Talk:Khirbet el-'Ormeh

User:theleekycauldron Please reconsider this nomination. Presently the hook says " Khirbet el-'Ormeh is identified with biblical Arumah, mentioned in Judges as where Abimelech, king of Shechem and son of judge Gideon, resided" ...the problem is that this is simply a guess, and not an established fact. Huldra (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the claim is disputed by the Palestinians as being a political tactic rather than a scholarly judgement. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron This site has been identified with biblical Arumah since the mid 19th century. This connection has been held by explorers and scholars for 160 years now, based on both the preservation of the ancient name- typical to the region (see the article about Placenames in Palestine) and it fits the biblical tradition of Arumah being near Schehem.

The Palestinian Authority rejects this identification for political reasons. I believe that here, on Wikipedia, we should stick to the facts, and not to politically motivated tactics and opinions. Tombah (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - both sides have political reasons for their positions here. The site's identification was always tentative and the area was never tested through excavation (presumably because it wasn't considered an important site until now). Onceinawhile (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not sure which political reasons fueled the biblical identification of the site by British and French explorers during the 19th century. This identification is based on three major arguments: (1) the continuity of names (which is frequent in the region. In this case, with Ormeh preserving the ancient Arumah); (2) the location - the bible describes Arumah as being near Shechem, and Ormeh is relatively close to Tell Balata, the site of ancient Shechem; (3) Iron Age potsherds are abundant on the site, what may indicate that it was inhabited in biblical times. This identification has been now held for around 160 years. Tombah (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tombah; what you are saying is simply not correct. Yes, Charles William Meredith van de Velde casually mentioned it in 1850s; if you have read anything of van de Velde, you would know that he is often way, way off with his "identifications" of ancient sites. It is pretty clear SWP did not believe him; Kitchener explicitly stated that the site was probably not pre-Crusader. Yes, Iron Age potsherds have been found there, but the same could be said about dozens, if not hundreds of other sites in the vicinity, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be on hold while questions raised by multiple editors are resolved. Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 6 - Palestine, POV and ArbCom restrictions. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it might have been queued, but had no idea where.

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Iskandar323: if you look to the left on the article page, you will see "Tools". The first tool listed, is "What links here". It can be very useful!, cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Is this the same as https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2021/10/11/beita-residents-reach-lands-for-first-time-since-settler-takeover ?

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting Twitter thread on this site here: https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1213229502261800966

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Onceinawhile; that was a very interesting Twitter thread, indeed! Huldra (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombah: the word "Vandalism" is unacceptable WP:OR. Not to mention the fact that these claims in Israeli media (regarding an area very relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) have yet to be substantiated. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rephrased as partial destruction, in accorda ce with the reports. Tombah (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ynet investigation doesn't mention any settler organizations Shrike (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel Hayom link is the one that explains the settler group involved. 'Preserving the eternal' it says, something to do with the 'Samaria' council ...

Iskandar323 (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It looks like the title of this article is too restrictive. The site known as "Khirbet el Urma" is at the north of the hill (Jebel el Urma) - see this map.

But the area where the recent Palestinian construction has taken place is at the south of the hill see here.

That explains how in Ynet's apparently sensationalist article, they describe the primary parts of the ruins (particularly the cistern system) with no reference to the topic in their headline.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: please provide the Hebrew text from which you translated "most of the archeological site was leveled". The photos and rest of the description in the Ynet article, as well as the map evidence in the section above, does not appear to support this.

Onceinawhile (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: Not sure what you mean by "you translated". I did not translate anything. I reverted an edit which removed reliably sourced details behind a misleading edit summary: "as above". However: ודרך אספלט יישרה את השטח - "An asphalt road leveled the area." Drsmoo (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: “as above” meant I copied what was in the lead.

I assumed you translated it when making the revert, because otherwise it would have been a blind revert given that the source is in Hebrew.

