Talk:Southern Levant/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

This article appears to be discussing a geographical region, but without actually mentioning where it is located. This seems absurd to this admittedly ignorant reader. It appears to be written from a archaeological POV that assumes the reader knows where this place is and is only looking for its relation to various archaelogical time periods. If so, it should be have a title like Archaeology of the Southern Levant. -- Jeff Q 01:36, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I've added an intro and put it into clean-up. The term southern Levant is only really used by archaeologists, I think, so the title's probably OK (the article just needs work). --G Rutter 08:09, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Merge

I think this should be merged with Levant. The page isn't describing anything particularly different from the Levant page and there isn't a page for Northern Levant or Eastern Levant and the term is vague enough anyway as it's usage has changed over time. It looks like a forgotten about page to me. 90.193.39.151 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

Although the term was attested in the early 19th century, use of the term was extremely rare until at least 1967.

We cannot come to such conclusions using such tools. Why? Because Googlebooks does not have each and every book ever published, It is obvious there are more than 54 early books which use the term. Secondly, the Neologism tool also suffers from the same problem and only shows a hike in the mid-20th century since that is when publishing was becoming more common, so natuarly it occurs in many more books. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chesdovi, hope you're well. I did think of both those points - if you read the expanation from google here you'll see that it is relatively clear. The key point you might have missed is that the chart shows a %, not an absolute number. As google says "Publishing was a relatively rare event in the 16th and 17th centuries. (There are only about 500,000 books published in English before the 19th century.) So if a phrase occurs in one book in one year but not in the preceding or following years, that creates a taller spike than it would in later years." So (1) it really is a "like for like" comparison, and (2) we don't have any big spikes in earlier years. You can dig further to find out the size of the data set, which you'll see is very large, even in the late 19th century. Google Books Ngrams a great source, and can be useful for lots of articles. Even so, the wording in the lede was written to provide a margin for error. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately the information is irrelevant however, one could say the same thing about the West Bank http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=West+Bank&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0 but it's not mentioned in the wikipedia article due to its unimportance. Drsmoo (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be a good addition to the West Bank article. It's pretty intuitive that the term West Bank wasn't used often in English prior to 1967. And it proves that the ngram works. The only reason why it's not used more on wiki is because it is less than a year old. It is a very powerful tool and should be used more on wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is relevant to an encyclopedia article. In the context of Wikipedia, it can be abused to push a non NPOV stance. Which is not to say it should never be used anywhere, just not in cases where it is the only source for a claim. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, not individual editors original research "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.". Drsmoo (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Google books is a tertiary source. Please review the policy on that.

Are you disputing the veracity of statement which you keep trying to remove? It seems to me that you accept the statement to be true, but you think that such truth is being "abused" by keeping it in this article? Please could you explain further, as i do not understand your logic.

Anyway, if your primary goal is to establish the term Southern Levant as a strong alternative name for the region, I don't see how this sentence that you keep trying to remove makes a difference either way. Just because a term is new, doesn't devalue it as such. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the policy on Original Research, please see Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Uses_of_search_engine_tests Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page. Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. and A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive. While this argument is not about notability per say, I feel these policies still apply. Please feel free to open a discussion on a noticeboard regarding the use of Ngrams on Wikipedia, until then I'll seek a compromise on this article pending a decision by other editors. I hope that this will be the end of the edit-warring. Drsmoo (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Drsmoo, I acknowledge your attempt at compromise, and am happy to compromise also. On your post above, where you say "While this argument is not about notability per say, I feel these policies still apply", I disagree with you. Having said that, your proposed amendments to the text appear reasonable, although I would amend your second sentence slightly to "The term Levant, which derives from the Latin verb "to rise" (levare) in reference to the sunrise in the East, has been popular in scholarly texts since the early 1600s". In addition, I don't think it fits in history, and would move the text to a new "Etymology" section. OK? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Oncenawhile, I've removed the section, due to the unanimous consensus on the reliable sources noticeboard that use of Google N-Grams constituted original research and that they are not a reliable source. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_Google_N-Grams_a_reliable_source.3F Drsmoo (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

References

avoiding taking a stance?

I have removed the statement "These terms are used by archaeologists and residents of the region who wish to avoid taking a modern geo-political stance in a region rife with border disputes." as it is unsourced and an important statement. The archaelogists reference is believable, but i have never heard of "residents of the region" using the term in common parlance.

Can anyone provide WP:RS for this?

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

could the statement be rinstated if "residents of the region" was excluded? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources are provided in the Syro-Palestinian Archaeology page

"Archaeologists seeking a neutral orientation that is neither biblical nor national have utilized terms such as Syro-Palestinian archaeology and archaeology of the southern Levant. (Dever, William G. "Syro-Palestinian and Biblical Archaeology", pp. 1244-1253.) (Sharon, Ilan "Biblical archaeology" in "Encyclopedia of Archaeology" Elsevier.)"

Why was this citation removed? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Archaeologists seeking a neutral orientation

Laurel Lodged, quick question re an edit you made about 3 years ago.

Re the text beginning "Archaeologists seeking a neutral orientation...", was that a direct quote or your description? I couldn't find it in Dever's article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a quotation from the sources but a quotation of now-defunct text in Syro-Palestinian_archaeology. The exact wording was created by Gilabrand here by slightly editing the original added by HG1 here. Laurel Lodged confirmed the origin of the text above on this page; the use of quotation marks is an editing error. The issue comes down to whether the text is a fair summary of the sources or some editor's claim with the sources serving only as examples. Until this is clarified, the passage does not belong here. Incidentally the two "Encyclopedia of Archaeology" mentions are to different works. Zero^talk 04:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to the bottom of this Zero. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Imprecise claim

