Talk:Al Jib

NPOV

I had a go at trying to fix this up, but a major issue was the use of sourcing like this article, which is extremely partisan, at times at the expense of accuracy. Aside from general cleanup, expansion, and wikification, the major change I made was the deletion of a paragraph [sourced to the above article, and less than accurate itself] which was complaining generally about restrictions in the West Bank, but which didn't specifically deal with this village. There are many more aspects of general restrictions that can be written about, and they are/should be discussed in centralised places like the West Bank entry or others dealing with such information, and not dispersed piecemeal among many different entries. Let me know if there are any other questions you may have, as I believe that my every edit was made in line with proper sourcing. Tewfik^Talk 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to know whether the line about the enclave should be altered, as the quote was talking about future plans, while the Israeli West Bank barrier's route was modified several times, its latest iteration surrounding the al-Jib bloc on three sides, but not the fourth. We should also clarify the article naming procedure (Al-Jib, al-Jib, Jib). Tewfik^Talk 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Could both Tewfik and Isarig please stop making unfounded accusations about POV and changing the article in many sections at once? We can deal with the "problems" one by one. NPOV is not achieved by deleting things you don't agree with, but rather by adding sources that express a different point of view. Thanks. Now, regarding Tewfik's opinion that there is no need to discuss the wall's impact on each particular town, I fully disagree. The article cited names al-Jib itself and is relevant. Please add other sources that explain why the wall needs to encircle al-Jib to provide balance. Thanks. Tiamut 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you are using a propaganda tract masquerading as a tour guide book, created with the not-so-subtle goal of erasing any mention of Jewish history in Israel or the West Bank. If you want to add non-controversial edits, do so one at a time and we can discuss them. Repeatedly removing the Hebrew placenames and replacing them with "Canaanite" as you've been doing on several pages is borderline vandalism. I am going to revert them, and I'm warning you not to repeat this. Isarig

I have replaced the old Hebrew with Canaanite exactly once at the Jenin page simply because the old Hebrew name was not sourced and the Canaanite one (exactly the same as the Old Hebrew listed) was. Find a source that says that the Old Hebrew name was Ein Ganeem and you can reinclude it. That, however, has nothing to do with this page. The book I am using is a valid source (certainly more valid that no source). Your reverts and claims of POV are unfounded as usual. Tiamut 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don;t insult my intelligence. Based on this same propaganda tract, you've done this here, on Jenin, on Beit She'an and on Jericho, and perhaps others. The book you are using is , at best, a tour book, and not a reliable source for these kind of claims. Don't do it again. Isarig 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The book appears to give a lot of details of Arab history to the neglect of Jewish history in the region, but that doesn't mean it can't be used, but rather its information can be supplemented by other sources that give the Jewish historical aspects of the region. The book is written by individuals in the region and it doesn't appear to be subject to claims that its information regarding Arab regional history are inaccurate. --Abnn 15:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The book I am using is a reliable source and not just a tour book. Get a copy and read it before you make unfounded accusations. Just because you do not like the information in it, doesn't mean it is not worthy of inclusion. You and Tewfik have to learn to accept that there are other views in the world than just your own. Try adding your own rather than deleting others. Thanks again. Tiamut 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. Tewfik, I did not mass revert. I incorporated some of your changes. Try using the talk instead of just edit summary lines. Thank you. Tiamut 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be possible to get independent confirmation or disconfirmation of these facts (that we are disputing in the article that are sourced to this book), and that may be a better more productive route, as it would entail a pursuit of truth rather than a subjective argument. --Abnn 15:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

== Contentious passage ==

The following was removed by Isarig but I contend that it is completely accurate and appropriate for inclusion:

"Road-networks constructed to enable the Jewish residents of Israeli settlements to reach Jerusalem have resulted in, "an impressive network of four-lane highways, lit up at night, along which the trees have been cut down, 'dangerous' houses destroyed and protective walls erected in the name of security."

Palestinians without Israeli citizenship or permanent residency cards, like those in al-Jib, are prohibited from using this road network, and have to use poor-quality secondary roads that are often sealed off by many fixed or flying checkpoints."

