Jump to content

Talk:Ascalon

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

Invitation to rediscuss the name of the article.

[edit]

I have looked into the discussions in this article. I am not too fond of the chose to change this to "Ascalon", since it is virtually the same as "Ashkelon", and I believe most people know it as "Ashkelon" and not Ascalon. There's a weird insitence on choosing bad names over slightly longer names. I think "Ancient Ashkelon" or "Ashkelon (ancient city) would just be fine. We are an encylopedia of virtually everything, and we must have duplications of names. The Leon Levy Expedition, which probably wrote most of the information about Ashkelon (8 volumes, with each with 250-1000 pages, a 9th forthcoming), have chosen to call it "Ashkelon", even in late antiquity and medieval. This is the name of park as well, and today. Writing "Ascalon" will not bring you to your desired destination when asking Waze, Moovit, Goolge Maps or a local. The arguments in favor of Ascalon were very weak in my opinion. We are not doing any kindness to our readers here.

I would advice fellow editors to rethink the change to "Ascalon". I think we cannot conclude that "Ascalon" is the primary topic, since clearly the narrative on Ashkelon isn't complete here. I don't think that when describing a place of such importance and length of history, it is wise to declare a certain episode to be the primary topic. When walking in Tel Ashkelon, the most prominent feature is the Middle Bronze Age ramparts, which give the place its shape. Its most monumental feature is the Bronze Age Gate. There's so much more knowledge about the ancient city missing in the article.

I think is should be agreed that we are talking primarily about a place, and not about a certain episode in its history. It is first and foremost a place, not a city, not an archaeological site, not a park, but a place, whose history is written not only on paper, but in its soil. Therefore, I think we should go with the name most commonly used to describe this place, to encompass its entire history. That is Ashkelon. This is what scholars use and this is what visitors use. Ascalon was indeed used, but mostly in early 20th century contexts, or when refering to the historical entity in certain periods of the site.

Some examples for your convenience:

Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bolter, good to hear from you and thanks for the thoughtfully written post.
I took a look at Ngrams. It shows that historically Ascalon was far more common, and even today, Ascalon is used almost as frequently as Ashkelon, despite the latter name also referring to the modern city.
Ascalon is the Greek name, from Ἀσκάλων. That is why it was used in classical and medieval literature, and is also used in some bibles, like the Douay–Rheims.
Bear in mind the name is used only eleven times in the entire bible (Jud 1:18, 14:19; 1 Sam 6:17; 2 Sam 1:20; Jer 25:20, 47:5,7; Amos 1:8; Zeph 2:4,7; Zech 9:5); i.e. it was not a major biblical location. Its notability was greatest from the classical period to the medieval period.
Does any of that change your thinking above?
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately none of these arguments is compelling.
The core of my argument: We are talking about a place that exists today and can be visited. Not a period in its history.
The fact that the name was used well in the 19th century does not change the fact that today, the place itself, as a physical entity, one studied and visited so much, is known as Ashkelon.
The trend you kindly provided actually shows that in recent years, the name Ashkelon has prevailed over Ascalon. But I wouldn't take that last note as supporting my position, since we don't know in what context Ashkelon or Ascalon is mentioned there, nor the value and relevance of the sources. I am not fond of these meta-analyses of names. They most often say nothing, and should be used with caution.
To say Ashkelon is not an important place in the bible is an opinion. I will refrain from arguing the other way around, since as I've said, it doesn't matter what it was called throughout history, but what it is referred to as today, both in geographical, touristic, and academic contexts.
So no, none of these change my thinking. I think it should be called "Ashkelon", preferably "Ashkelon (ancient city)" or "Ashkelon (archaeological site). A good examples is Athens and Classical Athens (instead of Athênai). I think another good option is "History of Ashkelon". Just like History of Athens. That way it would be convenient to add Neolithic and Early Bronze Ashkelon, which wasn't on the Tel (the site of Ascalon). If the article will be too long (which I do not suspect will happen soon), we can always split it.
We don't call Jerusalem "Al-Quds". In English, today, it is most commonly known as Jerusalem. Damascus is called "Dimasq" and Aleppo "Halab", and Byblos "Jubeil" but we call them by what they are best known as. This is what appears on signs, what appears in most tourist papers, and what appears in most academic works describing these places. And when I say "describing these places" I mean, describing these places with their entire span of history.
Ascalon was a good name for the site. It isn't anymore. We live in 2024, and most articles refer to ancient Ashkelon as a whole, despite some of those referring specifically to the periods during which it had a Greek/Crusader population, call it "Ashkelon", from the Neolithic to this current day. The name Ascalon is used mostly in historical contexts or in archaeological contexts referring to these historical contexts.
Some more examples:
This article (2024) has a title that includes both: Roman-period trade in ceramic building materials on the Levantine Mediterranean coast: evidence from a farmstead site near Ashqelon/Ascalon, Israel. The choice to include Ashkelon, despite it clearly not being called as such in that period, highlights the fact that this name is accepted as refering to the general place.
Another great example is here, when this article titled "Cultivating the Hills and the Sands: A Comparative Archaeobotanical Investigation of Early Islamic Agriculture in Palestine, has the following sentence in its abstract: These sites – the coastal urban centres of Ashkelon and Caesarea Maritima, and the large inland village of Neby Zakaria – are situated in different environmental settings and had distinct socioeconomic functions. As you can see, Hebrew, Latin, and Arabic names are used to describe places from the Early Islamic period. The reason for this is clearly because the actual name of the settlement in these times is secondary to their conventional names in contemporary scholarly work. There is a name for the second: "Qaysāriyyah". But most people know it as Ceasarea Maritima. The same goes for Ashkelon.
Some more: A mediterranean pantheon: Cults and deities in hellenistic and roman Ashkelon, A Hellenistic/Early Roman Shipwreck Assemblage off Ashkelon, Israel, The Funeral Kit: A Newly Defined Canaanite Mortuary Practice Based on the Middle and Late Bronze Age Tomb Complex at Ashkelon, Two Notes on the History of Ashkelon and Ekron in the Late Eighth-Seventh Centuries B.C.E., NEOLITHIC ASHKELON, The Gaza 'Wine' Jar (Gazition) and the 'Lost' Ashkelon Jar (Askalônion).
You can see that Ascalon will appear only when referring to the Hellenistic-Roman or Crusader periods. Ashkelon will encompass all periods, including these. Therefore, for this place, Ashkelon is the correct term. Take a look also at the very bibliography of this Wikipedia article. You will see the same pattern. That, to me, is the justification to call this Ashkelon. And because there's already a modern city, we would call it "Ashkelon (ancient city)" or "Ashkelon (archaeological site)" or "History of Ashkelon" (giving a slightly broader context of a place) and everything will be fine. The name is just a little bit longer than one word, but the article is much longer (:--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the I/P warrior argument is that it resembles too much/is too associative with the name of the modern Israeli city, which is a Zionist misnomer, being actually inland Majdal/Migdal. That's to keep the discussion open and frank ;) Arminden (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have joyfully refrained from touching this issue since it doesn't really matter, even though it is an intuitive thought. The same old characters such as me and you and the rest appear in these discussions all the time. We are all familiar with everyone's political positions. I think some respect to thousands of years of history and the hard work of scholars is warranted, instead of this petty brawl between people arguing whether their Hummus is morally superior, and how much lethal force constitutes a valid argument. Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comment, please keep it within the frame of the original discussion. PLEASE.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. Here is my comment: thank you for the laugh! I really needed it. Happy Moral Hummus Day!
PS: all the power to you. Arminden (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any comment? Iskandar323, Onceinawhile, Srnec, Necrothesp, Emolu, Dimadick.