A random, non-notable editorial opinion by one individual does not justify the subject of an article being devalued in its lead. In fact, multiple people having the same opinion would still make the sentence POV. Drsmoo (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am fine with it being moved to the body. And it should be balanced with other views. A balanced commentary on the usage of this term is what this article needs. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Why would you put it in the lead to begin with? Drsmoo (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There's also no need to have a discussion on the precision or lack thereof in the article. There's no precedent for that on wikipedia. Why would you think the article "needs" this when no other article has that? Drsmoo (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop worrying about this one source, which is the only scholarly commentary we have so far on the usage of this term (not just on "precision", which is only one of the relevant factors). Instead, I suggest you focus your efforts on finding more sources to balance it out. The only reason it's in the lead is because there's no other obvious place for it to go. Let's find more sources, and then we can put them in a dedicated section. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You ignored my question. I find that line's existence in this article extremely problematic in terms of being POV and being non-encyclopedic. Drsmoo (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It is well sourced and will fit perfectly in a section on usage, balanced with a range of other views. To put that in the context of your question, this article "needs" a usage section, and this is a well sourced component of it. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Drsmoo, thanks for your edit on the article just now. You added a lot of unsourced text - will you be adding references to support it? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Over time, yes. Ideally everything on Wikipedia would be completely cited, but we're not yet at that point. Drsmoo (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Drsmoo, how much time? It seems to me like WP:OR, so if you can't cite it in the next few days I will delete it. If you need more time, let me know and I will be patient, but I don't feel comfortable leaving this original research in the article for too long. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably a week or so. It seems strange that you would rush to delete this section while many of the articles you've created/moved/edit regularly, etc are full of uncited material that you've ignored, but that's your prerogative I suppose.Drsmoo (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

How has a single author who noted that the term is awkward become "authors" whose sole focus is specificity?

This diff turns an accurate description of one author's view into a misleading representation of multiple authors. @Drsmoo: please explain this. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if you're upset, you shouldn't be making every idea its own section. You'll notice that the term "authors" is not in the article. Again, you should read before editing. Just FYI, if you look at the source, you'll see that the author is speaking for others as well "I have joined others" Hence "the term has been used".Drsmoo (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that it no longer says authors. I had not noticed that you removed that - perhaps I was distracted by the edit commentary.

I intend to add the awkward reference into the same sentence as the imprecise criticism - would you object to that? That would mean the addition of two words at the end of the imprecise sentence: "and awkward". Oncenawhile (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I would not personally object to that Drsmoo (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, your FYI above would constitute Synth - the author's "joined those" is not relating directly to the "strictly geographical" point that the sentence is driving at. However, this is academic as the way you have now worded it is ok for a single author. So we are done here. Just the section above left now. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Southern Levant encompasses roughly the southern half of the shaded area"

The quote in the header is from the image in the lead. I don't think it is correct - I have always understood the Levant to refer to the fertile area on the Mediterranean coast, and to not include the large parts of desert which are in the shaded area in our map. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so. Read Levant which shows the area as quite easterly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That is circular (we can't reference wikipedia). We need a source if we want to show the Levant extending far into the desert. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the source used in the main body of the article Rowan, Yorke; Golden, Jonathan (2009-04-09). "The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant:A Synthetic Review". Journal of World Prehistory. "The focus of this discussion, the southern Levant, encompasses the southern sections of Lebanon and Syria, the Palestine Autonomous Authority, Israel, and Jordan." Drsmoo (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That is just one source, and it disagrees with many others:

• "The western coastline and the eastern deserts set the boundaries for the Levant... The Euphrates and the area around Jebel el-Bishrī mark the eastern boundary of the northern Levant, as does the Syrian Desert beyond the Anti-Lebanon range's eastern hinterland and Mount Hermon. This boundary continues south in the form of the highlands and eastern desert regions of Transjordan" (Margreet L. Steiner; Ann E. Killebrew (2014). The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE. OUP Oxford. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-19-921297-2.)
• "The southern Levant refers to all of the territory south of the headwaters of the Orontes River and west of the Syrian Desert" (Bruce Routledge (28 June 2004). Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 223–. ISBN 0-8122-3801-X.)
• "The term “Levant” refers to the countries at the eastern end of the Mediterranean: it has been used in reference to the Venetians, the ancient trading cities of Tyre and Sidon on the Lebanese coast, Syria, Asia Minor and sometimes Egypt." (Guy Arnold (27 January 2014). World Strategic Highways. Routledge. pp. 92–. ISBN 978-1-135-93366-1.)
• "Levant refers to the eastern Mediterranean, specifically today's Lebanon, Israel , and parts of Syria and Turkey" (Phillip C. Naylor (15 January 2015). North Africa, Revised Edition: A History from Antiquity to the Present. University of Texas Press. pp. 302–. ISBN 978-0-292-76190-2.)
• "Here “the Levant” refers to present- day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria west of the Euphrates River, and Turkey south of the Taurus mountains" (Brian A. Brown; Marian H. Feldman (1 January 2014). Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art. De Gruyter. pp. 393–. ISBN 978-1-61451-035-2.)

"Levant" refers to a cultural region - it is clear from the above that the Syrian Desert is part of that same region, so we should not have a WP:OR map which suggests that. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Southern Levant represents all of the area of ancient Canaan including modern Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, southern Syria and Cyprus." http://apd.farli.org/the-southern-levant

"the southern Levant, encompasses the southern sections of Lebanon and Syria, the Palestine Autonomous Authority, Israel, and Jordan." https://www.academia.edu/4899234/The_Chalcolithic_Period_of_the_Southern_Levant_A_Synthetic_Review._Journal_of_World_Prehistory_22_1-92 It would be ideal if we could use an image like this which is located here but I believe we would need permission. Drsmoo (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

All we have proven with the above is that some sources include Jordan and other do not. Some specifically exclude the desert, and others are silent and don't say either way.

So what do you want to do with the article. Just going with your preference and ignoring the balance of quality sources is not acceptable. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we should work to find a better image, while keeping the current image up until a better image is found. Drsmoo (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Drsmoo, per WP:ONUS, if you want to keep the current image up, you will need to provide a source connecting it to the Southern Levant. At the moment the use of that image is WP:SYNTH. And it is highly inaccurate, per the discussion above. Have you come across any better images in the meantime? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile You're misinterpreting WP:ONUS, it refers to one who wants to include material which is then disputed by the present consensus on the article. The onus would then be on the new editor to justify inclusion. It certainly doesn't mean what you're claiming it means. This image is already present on the article and has been stable for years, added by another editor, and I haven't seen any one else believe it needs to be taken down or detracts from the article. So there is no urgency to remove it while possibly looking for a different image. Out of curiosity, have you found an image you'd prefer? Or looked for one? It would make sense, for example, to ask on archaeological and history noticeboards, as they might have other images. I'm sure someone could draw one up at least. Drsmoo (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an incorrect interpretation. Consensus changes, and there was only ever silent consensus for the offending image. Today, there is no consensus for the image.