As to the issue at hand, “an asphalt road leveled the area”, does not mean “the whole archaeological site”, it means the area where the road went. This can be seen on the map above. To translate that as “most of the archeological site was leveled” is grossly misleading. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might also seriously be worth asking at some point if Ynet can actually be considered reliable on this subject. It is clearly pretty useless reporting, what with the clearly pointed narrative and total lack of any sort of attempt to provide both sides of the story or even a single PA statement.

Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

One needs to look pretty hard at Ynet claims in my experience.Selfstudier (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ynet is considered reliable in all reliable source noticeboard discussions I’ve seen. Middle East Eye, on the other hand, is rather iffy Drsmoo (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was unreliable here, it is pretty biased tho https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/74420/ssoar-mediawatch-2019-1-arqoub_et_al-Israeli_Media_Gatekeeper_during_Gaza.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The claims in Ynet appear to be based upon the claims of Yair Elmakias (Hebrew: יאיר אלמקייס). According to this website from the Shomron Regional Council, a settler organization: For the past seven and a half years Yair has been director of the Shomron Tour and Study Center. He gives continuing education courses to groups of Shomron tour guides and other groups. Yair earned his B.A. in life sciences and M.A. in archeology from Ariel University. He loves to hike and learn about more and more wonderful places and people in Israel.

I am not convinced that Elmakias has the credentials to constitute a reliable source here, particularly in light of the widely reported conflict between Israeli settler groups (of which Elmakias appears to be part of) and local Palestinians. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like that's pretty bad news for the balance of the news piece, as well as pretty bad for balance in the article without some suitable counterweighting.

Iskandar323 (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Attribution appears to be necessary. Drsmoo (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A resident of the settlement of Itamar and studying at Ariel. Unreliable and Ynet with him.Selfstudier (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yedioth Ahronoth is the most popular newspaper in Israel and considered reliable per all noticeboard discussions I’ve seen. IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, is not valid. Drsmoo (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say unreliable here not because of their usual pro Israel bias but because of the combination of that with Yair Elmakias. Does Ynet have same content as newspaper? Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This video is the testimony of the boy’s father, submitted to the

My name is Said Hamayel, from the village of Beita in Nablus. My family’s struggle with the Israeli occupation started when I was two years old. They killed my father, my brother and my sister. They [punitively] demolished our home in 1988. I was arrested and wounded [by the Israeli occupying authorities]. We have been trying, as a family, to overcome our pain, but in 11 June 2021, with the killing of our son Mohammad [16 years old], we lost all our hopes and dreams. We have been living with mere bodies without souls. Mohammad was shot by an Israeli occupying sniper, although he was not a threat to them.

He goes on to connect the killing to the conflict around the nearby illegal outpost at Evyatar, a connection also made by news articles such as [1].

This connection to Evyatar should be mentioned in the article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The Al-Haq press release re that oral testimony. Killing reported by OCHA "On 16 June, during Palestinian protests against the establishment of an Israeli settlement near Beita (Nablus) a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was shot and killed by Israeli forces." "The next day [11 June], in clashes that erupted during a weekly demonstration against the establishment of an Israeli settlement outpost, Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian child in Beita (Nablus)."Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out there were two Palestinian children, both called Mohammed Hamayel, killed by Israeli soldiers one year apart:

