two) involved party's decision not to participate in mediation, I recommend to the chair that this request be denied. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC) (Committee member)
• Reject. Parties do not agree to mediation. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)