Yes I have looked for one, but I don't think we will find one suitable, given the lack of consensus in the scholarly community on the definition of this term (or the "imprecision" of the term as described by footnote 4 in the article).

My sense is that since you and I have both shown real interest in the term, that we work together to create a new image which is based on written definitions in scholarly sources. If we can agree on the two or three most common definitions, we can show those either as different lines on a map (per the map at Palestine) or as different shading (per the map at Near East), and footnote which scholars use which definitions.

How do you feel about collaborating on this? It might even help us learn to trust each other. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I will post on relevant noticeboards to see if someone would draw up a new image. In the mean time, both Laurel Lodged and I have expressed support for the image. Drsmoo (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure but we are not ready for an image to be drawn yet. We have to agree between us what it would show. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus will be built with the Wikipedia community. Drsmoo (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added a simple image, it's based on an image that has appeared in the Hebrew, French and German wikipedias as a map of the Southern Levant (12 3. Drsmoo (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be happy with that image. It needs to show more of the desert and the Sinai. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to try to be systematic about this. I will begin below a list of sources, grouped together where possible. Please could other provide additional sources, to allow us to agree on the most prevalent definitions. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources providing a definition of the Southern Levant

Geographical-feature-based definition

• "The southern Levant refers to all of the territory south of the headwaters of the Orontes River and west of the Syrian Desert" (Bruce Routledge (28 June 2004). Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 223–. ISBN 0-8122-3801-X.)
• "The term Levant, as used here, covers an area that is often referred lo in archaeological works by other terms most notably Syria-Palestine and North Syria...The western coastline and the eastern deserts set the boundaries for the Levant and these natural barriers will therefore serve as brackets for the area under discussion. The general limits of the Levant as defined here begin at the Plain of 'Amuq in the north and extend south until the Wadi al-Arish along the northern coast of Sinai. The western coastline and the eastern deserts set the boundaries for the Levant... The Euphrates and the area around Jebel el-Bishrī mark the eastern boundary of the northern Levant, as does the Syrian Desert beyond the Anti-Lebanon range's eastern hinterland and Mount Hermon. This boundary continues south in the form of the highlands and eastern desert regions of Transjordan. Although the geographical boundaries described here are not absolute the Litani River will mark the division of the northern Levant from the southern Levant. Cyprus is not part of the Levant geographically but it is included on account of its proximity (and resulting cultural ties). as well as its geographical significance size and natural resources." (Margreet L. Steiner; Ann E. Killebrew (2014). The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant: C. 8000-332 BCE. OUP Oxford. pp. 35–. ISBN 978-0-19-921297-2.)... map here
• "The southern Levant, as defined here, is delimited by the Litani River to the north, the Jordan Rift Valley to the East, the Gulf of Aqaba to the south, and the Mediterranean Sea and Sinai Desert to the west." (Jonathan Golden in: Peter N. Peregrine; Melvin Ember (31 March 2003). Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 86–. ISBN 978-0-306-46262-7.)
• “The Levant, which extends from the southern flanks of the eastern Taurus in the north, down to the Sinai peninsula in the south, defines a territory ca. 1300 km long and 350 km wide. The Northern Levant includes the region encompassing the north-eastern Mediterranean littoral and the valleys of the Oron- tes, Middie Euphrates and Balikh in Syria. The region defined as the Southern Levant encompasses the ter- ritory crossed by the valleys of the Litani and Jor- dan, including the Mediterranean littoral extending from Lebanon to northern Sinai. Moreover, the Negev, the Sinai peninsula and Jordan are considered parts of this vast region.” The socio-economic structure of Prehistoric communitiesin the Southern Levant, ca. 13000-8000 BP
• another map

Country-based definition

• Rowan, Yorke; Golden, Jonathan (2009-04-09). "The Chalcolithic Period of the Southern Levant:A Synthetic Review". Journal of World Prehistory. "The focus of this discussion, the southern Levant, encompasses the southern sections of Lebanon and Syria, the Palestine Autonomous Authority, Israel, and Jordan."
• "the southern Levant, encompasses the southern sections of Lebanon and Syria, the Palestine Autonomous Authority, Israel, and Jordan." [1]
• "Levant refers to the eastern Mediterranean, specifically today's Lebanon, Israel , and parts of Syria and Turkey" (Phillip C. Naylor (15 January 2015). North Africa, Revised Edition: A History from Antiquity to the Present. University of Texas Press. pp. 302–. ISBN 978-0-292-76190-2.)
• One of the world's 'hot spots' for this kind of historically-led archaeology is still the southern Levant--the region that includes Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert. Antiquity (journal), September 1, 2010 (via HighBeam Subscription required)
• In its initial format, the DPID will consist of data from the Iron Age (c. 1,200-500 BCE) ceramic database of the southern Levant, a region of the Middle East that now incorporates areas of Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Southern Lebanon, Syria and the Sinai Peninsula. US Fed News Service, Including US State News, August 25, 2008 (via HighBeam Subscription required)-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Isaidnoway Drsmoo (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization matters

@Drsmoo: you wrote: "The term Southern Levant is today used to describe the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and Canaan."

The author (Burke) did NOT write this, or anything similar. He did not refer to "the term Southern Levant" at all. Note that he did not capitalize the "s" in southern.

Please remove this Synth.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

In the name of assuming good faith, I'll move forward with the idea that you're being sincere with the assertion that southern Levant is different from Southern Levant. Since the source is describing the southern levant however, any edit based on the idea that it isn't will be reverted, just as earlier edits that ignored the content of sources were reverted.Drsmoo (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

They are not different in the way thay West Virginia and west Virginia mean different things. They are different in the way that one is a proper noun and a defined "term", and the other is not. See for example the first bullet under Capitalization#Places_and_geographic_terms.