I don't think this was a ping, otherwise I would have interceded at this stage. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistory

[edit]

Hi Bolter21. Nice work.

I guess you removed the following passage because it was unsourced:

The adjacent site had no built structures and was believed to have been used seasonally by pastoral nomads for processing and curing food.

They came to the flat area before the bluff hit by the waves, used saltpans to make salt, and used it to cure the meat they had hunted, before moving camp again.

I am very confident that it's correct, plus it conjures a useful, relatable image of the life and activity of those nomads, unlike the dry dates, names of periods & archaeologists, etc. Here more than elsewhere, I find it much more user-friendly to keep the info and look for sources, rather than remove it. Wouldn't you agree? Arminden (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the remark that it is better than hard descriptions. It seems to be wrong though. The excavations revealed the remains of dwelling pits, which were depressions in rock surrounded by walls made either of organic material or mud-brick. There is more information about the Neolithic from the special studies about animal remains and flint tools. I didn't have the time to add them, but they appear in Garfinkels monograph. If you have access to JSTOR you can look into the Discussion and Conclusion of these chapters and add them.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are:
Yosef Garfinkel, Doron Dag, Lawrence E. Stager. Ashkelon: THE NEOLITHIC SITE IN THE AFRIDAR NEIGHBORHOOD
Unless you can access Neolithic Ashkelon: meat processing and early pastoralism on the Mediterranean coast. Arminden (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden That looks more promising and friendlier. I must admit, the Neolithic period is far from being a period I am most familiar with, besides the introductory basics. It is also difficult to translate academic language into wikipedic prose, without risking WP:OR.
Hopefully in the next episode of procrastination, I'll add some more girth to the article. If you need any source on any period, I might have it. Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think general neolithic material about the surrounding area unrelated to the specific site of ancient city should be on this page, nor material about adjacent sites like Afridar. Isn't the place for material like this at Archaeology of Israel, which is starved for details on even broad areas of discovery? Iskandar323 (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored prehistory. This episodes appear in both entries in "New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land  1 by Stern, Ephraim" and in "Eric M. Meyers - The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East", who give an overview of the history of Ashkelon from prehistory to medieval times. The prehistory was there when the article was moved from Ashkelon, and you have no consensus to remove it from the scope of the article (given that it was already there, and me and Arminden have been discussing its inclusion). It may be a good idea to start an article for Ashkelon-Afridar site, but I see no justification to remove the information about these periods from this article. It clearly represents that this area has been central for millennia, and I believe that was the rationale that led the scholars of the site to incorporate it in their descriptions. Either way, already from the Chalcolithic there are findings inside Tel Ashkelon, and the EB settlement in Afridar is most definitely welcomed to be mentioned. Their distance is about 1 km., a 20 minute walk. Since Tel Ashkelon was erected over the EB settlement, which grew besides the Afridar settlement, which has been a site of human activity for millennia. Opinions aside, as mentioned in the beginning, the sources include these periods in Ashkelon's history. Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do go and start the Afridar page somewhere separate from here. This page doesn't need prehistory about findings not directly related to the topic, which is a geographically distinct and famous ancient walled city. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 African is mentioned with the rest of Ashkelon in the Leon Levy Expedition. Why separate here? It was always part of the article, long before we started this discussion. Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that source is clearly addressing a wider scope than the scope of the page here. Why would we include off-topic content? It's longevity on the page is irrelevant. There is plenty of old content with unaddressed issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 That's what you think, but that's just an opinion. First of all, the scope of the article always included Neolithic, check it's history. Secondly, the sources (including the numerous overviews of Stager, who spent 46 years of his life studying Ashkelon) show that for millennia of human history, settlement at the kurkar ridges of Ashkelon were a recurring phenomenon, with phases in the Epipalaeolithic, PPNC, Chalcolithic and culminating in the settlements of the EB, centered in Afridar but including also Tel Ashkelon (before it was a Tel) and Barnea. By the MB, the southern edge of this phenomenon (Tel Ashkelon) was fortified, and from that moment on, settlement at the region was fixed in between the MB ramparts, which shapes the site up until the Crusader times.
This article describes an Islamic shrine located some kilometers to the east of Ascalon. There's no reason to remove it. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an opinion. Archaeological studies of the neolithic cover vaguer geographies because there were no cities. Frankly, none of this is super critical backstory to the later city formation. Whether the much older pre-fortification settlements are even related is speculative. As you say, it was a recurrent phenomenon, not permanent settlement. Most of it would be better off at Archaeology in Israel and Levantine archaeology. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's still an opinion, the Neolithic and EB appear in the same overviews and monographs speaking about the Crusader times. They are the predecessor of the city, just like Megiddo or Jericho have earlier remains in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you perceive no difference in scope between a wider area and a specific site and you are unable to tell the difference between them in sources? You just need one namedrop of what you want and you're golden? Is that the measure of your material and source selection that we're reckoning with here? You can't tell the difference between Ascalon/Tel Ashkelon and generic findings in the Ashkelon municipality? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 Again, it's not me. It's what the overviews of Ashkelon say.. Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair Jericho and Megiddo aren't a perfect analogy because the Epipal/Neolithic levels at both are physically part of the same tell and as far as we know there was continuous occupation thereafter. – Joe (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, Garfinkel & Dag clearly don't make this distinction, i.e. they write about "Neolithic Ashkelon", not "Ashkelon Afridar". How have you concluded that the Bronze Age city was "geographically distinct", @Iskandar323:? – Joe (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Garfunkel and Dag just produce sloppy scholarship? I'm sure there are others to consult. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enlighten us. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying. The idea is that in prehistoric times, when settlements were more temporary and unfortified, they spread over a large area "moved" from site to site in the same unit of landscape. In the Neolithic and Chalcolithic, there are sites all over the coastal strip between modern Ashkelon and the Gaza Strip. In the EB, the phenomenon I was addressing is more pronounced. In the Ashkelon 5 report, which is available in pdf format in the bibliography section, it says in p. 20:
One other aspect of the EB settlement patterns in the Ashkelon region is worthy of note. While the stretch of settlements along the coast is restricted to EB I, occupation at Tel Ashkelon is most pronounced in EB III. In EB III, then, Tel Ashkelon stood nearly alone as a settlement, with Tel Ashdod along with Tel Poran and its satellite site, site 58 (although farther to the east, Tel «Erani displays the same occupational sequence; see Kempinski and Gilead 1991; Yeivin and Kempinski 1993). This pattern suggests two different phenomena: a large stretch of settlements in the EB I, followed by the consolidation of settlement at Tel Ashkelon in the later EB. If this is true, this pattern may follow the rise of maritime trade in EB I, which appears to have superseded overland trade as the principal avenue of transport between Egypt and the Levantine coast by the EB II (see, e.g., Stager 2001:631, 633).
