Talk:Tell es-Sakan

Source

Interesting article on this site that someone may want to use as a source: http://www.archaeology.org/0905/abstracts/gaza.html. --Sjsilverman (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Source for history paragraph - ?

Is the entire history paragraph sourced on the "Deir el-Balah" 2012 review from the Biblical Archaeology Society website? The paragraph is correctly split by archaeological periods into sub-paragraphs, and none except for the last one has any source mentioned; that last one cites the BAS website, but only it actually refers to Deir el-Balah, so the others might indeed be w/o an indicated source.

The "Bibliography" consists of the official dig publications (Miroschedji 2001-2015), but it's just a long list of titles not referenced anywhere inline (within the Wiki article). Not at all satisfactory. Arminden (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Y-barton and Raven rs: hi. Y-barton, I see you introduced the Miroschedji bibliography. Did you read through it, was it you who placed the information in the article? Raven, maybe you know where the "earliest Egyptian walled town" story came from (see also next talk-page topic). Cheers, Arminden (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: no, I did rearrange "earliest Egyptian walled town" from headline into the article as it is a claim. Using Egyptian city (cultural) and early bronze (age) is more correct. In this case, one should not a shift from egyptian to canaanite during the early bronze.--Raven rs (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing fundamental info; inaccurate headings

"History
The site (dated between 3500–2350 BCE) ... dates from a period prior to the Egyptian military domination of the Levant."

This seems to contradict the rest of the History paragraph, where everything is about it being an Egyptian outpost. Or a distinction is made between an Egyptian PRESENCE and Egyptian MILITARY DOMINATION, but then this must be explicitly stated. NO SOURCE one can look up!!!

"There were three consecutive building phases, correlating with three strata of occupation."

Which are...? The article has 3 sub-paragraphs, but the last one doesn't concern this tell at all, so that doesn't help. All three phases/strata within EBI & EBII, so what makes the strata distinct one from each other? Again: NO SOURCE!!!

"Egyptian city (EBI-II)"

"Egyptian city"? Lead says "Canaanite/Egyptian"! No source, no way to clarify. Arminden (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"Geomorphological dynamics of the estuary caused settlement trans-location or abandonment."

When? The Egyptians left for historical reasons it seems, and left the entire region! The Canaanites resettled much later, and abandoned it at the end of the Early Bronze Age, when pretty much all of Palestine returned to a nomadic lifestyle. I guess somebody just improvised, tried to connect some dots which don't belong to the same line. No source indicated - I removed the text. Arminden (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

missing refs

The source for the following paragraph

The final phase of occupation was EBII (third millennium BCE).[dubious – discuss][citation needed] Remains of sheep, goat and cattle were discovered, as well as fish bones and shells.[citation needed] Wheat, barley, vegetables, olives, and grapes were cultivated.[citation needed]

was this,

Moain Sadeq, Urban History of South-Western Palestine during the Bronze Age. A Historical and Archaeological Study in the View of Gaza Region. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 7; 2012

but then the source was removed by somebody because of where the article was published. Since the archaeologist in this case is reputable, I consider this info reliable. This info can probably be found elsewhere, although it'll take time to look for another source. Y-barton (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Y-barton, thanks.

Headbomb, hi. I see you removed a source, leaving the quoted material in place and replacing the quoted article with a cn tag. Very uncommon, to put it mildly. Either the material is poorly sourced and therefore unreliable, or it's not. Your edit summary reads "predatory journal". I read up and found the publisher clearly stamped as a cheat. However, the definition of "predatory publisher" plainly puts the blame on the profiteering, cheating "publisher", w/o disqualifying the cheated authors, other than in terms of naivete. The author, Moain Sadeq, was the co-head of excavation at the tell together with Pierre de Miroschedji. Of course it's likely that the authorities (Hamas? PA? It's Gaza.) only allowed the French archaeologist to dig if he worked and published in tandem with a man of their choice, but that doesn't disqualify Mr. Sadeq. He's probably not in a position to access any journal he wishes. So more is needed to disqualify an article (not the journal) written by a local archaeologist who co-headed the excavation of the discussed site. I'm putting it back in unless you can offer convincing arguments against using the article as a source. Mind that a general-interest newspaper and a "press monitoring organization" (Times of Israel and MEMRI) have been left in as acceptable sources. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:VANPRED#Use in the real world vs use on Wikipedia. This is simply not a reliable source, so we cannot rely on it. I left the material in place because I thought other references could be found for this. If they can't be found, then that material should be removed Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That's ok, I've already found some relevant French article, and I'll fix this problem soon. Y-barton (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)