With respect to the article, your sentence above starting "the term" is wholly unsupported. Do you disagree on this specific point or do we need a third opinion?

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Southern Levant is a (historically important) region of the Levant, it is not a separate state like West Virginia. An analog would be Upstate New York, which is typically written in paragraphs as upstate New York (ie 1 2 3), just as, if you look through this and other articles, the Southern Levant is typically written in paragraphs as the southern Levant (ie 1 2 3). Drsmoo (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It's also important to remember here that WP articles are named based on our policies and guidelines, WP:TITLE - which says Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. So while sources generally use the small (s) in describing southern Levant, our titling policy says that the first word in the title should be captalized. I guess one could argue under WP:PRECISE and geographic names that the article title is "technically" inaccurate, but personally I don't think it's that big of a deal to refer to it either way (s) or (S), because it's understood what geographic region we are referring to.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. With respect to the sentence at the top of this thread, it is based upon this scholarly article by Burke as its source. Burke states:

"... this work is now of great interest to those studying the southern Levant (i.e. the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan)... The overwhelming emphasis and scope of these works has been the southern Levant or, as the terms adopted in most of these Ph.D. dissertations suggest, ' Israel' and “Canaan'."

Burke's article uses the word "term" or "terminology" about 25 times in the article, but at no point does he talk about "the term" southern Levant. In the wider context of the article, Burke is arguing to support use of "the term Levant". The above quote is simply explaining that certain other "terms" in use (e.g. Canaan and Israel) are incorporated within Levant, and it is these latter terms (Canaan and Israel) that are being used in scholarly research.

However, the text in our article says: "The term Southern Levant is today used to describe the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and Canaan." This is not an accurate representation of Burke's article.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: thank you for fixing this. Your rewording works well. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Scholars have adopted the term Levant to identify the region due to it being a "wider, yet relevant, cultural corpus" that does not have the "political overtones" of Syria-Palestine"

@Drsmoo: please explain what this sentence has to do with usage of the term "Southern Levant". Oncenawhile (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Read the sources. Since you are unwilling or unable to cease personal attacks, I'll be reporting you. Drsmoo (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I have reread the source, but again this sentence appears to be entirely Synth in the context in which it is being used in this article. I will await an explanation for a week, and if no explanation is received I will then remove this sentence from this article. It will remain in the article Levant, from which it was apparently copy-pasted. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Since the statement is correctly sourced, either I or another editor will revert. Drsmoo (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

What does it have to do with this article please? I suggest you read WP:SYNTH - this is a classic case: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Oncenawhile (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: are you trying to avoid the question? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It really is self explanatory. Laurel Lodged called your edit strange and I agree. If you've read the source, you'll see that the author writes extensively about the Southern Levant extensively, as well as writing about the Northern Levant. He then writes about the Levant region as a whole, encompassing both, and why the term "Levant" is used for the region. I don't think anyone else is interested in semantic games. Drsmoo (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop bringing LL into this. If he wants to explain his views, he will. As of now both my "citation needed" tags have been proven to have been appropriately placed - on the first you still have not found a source despite earlier deleting the tag, and on the second you had to amend the sentence to fit a source which you pulled up from further down.

On the source we are talking about for the third point, see the "capitalization matters" section below. The author was not talking about "Southern Levant" as a term, but about the Levant. Your edits are pure synth. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo's revised proposal per his recent edits works well here, and has removed my synth concerns. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sentences on the Levant

@Drsmoo: the sentences you added back do not refer to the Southern Levant, but to the Levant itself. They are already in that article and add nothing here except confusion. Can you please either edit the sentences to make them relevant to this article, or else remove them. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, removing citation needed tags without adding citations is pure disruptive behaviour. Your crusade to support the use of this term has begun to reach into the depths of dishonesty. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect, both sources refer directly to the Southern Levant. The fact that you so casually remove sources, when even a cursory glance would have shown their direct relevance to the subject and applicability, is extremely troubling. I advise you to cease personal attacks as well. Drsmoo (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

It seems very strange that one would want to delete sources supporting a position that CN is no longer needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The sources may, but not in a way that was relevant to the sentences they were being used to support. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Specifically:

1. "Today, the term "Southern Levant" is primarily found in the fields of archaeology and history" => citation needed
2. "The term has been used by authors wishing to present a strictly geographical description" => citation needed
3. "Scholars have adopted the term Levant to identify the region due to it being a "wider, yet relevant, cultural corpus" that does not have the "political overtones" of Syria-Palestine,[2][3]" => why are we talking about the Levant, with a sentence copied from that article? Applying it here brings a clear SYNTH implication.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

You should actually read the sources before making hostile/aggressive edits and personal attacks. The "strictly geographical" source is referring specifically to the term Southern Levant. The "cultural corpus" source is referring to Southern Levant as well as the Levant as a whole. If you had spent half the time reading the sources as you had removing them and making personal attacks there wouldn't be an issue. Drsmoo (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

If this is right I am willing to accept fault. But on the other hand if that's right, then you should have fixed it instead of blindly and aggressively reverting. There is still no source for the first sentence, the second needs proper linking, and the third sentence is inaccurate and needs amending. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

And the equivalent sentence at Levant will need editing too. You can't have it mean one thing here and another there. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your personal attacks alleging "blindly and aggressively reverting" are incorrect. The sentences are all correctly cited. Additionally, your use of "you" is incorrect. This is not about you vs me. Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok let's both try to depersonalize this.