• "'The soldiers were coming to kill': Palestinian child the latest victim of Israeli crackdown in Beita". Middle East Eye. 2021-06-14. At around 3:30pm, almost two hours after the protests began, Israeli forces shot Mohammed Hamayel with live ammunition in the chest from what eyewitnesses described as "point-blank range"... According to the residents, they have been battling settler attempts to take over two of Beita's largest land masses, Jabal Sabih and another mountain, Jabal al-Urmah, since 1988. Together, the two mountains make up around 80 per cent of Beita's entire land area, Dweikat said. "It is a source of pride for us in Beita that we are one of the only remaining Palestinian villages in the entire West Bank that doesn't have a single settlement on its land," said Ibrahim Dawoud, a 27-year-old resident who has been active in the protests... "Since 1967 we have had 77 martyrs in Beita," Dawoud said. "Everyone you meet in Beita has either been injured, arrested, had their house demolished, or has a family member who has been killed by the occupation"... "Yesterday was very difficult. Very difficult," he said, speaking of the moment on Friday when he saw his fellow villagers carrying Hamayel's lifeless body to the village cemetery. Just a year ago, Dweikat watched his own son, 22-year-old Islam Dweikat, being carried off in a massive funeral procession to the same cemetery. Islam was shot by Israeli soldiers on 11 March 2020, and succumbed to his wounds a few weeks later. On the same day that Israeli soldiers shot Islam, they shot and killed another teenager from the village, 15-year-old Mohammed Hamayel - Hamayel's cousin of the same name. Both Dweikat and Hamayel were shot and killed while protesting against the establishment of a settler outpost on another one of Beita's mountaintops, Jabal al-Urmah. Another teenager from the Dweikat family, Imam Dweikat, 15, was also killed by Israeli soldiers during protests on Jabal al-Urmah in 2015.

There seem to be more casualties related to Jabal al-Urmah than we have mentioned in our article. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I gave wrong quote from OCHA, that was another child killed 5 days later on 16th. Put the right one now.Selfstudier (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Minor Killed by IDF During Clash Over Settlers Entering Palestinian Land Near Nablus is another link, it says the settler group that sparked this off came from Itamar, same as Yair Elmakias. Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video

This video has an interview on top of Khirbet el-'Ormeh (Jabal al-Urmah) from a year ago. Start at about 6m 40s. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This, from jewishpress.com, says that Tel Aruma = "

Not answering the question, but for context, the PEF say that "'Orma" "means nothing more or less than "heap"". Onceinawhile (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onceinawhile that is a different place, presently in Israel (one of the many, many places suggested as being Kirjath-jearim). The name of this place means "the dam", according to Palmer, p. 258, Huldra (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The PEF is only one source, they might had missed that one. And why go to mass media? We have already loads of academic sources that identify 'Urmeh with biblical Arumah, with the earliest by Van De Velde (1854) and the latest by Raviv, D. (2019), with many other mentions in between. Some of these explicitly say that the connection is "unimpeachable". Tombah (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Van De Velde is instructive. He walked past the hill from a mile away, pointed at it and said "that name Ormeh sounds like Arumah, and we are near Shechem, so..." There was no more science to his assessment, nor in anyone else's. The only ruins to have been found date to many centuries later than the biblical Avimelech. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you saying Once? It sounds super scholarly. Nothing empirically grounds research like some flagrant ballpark etymological guestimation.

Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Guys, this is getting really unprofessional. First of all, yes, the ruins visible today (or what's left of them) are the remains of a Hasmonean fortress. That does not mean there were no earlier structures on the site. As our article mentions, the site was never excavated, so there's no real knowledge what is actually beneath the ground there. Nevertheless, many potsherds dating from the early Iron Age were found at the site, making it much possible that the site was inhabited during that period, what lies in accordance with the biblical identification.

Second, it's not a surprise that a name remains around for so long. The name Jerusalem has been used for at least 3500 years now. The modern inhabitants of Caesarea have nothing to do with the Romans. It is indeed possible that the name Arumah was first coined by an ancient people, the Amorites for example, and was still used years later, and to this day. Many Arabic place-names in the West Bank preserve ancient Biblical names, and there are countless examples: Beitin, Dothan, Battir, Beit Ur al-Tahta, Er-Ram, Tuqu, Mukhmas, 'Jaba, Ziph, Yatta. I can go on like this forever. Tombah (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, that you are soooo over-selling your points. When you write "The area was surveyed in 1874-75 by Conder and Kitchener of the Palestine Exploration Fund, as part of The Survey of Western Palestine. The two cited C.W.M Van De Velde, a Dutch cartographer who had previously surveyed the site and identified it with Biblical Arumah."link, and it turns out that Van De Velde only made a casual remak, and that SWP (apparently) didn´t believe his guess at all (but yeah, they mentioned Van De Velde theory, as the conscientious workers they were.) I have seen this more times than I can count; some 19-century wrote some theory, and some 21 -century people take it as 100% facts. The