The EB I comes right after the Chalcolithic, during which Tel Ashkelon was already settled (see map at p.16). Most overviews of Ashkelon's archaeology mention these prehistoric periods. In describing a historical-geographic unit, it is very well important to give mention to what came before it in the same space, and what existed around it in the same time. Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Garfinkel & Dag's map on pg. 8 also shows the Neolithic site extends quite far beyond the excavated area, about a kilometre up the coast. There's also taphonomy to think about. In general I'm not seeing support in the sources for your contention that Neolithic Ashkelon and Tel Ashkelon are "geographically distinct", @Iskandar323: what have you based that on? – Joe (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not meant that they are not geographically distict. They exploit the same landscape, and the settlement process that began with Neolithic Ashkelon (in Barne'a), through Chalcolithic Ashkeleon (Tel Ashkelon and Barne'a), culminated in the consolidation of EB settlement in Tel Ashkelon, which was later fortified in MB and ever since the location was fixed. An article about Neolithic Ashkelon and Barne'a archaeological site are definately appropriate places to add more information. But these episodes of settlement have been repeatedly mentioned in the overviews of Ashkelon's history, going from Neolithic to Crusader. They deserve a mention - not too generous and not to humble. Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, that last part was directed at Iskandar not you. I think I agree with you that the Neolithic and later sites are basically the same place (or at least, that we don't presently understand the spatial distribution well enough to distinguish them), are treated as such in the sources, and therefore should all be covered here, even if we split off a summary style child article on Neolithic Ashkelon/Ashkelon Afridar down the line. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the problem simply that many of the scholars make no distinction between neolithic metropolitan Ashkelon and the narrow confines of ancient finds at Tel Ashkelon? It's fine for archaeologists to do an overview of a region when looking at neolithic sites, but that doesn't particularly inform the topic of a specific site. And yes, I think it would be much better for the prehistoric content to be discussed elsewhere and covered here only in abridged format, i.e.: "There was also some neolithic activity in the area." – which is about as relevant as it gets to the discrete topic here. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. There are hundreds of findspots all over Ashkelon from all periods. South of Ashkelon there's a huge neolithic and chalcolithic concentration. But it is the phenomena of sporadic settlements over the coastal kurkar ridges of Ashkelon, that in a process of some thousands of years, consolidated into the location of Tel Ashkelon. After the MB people fortified it, the location became fixed. This is common for most sites in Israel: Megiddo, Lachish, Hazor etc. As soon as the MBs built their earth ramparts, everyone later reused them. Ashkelon is unique in the sense that these ramparts continued to serve also after the Persian period. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you don't just go and create Archaeology at Ashkelon – I'm sure no one would mind. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am strictly opposed to splitting history and Archaeology. The work of the historian and the archaeologist are not so different, and they cannot provide any full picture of their objects of inquiry without consulting one another. And it is important to note that many historical records have been found in archaeological Excavations. And more often then not, archaeologists study the history of their sites prior to even forming their research questions. An "Archaeology of.." is adequate for Jerusalem, whose history and Archaeology is arguably as big as the history of the entire land around it. But Ashkelon is not that one. Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we'll see how big the page gets, but there are plenty of pages on Wikipedia about archaeological excavations at certain sites, because the actual history of the archaeology itself can often be quite substantial, and so a natural split gradually emerges. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ascalon → Ashkelon (ancient city) – Recently, the name of this article was changed from Tel Ashkelon to Ascalon. The rationale was that Ashkelon and Tel Ashkelon are too similar, and that readers cannot be expected to differentiate. It was said that Ascalon is the name of the historical site. This rationale is invalid. The name Ashkelon, is the conventionally accepted name for both the modern city, and the ancient site. In many cases, the name Ashkelon is even used when referring to periods in which it was historically known as Ascalon. This place has at least 20,000 years of history, accros many periods of times. It was a prehistoric site, a Canaanite, Philistine, Hellenistic city, a Crusader city, an Islamic city... We don't always know its actual name, and it has never had a single way to pronounce its name.

