Talk:Tell el-Hammam/Archive 4

Lead
I only ping you because you have also shown an interest in the article recently, but the concern is for anyone to improve: currently there's various information that's only in the lead, but that should ideally be in the body of the article (in more details if possible), then summarized with short sentences in the lead. Details are in WP:LEAD. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Review in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research on The Tall al-Hammam Excavations,Vol. 1 - the book doesn't seem to meet WP:RS
Susan L. Cohen, "The Tall al-Hammam Excavations,Vol. 1: An Introduction to Tall al-Hammam, with Seven Seasons (2005–2011) of Ceramics and Eight Seasons (2005–2012) of Artifacts by Steven Collins, Carroll M. Kobs, and Michael C. Luddeni," Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 381, no. (May 2019): 237-238.

"... more unusual is the approach to stratigraphy employed at the site. For each chronological era in which the site was occupied, the excavators assigned an individual stratum to each era of occupation, using conventional numerals. Hence, the occupational strata at Tall al-Hammam are set forth as follows: Chalcolithic, EB 1, EB 2, EB 3, etc. (p. ix). While equating broad strata to broad eras is not untoward, what is more curious is the lack of any stratigraphic subdivision within these very broad eras, which, of course, lasted for multiple centuries and might reasonably be expected to have experienced changes that would be reflected in the stratigraphy uncovered at the site." The review explains that this approach is justified by the authors suggesting that architectural structures endured over a long period of time, or in the authors' word, "“What if a site was continuously occupied for a millennium or more, wherein the architectural structures—domestic, monumental, and defensive—were used, re-used, re-furbished, and expanded over an extremely long period of time?" and that "“such an enduring city, when approached by the archaeologist after millennia of abandonment subsequent to its many centuries of continuous occupation . . . would, minimally, be extremely difficult to interpret via the traditional stratigraphic concepts of BDA [building–destruction–abandonment] based analysis”".\ The reviewer challenges this identification of occupational continuity with cultural continuity, pointing out that it's not referenced, and goes on to say "this approach negates the possibility of identifying substrata, phases of development, or internal changes within long periods of settlement and potentially masks details of occupation within each period." Without such details you can't really give details about what happened at the site over time, and points out that this is particularly a problem in a volume about ceramics and objects. She bemoans the lack of parallels for either ceramics or objects and problems with determining their context, as well as problems about the way the authors organise the artefacts.

"Both the discussion and presentations of material are also affected by the reliance on outdated source material throughout the volume" although she notes some exceptions, "the presentations of both ceramics and objects lack reference to recent secondary material devoted to the study of either ceramics or different categories of objects" and some misattribution of sources with the sources not backing the text. "These vagaries regarding organization, information, and presentation detract from the use of the material from this site for any archaeological or historical study of the southern Levant."

As someone who has done a bit of academic study of archaeology including field school and participated in excavations, I find this quote particularly troubling: "Although individual field and locus numbers for the ceramics are provided in the accompanying tables, there is no way to know if these sherds come from mixed fills, sealed floors, pits, walls, or any of a host of other depositional contexts. Without these stratigraphic details, the pottery cannot sufficiently inform the reader regarding inter-site or intra-site history and development, and without the identification of substrata or phases within the larger eras, it will be difficult to gain a full understanding of this material in future publications."

My conclusion is that this is not a reliable source. We should not use it for facts although we probably should make the deficiencies in the study clear. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * what do you think? Doug Weller  talk 15:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A bunch of Creationists got hold of a very important site, they hyped it in the press with fantastic interpretations - Sodom, destroyed by Tunguska-like explosion leading to vitrification of landscape and centuries of abandonment of the entire kikkar / Dead Sea Disk - and people probably flock to Wikipedia (do they?) to check the basic facts. We have the obligation to offer info, but the most in-depth and up-to-date source is - the Creationists' own, sub-standard dig publication. Whatever can be salvaged from the volume in terms of basic timeline and main structures excavated at the site, we should; regarding all else, the article needs "policing", to stop "enthusiasts" from quoting press scoops verbatim. And not just the press, but also the official dig publications. May Qos be with us. Lots of work, and I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to move a bit away from the screen, 'cause the corona break is slowly coming to an end. Interesting: the only "specialist" quoted as opposing Collins is another Bible apologist, who's not happy about Sodom moving from SE of the Dead Sea to NE of it. If that's the only problem... In short: use the book with great caution and yes, make the deficiencies in the study clear. Arminden (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry for not answering yet to this, I'll have to take the time to read it. Thanks for the ping, — Paleo Neonate  – 13:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