Do you intend to fix the problems identified? Or do you want me to? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There aren't any problems. You erroneously removed sources from the article and then added tags as if the sources didn't exist. I restored the sources and removed the incorrect tags. I also moved the source for "strictly geographical" to directly follow the relevant sentence (previously it was following the section as a whole) but that's a cosmetic change. Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Points 1 and 3 above remain unresolved. Do you have a solution here? And point 2 needs a fix - the sentence says "authors", yet we only have one (who also calls the phrase "awkward"). Oncenawhile (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged and I seem to be in agreement that there is no issue here aside from your edits. Drsmoo (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to sully other people with your own bad judgements. So you are willing to leave 1. an unsourced statement, 2. an inaccurate statement extrapolating from a single author and leaving out a relevant negative comment, and 3. a sentence relevant only to another article left here as Synth? These are blatant violations of wikipedia's principles. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out the humor in the immediate resumption of personal attacks after calling to depersonalize (which occurred after pinging me, rather than addressing the page's edits as a whole.) As "personal" and uncivil as I've seen from any wikipedia editor, ever. Drsmoo (talk) 16:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo, I am not going to respond in kind to this. If you would like to move on and try to rebuild some semblance of a working relationship between us, then I would be very pleased to do so. If we could find a way to stop fighting, I suspect we could work well together. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

There's no issue with calling out incivility and personal attacks. Editing should be directed towards the community as a whole, and work to engage outside editors when possible. Constantly directing agressive remarks and demands at a single editor, while making personal attacks is disruptive. As is opening up several simultaneous talk page discussions on the same point. Drsmoo (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo, playing to the gallery is not going to help us work together.

If you want to try to rebuild a working relationship, I am ready. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ancient_Near_East#Help_needed_at_Southern_Levant

Drsmoo, WP:BRD puts the onus on the proposing editor to open the talk page discussion.

The proposed edit does not work because (1) the source is discussing use of the term in archaeology only, (2) the source is referring to the southern part of the Levant with a lower-case s, that is, not the proper noun and defined term "Southern Levant", and (3) putting a quote in the lead is unusual, particularly without attribution. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm soliciting feedback from other editors. Drsmoo (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Southern Levant Intro

Is there an issue with this intro?

The edit is as follows:

The Southern Levant roughly encompasses the lower half of the Levant, resulting in some variance of geographical definition, with the widest definition including Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert. In the field of archaeology, the southern Levant is "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan." Archaeologically, it is among the most extensively excavated regions in the world. Drsmoo (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The weighting of this is much better, but the wording of the second sentence needs work. We don't need a quotation to make the point - it would be better to agree a sentence without a quote which reflects a balanced view of the evolution of the term in archaeology. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Better with the quote/reliable source, for the typical reason that a reliable source is better. The information removed was WP:Undue. Also the idea of "opposing scholars" is funny and revealing. I'm putting my foot down. Drsmoo (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand this. The "reliable source" will remain in the reference. An inline quote is not needed in the lead. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Another source

Another source commenting on use of the term:

• Bill T. Arnold (7 April 2014). Introduction to the Old Testament. Cambridge University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-521-87965-1.: "What we call the land of the Bible today has potential for misunderstanding. This small strip of land in the Southern Levant has been occupied by so many, fought over and carved up so many times, that it is hard to know just what to call it. The use of "Israel" implies to some that all of it belongs today only to the Jews as legitimate descendants of OT Israel. Similarly, "Palestine" has a longstanding usage, but may imply that all of it belongs to Palestinian Arabs exclusively. Both of these terms could be used strictly for geography. But because of the contemporary Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both terms also may introduce misunderstanding. And biblical scholars have no universal agreement on this topic. "Syria-Palestine" is often used, as here, for geographical precision. But it is only the southern portion of Syria-Palestine that was occupied by ancient Israel, and it does not always communicate sufficiently. "Canaan" is an ancient name, but it also is not exactly conterminous with the land occupied by ancient Israel. I have used "Southern Levant" occasionally here but admit that this is a strange expression. l will most often refer simply to "Israel," by which I mean the territory of national Israel in the OT, but hope the reader will understand no modern political claims by this use."

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Just crossed 1RR. Will you self revert?

Either way, this most recent edit, removing all views of opposing scholars who provided an element of critique, is of a purely tendenious nature.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't violate 1RR as this article isn't part of ARBPIA. I do see that my edit was made after 23 hours and 50 minutes. So I'll remove the edit that was made within 24 hours and then remake it now that we're outside the 24 hour period/ You should assume good faith and not make personal attacks (again) Drsmoo (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit is clearly tendentious. It promoted a single supportive source to the lead and deleted two sources which included an element of critique. It reduced the total number of sources in the article from 9 down to just 7.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We can continue discussion at dispute resolutionDrsmoo (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Let the status at this time stamp stand. Let the case for adding 2 dissenting sources be made at dispute resolution. Laurel Lodged

(talk) 11:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: there are three sources which discuss usage of the name:

• [2] added more than one year ago
• [3] added in May last year by Drsmoo
• [4] added in August by Drsmoo

Drsmoo's latest edit has removed the first two of these sources because they provide a critical appraisal.

Oncenawhile (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Southern_Levant Drsmoo (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Drsmoo, all these different noticeboard filings are getting very confusing. Why are we restarting the WP:DRN, after a number of editors had made comments at the previous one? Are we all expected to resubmit our comments again? And which edit does the new DRN refer to? Your new submission only discusses the addition of a quote into the lead. It doesn't discuss the removal of the entire usage section along with the two scholarly sources. Am I to assume the latter is now no longer under dispute?

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Per talk prefer guidelines, this section heading is unacceptable. Please self revert. The DRN was temporarily closed due to e ANI. I consider the DRN more important and the ANI issue can be resolved without admin involvement. So yes, you are invited to resubmit your response there. And you are asked to correct your heading here. Drsmoo (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk page header amended. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: If you are still disputing the sources you just deleted, then please explain your rationale at the DRN. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I updated the DR/N submission before making the revision on the article. Drsmoo (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete the article altogether

Sorry: the need for this article has never been shown or argued. Its first version (9 Aug 2003) bears only on 'archaeology of the southern Levant' but gives no rationale why such article separate from Levant would be needed. The present proposals (A) + (B) in Talk section RFC on Wording of Lede Paragraph contend that 'The Southern Levant roughly encompasses ...' this or that, but base that contention on only one source: HighBeam Research. I don't know those guys, and no doubt they have some specific interest (or agenda) to want to make us believe that a separate 'Southern Levant' should be defined, but one source is not enough for Wikipedia to justify (the need of) such a separate article. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC) NB: Of course I should now properly propose an article's deletion. But that's now too difficult for me. But if someone would go through that trouble, please contact me and I'll subscribe the request. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Article Southern Levant consists of only one subject(=section): 'History'. That section refers in its first line to three "main articles": Prehistory of the Levant, History of Palestine, and History of Israel.