I am suggesting to change the name to Ashkelon (ancient city). I divided my argument into three parts: (1) Ashkelon and Ascalon are virtually the same and therefore confusing; (2) The toponym for the ancient site is known in maps and sites as "Ashkelon"; (3) the conentional scholarly name for the city in all periods is "Ashkelon", including periods in which it was called in different names.

1. Ascalon and Ashkelon are virtually the same. It is very confusing still. Differetiating them with "ancient city" in brackets makes no mistakes. Another option would've been "Tel Ashkelon", but there were times in which the ancient settlements in Ashkelon were not exactly on the Tel, and the city often controlled a much broader territory. Tel Ashkelon would strictly refer to the antiquties, but the article's scope goes beyond it. Another opition I thought about was "History of Ashkelon", simmilar to how we have "History of Athens", but I think that this might confuse the people who are looking for the history of modern Ashkelon, whose place should be in the article about the modern city. Therefore, I think that Ashkelon (ancient city) is the clearest option for the scope of the article.

2. Location identification: Today, the principal site of ancient Ashkelon is known as Tel Ashkelon. This is a declared national park in Israel, and it apears by that name. The official name of the park is "Ashkelon National Park". I think it makes a lot of sense to assume, that many people who visit Israel as tourist, will likely enter this Wikipedia article. They will not be referred to Ascalon, but to Ashkelon, either Tel Ashkelon (mentioned here, here, here and [1], which were the first results I was given by google. Therefore, the site, as a location, is better identified with Ashkelon rather than Ascalon Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Scolarly convention: Ashkelon is one of the most studied archaeological and historical places in the entire Levant. The scholarly conventional name for this ancient site is Ashkelon. Here are the examples I have provided in the previous discussion:

You can see that Ascalon will appear only when referring to the Hellenistic-Roman or Crusader periods. Ashkelon will encompass all periods, including these. Therefore, for this place, Ashkelon is the correct term. Take a look also at the very bibliography of this Wikipedia article. You will see the same pattern. That, to me, is the justification to call this Ashkelon.