And I'm sorry again for the incredible delay. I agree that it's not a reliable source. The American Schools of Oriental Research article also seems to need work. Since May, a few more Collins citations were added without critical review... — Paleo Neonate  – 00:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks. I can't find the references at ASOR. Doug Weller  talk 15:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, to this article, I mean, sorry for the confusion. — Paleo  Neonate  – 15:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Deleting a sourced, factual statement providing no opinions or judgements is not deleting a diatribe
The following comment by Doug Weller was put on my talk page: Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I would think that would be obvious. It's clear you don't like it, but if you think it shouldn't be there, please use the talk page. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with whether I like it. I don't believe the Bible is inerrant! It's just that it has nothing to do with Tall el-Hammam. What do we care whether the university of the archeologist believes in the inerrancy of the Bible? The person who put that stuff there seems to think that you have to believe the Bible is inerrant in order to believe that there was a town called Sodom! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainstream scholars have severe misgivings about Collins' excavations and interpretation of the site (see the above thread), which stem from the fact that he is a "bible and spade" inerrantist and not a scientific archaeologist. That context is helpful for the reader to properly evaluate Collins' claims about the site – not just the identification with Sodom, but in general. And the historicity of Sodom is debatable. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * But it's not acceptable to put in a long paragraph about how stupid the university is! And even if the historicity of Sodom is debatable, that's no reason to denigrate the whole idea that this site may be Sodom. Sodom may very well have existed. It's not like saying that Noah's flood covered the mountains in the 3rd millennium BC! By the way, did they really find "vitrification of landscape" (as stated above)? I heard someone talk about this site and he said they had found ceramics that had melted. Is that true? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that the lengthy statement about Collins's affiliations is over-the-top, and comes across as slightly aggressive. I understand the need for context, but the article doesn't need to quote the mission statements of each university. The point could be made much more concisely, by simply saying they're Christian universities which believe in Biblical inerrancy. DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 21:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources and unaccredited
I would like some explanation as to these comments by while undoing the relatively uncontroversial edits I made: These are unreliable sources for an extraordinary claim. I don't see the problem with repeating "unaccredited."