WP:RS for saying that ancient Beth-Anath was half a dozen places. Or Shuafat, which apparently is 3 different Biblical places? Lol. Some sober, not to mention critical thinking is in its place, me thinks, when dealing with alleged Biblical places, Huldra (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The repeated use of the same names for places and people probably has a lot to do with it being an oral tradition. Orators in such traditions tend to use repeated forms in certain passages and stories for ease of remembrance, hence why the descriptions in the Iliad so often entail a 'wine-dark sea' and 'rosy-fingered dawn'.

Iskandar323 (talk) 04:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Isn't Avimelech/Abimelech a term used liberally in the Hebrew bible for Canaanite/Philistine kings? Why would that be the name of a Hasmonean fortress?

Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Abimelech (Judges), in that case, is an Israelite of the Tribe of Manasseh. It is a Hebrew name, meaning "my father is (a) king". This name was probably quite common back then, and is still used by Jews today. Tombah (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is messaging being pushed, as specified in the sources, by organizations such as "Shomrim al HaNetzach" or "Preserving the eternal", which is a settler group.

I am not sure what makes "Shomring al HaNetzach" a settler group, as opposed to an Israeli NGO. Anyway, the term "destruction" is used by many Israeli media outlets describing recent events at the site, including ynet, probably Israel's leading news outlet. Tombah (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a settler group. 'NGO' isn't a placeholder for do-gooders. A non-governmental gathering of settlers with a clear agenda is still a gathering of settlers.

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Even the Israeli administrators of the Office of the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories has labelled Shomrim al HaNetzach an 'agenda-driven party, which I very much doubt they do often. The group is also closely connected with

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This twitter thread, while not admissable as evidence on Wikipedia, is instructive as to the PR at play, and the motives of these 'heritage' groups.

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Michel Press is a post-phD student/scholar, AFAIK, working in a position set-up after the Schøyen Collection-scandal. And he has a very interesting twitter-account; well worth reading; he typically looks "behind" the newspaper headlines, Huldra (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know this guy, and as you said, Twitter is not admissable as evidence on Wikipedia. For every thread like this we can found loads of others, saying the exact opposite thing. Looting and destruction of heritage sites is indeed a problem in the West Bank, and there are many examples for that (see for example recent events at Joseph's Tomb). In any case, as I mentioned above, ynet - the most-widely viewed news site in Israel - carried out an investigation and reported that "Extensive destruction and robbery of antiquities are taking place, unhindered". Tombah (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of the word 'destruction', even in the ynet piece, that is directly connected with this site is attributed to

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Incorrect. The word "destruction" is used in the article's lede. Tombah (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it occurred, then that is the fault of the occupier. The Palestine antiquities authority should take care of their own things and if they cannot, it is not Israel's business, who invited them to interfere? Here re antiquities stolen from the West Bank and handed over to Israel by the US. Typical. "Morag Kersel, an archaeology professor at Chicago's DePaul University, described Israel as the "wild west" in the antiquities trade." Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. But frankly, this is just an opinion. Here's my take on this. The West Bank was the heart of Jewish homeland in ancient times. Most of the Bible stories took place in there, and the ancient kingdoms of Israel, Judah, later Jewish autonomous provinces, and the Hasmonean kingdom, were all centered in Jerusalem and the West Bank. If Israel had not intervened, it is possible that almost nothing would have been left of the ancient Jewish heritage in the West Bank. Tombah (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That Israel is an occupier is not my opinion. That Israel is the "wild west" in the antiquities trade is not my opinion. Whereas everything you just wrote is only your opinion. Selfstudier (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tombah: the heritage of the region belongs to Palestinians, Israeli Jews, and anyone else in the world who is interested. The problems start when one group comes along and says “this is mine, and only mine”. The behavior behind the Judgement of Solomon becomes a real risk.

