Talk:Tel Hazor

message: This page is problematic in that it refers repeatedly to "Archeologists" but in fact it is citing only the work of Israel Finkelstein and his colleagues who have a particular and not necessarily accepted opinion. That opinion is accepted uncritically in the article. The Sea peoples that the article alleges to have conquered and destroyed Tel Hazor settled the south coast area and probably didn't have a lot of business up north and inland at Tel Hazor. Their invasion was earlier than the date of the burning. Mewnews 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic references to "Archeologists"

message: I agree with the above comment. This article gives too much weight on minoriry views (such as Finkelstein et al.). Same thing with the sentence below. A quick reading at any book on the subject or even the wiki article about Ancient Israel makes you wonder if the writer of this sentence has ever read anything else than the Bible Unearthed...
An increasing majority of archaeologists believe that the Israelites emerged simply as a subculture within Canaanite society
--Squallgreg 09:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I agree

message: As has been noted, this page is extremely problematic due to the massive bias towards the views of what are actually a minority of archaeologists. The recent excavations at Hazor have strongly supported the traditional datings and are widely conceded as such by most archaeologists in Israel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.11.83 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a serious overhaul

message: At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Hazor, clicking ref. no. 12, visitors are taken to a confusing website -- apparently in Australia -- which seems to be Bill Dever's book, "What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and when Did They Know It?"  Specifically, readers are taken to a particular page which is blank with Amnon ben-Tor's name at the top.  QUESTION:  Which archaeologist is referred to in reference number 12: Prof. Dever or Prof. ben-Tor?
-- Jock Stender, Charleston, SC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jock.stender (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference number 12 takes the visitor to a "dead" website. 

message: NONE of the Tel sites using the Wikipedia "map" template are, or can be, copied and pasted into MS-Word.
This is a serious problem for anyone wishing to literally copy and paste an otherwise-excellent Wikipedia article for research.
I am not a software engineer, but it is a pity that the maps are useless in this regard.
This should be brought to the attention of Wikipedia management.
-- Jock Stender, Charleston, SC  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jock.stender (talk • contribs) 05:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Tel on map at wikipedia website disappears when copied and pasted into MS-Word 

message: We have a problem with the Arabic names: only one is given in Arabic script, and that one only offers the short version - not Tell Qedah el-Gul, but Tell el-Qedah.
I have added Tell Waqqas with a good source, but there seem to be two more: Tell Khuraibeh and Hazzur. The latter might be a modern one adopted into Arabic from the archaeologists, because if not, it should be mentioned as a major proof for multi-millennial name continuity, not just as an afterthought. Another possibility: the site is so huge that individual mounds became known by different names. Otherwise, it might be a case of different tribes each making up their own names, possibly connected to explanatory tales for the huge mound. Maybe Meron Benvenisti has something on it. Arminden (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic names 

message: Specifically as I said in my edit summary, 'however". See WP:WORDSTOAVOID Doug Weller talk 14:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just got rid of some editorial language