In particular, I would like to know how exactly Forbes and Phys.org are considered unreliable sources. The science editors of these publications found this topic valid enough to have written significant articles on them. The articles do not appear to contain any concerning biblical bias - did you even read them? In addition, the conference proceedings summarize the claims and list academics from across the fields of both astronomy and archaeology, not just the universities that you have a problem with (and I can see this is a long-standing issue from this talk page). I understand that many may find these claims extraordinary, but the fact that they can be found with a basic Google search in a reputable publication (and elsewhere on Wikipedia) means they have a place on this page. I believe these edits are appropriate. If you would like to make sure that they are read as controversial, you are welcome to add in additional sources that contradict the research you believe faulty. As you appear convinced these claims are too extraordinary to even include on this page, that should be an easy task. Mpschaff (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . When I said "extraordinary claims", I was referring to a Wikipedia policy, which says any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. I: think we can agree that the discovery of a civilisation-ending cosmic event in the Bronze Age, hitherto unknown in the archaeological record, is an extraordinary claim. With that in mind, let's look at the sources you added this with:
 * What you're calling a conference proceedings is actually an abstract book. In other words the "paper" you cite is less than 250 words and, as is normal for an abstract, does not actually substantiate its headline claims. As far as I know ASOR doesn't publish conference proceedings and usually archaeology conferences do not do peer review. So the fact that they were presented at an ASOR conference lends no weight to these claims; for all we know, the authors were laughed out of the room. It's also quite telling that although this conference was three years ago, there still hasn't been a single follow-up publication in a peer-reviewed journal or from a reputable publisher.
 * Phys.org just distributes press releases that universities put out to promote research done by their staff. There is no editorial oversight.
 * The Forbes article is in its "Forbes.com contributor" section, essentially a self-published blog with minimal editorial oversight, and considered generally unreliable on Wikipedia. It also looks to be churnalism based on the same press release as Phys.org.
 * In addition to being unreliable, these three sources are also primary and not independent of the proponents of the claim. We can't write from a neutral point of view with only these sources, and your challenge to me to produce sources that "contradict the research" is backwards: we need secondary, reliable sources that either support or contradict these claims to say anything about it at all.
 * As for the unaccredited thing, I can see now that the whole section got duplicated at some point, which I've just fixed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi According to the article you linked to on primary sources: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." As no interpretation is going on (that is, no one is saying whether or not the research is accurate), I'm not sure what the concern is here. Wikipedia indicates we can use primary sources to provide statements of fact. The statement of fact here is that this research was done, and the research was presented at a conference. That in and of itself is not controversial, and written from a neutral point of view. This research exists. That is a fact. It is not a fact, that many object to the quality of the research, or that you personally don't find this conference reliable despite having admitedly no direct knowledge of its operation or this presentation in particular. Those are interpretations and will require secondary sources to verify. I argue that the conference abstract is worth inclusion, as long as we don't provide any interpretation of the results. Your statement about the research not being duplicated in a peer reviewed journal as of this date may be an appropriate followup statement. Mpschaff (talk)
 * That is a minimal standard on the use of primary sources. As I have explained, the requirements for extraordinary claims like this is higher; please see WP:FRINGE and WP:SCIRS for more information. "This research was presented at a conference" is indeed a statement of fact but it including it alongside mainstream interpretations of this site attributes a level of significance to these outlandish claims that they don't, in reality, have.
 * P.S. I think you have misunderstood my point about the ASOR abstract. It's not a comment on ASOR specifically (a perfectly legitimate organisation that I do, in fact, have some first-hand knowledge of), but that conference abstracts in general are not reliable or secondary sources. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in debating this with you further, as it appears that in your quest to appear unbiased, you are twisting yourself into knots justifying not including the research which you believe extraordinary (lol at the idea that "ALL conference abstracts are unreliable, but really this one group that I'm familiar with is actually a perfectly legitimate organization but I also still refuse to include this one because I don't like the research being done."). I feel I'm fairly rational person with a good appreciation of science, so that's why it is not inconceivable to me that other Tunguska-like events have happened in the past as outlined on the astronomical sections of Wikipedia. I also agree additional research into this particular issue is necessary, which is why I floated a compromise that you flatly refuse to consider. I hope you enjoy policing this page, because it will certainly be an ongoing issue as long as you are immovable in the idea that no research can be included which you personally find extraordinary. Cheers. Mpschaff (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need to debate. Just find some sources for this claim that aren't conference abstracts, press releases or lazy churnalism. Until you do, there's nothing more to be said. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This seems legitimate to add I would think -. Can we add this now? Remember (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that too, came here because of it. One of the authors is Philip Silvia who iirc was Stephen Collins' graduate student, or maybe it was the other way around.  The article says similar things to the other Collins/Silvia studies and cites them heavily.  It's interesting and it should certainly be used here.  67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * HN discussion thread in case there are other usable resources there: . 67.164.113.165 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

