Talk:Levantine archaeology

message: There is a proposal to move from Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine archaeology here and to create separate pages for Archaeology of Syria and Archaeology of Palestine. Your opinions would be welcome, thanks Drsmoo (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this? Seems duplicative of the above? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a request for comment. Drsmoo (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  A request for comment for moves is what the above section is. I am not sure what exactly this section is supposed to be doing. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adds an rfc to the History and Geography rfc board Drsmoo (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Levantine title is reasonable. Misdemenor (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

text: * Support. It matches with Levantine cuisine BlueBirdo (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Proposed article move from Syro-Palestinian archaeology to Levantine archaeology

message: After the move, the article now begins "Levantine archaeology is the archaeological study of the southern Levant", immediately begging the question in the header. It doesn't seem right, but I leave it others to purse the question. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject matter of the article should reflect the subject. I'll change it now, obviously more changes need to be made throughout the article. Also creating articles for Archaeology of Syria and Archaeology of Palestine Drsmoo (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I believe this move was ill considered, since the article now covers only half of the title's scope. I have added a tag to this effect. If the article is not expanded within a reasonable amount of time (a month or two?) I will propose moving it back. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the helpful tag. I'm modifying it to better fit the article as it stands. Obviously the article will adjust to fully fit the contemporary field of study and I look forward to seeing you, Johnbod, and many others contribute. The move change passed with overwhelming consensus reflecting the common name of the subject and the contemporary field of academic research. Your threats and ultimatums due to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT five hours after the article was moved are not going to fly. You're being asked to edit cooperatively, respect consensus, and add to the article constructively rather than making threats and ultimatums. I hope you can do that. If you can't, leave the editing to those interested. Drsmoo (talk) 02:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the northern Levant? 

message: In this edit, a number of sources and quotes seem to have been deleted. , can you explain what you are intending to do with discussion of the previous terminology? If this is to be the parent article for the sub-regional archaeology articles, it would be better not to delete good content but to use it to explain the other terms. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wait, the stone age part is covered at the end of the first para, and the formation of the field in the 1970s is better conveyed in the second. Can't make an omlette without breaking eggs! ‑‑YodinT 17:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  ,  Your contributions to the article would be appreciated. There's actually not that much work to do in terms of getting things up to speed. But the more ideas and perspectives the better. Drsmoo (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Bibliography of encyclopedias has a somewhat reasonable length section on archaeology. Some of the works there may be useful in determining the content of this article and any subarticles. John Carter (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just gained access to the Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant, which should be a helpful source! Drsmoo (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with discussion of Syro-Palestinian and Biblical archaeology terminology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Levantine archaeology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070216154111/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf!OpenDocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section 'Practitioners' is frankly odd, grouping archaeologist variously by nationality, continent (European, North American) and in one case, race (Arab). Why is any of this important? The subject is a professional field of study. The ethnic identities of its practitioners is not core information. MOS:ETHNICITY encourages caution even when assigning ethnicity in biographies: here we have an entire field stratified by ethnicity. Not great. The material, i.e. the work of archaeologists, should be redistributed in the other sections of the page, categorized by the appropriate geography in which they worked. If there is a compelling reason why this shouldn't happen, I would love to hear it. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Race no longer, since I've moved the part on 1960s archaeological schools into history. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Weirdly ethnicized section