I am again inviting those who were previously involved in the discussion to kindly comment their opinion on the matter: Arminden Iskandar323, Onceinawhile, Srnec, Necrothesp, Emolu, Dimadick. Thanks --Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Britannica appears to agree the two cities share the same name, "Ashkelon", therefore a disambiguation is clearly required. I agree with the argument that "Ascalon", while also a widely-known name, only refers to when the city was conquered rather than beforehand. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support either "Ashkelon (ancient city)" or "Ascalon" since they are both historic names for this populated place. Just make clear the difference from the modern location. Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning oppose - It's quite a large disclaimer to say "Ascalon will appear only when referring to the Hellenistic-Roman or Crusader periods." I agree that this is true, but these periods are extremely relevant and important? 320 BC - 1270 AD is 1500 years of history, and some of the most closely chronicled sections (a lot of the Bronze Age period is known largely from pure archaeology, with very few written records). I'm willing to believe nominator that "Ashkelon" might dominate among archaeologists (who are probably including the most ancient periods, yes), but "Ascalon" dominates among historians who read the Greek & Latin histories of the era. I guess Ashkelon certainly isn't wrong and neither title is fully satisfactory, but I'd lean toward the later periods being mildly more relevant myself. SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So what? Is Ashkelon's history from 20,000 BC to 320 BC unimportant? Is it solely an historical entity? It is an urban center from the Early Bronze Age (3000 BC). It is not only an history, it is an actual place, whose modern name is Ashkelon. And as shown, it is known as Ashkelon also when referring to it in Classical and Medieval days. Ascalon is neither the main name of the site, nor the main period of its history. Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just it though: this is an article specifically on the ancient city, and a lot of your presented sources seem to be deferring to or mentioning the modern name. Which is fine and accurate and useful, there is an "actual place whose modern name is Ashkelon", but it's also not on point for how to discuss the title of an article on just the ancient city.
    And, of course the older period is relevant too. However, it seems questionable to lump the pre-Hebrew names under "Ashkelon", and we certainly flat out don't know the names at all pre-1500 BCE. And as the article notes, we have names like "Asqaluni" during the Egyptian period. It's not until the Biblical periods we get Ašqəlôn =? Ashkelon, so that's 800 – 320 BCE or so. That's not nothing, of course, but it makes the comparison a lot more close. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly understand your rationale here. And yet, no one plans to change Athens to Athênai. You must remember that WP:COMMONNAME demands to use ''Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's official name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)... When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.''
    I have shown in the sources that this is the English common name, both for the archaeological-historical context, as well as for navigation to the place. Ascalon is certainly not a common name for the scope of this article, which is the ancient city from prehistoric to early modernity. Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On commonality: Cards on the table, I've mostly read exactly the Hellenistic / Roman / Crusader references. But they all use "Ascalon." And as I already said, these periods are extremely important, maybe the most important set, simply because there's so much more to write about these eras. Bronze Age As(hkelon/calon) is just a pile of relics. I do agree that we should honor the term used in the majority of the sources, which is sometimes the modern name of the city (in defiance of the contemporary name), but your set of sources appears to be a heavily archaeology-dominated set. As mentioned, there is more to the city than just the archaeology of it. SnowFire (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle Bronze Ashkelon gave the site its shape. The Crusader walls are built right on top of the Middle Bronze Age ramparts. It was mentioned in the Execration texts from the 19th century BCE, along three of its rulers. It was dubbed "the largest settlement in southwest Canaan" in MB (Ido Koch (2021), Colonial Encounters in Southwest Canaan during the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age p.14). In the Late Bronze, it was mentioned in the list of cities subdued by Thutmose III and later appears in a list of Canaanite envoys in the days of Amenhotep II, that wraps up the 15th century BCE. During the 14th century BCE, Ashkelon is mentioned a dozen times in diplomatic correspondence between Canaanite cities and Egypt (the Amarna letters). Its ruler's name in that time is doccumented: Yidya. It was a vassal of Egypt that paid tribute, but also blamed for helping Egypt's enemies (letter no. 287). By the time of the 19th dynasty, in the late 13th century BCE, it rebelled against Egypt and was defeated, as mentioned in the Merneptah Stele. In the early 12th century BCE it was taken by the Philistines, something that is clearly doccumented in archaeology. It is mentioned in biblical sources and later in Assyrian sources as one of the principal Philistine cities. In the late 8th and 7th centuries we know about its chronicles under the Assyrian hedgemony. It rebelled at least two times against the Assyrians. In the first time, we know that Ashkelon had controlled territories several dozens kilometers to the north, in the area of modern Tel Aviv, something that is doccumented in Assyrian records. We know the names of six of its kings: Mitinti I, Rukibtu, Sidqa, Šarru-lu-dari, Mitinti II, and 'Aga. Its destruction in 604 by the Babylonians is doccumented in Assyrian records, in biblical legacy and in archaeology. It was resettled by Phoenician in the late 6th century, and was a princiapl port during the Persian period, one that was mentioned in the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax.
    That was without going into much detail of the archaeological research, that was published in 8 books and dozens of articles. Is that enough pre-Hellenistic material to prove that the Hellenistic-Crusader period are not the only notable remains of Ashkelon? Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check your history books closer. Between the 7th and 12th centuries it was an Arab city, Askalan or alike, so there go 5 of your 16 (not 15) centuries.