--Abnn 15:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that discussion of movement restrictions and other Israeli measures should be discussed, but as I said above, they should be done in a centralised place like West Bank or somewhere else appropriate. If we have general discussions of information not directly connected the encyclopaedia would be a mess. Consider that editors would then include counter arguments about suicide and shooting-attacks, and every single article would include a massive, low-quality discussion of the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Relating to this specific phrasing, I object to the source as being extremely partisan and somewhat loose with facts, but there are many better sources that discuss the issues. Tewfik^Talk 15:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the direct effects on the specific village in question are important to document. Just as incoming Qassam rocket fire is mentioned prominently in the article about Sderot. These types of things are important to document at the local level on both sides. More sources should be found, and it should be possible. --Abnn 15:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a great source that corroborates Tiamut's source:

http://www.btselem.org/english/Separation_Barrier/20061126_Bir_Nabala.asp

"The five villages in the enclave are Beit Hanina al-Balad (1,400 residents), Bir Nabala (6,100), al-Jib (4,600), al-Judeira (2,100), and Qalandiya (1,200), which have a total population of more than 15,000 persons (hereafter: the Bir Nabala enclave)."

"The route of the separation barrier in this area runs next to the three main roads that border the enclave, and will prevent residents of the enclave from using them. Thus, these roads will be "For Israeli Use Only." The roads are Route 45 North, Route 436 West, and Route 404 (Begin North)East. In the section southwest of the enclave, the route runs along the boundary of the planned Nebi Samuel Metropolitan Park , which will serve residents of Jerusalem and nearby settlements."

"To prevent the complete isolation of the enclave, Israel announced that it intended to build two alternate roads that will link the enclave to the rest of the West Bank."

"Even assuming that these two roads are built, construction of the barrier around the Bir Nabala enclave will severely impair the human rights of its residents. The main reason is that the barrier will separate them from East Jerusalem , on which the residents have always been dependent in all aspects of their lives. Thousands of the enclave's residents hold Israeli identity cards and are entitled by law to free access to the city. In place of the connection with Jerusalem , Israel plans to force on the residents an artificial connection with Ramallah."

--Abnn 16:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This passage is not at al about al_Jib, and is irrelvant. We can keep the specific comments about al-Jib from that polemical source. Isarig 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to add the specific information from BTselem as it is specific. --Abnn 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I edited over you, but reviewing your edit, I still think that a shorter, less repetitive version is in order. As I said before, I rather have none of that Znet, and since B'Tselem says the same things in less partisan language, we should rely on it. Let me know what you think, Tewfik^Talk 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Abnn's edit was better, incorporating both sources. I made some changes to it and replaced Tewfik's version, but I see he has once again reverted to his own. I am resotring that version again. Tiamut 19:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorporation of Abnn and Tewfik and my own edits is below. Those with objections are invited to discuss them below as well.

After the 1948 termination of the British Mandate of Palestine, Jordan took over al-Jib as part of the West Bank, whose control passed to Israel after the 1967 Six-Day war.

The Oslo Accords of the mid-1990s designated al-Jib as part of Area B, giving the Palestinian National Authority control over civilian matters, with Israel retaining control over security matters.

Part of the construction route proposed for the Israeli West Bank barrier during the al-Aqsa Intifada would completely surround al-Jib and two other villages, forming an enclave which B'Tselem refers to as the "Bir Nabala enclave"

B'Tselem notes that residents of the enclave will be prevented from using roads Route 45 North, Route 436 West, and Route 404 (Begin North) East which will be 'For Israeli Use Only.'

Alon Cohen-Lifschitz, an architect from Bimkom, explained that a "fluid traffic project" proposed by the barrier planners would "disenclave the Palestinian villages of Bir Nabala and Al Jib," by building 2 kilometers of road 10 meters below ground level, "closed in and covered with a wire grating, plus two tunnels and a bridge."