At the same time, article Levant has also already a section 'History' that refers also to three main articles, of which 'Prehistory of the Levant' is also mentioned in 'SouthernLevant' (the other two are not).

So, all we basically have to do is move those references to "Main articles: History of Palestine, and History of Israel" to the starting line of Levant#History. Which I've done just now. If there is no clear and motivated need for a separate article on 'Southern Levant', (and I have argued here yesterday that there isn't), we can now delete this article. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

RFC on Wording of Lede Paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which of the following paragraphs should be the introductory paragraph to Southern Levant? Please indicate your support for A or B in the Survey (or propose an alternate wording). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Do not reply to statements in the Survey. Threaded discussion is permitted in the Threaded Discussion section; that is its purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

A. The Southern Levant roughly encompasses the lower half of the Levant, resulting in some variance of geographical definition, with the widest definition including Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert. In the field of archaeology, the southern Levant is "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan." Archaeologically, it is among the most extensively excavated regions in the world.

B. The Southern Levant roughly encompasses the lower half of the Levant, resulting in some variance of geographical definition, with the widest definition including Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert. The region is known by a wide variety of names including Palestine (region), the Land of Israel, Southern Syria, Canaan, the Holy Land and the Promised Land. Archaeologically, it is among the most extensively excavated regions in the world.

References

Survey

• Option B – More complete and encompassing. Everything in A is in B, plus the other stuff that's in B, making it a better choice. B just looks to be a better alternative. United States Man (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• A, since B is incorrect The terms "Canaan" and "The Holy Land" are pretty well defined, and are only partly identical to "Southern Levant". Debresser (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option A - Option B is inappropriately putting terms at the top-summary when they just are not prominent or extensive in the article. Option B is also worded incorrectly as these are not other names for the region, but seem to refer to areas included within the region in contexts other than the archeological theme of this article. Good for See Also, not as top-mention items. Markbassett (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Option A, but with added proposal - For a reader stumbling upon it from other Levant-related articles, it is not immediately clear that the article discusses the archeological concept. If it didn't, it would, of course, likely just be a content fork of Canaan, Holy Land or Palestine (region). Option B would seed further doubt on that matter by equating them. I believe it would already help a lot to get rid of this possible issue by starting the article with "In archeology, ..." or something similar to make its focus clear. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• A because "B" is incorrect. The area is wider than any one of the named entities with which it is supposedly synonymous. It's an amalgam. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Not option A, because that is incorrect as well. Not only is the quotation itself incorrect (Canaan includes Phoenicia, which is not in Syria-Palestine), but the suggestion that Southern Levant is the same as Syria-Palestine is just one perspective (see above at #Sources providing a definition of the Southern Levant for more). Our encyclopaedia should provide a balanced overview of all mainstream views on a subject, and not give undue prominence to just one quotation. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• A - The additional terms in B are not synonymous with Southern Levant. The Burke quote is helpful in understanding contemporary academic usage of the subject. I agree with the current change from Palestinian territories to (State of) Palestine. Drsmoo (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Neither – See Talk section: 'Delete the article altogether'. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Neither - As per Corriebertus's remark above. Borsoka (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The crucial difference between A and B is that B removes the quote "the southern Levant is "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan." This quote is what the Dispute resolution was called about. William Dever, who established the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology, wrote that the term "may now be obsolete and in need of replacement". He advocated using "archaeology of the 'southern Levant' or simply the 'Levant'" when writing about the larger region as a whole. This is reasserted by Aaron Burke "this work is now of great interest to those studying the southern Levant (i.e. the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan)" This information is important in understanding usage of Southern Levant in academia. When looking at archaeological research journals, Southern Levant is generally used in place of Syria-Palestine. Drsmoo (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: if you read Dever carefully, you'll see that he actually advocated for use of "Near East". And Burke said that most theses on the subject use Israel or Canaan as the names.

The one incontrovertible fact here is that there remains no scholarly consensus as to the right name for the region. Different scholars advocate a wide variety of positions on the most appropriate names. Our lede needs to represent this diversity. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Dever only advocated for Southern Levant or Levant as the regional name. The Near East is about 10x bigger, so no, Near East was never advocated as a comparable regional name, only as a prefix for a subregion of the Southern Levant. If the dissertation is about Canaanite pottery, it will refer to the area as Canaan and focus on that, but also typically describe the geographical area as the Southern Levant. Dever called the old regional terms "compromised", going through them one by one and laying out why they were unsuitable for general regional names. This is repeated within the book as well, where Southern Levant is used as the generic geographical name. Ie "The early bronze age in the Southern Levant", "Bronze and Iron Age Burials and Funerary Customs in the Southern Levant", etc. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant details the ARCANE research program proposing to use ENL and ESL (Early Northern/Southern Levant) as a means of “avoiding the obvious pitfalls of ethnonyms." Southern Levant is the basic geographical name written as a non-controversial default. So one would write "Israel is located in the Southern Levant". There is in fact scholarly consensus for Southern Levant as a base geographical name. Previously, the base geographical name was "Syria-Palestine" but that is no longer the case, as is reflected in the relevant sources. Drsmoo (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The quote is here:

• If all of the older terms are now compromised (and they are) what do we propose? I can only suggest that we speak deliberately and specifically of the archaeology of each modern region of the Middle East despite the fact that many of these borders are recent and arbitrary. Thus, the archaeology of “Israel”; the “West Bank" (not “Samaria and Judea"); “Jordan”; and “Syria”. If an adjective is required for us to identify ourselves individually and professionally we can simply say: “I am a Near Eastern archaeologist specializing in X.” All the above may be awkward hut we have little choice if we are to avoid further politicization of our discipline. Alternatively we might speak of the archaeology of the “southern Levant" or simply the “Levant."

