Talk:Ai (Canaan)

message: This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: What about the view that Ai is to be found in modern Khirbet Nisya ?
Professors J. Bimson and D. Linvingston had put forth this theory since 1970 (The location of Biblical Bethel and Ai reconsidered, The Westminster Theological Journal, 33). Both the geography and the exacavation that were conducted make it possible to identify Ai with Khirbet Nisya. Source here.
May I add a paragraph ? --Squallgreg (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The same could be said of nearby Khirbet el-Maqatir. — al-Shimoni (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as all information from your new paragraph can be found in the scholarly publications you cite, I see no problem with expanding on Khirbet Nisya. I myself want to expand on Khirbet el Maqatir based on scholarly publications. You cannot have any original research in your paragraph, just note. Korvex (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ai as Khirbet Nisya  

message: 173.15.120.173 added in something about the Israelite's first attempt to capture Ai failed because 'the robots are too strong.' TheFedExPope (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robots 

message: The Wikipedia page on Ai extensively discusses Et-Tell as Ai, but only provides a single sentence to Khirbet el Maqatir, which is an ever growing interpretation of the Biblical Ai amongst scholars because of its vastly superior conforming to the Biblical geo-indicators on the city of Ai than Et-Tell. Khirbet el Maqatir is a very newly excavated site, and so there simply has not yet been time for the consensus to shift. What's worse is, after this very sentence, the page says "Khirbet Nisya may be another location for Ai", making the identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir even less relevant.
Here is what I'm proposing: The 'Possible Location' headline will be split into three distinct categories. One will be for the identification of Ai with Et-Tell, and will be called 'Et-Tell as the Biblical Ai', or 'Et-Tell as Ai' where the current Wikipedia information on Et-Tell will remain the same. The second headline will be 'Khirbet el Maqatir as Ai', and it will explain the scholarly identification of Ai as Khirbet el Maqatir. There will be a third one called 'Other Possible Sites', which will give a scarce mention to Khirbet Nisya and the theory that the Egyptians were the ones who angrily destroyed Ai that is already noted in the Wikipedia page.
The information on the identification of Ai as Khirbet el Maqatir will be greatly expanded on from relevant peer-reviewed publications. One of the publications I'm talking about has already even been cited in the current Wikipedia page (reference 7). Any questions/objections before I go through with the edit? Korvex (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If these are published in mainstream scientific journals, possibly. But I'm  guessing you want to use Creationist sources like Associates for Biblical Research, and if so of course I object. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know if you made an honest mistake, but archaeology doesn't get published into mainstream "scientific" journals, archaeology gets published into archaeological journals. If you find a 10th century BC cemetery in Egypt, you publish it somewhere like the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, not Nature. Aside from that, not only is my point about Ai and Khirbet el Maqatir in a mainstream archaeological journal, one of the references I'm talking about has already been sourced in the current Wiki page on Ai we're discussing! See reference 7, that's the one I'm talking about. So, are we good on Khirbet el Maqatir getting a more comprehensive discussion from this valid citation? Other published papers I may include are published excavation reports on Khirbet el Maqatir, which I probably won't include anyways because reference 7 has all I the info I want to post anyways. Korvex (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought mistakes were always honest. Are you suggesting I wasn't being honest? In the US, the National Science Foundation funds archaeology. In the Netherlands we have http://www.palarch.nl/ - 'Pal' for paleontology, and 'arch' - well, that should be obvious. The Archaeology of Bronze Age Iberia: Argaric Societies says "Gonzalo Aranda Jimenez is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Prehistory and Archaeology at the University of Granada, Spain. He has conducted archaeological fieldwork in different Copper and Bronze Age settlements, and has published in major scientific journals like Antiquity, Oxford Journal of Archaeology, Journal of Social Archaeology and Trabajos de Prehistoria, as well as book chapters in peer-reviewed volumes."  Tomayto, tomahto, it doesn't matter in this discussion. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ai as Khirbet el-Maqatir, expanded 

message: Is there a good source for this that we can attribute, or is this original research?Doug Weller talk 08:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, Doug. The first and second hypothesis is completely unsourced, but the other three are in fact sourced. Would you like to delete them from the Wiki page or should I do it? I'm not aware of any scholarly research supporting or advocating the first two points. Unless you found a source now?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 21:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. What problem do you have with singular vs plural? Or the section heading? Is the statement there are "five main hypotheses" original research. And you really need to read it again, the first one is certainly sourced.  There's no need to repeat the sources. The Bethel one isn't sourced, nor is the mention of Khirbet Nisya. Note that I removed this link which claims "the absence of any evidence of inhabitation at et-Tell should compel the honest historian to look elsewhere for Ai." - which seems to be an absolute lie if you look at this article and of course Et-Tell. I hope we aren't using bibleplaces.com elsewhere. Doug Weller talk 21:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have found a published paper that claims Khirbet Nisya is Ai, http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/85/ -- although there is no evidence that I have seen that the notion of the "five main hypotheses" is anywhere to be found in the scholarly literature. I'm going to edit it out, but if you find an actual reference for it feel free to undo my edit where I remove the reference. I'm also going to add a citation to Khirbet Nisya. Korvex (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five main hypotheses for location - is this original research? 

