User talk:Onceinawhile#AE block

Hi. I saw you partially reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hebraization_of_Palestinian_place_names&oldid=1272855970 my edit] to still include the phrasing “although enthusiasm since cooled after mistakes were identified by archeologists.”

This is a bit strange, because language shift is generally not labeled as “mistakes”, and the source cited does not state this. The time period is also ambiguous, as “has since” is talking about from the late 1940s to late 1970s.

Therefore, I don’t see any point in keeping this line and I think it should be deleted. LivLovisa (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Historical map series for the area of Iraq al-Manshiyya (1940s with modern overlay).jpg here, just north of the Palestinian village of Iraq al-Manshiyya, since destroyed by the Israeli government. Kiryat Gat was built over it, named mistakenly.]]

:Hi {{ping|LivLovisa}} the source says {{tq|The earlier enthusiasm for restoring biblical names to their ancient sites has cooled down somewhat, especially after Tell (ʿArâq) el-Menšîyeh, changed to Tel Gat, was proved not to be a suitable candidate for Gath of the Philistines.}}

:The example given was a mistaken identification. The Israeli towns of Gat, Israel and Kiryat Gat were named as such because they were thought to be adjacent to the Biblical Gath (city). Turns out they were wrong and now the names are an embarrassing reminder.

:Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::Something being "not a suitable candidate" is not synonymous with being a mistake, and you calling it "an embarrassing reminder" is not exactly very NPOV. LivLovisa (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::On your second point, if my POV is “archeological accuracy", then yes perhaps you are right.

:::On your first point, you are incorrect. It certainly is synonymous for a mistake. If you still don’t agree, try explaining what you think it means in long form. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia articles are not for you to formulate your opinions. If you wanna go down that route, it’s a bit like saying it’s embarrassing to call Hillingdon “London” because it’s not part of Londinium.

::::Either way, that’s your judgement, and not something that should be included in the article. LivLovisa (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::What is your opinion on what it means? Stating what you think it doesn’t mean is not enough.

:::::We are editors, so we have to summarize in our own words. Let’s agree on a summary together. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:As an outside observer, I found this helpful in understanding the subject overall and it fits in line with other trends in the constant works-in-progress that are Biblical Archaeology and Historical Criticism. 2600:1700:131:51E0:140A:9AE7:757:60CD (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

::I apologize, didn't realize I wasn't logged in and just following up to put a name to my comment. Eulersidentity (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey. I woke up today completely burnt out with work. So I did the most sane and reasonable thing and spent a couple hours attending the Canaanite religion article, which is in a really sorry state. I would invite you, should you have time and interest, to contribute too. There's a good [https://www.academia.edu/505228/Canaanite_Religion article] which is available to anyone. Best Wishes Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Qadas was merged into Kedesh, hence the maps in the infobox no longer works. I seem to recall there was an easy fix for that, but cannot remember it, hope your memory better than mine, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{Re|Huldra}} if this is about the historical map series, the solution was to add "name=Qadas" to the template. Zero^talk 02:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::User:Zero0000; thanks a lot for fixing it, and giving me the "solution", I suspect I will forget it for the next time I come across it, though ;/, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ivmbox

|image = Updated DYK query.svg

|imagesize=40px

|text = On 29 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Octo Mundi Miracula, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1572 Eight Wonders of the World (engraving pictured) is the source of the modern list of classical Seven Wonders of the World? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Octo Mundi Miracula. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-05-19&end=2025-06-08&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Octo_Mundi_Miracula Octo Mundi Miracula]), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

}} theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{DYK views|27,395|1,141.5|May 2025|Octo Mundi Miracula}} GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)