B'Tselem writes that even if the roads are built, "construction of the barrier around the Bir Nabala enclave will severely impair the human rights of its residents." The barrier will separate Palestinians in the enclave from East Jerusalem, which has been a traditional center for the villagers. B'Tselem submits that because thousands of the enclave's residents hold Israeli identity cards, they are entitled to free access to the city by law.Tiamut 19:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of NPOV is that there is no reason to repeat the same claims multiple times, which is what your version primarily does:

• "Part of the proposed construction route for the Israeli West Bank barrier would completely surround al-Jib and two other villages, forming an enclave"
• "would completely surround al-Jib and two other villages, forming an enclave"
• "residents of the enclave will be prevented from using roads"
• "barrier will separate Palestinians in the enclave")

There is also no reason to include inflammatory quotes from the partisan Zmag article when the same information is stated dispassionately in B'Tselem. I'll retain the information that you added ("control over civilian matters, with Israel retaining control over security matters", a concise B'Tselem "even if the roads are built" bit). Tewfik^Talk 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide

This is not a reliable source for the referenced subject matter. It is an odd place to seek historical, archaeological and related information.

Noted historian Daniel Pipes has said about Mariam Shahin's book, Palestine: A Traveler's Guide:

Perhaps the book's strangest aspect is the pretense that Israel does not exist."

Conceptualized as a propaganda tool, the guidebook contains more than its share of inaccuracies. The first page falsely informs that "Palestine is a Holy Land to Muslims." The assertion that "archeologists have yet to verify the historic existence" of the Temple of Solomon is laughable nonsense. And Lord Balfour was hardly "of Jewish descent."

Daniel Pipes, The Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2006 Vol XIII: No 2 -Doright 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes is a partisan who regularly attacks all things associated with the Palestinians, to quote: "Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel."

According to Amazon's editorial reviews, it was reviewed positively in UK-based The Independent:

""Hugely impressive... deeply researched, written with flair and passion, and enriched... with Azar's beautiful photography."

Feel free to bring in additionally sources that either conflict or reinforce, but it is nonsensical to simply delete it based on the opinion of a partisan. --Abnn 02:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The problems you bring up are not even relevant to this section as this section is not about claiming Israel doesn't exist. Also you remove text that was sourced to another source besides the book. It think you are being too hasty in your actions. --Abnn 02:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the research Abnn. Further, I would point out that Pipes got the title wrong. It's called "Palestine: A Guide". The word "Traveller" in nowhere in the title. It is just Pipes attempt to reduce her work to something along the lines of a Lonely Planet guide, rather than a serious and comprehensive historical, geographical and political work. Tiamut 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, according to books.google.com Palestine: A Traveller's Guide is an insider's look at where, and how, Palestinians live today. It's listed under Travel/Foreign. The purpose for writing this work, as with most you have used, is expressly political. Shahin is not an academic, she's a journalist, and the book itself does not contain one single footnote. It is a personal, impressionistic, political view of Palestinians, not a scholarly work. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The google link is actually ambiguous in that it stated in the title it is called "Palestine: A Guide" but later on it uses the title "Palestine: A Travelers Guide." The book has been lauded in the UK Independent newspaper as I cited above. Anyways, I think the below is great work, and I am sure we can find additional sources for it given time:

"Ancient history and archaeology

Main article: Gibeon

Human settlement in the vicinity al-Jib is estimated to go back at least 3500 years. The site was renowned for its ancient water system and in the 7th century BCE, for its wine production.

Gibeon is recorded in the Old Testament as a flourishing Canaanite city defended by Joshua in a battle where he requested God stop the sun from moving so that he could continue battle with its attackers.

The town was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587, but its ancient remains are still visible. It experienced a revival during the Roman/Byzantine period. In 1225, Yaqut al-Hamawi described al-Jib as the place of "two fortresses". The present-day village of al-Jib was established during the Ottoman Empire.

Excavations have uncovered tombs and pottery from the Bronze Age, a massive city wall from the Iron Age, several buildings, a winery, and a rock-cut cistern 25 meters deep. A spiral staircase descending into the cistern was probably built by the Crusaders in the 11th or 12th century CE along with a Crusader-era church."

--Abnn 01:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be a great read, and highly evocative, but it's not a scholarly work, nor reliable for any extraordinary claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to move the debate beyond the simplistic "Traveler's Guide" characterization, here is an academic review of Palestine: A Guide, in the Journal of Palestine Studies. I think that focusing on this book is sort of unnecessary though as all of the information that has been cited to it isn't unique academic results but rather just straight foward, although obscure, historical fact. I would bet if one were to go to a university library and look on the shelves beside this book one will find others that have the same information. --Abnn 01:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The book review confirms what I have said. And the issue is indeed this book, since Tiamut continues to claim it is some sort of reliable source for the extraordinary claims she is making. It's not. Let's move on to reliable sources, and report what they say instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