New paper: A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam

 * Abstract: We present evidence that in ~ 1650 BCE (~ 3600 years ago), a cosmic airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam, a Middle-Bronze-Age city in the southern Jordan Valley northeast of the Dead Sea. The proposed airburst was larger than the 1908 explosion over Tunguska, Russia, where a ~ 50-m-wide bolide detonated with ~ 1000× more energy than the Hiroshima atomic bomb. A city-wide ~ 1.5-m-thick carbon-and-ash-rich destruction layer contains peak concentrations of shocked quartz (~ 5-10 GPa); melted pottery and mudbricks; diamond-like carbon; soot; Fe- and Si-rich spherules; CaCO3 spherules from melted plaster; and melted platinum, iridium, nickel, gold, silver, zircon, chromite, and quartz. Heating experiments indicate temperatures exceeded 2000 °C. Amid city-side devastation, the airburst demolished 12+ m of the 4-to-5-story palace complex and the massive 4-m-thick mudbrick rampart, while causing extreme disarticulation and skeletal fragmentation in nearby humans. An airburst-related influx of salt (~ 4 wt.%) produced hypersalinity, inhibited agriculture, and caused a ~ 300-600-year-long abandonment of ~ 120 regional settlements within a > 25-km radius. Tall el-Hammam may be the second oldest city/town destroyed by a cosmic airburst/impact, after Abu Hureyra, Syria, and possibly the earliest site with an oral tradition that was written down (Genesis). Tunguska-scale airbursts can devastate entire cities/regions and thus, pose a severe modern-day hazard. 

So why isn't a reference to this new paper relevant? I see this has been reverted multiple times? Samw (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I see the first five references are from Creationists and unaccredited Creationist universities. But see WP:FTN. It's extremely dubious and already debunked by various experts but nothing published yet. We need to wait until it is discussed in clearly reliable mainstream sources by mainstream experts. You might want to read this and this about earlier claims..  Doug Weller  talk 15:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a strawman argument! There are 202 references and the first 5 happen to be in that category because the way the paper was written, not because they are the most important references.  Scientific Reports is "is an online peer-reviewed open access scientific mega journal published by Nature Research".  Is that not a sufficient reference?   I'm not saying the "fringe theory" is true; just that some credible sources have advanced it.  Even calling it a "fringe" theory is fine by me (but you'll have to cite someone calling it "fringe"!) Thanks.  Samw (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the Scientific Reports paper mentioned in the previous section. There is also an article in The Conversation about it.  There has been tons of popular/mainstream press coverage of this topic in past years, that was considered non-RS because it wasn't scientific enough, but now the Scientific Reports article is non-RS because it isn't mainstream enough?  At this point I think we have to use it per NPOV.  That said, there has been some skeptical reception from scientists on twitter, linked in the HN discussion above. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * agreed. Biblical research is not illegal and can be used with some caution. I think it would be helpful to have a short section which mentions the work, describes the findings and discusses it rather than censor the article.Marzbans (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. The problem now is that we only have the paper itself and news reports that just regurgitate its claims, so we cannot discuss it from a neutral point of view. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, but I am not aware that a research needs a counter-research to become eligible to be included in our pages. Without that paper from Nature, this page looks outdated. I suggest using this source for balance. It points out some of the issues with the paper: unaccredited religious schools sponsoring the work and the biblical nature of the research, i.e. the group is there solely for the purpose of proving the old testament.Marzbans (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It does when it's a fringe view (which this certainly is). But thanks for the Patheos source, that helps. There's also fellow biblical literalists who are not convinced and a bunch of critical twitter threads from scientists, though I'm not sure either are usable. I'm open to adding something that is appropriately attributed and balanced, but I'm not the only one (or even the first) to remove this.  What do you think? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe, IF we can use the Patheos source as well, plus maybe some commentary on the authors from the two earlier papers, I gave links at FTN. Doug Weller  talk 17:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think based on media coverage it deserves a section for the theory, including the massive amounts of criticism. Looking at the institutions and people leading this excavation it seems like theres a need for a Criticism section regardless of whether this paper is included or not jonas (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Might I invoke WP:ONEWAY here? I'm not sure fringe speculation belongs in this article at all. We can mention that an ideologue is leading the excavations and leave it at that. We don't need to repeat what his claims are until/unless outside sources take note. WP should drag its feet when it comes to such WP:REDFLAGs. No, spats with other biblical inerrantists do not count (unless you want us to lovingly explain why, for example, Hugh Ross and Answers in Genesis disagree on our page about the Age of the universe, for example ::rolleyes::). jps (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * a critical section discussing the recent research won't hurt. There is already a good deal of criticism:1-the religious schools ordering the excavations,2-the biblical nature of the research, seriously these people are there to prove that the bible was right,3-dates not matching the bible's timeline, 4-the settlements could have been destroyed by other causes such as fire, 5-the problem with identifying tell al-hammam with Sodom, the city may not be Sodom after all, 6-they failed to find any crater at the site, so they attributed the damage to an airburst.Marzbans (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that all these are excellent points in opposition to the nonsense being promoted about this site, but this is probably better in line for a journalism piece rather than an encyclopedia. By all means create a reliable source we can reference here that identifies the problems with the recent research, but until this research is duly cited, it is leaning a bit too far into the discussion of ideas that are simply ignored by the relevant epistemic community. jps (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference should certainly be included with a summary of its findings. Omitting it shows bias or out of touch with what is going on. Also the purpose of Wikipedia is not to criticise, but to state what was published. If the writers here doubt what the publications say, then qualify it with "xyz says" or "claims". But if anything related to Biblical archaeology research is omitted, it indicates serious bias on behalf of Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We often omit single papers from Wikipedia -- especially when published under questionable circumstances. I will grant that this paper has caused a bit more of a stir in certain quarters, but they are not the normal quarters we would expect in terms of WP:RS necessarily. I would link to other controversies of this sort where removal from WP was a solution that so far has seemed to work very well, but I would prefer to let certain sleeping dogs lie. jps (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that omitting the work or calling them creationists not worthy of consideration has the intended effect. I suggest adding this section:Marzbans (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "The work which has been characterized as biblical research, i.e., primarily intends to prove the historicity of the events mentioned in the bible is sponsored by the aforementioned christian schools. However, scholars have doubts that Tell al-Hammam is the city of Sodom and the date of events do not match the timeline of events mentioned in the bible."

