User talk:Onceinawhile

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by .

Nomination of Masada myth for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Masada myth is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Digging

[1], really not sure how to integrate it into Wiki though lacking Archaeology Department of the Civil Administration and Hananya Hizmi. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: thanks for sharing. Suggest adding to Politics of archaeology in Israel and Palestine. The best work on the topic is Facts on the Ground. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

On 9 August 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the goal of "peace" may mean different things to Israelis and Palestinians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Peace discourse in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict), 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'you argued against sources you hadn’t read for almost two months. Then you read them, and did some great work. Suggest we shortcut it this time. We are not going to exclude high quality academic sources because you haven’t had time to read them'

I'm rather puzzled by this because I cannot see where in that page or the current page I am asking to exclude any high quality academic sources. I re-read the Talk:Modern Jewish historiography from 2023, and I cannot figure out what this is about, and I'm a little puzzled by the tone and insinuation. I think we did some good work on that page. But one of your initial claims on that page was that Jewish national historiography originated in the 19th century, and we ended up bringing that all the way back up to the 14th century with references to earlier historiography going back to Josephus, the Hellenistic historians, and medieval chronologers and chroniclers. You initially argued to exclude the 16th century which Yerushalmi and Bonfil both cover in-depth. And while we did not end up using the Baznitzky book, we did not use Shlomo Sand either in that article, which as far as I can tell was the main source I was arguing against. The question of "a religion, a culture, a nationality," isn't really addressed head-on but is side-stepped (or treated as all three). So again, what source are you saying I am trying to exclude, and where did I say I hadn't read it or didn't have time to read it? Andre🚐 20:57, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a long discussion, starting at the DYK in September 2023, and I think moving to one of our talk pages, where you ultimately accepted that the right way forward would be for you to read the sources. Some great work was done after that. Re my initial claim versus the article today, one did not disprove the other. Our difference was in the semantics. Jewish “national history” is a 19th century phenomenon, and the article’s description of Graetz and Dubnow are clear.

On this one, rather than commenting on the new bibliography I added, you suggested a bunch of tertiary sources. If you are saying you don’t object to the new sources, then we are in agreement. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing the discussions, but I'm still not sure what that would refer to. Do not see that at User_talk:AndreJustAndre/Archives/60#DYK or Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jewish_historiography. That discussion seems to be about whether various hooks were good for DYK or accurate. As the sources and the article make clear, Jewish national history dates to the Roman era, Basnage nor Graetz were not the first modern history, though the semantics as far as I can tell hinge more on "modern" than "national." I cannot find a comment from me in 2023 agreeing or refusing to read any sources, so I am still asking for clarification on that because as far as I can tell, it is not an accurate characterization of the discussion.

About the present article I am suggesting per policy at WP:TERTIARY to use the tertiary sources as a way to frame the article and determine fair weight. You accused me of proposing something outside of policy. Andre🚐 21:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think you should engage with the secondary sources. Only then can we assess anything substantial about the article, including whether the tertiary sources are a good framework. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss that on the article talk page. But I would appreciate your clarifications here about your comments. As I am still reeling from your insinuations regarding the 2023 discussions. Could you please review those discussions again and let me know where you think I refused to read sources, said I didn't read or didn't have time to read them, or ultimately changed my mind and acquiesced to read them? Because I do not remember any of that happening. Andre🚐 21:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is fuzzy but I think it was at another article, and those discussions were the catalyst for creating the Jewish historiography page. I remember an in depth 1x1 discussion somewhere. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've located the discussions in question and I still do not see where I refused to read or allowed to read any source. Please withdraw that claim as it is not accurate. There is a statement by you here: [2] when was "Jewish history" as we know it today first written? In the mid 19th century (e.g. Heinrich Graetz),, as I think the current state of the article proves, is not true. As I stated then and as the current article shows, Jewish history can be traced to the Roman and Hellenistic writers and threads through the middle ages. I don't want to rehash any old beefs or start any new ones. But unless you can cite a time when I refused to read the sources and later agreed to read them, that is an unfounded aspersion. Andre🚐 23:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck it. I have failed to substantiate my recollection, so I withdraw it.

On the historiography question, it is interesting see that the work has not changed either of our views. This is because our difference of opinion was, and remains, about the nature of the history written by Jews about Jews prior to the modern nationalist period. As it stands the article doesn’t address that comparative question anywhere, so we are left with our unchanged preconceptions. Onceinawhile (talk) 04:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking it. As far as the orientation to the material, I think the article itself is still incomplete, and it is necessarily difficult to complete as it is still a very vast topic. There are also big missing gaps in Wikipedia's depth on medieval historiography in general. There are systemic reasons why it is challenging to address. But, I wonder if you have, in refamiliarizing yourself with the work on that article, come across for example the work of Bowman[3], relating how Judah Leon ben Moses Mosconi felt about the Yosippon around p.32-33. Or consult what Yerushalmi thought about the Inquisition, versus what he thought about David Gans or Joseph ha-Kohen. What we ended up using for the DYK was Azariah dei Rossi. There are other examples. The Wissenschaft generally discarded the Yosippon but they did embrace Gans, ha-Kohen and dei Rossi. or consider the Gerson D. Cohen introduction to ibn Daud, as I believe we discussed once.[4] or the work of Jeremy Cohen on Shevet Yehudah.[5] These sources do look at the impact this all had to later periods. They also critically analyze the sources and methods. There was no Wissenschaft in the 19th without a significant heritage and indebtedness to the rabbinic chain of tradition literature, which Yerushalmi admits. Andre🚐 05:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Free satellite imagry

Hey Once. Hope you are doing well. Do you know a way to use satellite imagery in Wikipedia with no copyright issues? Thanks. Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:20, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bolter21: unfortunately not. I would find that very valuable. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. it's for Khirbat Khudash and other sites. I am now trying to contact people from the settlement to see if anyone has a drone and willing to take a picture and let me upload it... Site is well preserved. Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am using this thread to ask a question. I have been working on some framework for articles in my User:Bolter21/sandbox and I was thinking maybe there should be a WP:TASKFORCE for the History of the Levant. Something that would expand on the history, geography, archaeology of the lands, people and cultures of the Levant - i.e. Syria, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine and Jordan, from Palaeolithic to the 20th century. Do you have any thoughts on the matter? Would you participate? Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea. I am too busy at the moment to participate, but when that changes I would be happy to. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]