He says that it is best to use modern political designations, and use a wider adjective of "Near Eastern", or alternatively Southern Levant or Levant, if it is required.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the quote. Dever said that scholars studying a specific region, ie Israel, should only call themselves "a Near Eastern archaeologist specializing in Israel" because using the name Israel for the wider region would be politicization. Or calling it the "Palestine (region)" would be politicization. The only wider regional name(s) he advocated for was/were Southern Levant or Levant. The Near East contains the Southern Levant, but is in no way synonymous with it. Again, we have the Burke article which reinforces Dever "the southern Levant is "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan" and additionally reinforcing Dever by bringing up the "political overtones" of using Syria-Palestine to define the region. That's why Paleorient, and the Near East Reader and the other sources provided use Southern Levant as the geographical term. Drsmoo (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Drsmoo (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

We are getting closer here. The major difference now is emphasis. The characterization of the scholarly positions in your post above is much stronger than the reality. Those scholars who advocate for terms like Levant are doing so whilst acknowledging its awkwardness. Of the five sources we have, two use the term "awkward", one calls it "strange", and one calls it "imprecise". We have to be balanced here, and reflect the whole message of these scholars. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you recognize that they're advocating for the term. You're incorrect with your numbers though. Claudia Sagona's comment on the name came after writing that the term Land of Israel evoked "the suspicion of a theological bias" and calling the term Palestine "a political designation for a restricted area". So after saying why she rejected the other terms, she wrote "Therefore I have joined those who today advocate the designation "Southern Levant." Although I confess that it is an awkward name, it is at least strictly geographical". "Strictly geographical" was the salient point, and the purpose of the sentence was to say that the term was being advocated for due to it's strictly geographical nature, not it's phonetics. That an author advocating for the term was changed in the article to "criticized as an awkward name" is pure WP:Synth. There was no criticism. The same is true for the "strange expression" quote, which follows the author writing that the names "Israel"/"Palestine" imply ownership to either nationality and writing that they "may introduce misunderstanding." Yet somehow these actual criticisms of Israel/Palestine as regional names were ignored and left out of their respective articles, and only comments on phonetics were left in this one. It was WP:Synth and POV pushing. The Paleorient editorial was from 23 years ago, and was critical of using wider geographical names rather than more specific ones. At no point were they criticizing the term Southern Levant itself, and in fact, searching through their archives, they use the term "Southern Levant" thoroughly and consistently throughout the journal. Drsmoo (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I said advocating for Levant, not Southern Levant. Some of your interpretations above appear strange and extreme. All these synth and pov attacks are unhelpful. We both want to reach the same goal, which is to properly represent the sources. I don't understand why it is proving so difficult. Let's wait for others to comment. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The sources reflect Southern Levant and the earlier version was pure WP:Synth, there is no problem calling it as such. Additionally, I hope you'll comment on policy and not on other editors, comments like "Some of your interpretations above appear strange and extreme" are uncivil and unhelpful. Drsmoo (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This article section is relevant and interesting reading. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll let the above edits speak for themselves. Drsmoo (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Palestinian Territories or Palestine

Should the lead, whatever it will be, say "Palestinian Territories" or "Palestine"? Debresser (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Terminology section

Following the removal of this section two months ago, consensus was gained for its inclusion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_139#Southern_Levant.

However, consensus has yet to be gained as to exactly what the section says - two versions were proposed at the DRN, but not discussed.

Drsmoo, how would you like to progress this to reach a resolution?

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You should make declarations and proposals to editors in general, as multiple editors have been working together to improve the article. Personally, I'll be working to flesh out and significantly expand this article. Regarding the terminology section, no consensus was reflected in the link you posted, which is a dispute resolution over the lead. Regarding the contents of the section, as was explained to you by an academic who works in the field, there is no controversy over the widely-used term. The cherry-picked sources you WP:Synth'd together don't reflect controversy either when actually read. Despite five years of you openly making hostile comments towards/mass deleting references to the region from Wikipedia, (culminating in an unsuccessful attempt to remove the main article altogether), I'm willing to edit collaboratively with you, but that won't include WP:Synth, cherry-picked material, or any other violations of policy. Drsmoo (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: In the DRN you wrote the following:

• I think the section you're referring to is the Academic Usage section, I agree it should remain in the article. [...] The sources themselves are fine as long as they're presented in context. Drsmoo (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)'

Others were also in agreement, and none held the opposite view.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You chopped out essentially the entire edit as well as ignoring the previous post in the DRN that I made, which is that the academic usage section had become a collection of cherry-picked quotes, and that the way the sources were presented was WP:Synth. For example, you can't say someone is criticizing a term when they're not, that's Synth. You also can't cherry pick sources to backup a POV, that's Synth as well. For example, if there were a reliable source that said there was controversy over the term, then you could go and find prominent voices to represent that controversy. However, you can't decide that a non-controversial term is controversial because you personally don't like it, then chop up quotes from scholars who advocate the use of the term (as most scholars do) and twist their words around to make the topic seem controversial, that is the definition of Synth. The specific example I gave was Claudia Sagona, who when describing why she advocates use of southern Levant, listed the pros and cons of the names Israel and Palestine, describing the name Israel as religious and the name Palestine as political, before saying that she found the NAME southern Levant to be awkward, but that due to it's MEANING of being strictly geographical, she joined those who advocate for its use. For that to be twisted into a claim that the term was criticized is textbook Synth, as are all the other cherry picked examples provided.

What the academic section should be, if it is to be included in the article is a description of the history of the term, and a description of the way the term is used throughout academia ie, it's use in journals, scholarly papers etc. Drsmoo (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

We are in agreement on the concept, and we need to discuss the details. We both made drafting proposals for this section during the DRN.

However there is no further debate on "if it is to be included in the article" - that was agreed at the DRN. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The DRN was over the lead and there wasn't any consensus on that point tbh. Anyway, you say "we" but it kind of feels like WP:Own, which isn't a good way to edit. Drsmoo (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No it was not - you wrote the dispute overview, which had two paragraphs, the second of which was entirely related to this point. Of the seven sections of statements made throughout the DRN, the first six were almost exclusively related to this paragraph.