Effect is not really the issue here. The issue is sourcing. What sourcing do you want to use to identify in the passive voice that it "has been characterized as biblical research"? Which scholars are you referencing that "have doubts"? If they are reliable sources and, crucially, independent evaluators, then I can get behind such a statement. But so far I've not seen particularly good sources for our purposes. jps (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So far we have 2 critical reviews: ChristianityToday states that "a number of archaeologists with varying degrees of familiarity with the Tall el-Hammam excavation were highly skeptical...few archaeologists outside of those working on the excavation team believe that Tall el-Hammam is Sodom...scholars cite chronology as a major issue with the Sodom identification...destruction does not look any different than any other destruction...Assyrian and Egyptian destructions looks just as dramatic" and Patheos  quotes Philip Jenkins wherein he expresses skepticsim about whether human can recall the events after a thousand years.Marzbans (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Christianity Today is not what I would call a particularly reliable source considering that it has an evangelical Christian bent. Secular news sources would be preferable. Patheos is just a blog so even worse in a sense. I think we need better sources. jps (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually CT(ChristianityToday) is interviewing Steve Ortiz, Robert Mullins, and Aren Maeir, all of them Archeologists with relevant experience in this field and Patheos quotes Philip Jenkins, the Emeritus professor in theology, that is definitely a title given to outstanding scholars.Marzbans (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, "Emeritus" is a title that is given to retirees, but I get that that the people interviewed are no slouches. I'm just saying that the collected sources do not indicate that this fringe claim has been noticed by the caliber of journalistic/academic outlets we would expect for such splashy claims. In some cases, we preference not including such claims because they just aren't being noticed enough. jps (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * not being noticed enough? I guess not...of the million articles published each year, very few are fortunate to get such media coverage. Already covered in the Time, Forbes, Newsweek, etc, it has already been accessed more than 266000 times . To assume that the paper is not interesting enough is incorrect, although it is open to dispute.(p.s. not every retired professor is granted the title of Emeritus..some just get retired).Marzbans (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The only professors who are not granted the title of emeritus are those that no longer have/desire affiliation with the university from which they are retired. It is essentially pro forma as long as the retiree asks for it. ANYWAY... I think you've confused a question of interest by people with interest by reliable sources. There are a lot of things that millions of people are interested in that we simply do not discuss at Wikipedia for lack of reliable sources. This is what I mean when I say "noticed enough". In this case, as Joe Roe points out below, the reliable sources are coming... but we're not quite at a point yet where I think it responsible to try to write a good explanation of the situation based on what we have right now. jps (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this question is going to resolve itself soon enough. The CT source is good for showing that even other evangelicals and biblical archaeologists don't accept this research, but used alone it implies that "the science" is sound, which it very much isn't. But it's only been a week since the paper was published and I've heard that at least one formal response is already on the way. There doesn't seem to be much point trying to wring an NPOV summary out of the paper plus 1.5 critical sources when if we just wait a bit we'll have plenty to go off. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this WP:NODEADLINE principle of waiting to see how it is framed. jps (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * may I ask why you think we cannot write a good explanation of the situation or why the sicence is not sound? I just cannot fathom why we should ignore such a study which has been going on since 2005. We don’t even need CT, Patheos, nor the forthcoming article to justify the inclusion of this study, we have the journal Nature as a reliable source, erasing that section or leaving it blank won’t help a bit, the publication is already on the worldwide web and has been extensively discussed and cited. However, we can help improve this page by updating it and describing the work which has been done and still ongoing. That’s what I think an encyclopedia is all about.Marzbans (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See the Retraction Watch article for example: Criticism engulfs paper claiming an asteroid destroyed Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah. Among other concerns, there is an accusation of falsification of evidence. Given the firestorm engulfing the article currently, it is a good idea to wait until the dust settles before deciding that the article is reliable enough to include in Wikipedia.  rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And PubPeer is hosting a progressively larger string of questions/concerns regarding the images and the C14 dating methods: https://pubpeer.com/publications/37B87CAC48DE4BC98AD40E00330143 rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