References

New attempt at a history section

A few quick internet searches shows that nothing in the previous history section was that extraordinary. There are tons of sources to choose from. I probably didn't pick the best two Bible sources, they were just the first in Google for a search, but it is the first time I've tried to cite something to the Bible, there are probably more authoritative/standard sources people on Wikipedia use. Also I sourced some of it to the Britannica article on al-Jib / Gibeon (its the same thing on Britannica), which probably isn't good form. Feel free to help out, and find better citations Jayjg, as you seem to be quite experienced with Wikipedia. --Abnn 03:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found these two stories from Time Magazine from 1957 and 1960 that describe the original discovery of both the Gibeon connection and the Bronze Age findings:

• The Pool of Gibeon, Monday, Oct. 07, 1957
• Gibeon's Great Days, Monday, Aug. 08, 1960

I've integrated them into the article, but not that well. --Abnn 04:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Making the Canaanite connection

More findings. --Abnn 04:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Gibeon, the modern Arab village of el-Jib, was first occupied in the Middle Bronze Age I as evidenced mainly by its cemetery. In the Early Iron Age, a massive city wall was built around the mound and a huge cylindrical pool for fresh water, reached by a spiraling stair of 79 steps, was excavated in the bedrock. The city reached its peak in the 7th century BCE when the entire mound was covered with buildings and the Gibeonites produced and traded large quantities of wine (63 rock-cut storage cellars for wine were excavated)."

There are a lot of mentions that the bible makes clear that Gibeon was a Canaanite city, but I am not a Bible scholar thus I can't find any high quality sources. The best I have found are these three sites:

• Learn About Bible Sites: Gibeon
• Bible Places: Gibeon, Also known as el-Jib, Gabaon, Jib
• Madaba Mosaic Map: Gabaon (al-Jib)

I think I need some help here. --Abnn 04:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the name Gibeon:

"The place-name itself may indicate something about its topographical location, for instance Gibeah/Geba/Gibeon (hill)."

More on excavation:

"The first one to identify Gibeon was Robinson as early as 1874. Since then it has been recognised that the Arab village el-Jib has preserved the old name. The site is one of those rare ancient mounds where the name of the city has been found at the site itself, with thirty-one inscribed handles with the name gb’n having been discovered on the site."

"Besides the excavations at el-Jib an Iron Age cemetery has been found at the site. It includes mostly Late Iron Age material but “the assemblage as a whole covers the entire Iron Age”.972 Accordingly, it seems that there were settlements at the site during Middle Bronze Age II, the Late Bronze Age, and Iron Age I and II.973"

A few good sources that I haven't found online:

• Pritchard, J. B. 1959 “Gibeon’s History in the Light of Excavation.” Congress Volume, Oxford 1959. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum VII. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 1-12.
• Pritchard, J.B. Bronze Age cemetery at Gibeon. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1963
• Pritchard, J.B. 1962 Gibeon, where the sun stood still. The Discovery of the Biblical City. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

--Abnn 04:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Robinson's identification of el-Jib as Gibeon was made in 1838, not 1874. Edward Robinson; Martin Dampies; E. Smith, Extracts from a Journal of Travels in Palestine &c., in 1838; Undertaken for the Illustration of Biblical Geography, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol. 9. (1839), pp. 295-310. --Zero^talk 14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Loose ends

Almost everything from Tiamut's original text has been confirmed via other sources except for two things:

• I did a number of searches but I can't find any information on Yaqut al-Hamawi mentioning "two fortresses" in his 1225 book.
• And I didn't find anything about the spiral staircase "descending into the cistern was probably built by the Crusaders in the 11th or 12th century CE along with a Crusader-era church" although I did find the following from the Palestinian Hydrology Group website:

"The water system at Al Jib consists of a huge pool cut into the live rock, (diameter, 11:8m and 24.4m deep). A spiral staircase was cut along the north and east sides of the pool. At the bottom of the pool is a tunnel to provide access to the fresh water lying 24.4m below the level of the city. The spiral staircase consists of seventy-nine steps. Digging the pool involved the quarrying and removal of approximately 3,000 tons of limestone. The second device for obtaining water in times of siege is the stepped tunnel that leads from inside the city wall to the village's spring. The construction of this passageway of ninety-three steps through the hill was made later in the Iron Age (around 900 B.C), perhaps at a time when the flow of water into the water chamber of the pool was inadequate."[4]

