Talk:Azal (Bible)

Expert attention requested

This article appears to contain much WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis, taking evidence from a single photograph and attempting to correlate it with a biblical reference. Could someone with expertise in biblical archaeology please review it? The article should also be renamed: perhaps Azal, Israel or similar. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Article has been moved to Azal (Bible), which is I think the most neutral title. I have found a very short entry in Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible on page 131 of the 2000 edition on this subject, which indicates that the word means "noble" and that in the context of Zechariah it might refer to an unidentified location near Jerusalem. Alternately, the word may be used as a form of preposition there, which would render the meaning "the side of it (as in the RSV) or "the other side" (As in the TEV). The fact that there is no reference to any alleged archaeological findings in that article, or in any of the databanks I have checked, as is indicated in this article very much leads me to think that the alleged "finding" of the location many years ago may have been rejected by the later academic community. To date, that is the only thing I have found, but I will keep checking. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between synthesis and analysis. Clermont-Ganneau inductively synthesized the theory that Wady Yasul is Azal; I am merely performing deductive analysis of his theory using freely available evidence. Perhaps the photo is inappropriate, but it does clearly support his theory. I hope Wikipedia is not the kind of publication that only regurgitates mainstream views. Clermont-Ganneau's discovery was an important one that has fallen through the cracks. Surely there is a way to provide it exposure, as well as evidence that supports it, in a way that satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines. Other publications that reference Clermont-Ganneau's discovery, either directly or indirectly are: The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Encyclopaedia Biblica. Zechariahfourteenfive (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. So by WP:Synthesis I mean linking to a photo in an archive, comparing it to Clermont-Ganneau's work, and concluding that the photo and the theses advanced on your blog support Clermont-Ganneau's thesis, or vice-versa. You've removed the link to your blog (thank you), but deductive analysis using the photo is still considered WP:Original research. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not the right place for providing exposure for new evidence in support of a theory. Archaeological journals, forums and blogs are good places for advancing evidence and arguing for and against theories, but the role of an encyclopedia is to describe the current state of research, and not as a vehicle for new research.

WP:Notable controversies can themselves be worth including in an encyclopaedia article, if they are discussing peer-reviewed research from WP:Reliable sources. Examples of this include Homeric Question, The Invention of the Jewish People, String theory#Criticism, etc. As noted in WP:What Wikipedia is not#OR:

If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report about your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of such reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion.

So if you can find reliable, secondary sources citing new evidence in support of Clermont-Ganneau's thesis, then please do include them in Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau and other related articles. Are there no other theories on the exact location of Azal? They should be included here too, and given equal weight, if there's no scholarly consensus yet on this in mainstream sources. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Very good. I'll make changes regarding what you mentioned, and we'll go from there. btw, it's probably a distinction without a difference, but that's not my blog. I don't blog. The only reason I stuck the material on Wordpress is because it was free, easy, and I didn't know where else to put it. Thanks again for your help. Zechariahfourteenfive (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes made. How does it look?Zechariahfourteenfive (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That's an improvement, thanks, but it still makes pretty sweeping claims about scholarly consensus that need verification. The part about the photo is also still original research. I've made some changes, but if we can't verify the claims made about the photo from reliable, secondary sources, then that part should be removed. Thanks, Filing Flunky (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to let whoever know that I removed the 'failed verification' because the referenced work actually does support my statement - almost verbatim. Here is it's companion quote from an earlier work: "As for Azal, the greater number of commentators agree in considering it a place near Jerusalem." (Charles Clermont-Ganneau, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, April 1874, pg. 102) Not sure why the 'failed verification' was inserted, but it may be due to the fact that the wrong volume of the book (Vol 2) was consulted. If I did not follow proper procedure by removing the 'failed verification', please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zechariahfourteenfive (talk • contribs) 01:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You're quoting a late 19th-century work to support the statement "Most bible commentators have considered Azal to be a place near Jerusalem." I don't have the work to hand to verify whether Ganneau said this about most 19th century bible commentators, but it certainly can't support the assertion for bible commentators (and by implication, bible archaeologists) of the 20th and 21st centuries. Filing Flunky (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll see what I can find, and will change. It's confusing, though, because I'm stating the obvious. Anyone who has studied this knows that for the past hundred years most bible commentators have thought Azal is east of Jerusalem. It's really an indisputable fact. No one can really provide evidence refuting that claim. But how do you reference that consensus? I'm also a little confused about the picture. The US Library of Congress has as its title 'Jerusalem from south Kedron [i.e., Kidron] Valley'. It's pretty obvious from that description and looking at the picture what the relevant geographic features are. By stating the obvious, how is that different from stating that al-Eizariya is a few kilometers east of the Mount of Corruption? I don't have a reliable source to make that claim, except a map. Likewise, Wachs/Levitte included a map in their paper showing a landslide at the top of the mountain seen in that photo. I can include a relief/topo map from Google to make the obvious more obvious. Zechariahfourteenfive (talk) 11:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The link given just shows a photo with no title: [1]. The removed text also said "In the photo, Wady Yasul (Nahal Etzel) is the valley in the foreground, the southern summit of the Mount of Olives is the mountain to the right (the location identified by Wachs and Levitte), and Jerusalem lies in the center background". That isn't apparent to a lay reader merely from looking at the photo; moreover the photo is being used as primary evidence for a claim, which is original research. You also say that you're stating the obvious about the academic consensus on the Azal's location, and that anyone who has studied the subject will know the asserted location east of Jerusalem to be true. That's an appropriate addition for an academic journal, but not for an encyclopaedia. All assertions need to be WP:Verifiable, and the burden of proof is on the editor adding the assertion. This proof needs to be in the form of citations as noted above, and not by showing photographic evidence which may or may not prove it. I haven't tagged al-Eizariya for a cite because it's already well cited in its own article, whereas the location of Azal still appears to be a matter of debate. This isn't meant to be aggressive pedantry, rather it's to trim out the original research from the article. Thanks Filing Flunky (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you can find the expert archaeological advice you seek for this topic via this Hebrew Wikipedia entry - http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%9C_%D7%90%D7%A6%D7%9C . Also, this page will give you some information to work with - http://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/letters/1.1695514 .

Hi John Carter, I ran across the Azal (Bible) article and thought I’d have a go at helping with it, and since you’re the last surviving editor who worked on it I thought you should know. I’ve started with a general cleanup of this article repairing/replacing/improving references and still have some linguistic issues to deal with on proper sourcing too. I’ll keep you posted. ThanksPicomtn (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)