may I ask why you think we cannot write a good explanation of the situation or why the sicence is not sound? Certainly! It's because Wikipedia is a cumbersome beast that can only report what other people say, and then only does that when the other people say it in the venues it pays attention to. The alternative is an "accept all comers" attitude towards content creation which is just a mess (and when it does happen on Wikipedia tends to be accompanied by long discussions of how it got to be so bad typically ending in acrimony and recriminations). To avoid these conflicts, strict sourcing rules and research rules have been adopted that prevent us from stating the obvious facts of this case: that the people running the excavation for the Jordanian government are at least guilty of shoddy research and perhaps even guilty of academic fraud. These are heady statements to make and Wikipedia is not going to be the venue to make them. So this grey literature, Twitter commentaries, and blogs will continue their churn and maybe we'll get a good retraction or something which we can discuss. But up until now, the buzz has been just that and the good science journalism pieces and takedowns are not yet evident in the sources we would normally want. But don't worry. Give it time (and probably not that much time, TBH) and I am pretty sure we will have the sourcing we need. jps (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Some more discussion of this paper: 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:1598 (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And further media coverage is now at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation podcast Late Night Live. Also, it seems strange that the research is mentioned at Meteor air burst but not in the article about the city itself. Surely it should be mentioned in both articles or neither? I'd argue it should be in both, along with a debunking of sorts if consensus is that the research is discredited. Meticulo (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the concern here is that this is a fringe claim without suitable independent sources, it doesn't matter how many credulous news reports it accumulates. That podcast is an interview with one of the authors of the original paper, so functionally the same as citing the paper itself. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree the podcast is functionally the same as citing the paper. I cited it in order to show a small increase in mainstream media coverage, i.e. increased notability. That is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. WP:FRINGE itself says in part, "Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. The threshold for whether a topic should be included in Wikipedia as an article is generally covered by notability guidelines." Once enough "credulous" news reports accumulate to meet the criteria for significant coverage, then the research should be mentioned, along with a debunking if necessary. Meticulo (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC) ...
 * ... and other such coverage includes CBC Canada, Forbes and The Times of Israel Meticulo (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not an issue here, because we are not discussing creating an article. The question is whether it's possible to cover these claims from a neutral point of view and whether including them in this article at this time is due weight. For that we need independent sources, and an author of the paper going on the radio to say the same things that they wrote in the paper is hardly independent. Nor are newspapers with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy when it comes to science coverage churnalising the same press releases and interviews. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