message: Although Korvex cites WP:FRINGE, I don't think he understands it. Adi Keinax-Sciioonbaert's comments are mainstream, not fringe, when she writes " Is it at all possible for an ardent evangelical mission to be impartial in its archaeological endeavours? I will be quick to reply: the answer is a loud and clear “No”" And I do not refer only to the archaeological methodology of stratigraphic exposure or pottery classification, but also to the types of data that are collected more diligently than others. Suffice it to say, subjectivity or selectivity are not limited to archaeologists with religious sentiments, political agendas or personal interests, but are in fact intrinsic to the archaeological discipline and exist at every level of archaeological work, posing a challenge to archaeological documentation, specifically in the region of the Southern Levant but also in general."
Creationist archaeology is thus intrinsically suspect. It isn't just a Christian issue, as this quote from The Oxford Companion to Archaeology" says: "The search for religious truths in alternative archaeologies is not only a Christian phenomenon. Jewish nationalist archaeologists have interpreted ancient sites in Israel in light of biblical readings, while Hindu nationalist archaeologists in India have done the same with elements from the Sanskrit Ramayana and Afahabharata epics. The malicious interpretation of structural remains around the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya as a Hindu temple, in light of the Ramayana. led to its destruction and the murder of thousands of people, most of them Muslims, in the ensuing riots."
This doesn't mean that all biblical archaeology done by Christians or Jews is wrong, of course, and Keinax-Sciioonbaert is clearly being specific about the type of religious motivation she is discussing. But that done by biblical literalists/Creationists is, even those who sometimes get their material published in real peer reviewed journals. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As you probably noticed in your reading, religious-Jewish archaeologists are not rushing to endorse Wood's claims.  The reason is that his claims rely on a dating of the Exodus&conquest that contradicts the rabbinical chronology. Zerotalk 22:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is to both Zero and Wood. I want to respond to Zero first -- Zero, I am writing here as a continuation from the other section. It is not that I am "unable to explain myself succintly", it's just that I listed so many peer-reviewed sources and academics validating the identification of Khirbet el-Maqatir that my comment became very long. It was very succint, there's just too much evidence and peer-review to note quickly. In that post, I have shown all publications by Tavger, Wood and many others. As for Doug -- Doug, I understand that academics do realize there may be religious bias. But Adi's claim that the excavations at Khirbet el-Maqatir in specific are religiously guided dismissable nonsense is in fact fringe, there's a reason why Adi, someone who has never been cited in her lifetime, is the only academic I have seen to not only single out Khirbet el-Maqatir excavations in specific, but outright dismiss them without even one comment on the archaeology being produced at the site. That is in fact in violation of WP:FRINGE and is a classical Ad hominem. I have shown in a recent response to mine of Zero (the one I noted to him earlier) that there is considerable peer-reviewed and academic support of Bryant Wood's identification. It's only common sense that Adi's remarks violate WP:FRINGE. Not only that, but you make a big deal out of asking me for the # of citations for almost every publication I bring up, so why do you not apply it to Adi's paper? Adi's paper has no citations. So Adi's remarks and her paper belong nowhere within a mile on the current Wiki page.Korvex (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe & religious archaeology 

message: Doug, I like your recent edit, but I have one problem. I like your edit, so I did not undo it (for now). In your edit, although you cited of the criticisms on Wood's identification, you completely removed this citation -- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd?file=The+Search+for+Joshuas+Ai.pdf -- from the Wikipedia page that was already there, and is the sole citation that explains Wood's identification of Ai. Why did you remove it? It's peer-reviewed and has been plentifully cited, and was already on the Wiki page. It's only fair to re-add the citation, because I think you accidentally removed it. It needs to be re-added because at right now, all we have are the critical sources of Khirbet el-Maqatir and none of the positive ones, which clearly violates WP:NPOV.Korvex (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you cite it, you have to cite it properly.  Hess, Klingbeil and Ray are the editors, Wood is the author. People who see the citation need to know who actually wrote the source being cited.  In this case it is Wood himself. Zerotalk 01:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

text: There is not consensus that this is a reliable source, Korvex.  You will have to bring this to RSN. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've posted it on RSN. Until responses come in there, what lead you to conclude it wasn't reliable?Korvex (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As Zero0000 says, you haven't cited it properly - you FOUND it on BibleArchaeology.org, but it's FROM a book, "Critical Issues in Early Israelite History". The author is Richard Hess, who's quite a respected archaeologist and scholar. Being peer-reviewed doesn't come into it. The book doesn't seem to be available at google books, so the version you found is acceptable. There's a reference to it in Moore and Kelle: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Qjkz_8EMoaUC&pg=PA100&dq=%22The+Jericho+and+Ai+of+the+Book+of+Joshua%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq5_bXn_XRAhVIe7wKHSBRAOIQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage&q=%22The%20Jericho%20and%20Ai%20of%20the%20Book%20of%20Joshua%22&f=false PiCo (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   No, that's not correct.  Hess is only one of the editors of the book, not the author of the chapter being cited.  The author of the chapter is Bryant Wood. Zerotalk 07:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  WHen I looked at the table of contents I saw two articles on this, one by Hess (who is also and editor) and one by Wood. I think the one we're talking about is the article by Hess. PiCo (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

text:  I think it would be legitimate to mention the view that Albright mis-identified Ai, it needs to be couched in the terms used by Moorre and Kelle in the link I posted above - i.e., it's not accepted by the majority of scholars. PiCo (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   The only chapter available at the link Korvex posted at the start of this section is the chapter by Bryant.  As you say, there is also a chapter devoted to Jericho and Ai written by Hess.  Here is everything Hess' article says about Wood's theory: "Although some would relocate the city (see the essay by Wood in this volume), the tendency to connect Tell Beitin with Bethel makes possible the identification of et-Tell with Ai." (p.34) So Hess is politely dismissive. Zerotalk 11:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I read this thread, Korvex's problem is with the use or non-use of the pdf from BibleArchaeology as the source. Personally I think the Moore and Kelle page in my link is a better source, as it places Bryant's suggestion in an npov context - conservative scholars raise these ideas but they fail to convince the majority of scholars. Just a single sentence is needed, and there's no reason or need to mention Bryant Wood by name.PiCo (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair citation removal