Talk:Tel Gerisa

COrenBot messgae
The content is indeed a copy of http://www.archaeowiki.org/Tel_Gerisa - as noted in my edit summary. archaeowiki content, like Wikipedia's, is made available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. So with this attribution notice, and the one I provided in the edit summary, there is no copyright issue. Millmoss (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses the Attribution-ShareAlike license, while that wiki uses the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license. Non-commercial licenses can't be used on Wikipedia (see here) and the text therefore needs to be rewritten.  The left orium  23:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've started re-writing it. Millmoss (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  The left orium  23:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the copyvio. If you decide to expand the article, please use your own words. Regards. :)  The left orium  20:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Biblical identification is nonsense if only Middle Bronze Age habitation
Either it continued at least throughout Iron Age I, or the whole "Identification (with biblical Israelite city)" paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. Arminden (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, dealt with. It's BA and IA. Arminden (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Using "dubious" tags to add editorial comments
You added a "dubious" tag but when I clicked on "discuss" it came here and there was no discussion. Instead, you added your analysis inside the tag itself, which is part of the article. Don't get me wrong — it is great that you raise these questions. However, I think you should raise them on the talk page. Tags are not a way to get around the OR rules by inserting editorial comments into articles. So, please, add "dubious" tags if you wish but explain them on the talk page. Another motivation: if the tag is removed your comment will be lost too, but discussion on the talk page will stay for later editors to consider.

Incidentally, regarding another page, I don't think you should use "dubious" tags at all when the purpose is to challenge someone like a famous archaeologist. Asking on the talk page is of course fine.

Fwiw, Jerisha and Tall Jerisha were about 500m apart. Obviously (barring miracles) the name has a common origin but you are right that it needs a source to write that one is derived from the other. I'll change it to just note the physical proximity. Zerotalk 03:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks, you are right. When I'm in "edit" mode and different problematic things show up, I tend to stay there and deal with everything one after the other. I am trying to remember to open a discussion for each "dubious" or "clarify" tag I put in. Sometimes I drift from edit to edit and, as it seems, I forget this or that. Tags rarely disappear, and talk-pages often aren't being looked at unless I spend another X minutes going through edit history for names of still active relevant editors to ping, but still, sometimes they do lead to reactions.
 * I never said the village and the tell don't belong together, even though I had no map to check if they were 100 m or 1 km apart. (In a fauqa/tahta situation they can be tens of km apart, but that's not the case here, that much I knew.) The point is: you cannot say the tell got named after the village w/o a reliable source. Sometimes both are called after a cow that grazed there, or a nearby spring, or the village is called after the tell, which I imagine might be quite common, as most tells are much older than the nearby villages. "Share a name" doesn't mean "A got it from B". That was my point. When a villages grows around a tell, it might adopt the name with, or w/o the word "tell" in it, and so on. See what I mean? It's the same problem as in any popular etymology: it looks logical at first sight, but more often than not it's false or inaccurate, as it's based on linear thinking aka common sense, and reality isn't linear. Arminden (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure which famous archaeologist you mean. I'm not aware of doubting any archaeologist's claims, other than Dor Golan's of the IAA whom I alluded to here when I doubted that every term used by a "junior archaeologist" is accurate. I haven't come across his name yet, maybe he's a good archaeologist, but he didn't make it to fame yet, although he's still got time, as he only started being mentioned some 13 years ago. If you mean Walid Khalidi, that's even easier: he never was an archaeologist. He was a respected historian and professor of political studies. The Bronze and Iron Ages weren't anywhere close to his field of work. As you know, if you need to touch on smth that's not your specialty, you're much more likely to quote the next best source at hand and move on. He should always be quoted on the Nakba and alike, by on the applicability of the term Hyksos in the southern Levant outside Egypt? Also, All That Remains is 30 years old, BA studies have moved on greatly since (the work of the Austrians at Avaris is but one point in case). On a tangent, Khalidi was a two-state solution supporter, those quoting him on WP seem to be less so, weaponising him into something he was not. But that's the background, the facts remain the same. Arminden (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, my memory isn't what it used to be, as far as I can recall. Zerotalk 12:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * :))) That's a good one, I'll try HARD to remember it. And I'll reference it to "quadruple 0". Dying to see the reactions, especially of mathematician friends. Arminden (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)