break
Could we handle this for now with something from WP:SYN, such as “So and so have claimed that an air burst destroyed the settlement but that finding is disputed by others” (with appropriate references for each part of the statement)? This might stop the repeated addition of the air burst story to the article. rsjaffe 🗩 <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 09:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem at the moment is the lack of good references for the second part. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would Retraction Watch or Elizabeth Bik’s blog be considered “good”? <b style="color:white">rsjaffe</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 13:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Would some science news sources be ok?  Sgnpkd (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Critiques of air burst claims section
There is currently a discussion at User talk:Aluxosm regarding the 'Critiques of air burst claims' section, both here and in the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis article. Thank you. Aluxosm (talk) 11:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate sourcing, all "clarify" and "dubious" tags need to be addressed
Please check all the "clarify" and "dubious" tags. Among other issues, Graves (2021) isn't available online and given that a) it's self-published (can it be consuidered RS?), and that b) there are piles of issues even with accessible sources (both their content as such, AND the way they've been quoted), additional sources are needed. Also, lumping together Graves (2021) and Graves & Stripling (2011) is misleading in at least one case, as the findings differ between the two, and it creates the wrong impression that both are proof for all the listed items, which is wrong & misleading. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Graves (2021) is edited by Collins Byers and Stripling. Given that all are part of the group doing the excavation, it is a primary source, and self-published. WP:RSSELF and WP:PRIMARY make the use of this book as a source problematic, other than for simple statements of readily verifiable facts. I'm concerned that significant portions of this article are based upon primary sources from the current excavation. <b style="color:white">rsjaffe</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 17:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Excluding the pre-1900 publications, some of which may be considered primary, the following seem to me to be primary sources, which creates problems for the portions of the article based upon these. Some are self-published or should be considered to be self-published (e.g., the "Biblical Research Bulletin", from Trinity Southwest University, primarily publishes articles by Collins and his colleagues). -- <b style="color:white">rsjaffe</b> <b style="color:white">🗩</b> <b style="color:white">🖉</b> 19:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Prag, Kay (1991). "Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Iktanu and Tell al-Hammam, Jordan, 1990". Levant. 23 (1): 55–66. doi:10.1179/lev.1991.23.1.55. Retrieved 2 May 2020.
 * 2) Collins, Steven; Hamdan, Khalil; Byers, Gary A. (2009). "Tall al-Ḥammām: preliminary report on four seasons of excavation (2006–2009)". Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. 53: 385–414. ISSN 0449-1564.
 * 3) Collins, Steven; Aljarrah, Hussein (2011). "Tall al-Ḥammām season six, 2011 : excavation, survey, interpretations and insights". Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. 55: 581–607. ISSN 0449-1564.
 * 4) Collins, Steven; Kobs, Carroll M.; Luddeni, Michael C. (2015). The Tall al-Hammam excavations. Volume one, An introduction to Tall al-Hammam with seven seasons (2005-2011) of ceramics and eight seasons (2005-2012) of artifacts. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ISBN 978-1575063690.
 * 5) Collins, Steven; Byers, Gary A.; Kobs, Caroll M. (2015). "Tall El-Hammam Season Ten, 2015: Excavation, Survey, Interpretations And Insights". Biblical Research Bulletin. Trinity Southwest University. 15 (1): 1–37. ISSN 1938-694X.
 * 6) Flanagan, James W.; McCreery, David W.; Yassine, Khair N. (1994). "Tell Nimrin: Preliminary Report on the 1993 Season". Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan. 38: 207.
 * 7) Collins & Scott (2013), p. 157
 * 8) Graves, David Elton (2021). Collins, Steven; Byers, Gary; Stripling, D. Scott (eds.). A Preliminary Report on the Tall al-Ḥammām Excavation Project: Roman, Byzantine and Islamic Remains, Field LR (2005–2017). Electronic Christian Media. ISBN 979-8748800105.