I said "we" above as a nice way of saying I agree with you.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If you would like to proceed in reaching an agreed position here, do you have a preference re how to proceed? One option is we could comment on each other's drafts as proposed at the DRN. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

My desire on how to proceed is to have editors knowledgeable about the subject contribute towards improving and expanding the article with encyclopedic/factual information about the region. If you'd like to help with adding factual data about the region from scholarly sources that would be great. The closing of the RFC made some recommendations, so I'll be going along with those, and continuing to encourage contributions from knowledgeable editors. Drsmoo (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Right. So for this section, we are agreed on a selection of good sources (and there may be more to come). But we haven't yet agreed on how to represent those sources in an unbiased fashion. How would you like to proceed with reaching agreement on the presentation of the sources? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The terminology section should reflect the RFC conclusion "Nevertheless, the RfC revealed a more useful conclusion: "Southern Levant" is primarily used by archaeologists to refer to the geographical area without invoking the geo-political connotations of other names for the region. So this RfC should be closed with a recommendation to rearrange the contents of the article with this scope in mind." Drsmoo (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope. That conclusion does not reflect the weight of sources and is not reflective of either option discussed at the RFC. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually yes, it does, and that's the template the article will follow. Drsmoo (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No it will not. The contribution of one editor, whose summary does not reflect the discussion, does not make consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes it will, I agree with him also. Drsmoo (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

So if I had agreed with the editor in the thread immediately above this, should we have immediately deleted the article? Consensus requires thoughtful discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Outside Comment on Terminology Section

A comment was made on my talk page that discussion is stuck. The topic of this section is "Terminology Section". I see that one editor has deleted the terminology section, and has cited the RFC. The RFC didn't say to delete the Terminology section. It said to rearrange material as appropriate. The deletion of the Terminology Section should be discussed; it is not a foregone conclusion. Will someone explain what the reason is for deleting the section? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The reference to RFC was regarding the lead, so I reverted my own edit to the lead in order to comply with the consensus expressed in the RFC. The removal of the terminology section was because it's full of WP:Synth material (ie, saying an author criticized the subject when they never did.) I think the terminology section should be in the article but should be revamped. I'll revert the removal of the terminology section as we continue to work on it. Drsmoo (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Definition

The lead currently gives two definitions, one being the "widest definition" and the other being the archaeological definition. In the thread above at #Sources_providing_a_definition_of_the_Southern_Levant, we have a long list of conflicting defintions. The lead should not cherrypick, but provide a balanced overview. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead is backed by consensus/supported by the DRN and is comprehensive and good. It won't change unless consensus changes. Drsmoo (talk) 08:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please self-revert [5] this edit then. Either we work constructively and consensually on the lead, or we don't change it at all. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I note you chose not to comment on this. Since you will not self revert, I conclude that you consider yourself free to amend the lead, which means the same must apply to me. I have a number of changes to make, which I will propose in due course. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As you can see the RFC has now been closed. I will revert in a few hours after the 24h are up. Drsmoo (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What will you revert? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The changes to the lead as well as the currently WP:Synth/WP:Undue "terminology" section (until the Synth is removed and it's improved to reflect the RFC) Drsmoo (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You have already agreed it is not undue, as did the rest of the contributors at the DRN. Since you think the drafting is synth, then change it to your preferred version and explain your reasoning. We are here to engage in constructive discussion, not to endlessly edit war. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I said it was Cherry Picked, Synth, and Undue. It doesn't help the article to have only two editors working either, or one, so I'd actually prefer to have the involvement of additional editors in drafting sections, rather than drafting it myself. Drsmoo (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Call it what you like, except UNDUE, as you and the entire DRN already agreed it was appropriate. I have waited patiently for two months since you unilaterally removed the section. It is time for you to either engage in discussion or walk away. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happily engaged in discussion right now, I said it was Undue during the DRN as well. "Additionally, a major issue is the insertion of WP:UNDUE, cherry picked "criticisms" of the subject that are inserted into the article via original research. These comments have no place in an article about a geographical region. Their existence in the article is basically a result of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Drsmoo (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)"

That was your opening statement. After that, Debresser and Laurel Lodged both suggested that all well sourced opinions should be included, and the moderator wrote "My own opinion, and I try to be neutral, is that if some editors think it is needed, it probably serves a purpose." You then wrote "I think the section you're referring to is the Academic Usage section, I agree it should remain in the article. [...] The sources themselves are fine as long as they're presented in context. Drsmoo (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)".

It says something depressing about the effectiveness of our communication when we can argue in circles over objectively and clearly written evidence of a historical debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, you strangely deleted the majority of my actual post, which is that the section as presented was UNDUE and SYNTH. Drsmoo (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

There was agreement, including from me, that there could be an academic usage section, but there was no consensus for the addition of Synth. Also, what do you mean you "waited two months"? You proposed to have the whole article deleted two weeks ago. Drsmoo (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The deletion discussion was requested by another editor. Frankly I don't feel strongly either way, but thought it was good to have the discussion as deletion discussions normally attract a good crowd.

You deleted the terminology section in May, and after being challenged you turned aggressive and edit warred. So I pulled back and decided to wait. And now here we are two months later, with almost no progress. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the deletion proposal was opened by you and you advocated for the article's deletion, just as you voted to delete the category, and have gone through Wikipedia deleting mentions of/links to the southern Levant en masse. I opened the mediation/RFC in an attempt to get outside editors involved. Before the RFC was even closed, you argued for the article's deletion. Drsmoo (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Outside Question

I can see considerable back-and-forth. There has been so much back-and-forth that it isn't really clear to me what the question is. What is the question about which I was asked to offer an opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The current discussion is over the content of the terminology section. There is also a wider discussion over expanding/revamping the article. Drsmoo (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for coming in to help here. Anything you have time to give a view on would be appreciated. The other editor and I desparately need outside perspectives to keep us grounded. At the heart of this there are two debates - one is how to interpret what scholars are saying re the usage of the term (which we are summarising quite concisely so far in the thread immediately below this one), and the other (which we have made early steps towards engaging on in this "definition" thread) is how to describe how scholars actually define the region of Southern Levant, given the breadth and variance of the different geographical boundaries given in scholarly descriptions. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)