Talk:Tel Hadid
Appearance
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
@Huldra:. Virtually the same place, al-Haditha forms the history of the site in Ottoman and British periods. Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
- I'm in two minds about this. Under what name would you want to merge them? -Huldra
- Tel Hadid. I would also support Tel Hadid (al-Haditha), since Tel Hadid is currently the most used name, but earlier publications use al-Haditha. I am afraid this might not align with the preferred naming conventions, though. I find Hadid to be problematic because of the moshav, as well as al-Haditha alone, because it covers only a limited portion of the site's history. The use of the word "tel" addresses its archaeological nature and encompasses all of its history, including periods with no historical reference like the Bronze Ages. I know this might raise concerns of "Hebrewization" and "Archaeologization" of Palestinian places, but given that the Al-Haditha, Ramle article is short, merging it here makes sense. The current split feels artificial and only justifiable if the article were much longer. Since this is a multi-period site, I support ensuring the Arabic name appears in the lead and in all references to the village. Al-Haditha deserves as much attention as any other phase at Tel Hadid and should be fully integrated into the article for a holistic view.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- User:Bolter21: well, my experience isn't good with adding two places like this; the Palestinian history has a tendency to "get lost" (see Zekharia for the latest example). And I wonder what User:רמרום thinks about this? They have added to the Al-Haditha, Ramle-article, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would comment that Zekharia is slightly different, given that Zekharia is currently populated, and is not an archaeological site. Either way, I don't see your point on Palestinian history getting lost. Palestinian history dominates that article about a contemporary Israeli-Jewish village. It would seem that Israeli present "got lost" there... Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- That is because I re-added it! And I definitely do no agree to adding the Al-Haditha, Ramle-info under this name, sorry, but no. cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think we might have a separate article to al-Haditha. it's long enough and encumbering it with archaeology would marginlize the fact that it was a living community of people until 1948. however, i do suggest adding a small subsection in each paper with reference to "main article" of the other article. רמרום (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- 1. Can you explain why adding the information into this article would marginalize the fact it was a living community of people until 1948?
- 2. Is there any information in the al-Haditha article not relevant to the Tel Hadid article?
- Plenty of Palestinian village-articles contain archaeology. See: Lajjun, Suba, Jerusalem, Qatra etc. I view it from an integralist, place-oriented point of view, like: Achziv, Abu Zurayq (my making), Chorazin, Château Pèlerin, Meiron. Bolter21 (talk to me) 06:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
- I would comment that Zekharia is slightly different, given that Zekharia is currently populated, and is not an archaeological site. Either way, I don't see your point on Palestinian history getting lost. Palestinian history dominates that article about a contemporary Israeli-Jewish village. It would seem that Israeli present "got lost" there... Bolter21 (talk to me) 20:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- User:Bolter21: well, my experience isn't good with adding two places like this; the Palestinian history has a tendency to "get lost" (see Zekharia for the latest example). And I wonder what User:רמרום thinks about this? They have added to the Al-Haditha, Ramle-article, Huldra (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
- Tel Hadid. I would also support Tel Hadid (al-Haditha), since Tel Hadid is currently the most used name, but earlier publications use al-Haditha. I am afraid this might not align with the preferred naming conventions, though. I find Hadid to be problematic because of the moshav, as well as al-Haditha alone, because it covers only a limited portion of the site's history. The use of the word "tel" addresses its archaeological nature and encompasses all of its history, including periods with no historical reference like the Bronze Ages. I know this might raise concerns of "Hebrewization" and "Archaeologization" of Palestinian places, but given that the Al-Haditha, Ramle article is short, merging it here makes sense. The current split feels artificial and only justifiable if the article were much longer. Since this is a multi-period site, I support ensuring the Arabic name appears in the lead and in all references to the village. Al-Haditha deserves as much attention as any other phase at Tel Hadid and should be fully integrated into the article for a holistic view.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)