 * Thank you for your previous posting, I didn't know (no access to Graves 2021). Even so, at least the basic facts should be presented in a cohesive manner: which were the habitation periods? What form did they take (urban, rural, large, small, outer characteristics)? What are the representative finds? Where do the destruction layers occur? That is basic level, I'm not talking about interpretations (why, whodunit, larger context), which are a different matter. But even that seems to be impossible. Very modest level, considering that we have specialists contributing, not (just) hobby Wikipedians and starry-eyed high school students who came back full of creative energy from a school trip with a charismatic archaeologist as a guide. When the groundwork is done properly, others can work with the findings and offer good interpretations, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the excavators. I can only hope that will be possible here too. Very important, major site, such a shame that the licence went to whom it did. Arminden (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The Meaning of kikkar

 * The "Late Bronze Gap"...is...characteristic of many of the sites in the Jordan valley (Hebrew kikkār) region, including Tall Iktanu, Tall Kefrein (al-Kefrayn), Tall Nimrin, Tell el-Musṭāḥ, Tall Bleibel (Bulaybil), etc.

The ENTIRE Jordan Valley = kikkar? Not the common definition. Also notice that all examples are from the standard location, i.e. opposite Jericho.

I see that Dr. David E. Graves is discussing the term here, drawing the conclusion that it must be placed between Zarethan and Succoth (Deir Alla) in the Jordan Valley near the Jabbok (Zarqa River), east of the Jordan, i.e. "in the northern region between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea", a bizarre conclusion, given the fact that all the mentioned elements (Zarethan, Succoth/Deir Alla, and Jabbok/Zarqa) are in the lower third of the Lower Jordan, very far away from the Sea of Galilee and much closer to the Dead Sea. So deep in the southern part of the lower course of the Jordan (as the "Sea of Galilee to Dead Sea" section is also known). Typo?

A good source like Joseph Blenkinsopp's "Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary" is expressing the classical opinion:
 * When used topographically, as a proper name, kikkar always stands for the Jordan Valley around Jericho (e.g., Gen. 13:10-12,; 19:28; Deut. 34:3; 2 Sam. 18:23; 1 Kings 7:46). Neh. 12:28, which speaks of musicians coming together from the kikkar around Jerusalem, does not invalidate this translation since the context suggests the more general meaning of "region." —

Needs to be clarified and fixed. Arminden (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

PubPeer discussion
See - mainly Mark Boslough's comments. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Problem is that PubPeer is probably not seen as a reliable source. The various contributors are of varying authority. I’ve used the PubPeer discussion to identify issues and to point towards good sources, rather than incorporating PubPeer itself. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 15:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the best and probably the only use of it. Doug Weller  talk 15:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Caused by Santorini
The proposed date for a Comet 1650BC is identical to the timeframe of Santorini. The 1.5M of Ash, sounds exactly like what is found all over the Mediterranean at that time. The volcano is hot too. The distance is 1000km, but the Egyptians knew about the eruption, and that's 750km away. It seems pretty obvious that the "hot event" at the time of the most famous volcanic eruption... is not a comet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C300:290:A15C:4384:47A:5693 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

'inappropriate' image manipulation
"Some of the figure panels have been manipulated to remove the features irrelevant to the scientific content depicted in those (e.g. measuring tape, previous image labels, visible fingers etc.)." Kapuchinski (talk) 09:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No way should we use that paper. I’ve been following this discussion with various academics, archaeologists etc who roundly condemn the paper. Doug Weller  talk 09:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)