Anyway, at the moment we don’t know what if anything has really happened, as the claims are being made by agenda-driven people with no third party verification.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article also leans on

This article does not lean on Makor Rishon, it does cite is as a source, but using the proper disclaimer ("according to..."). Emek Shave, Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye are also cited on this article, none of them especially known for being pro-Israeli (see for example Al Jazeera controversies and criticism#Allegations of antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment Tombah (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When the section in question, entitled 'destruction', begins with 'according to ... [insert highly biased source]', that is it leaning on dodgy information.

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Almost every sentence in this section can use "according to", as Al-Jazeera and Middle East Eye are no less biased. And again, the word "Destruction" was used by Ynet. Tombah (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, if you can't tell the difference between an

Iskandar323 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Good for Al-Jazeera. I wish them all the luck in the world. But it is a well-established fact that they are not a neutral source for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. They had praised Samir Kuntar in the past, have used one-sided terminology, have promoted anti-Israeli sentiment, and continue to ignore the Israeli POV in their articles. They are not close to being an neutral source in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, and that is a fact. Tombah (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's a neutral source? No such thing exists. All sources are biased, if you think the bias in AJ case (green at RSP) is extreme, then RSN and get Israel carved out Selfstudier (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above discussion can be distilled into seven questions, to achieve consensus on:

• Is the article about the mountain (Jabal) or the northern ruins (Khirbet)? Most of the sources describe the former, not the latter. If just the Khirbet, then we can’t have the stuff about the mosque and solar park for example. And we would need a second article
• Is the site proven to contain a Hasmonean fortress, or just a fortress dating to the Hasmonean era?
• How to accurately describe the proposed link to Biblical Arumah?
• How to appropriately describe the claimed political settler agenda around these links to Biblical and Hasmonean history?
• How to describe the conflict which has taken place here, possibly ongoing since 1988?
• How to describe the connection to Evyatar?
• How best to attribute the recent Israeli media sources which rely on information from settler-advocacy organizations?

Any other questions we need to solve?

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds a bit daunting when you put it like that. The obfuscation of the distinction between Jebel and Khirbet is certainly the most pressing matter though.

Iskandar323 (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Duma, Nablus says "It has been suggested that Duma was the Biblical city of Arumah^[1]" and Judges Believers Church Bible Commentary (Brensinger 1999) says "While the location of Arumah remains uncertain, a likely possibility is Khirbet el-Ormeh.." and other refs say may or possible as well tentatively identified with Khirbet el-ʽOrmah. So the id is anything but certain and I would prefer to leave the speculation out altogether. Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the archeological site, not the entire mountain. Most of the sources do describe the ancient ruins.

The proposed link to Arumah is now held for 160 years, by scholars of all backgrounds, religions and nationalities. It predates the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts by decades, and the current status in the West Bank for almost a century. See for example: Bull, Robert J.; Campbell, Edward F. (1968): "The site's identification as Arumah of Judges 9:41 (and 31?) seems unimpeachable". I find it hard to believe that American archeologists writing one year after the Six Day War felt the need to promote "political settler agendas". Tombah (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is unacceptable. Deleting "just once" when it is explicitly stated in the source, appears tendentious. As to your claim that the PLO [are] rejecting an identification held by many scholars, the PLO have not said anything in conflict with scholars - their statement was simply that "[settlers] falsely claim that Mount 'Orma holds biblical importance". I have not seen a single scholar claim that Arumah has "biblical importance", have you? Finally, by writing the follow-on sentence about the name as "It is believed..." it makes it sounds like a new topic and a second level of evidence, hiding the fact that it is itself the only proposed evidence. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favour, my friend, and judge yourself before judging others. "Appears just once" sounds so unprofessional for an encyclopedia, may I say, even ridiculous. It was clear from the beginning that Arumah appears on the Bible only once - this article to only one biblical verse (Judges, 9:11). Trust me, I have done a plenty of biblical articles in here, that's the standard for sites with biblical references. To be honest, it seems that you are the one being tendentious here - it almost looks like you're trying to undermine years of academic studies just to prove a point (and support that ridiculous claim by the PLO, which distorts years of history just to make a political point). Another thing you should know - if a site is widely believed to contain the ruins of a place mentioned in the bible, it also has biblical importance. Just read the sources. Not the Middle East Eye, or Twitter, but the reliable, academic sources. Tombah (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Another thing you should know - if a site is widely believed to contain the ruins of a place mentioned in the bible, it also has biblical importance." This statement is wrong; the word "importance" is never used like that. The word importance means of particular significance, not just a connection.

