Talk:Bayt 'Itab

message: Comment to the above section, where User:Nableezy wrote "The Survey of Western Palestine should probably be replaced with a source citing it at this point to be honest".
Being the editor here who has probably inserted more SWP quotes than anyone else, I am starting to partially agree with this. Their factual description still stands, IMO, if they write that they found x inhabitants in a village, or a mosque, or a well, or a cistern: that should still be mentioned.
It is all their speculations which are a problem. (And not only SWP, all the other 19th century writers  as well: Robinson, Guerin, van der Velde, Adolf Neubauer, etc.) Beit Liqya is  typical: "some editor" inserted the SWP speculation about it being the biblical Eltekeh here (including that this was "a town of Dan near the border with Benjamin). It turns out that presently, researches think that  Eltekeh was situated a very different place.
I have seen lots and lots of similar examples; Khirbet el-'Ormeh which was claimed to be biblical Arumah; Bi'ina  which was claimed  to be biblical Beth-Anath, etc. etc.
Should this SWP biblical suggestion even be in the Beit Liqya article? I would suggest that we in the future, at most,  put such 19th century speculation/guesswork into a footnote. (I suspect others want to put it in the lead :/) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think basic info (populations and whatnot) is fine, descriptions of physical characteristics as well, along the lines that a census would still be reliable a hundred years later. nableezy - 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all(?) agree about this, then. About the 19th century speculation/guesswork; should we have a policy about this? One problem is the difference between them; from  Robinson, who is usually quite "sober" in his guesses/assessments, to van der Velde  who is often wayyyyyy off. I would really like a common standard here, but is it possible? Huldra (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that 19th century conjectural identifications should not be cited alone. There will be a more modern source if the identification is still regarded as solid. On the other hand it would be ok in a historical sequence that gives both the old identification and its modern alternative. Zerotalk 04:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually we attribute SWP anyway, don't we? It's not as if we are stating things as a fact, although I think they probably are reliable for factual info. However I agree it is better to back up opinion with modern RS where possible. Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWP 

message: Nothing more to add. Or yes: turn the tables, mentally: write Tawfiq Canaan or Khalidi or whoever you choose in stead of Ben Zvi: people with a strong cause and agenda, who went out to document what's there in the field. I would never, ever dismiss their work as a source, of course always seen in the actual context. You are on the way of doing that, dismissing all that seems "inconvenient". Wiki won't thank you. Work here requires educated temperance, control of crusading and activistic instincts. Those are good & needed for the struggle, but not for the study. You can easily counter every one of my words here, that's what rhetorics was made for, but the tendency is clear to me, so don't bother. Arminden (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM. nableezy - 15:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't fall down the hole of "cancel culture", or you'll make Wiki irrelevant to all but Electronic Intifada warriors