Talk:Southern Levant

message: A comment was made on my talk page that discussion is stuck.  The topic of this section is "Terminology Section".  I see that one editor has deleted the terminology section, and has cited the RFC.  The RFC didn't say to delete the Terminology section.  It said to rearrange material as appropriate.  The deletion of the Terminology Section should be discussed; it is not a foregone conclusion.  Will someone explain what the reason is for deleting the section?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to RFC was regarding the lead, so I reverted my own edit to the lead in order to comply with the consensus expressed in the RFC. The removal of the terminology section was because it's full of WP:Synth material (ie, saying an author criticized the subject when they never did.) I think the terminology section should be in the article but should be revamped. I'll revert the removal of the terminology section as we continue to work on it. Drsmoo (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside Comment on Terminology Section

message: I can see considerable back-and-forth.  There has been so much back-and-forth that it isn't really clear to me what the question is.  What is the question about which I was asked to offer an opinion?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The current discussion is over the content of the terminology section. There is also a wider discussion over expanding/revamping the article. Drsmoo (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Robert, thanks for coming in to help here. Anything you have time to give a view on would be appreciated. The other editor and I desparately need outside perspectives to keep us grounded. At the heart of this there are two debates - one is how to interpret what scholars are saying re the usage of the term (which we are summarising quite concisely so far in the thread immediately below this one), and the other (which we have made early steps towards engaging on in this "definition" thread) is how to describe how scholars actually define the region of Southern Levant, given the breadth and variance of the different geographical boundaries given in scholarly descriptions. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside Question

message: I believe this term is used more broadly than just for the Syrian and Jordanian steppe -  as this source states, it is also used for the Negev. As a generic word for steppe, Bedouin literally means "people of the Badia".  Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it's also used in English to refer to the region, like how "the steppe" usually refers to the Eurasian steppe. Joe Roe (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Badia

message: Is everyone convinced the Negev should be in the "core geographically-defined region"? Geographically and historically the Negev is a continuation of the Badia and the Sinai, which would suggest it should be treated just as they are. This is clear from the satellite photo above. On the other hand, most sources seem to include it, even when not including the Sinai and Badia. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd question, the sources do include it, they don't "seem" to include it. The article is based on scholarly sources rather than original research from looking at a photo. Drsmoo (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Negev

message: Based on the discussions above I've just uploaded a new version of the "geographic" map that hopefully emphasizes the approximate nature of the eastern and southern boundary a bit more, and de-emphasizes the Sinai and Tabuk regions in the broad definition, and the Negev in the narrow definition.  Per User:Laurel Lodged's comment, I've stuck with neat-but-slightly-inaccurate ellipses rather than go for total accuracy, though, because I agree that it helps get the message across that this is all very inexact. Joe Roe (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New version