Talk:Timeline of Jerusalem/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Horrendous article

The Timeline being incomplete is one thing, but the ancient side of it is beyond reproach: events with approximate dates (such as the 1st one) are presented with absolute dates, and Biblical events are dated as if there's no dispute over biblical chronology or accuracy. 79.178.25.44 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Beyond reproach" means the opposite of what, from context, you seem to intend. Perhaps you were going for "beyond the pale". 71.246.199.67 (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

removed spam

someone spammed the references article, I removed it. Thank You 84.86.218.144 (talk) 17:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Article issues

I've added some references, and have also corrected some issues. The items in the list seem to be accurate, but citations are still needed for many. For items which seem to have WP:NPoV issues, please only tag the item itself, rather than the entire article—or better yet, provide one or more WP:RS citations to support a correction. Finally, I've divided the timeline list into broad periods to make it easier for editors to work. • Astynax talk 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Secular BCE Timeline

Once other point - in the context of this discussion, it is very apparent that the information in the written article needs a lot of improvement. The entire BCE period in the article is not a balanced secular representation of the city's history, providing only the biblical narrative, and therefore violates WP:RNPOVOncenawhile (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that to begin to rectify this, the first change should be the chosen categories, which currently include a number of non-secular names such as Babylonian Captivity (which by definition relates to the Jewish people, rather than to Jerusalem). Astynax, are you happy for me to reorder the article in to the same secular categories as per the graphic as follows?

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I was in Jerusalem a number of months ago, and I don't recall seeing any "Current Positions on Jerusalem" policemen on patrol. I, for one, will not be happy with an article that attempts to inject this article, a timeline, with political positions and theoretical discussions. The city once ruled by Assyrians, Romans, Fatimids and Britain is currently controlled by an entity called Israel.
Also, please be so kind as to stop refering to your opinions as "secular", as supposedly opposed to some "religious" point of view. The fault lines in the debate over the historicity of the Bible do not run along that division. Not everyone that does not agree with the minimalist view within Bible criticism is a religious nut. The Bible is not monolithic, neither wholly myth nor wholly history, and you cannot simply dismiss it a religious work devoid of historical content. After all, you don't seem to have any aversion to using the Bible when it serves your arguements, or do you think the Jebusites, Amon and Menasseh are prominent in the archaeological record? In fact, your view of first Temple Judaism in very much a strictly religious POV. We don't actually know for sure the nature of Judaism at that time, these people certainly were not 21st century Jews, nor even 1st century Jews. Jews, Judeans, whatever they were called, were not a religious group but an ethnic group. Thus instances of Ba'al worship cannot prevent these people from being part of that collective, to which modern scholarship refers as Jews. If you have any reference that calls these people anything else other than Jews or Judeans, please provide it. Poliocretes (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Poliocretes, nice to meet you too. Let me take each of your points in turn:
(1) Current Positions on Jerusalem: As you say, the city is of course de facto controlled by Israel, however, as a well informed person you are clearly well aware of the disputes mentioned in the Positions on Jerusalem article. Putting a link to the article was my suggestion for avoiding having these disputes confuse this article, which appears to be your intention as well. What is your proposal to deal with these delicate issues? From the tone of your response, I suspect you want to ignore the perspective of the Jerusalem Governorate and use the word "Israel" only, but don't you think that there are many who would think that to be not the whole story? I don't feel that strongly though, whereas you clearly do, so happy to keep it simple if you prefer.
(2) Personal attack and mixing up topics: The first six sentences of your second paragraph are no more than a rant which show that you have confused topics and as a result wholly misunderstood. I am happy to respond to any implied questions, but you would need to rephrase and be less patronising. Other than the use of the word secular, I am assuming you are happy with the content of my original point.
(3) Jews, Judeans and Ba'al: The position you espouse here ("Jews, Judeans, whatever they were called, were not a religious group but an ethnic group" and "instances of Ba'al worship cannot prevent these people from being part of that collective") is not encyclopedic fact but a specific nationalistic viewpoint. For example, as you well know the interpretation of the term Judean in the bible is disputed (e.g. try searching google for "Judean Canaanite people"). This page is not a place for debates on Jewish nationalism.
--Oncenawhile (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
1. Again, this is a timeline. Of course I'm aware of what Positions on Jerusalem says, but that's exactly what that article is for. This list, spanning 3,000 years, is about historical periods and de facto control of the city. The Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms fought six wars for this piece of land, spanning over a century, but their respective positions about ownership are entirely irrelvant here. One ruled it, there was a battle, then another ruled it, then they lost it to yet another party. That's all there is. The Jerusalem Governorate has no tangible power in Jerusalem, and there is no sovereignty without the ability to exercise it. Respective positions about the future of the city simply do not belong here.
2. I'm sorry if you were offended, but you were not personally attacked, your views were. A personal attack would have been to call your comments a "rant". The point is that you cannot claim to represent a secular POV and then cherry-pick those parts of the Bible that fit your arguements. Critical reading of the Bible does reveal that the Bible does not represent the full spectrum of religious practices in first-temple Jerusalem. It does, however, reveal a particularly strong ideological current that would outlast the others and eventually manifest itself as Judaism.
3. I did google "Judean Canaanite people". What was I supposed to see? The few articles that were not about the origins of the Jewish people were quite silly. But seriously, this is hardly about Jewish nationalism. It's about the existence in the first half of the 1st millenium BC of a distinct material culture in the Judean highlands, distinct from the Phillistines of the coast and the Phoenicians of the north. We do not know exactly who these people were, nor how their political entity came about, nor the exact details of their religious practices. What we do know comes from one source which archaeology has shown to be highly biased. What is beyond doubt, however, is that these people were the ideological and theological (and probably genealogical, but that's beside the point) forefathers of the religion we call Judaism. They are thus commonly refered to, throughout modern scholarship, as Judeans and Israelites, and yes, even Jews. That may be anachronisitic and simplistic, but if its good enough for plenty of scholars, it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Poliocretes (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Poliocretes, thanks for your reply. Seems like while we probably still differ on one or two areas, we are mostly on common ground here. So, i'd like to take this forward and improve the article in light of the views of all the editors, if you are in agreement. So can we agree on a periodization which avoids religious and all other contentious debates? I suggest:
--Oncenawhile (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
A number of points/suggestions:
* The first two categories should be Middle Broze Age (Proto Canaanite) and Late Broze Age (Canaanite). The Jebusites are hardly a recognizable archaeological entity. It's little more than a Biblical label.
* Iron Age (Israelite / Kingdom of Judah)
* Macedonian Kingdoms
* "Partition Period"? Not a commonly used term. "1949 - 1967 Partition between Israel and Jordan" better.
Poliocretes (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
OK thanks Poliocretes. I have made a start - this is hard work, and takes ages to get accurate and balanced... Will continue in due course, but any feedback appreciated. --Oncenawhile (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Much Better Article (see reference to Horrendous article at top of page)

As promised, i have pulled in some information to balance the article. I have tried to make clear where those pieces of the timeline are only from religious sources in line with WP:RNPOV. Almost all the information added comes from other wikipedia articles, and i have been careful to wikilink to those articles as most of the references are on the detailed articles and not duplicated here. I have also made an effort to bring in the context of the key events into the bullets, to allow readers to understand what was actually happening without having to read every single underlying article. It's not finished and not perfect, but hopefully you'll agree it's a massive improvement on what is a complicated topic.Oncenawhile (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Jerusalem/Archive_1&oldid=792007495"