--Abnn 05:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I should say that the previous text's claim that "The town was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587, but its ancient remains are still visible" appears to be based strictly on the Bible claims that the Babylonians defeated Jerusalem in 587 combined with the knowledge that al-Jib was a nearby/dependent town. There doesn't seem to be anything else but the Bible for this claim. --Abnn 05:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go with the two fortresses: "There are here two fortresses, called Upper and Lower Al Jîb (Al Jîb al Faukânî and Al Jîb al Tahtâni), and they stand close one to the other", Yâkût (1225), ii. 170 and Marâsid (1300), i. 276, cited in Guy Le Strange, Palestine under the Moslems, PEF 1890. (Yâkût was a scholar who wrote the pre-eminent geographical work of his time; Marâsid was a geographical book of unknown author). --Zero^talk 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over sources

I am very reluctant to pass judgement on Shahin's book since I have never seen it. However, one solution to the problem is to replace it with sources that are less open to dispute. I have succeeded in tracking down scholarly sources for everything quoted here from Shahin except for this: "A spiral staircase descending into the cistern was probably built by the Crusaders in the 11th or 12th century CE along with a Crusader-era church." Pitchford dated the spiral staircase much earlier and several recent archaeological encyclopedias that I consulted did not dispute that. So I plan to omit that detail and rewrite everything else based on the sources I found. --Zero^talk 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of noncontroversial claims the use of Shahin is not problematic from the POV aspect, but rather from the factual one, as it seems now that there aren't any citations in the work. For all the controversy we've come to a much better article, though I think that at least part of this information might be more appropriate at the linked Gibeon entry. What do others think? Tewfik^Talk 20:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It may make sense to merge the two articles together. Britannica only has one article. As it stands the Gibeon seems to deal only with the bible aspect, but it had a history long before and a long time after that. I would look to Bethlehem and how they worked its storied history and its current state into one rich article. --Abnn 23:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Large cities like Bethlehem or Jerusalem are the exceptions. Most biblical places are split from their modern successors because there is usually a long break in the actual habitation such that they are two different entities, rather than an evolution, and some times (not relevant in this case) the connection isn't certain. Tewfik^Talk 00:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way Tewfik, I'm pretty easy going on these types of matters. If there is no merge, I think we can look to the precedent of Nablus vs. Shechem for one type of solution. Coincidentally, there is a multipage long argument on the talk page of Nablus on how to handle it. --Abnn 01:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Between this and Zero's remarks on Gibeon, I WP:Boldly merged. The only significant change was my removal of redundant passages regarding the archaeology's contradiction of the Biblical account re: the dating, which appeared three times. Tewfik^Talk 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Simcha Shalom Brooks

...is she WP:RS? I see her here, and as self-employed tour-guide and historian, according to her linkedin. Not the best. There should be better sources. Huldra (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, so I am re-asking this question. According to this Dr Shalom-Brooks Simcha is a tour-guide. What did she gain her doctorate in? I cannot see that she has been discussed in WP:RS/N, perhaps that is the place to raise the issue (if we cannot get any clear answers here)? Huldra (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The preface of her book indicates a relevant academic eduction, though strangely her degree institution is not named. She has some academic publications (check Scholar). Zero^talk 02:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Al Jib. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~bporter/yahya.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Jib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207052201/http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/populati/pop08.aspx to http://www.pcbs.gov.ps/Portals/_pcbs/populati/pop08.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jmcc.org/palculture/go.htm#jib

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Al Jib. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602165144/http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=566 to http://www.poica.org/editor/case_studies/view.php?recordID=566
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070419204238/http://www.jmcc.org/palculture/go.htm to http://www.jmcc.org/palculture/go.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Ancient identifications in the lead

To editor Tombah: Let's go through all modern Israeli locations and write in the lead of their articles which Palestinian village occupied the same spot only 74 years ago. I know you won't. But somehow it is fine for you to put ancient identifications from thousands of years ago in the lead. Historical information about a site does belong in both cases, but the appropriate place is the history section. The exception is archaeological sites whose only notability is their history. Zero^talk 12:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)