I note you did not claim that Arumah is important in the Bible at all; it looks like we are agreed that it is not. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are many levels of "Biblical importance". But the most basic one demands that a heritage site should not be destroyed. Especially if you have just recently declared it as a heritage site. Tombah (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am sure the Palestinians can easily get expert assistance from elsewhere no need for the IDF to get out of bed. Oh wait, Israel controls the borders. When did Area B turn into Area C anyway? Not that it makes any difference, Israel is breaking IL (as usual) in this regard too:

"Yet analysis of Israel’s archaeological policy in the West Bank reveals that it interprets these responsibilities in a broad manner, in breach of international law. Since 1967, Israel has endeavored to appropriate the archaeological assets of the West Bank, based on the view that the Jewish heritage of places and antiquities testifies to a bond between the antiquities and the state of Israel, and constitutes a justification for deepening its control over ancient sites. This perception underlies every aspect of Israel’s archaeological practices in the West Bank." Selfstudier (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if we are to reject the academic sources, which as we saw, state that this identification is "impeachable", we should be very clear why. A linguistic analysis is a common and strong tool in identifying biblical toponyms, and in this case, this identification is also supported by geographic and (albeit limited) archeological evidence. Such is the heavy burden of Wikipedians... please share the sources once you have them. Sharing is caring. :) Tombah (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That merely amounts to one source saying that, there are many sources that say may/possibly/ etc etc including the three I just gave you, that's why we end up with stupidity in our articles where we say in one it is ID such and such and then in another, a different ID. Pick your favorite ID guesser, no-one knows for certain. If an ID is consistently attested to by many sources, I could accept that but this is not that.Selfstudier (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read

WP:ONUS. Selfstudier (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Identifications are almost always not 100% certain, unless the site's name is found on some sort of an ostraca or an potsherd. But that's rare. Anyway, this material came from (many) reliable sources, and it's on you to prove that all of these experts are wrong. Tombah (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First: User:Tombah your last edit is really messed up: introducing 3 unsourced links <facepalm>. Please undo,

Where? From my side it looks like I fixed the unsourced links... Tombah (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tombah take a look again: a red-link in the "References"-section is really not that hard to see. Huldra (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second, there are reliable sources showing us that Beth-Anath "is located" in 5-6 different places...Huldra (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. It happens sometimes. I thought that

Yabesh-Gilead was pretty bad, but 5-6 definitely deserves a Guinness world record. Anyway, what we've got here for Arumah is much more solid. Looks like 90% of sources agree... Tombah (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Show me those sources and your calculation of 90%...waiting.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read our article. Many already appear there. Then, check Google Scholar. I believe you'll find the answers there. In the meanwhile, I have seen only one source who places Arumah elsewhere. Tombah (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, even Arumah shows two possible locations. Unimpeachable my rear end.Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the PLO claim, it is well attested that Israel using tourism to legitimise settlements, says EU report.Selfstudier (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Israel’s army of archaeological looters Using archaeology to validate its claim to the land, Israel is displacing artifacts from the occupied West Bank and erasing Palestinian identity. Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]