    You also missed out the entire Iron Age. Philistines, Israelites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians - millions of people and hundreds of historians wake up today and go to bed with those in mind. You're not one of them, and that's perfectly fine, but the city's claim to world glory is strictly connected to the Bible. How many non-biblical Sea People settlements are you aware of? How important was Ascalon to Alexander, Ptolemies & Seleucids, the Roman and Byzantine empires? What is left of the Crusades if you cut out the Cross and the Holy Land?
    Apart from that, a name will never satisfy everyone. Use the Wiki standard procedure, if there is one. Arminden (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The city's most prominent role in history is undoubtedly its pivotal function in the Crusade era, in the Battle of Ascalon and Siege of Ascalon. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since we are talking about the ancient city in a slightly different location rather than the modern place. Ashkelon is the modern Hebrew transliteration I guess, and should be given as a bolded aka in the article. Spanish wiki redirected Ashkelon in 2006, "Uso el nombre tradicional en español, usado en al biblia y otras fuentes en vez del hebreo oficial" which translates as "Use the traditional Spanish name, used in the Bible and other sources instead of the official Hebrew" Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier a. Tel Ashkelon is within the modern Asheklon municipality. B. the common name for the site other than the modern city is still Ashkelon. Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ashkelon is the modern Hebrew transliteration I guess." Wrong guess. Check your Bible. As written above: take out the Bible, and none of us would know of some seaside place somewhere between Egypt and Syria. Arminden (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't do bible but the article says In modern Hebrew it is known as Ashkelon (admittedly uncited). Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The King James Bible uses "Ashkelon" (Judges 14:19), so it's definitely not just an Israeli Hebrew thing. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's used in English translations of the Bible. That's one primary religious text. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the river to the sea... - Tell me how you'd finish this idiotic slogan, and I'll tell you how you'll vote here. Fuck history, l'étendard sanglant est levé, activism to the front. At least be fair. Arminden (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTAFORUM Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arminden: I'm curious. Pray enlighten us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose on many levels. First, this is a proposal to move a naturally disambiguated title to a parenthetically disambiguated occupied base name. This is not only counterintuitive, but flies in the face of WP:NCDAB. The proposal also mispresents the usage of these historical names, including with the suggestion that "Ashkelon" is a more common historial name. It is not. If anything, the name "Ashkelon" barely holds a candle to "Ascalon" across the breadth of historical literature. To state otherwise is fiction. The name "Ashkelon" is derived from eleven mentions in the Hebrew Bible; the name Ascalon is the Latin transliteration from the ancient Greek, and from there is passed into Medieval literature. It is simply false to state that historians use the name "Ashkelon" to refer to the ancient city through non-Biblical periods. William F. Albright's seminal excavations of the site are called The Excavations at Ascalon. Since 2023, scholarly usage of the name includes King Richard I and the walls of Ascalon, Keeping the Hydra in its cave: Viewshed analysis and the Frankish blockade of Fāṭimid Ascalon (1132–1153), Sinai gr. NF Σ3: A Dated Palestinian Manuscript of the Liturgy of Saint James (Ascalon, 1097/8), and plenty more. Any assertion to the contrary is simply misinformed. Secondly, these are not the same subject. Ascalon is the ancient city (hence the proposed parenthetical disambiguation), while Ashkelon is a page about the modern city, which occupied a separate location and is not connected either geographically or historically to the ancient city. As covered in the previous RM, the ancient city was destroyed in AD 1270, and there is zero continuity between that and the modern city, and so no reason to present the former topic as some sort of second fiddle to the latter. Ashkelon is a city that displaced the Palestinian town of al-Majdal and was sequentially known as Migdal Gaza, Migdal Gad and Migdal Ashkelon in open admission of this fact. Later, Biblical Romanticism took hold over naming policy and it was renamed Ashkelon in homage to and as a namesake of the Biblical city. That does not suddenly metamorphize it into being the ancient city, or sharing any connection with it other than in its name. Here's the Oxford reference entry on the topic. Note the lack of conflation between the ancient city and any modern one. Ancient Ashqelon is not modern Ashkelon, or its history. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Q.e.d., with all due respect and in full friendship, because I empathise with almost everyone, but it's the usual suspects taking the fully expected positions.
Including misrepresenting their own arguments: "the name "Ashkelon" barely holds a candle to "Ascalon""? As that very graph shows, since the 1970s the exact opposite is true, and we tend to prefer recent schloarship over that of past centuries.
Again, I really don't care, but everyone should take a look in the mirror and admit the obvious. I am editorialising? Don't make me laugh. 90% of the posts on I/P are pure activism in action, mostly poorly hidden under a pretense of objectivism. Get real. From the river to the sea, BS is winning the day. Each & every single day. Arminden (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
90% of the posts on I/P are pure activism in action, mostly poorly hidden under a pretense of objectivism Excluding your own, of course. Selfstudier (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so since the 1970s, the mentions of modern city of Ashkelon have drawn level with mentions of ancient Ascalon. This is normal. Modern cities have lots of generic mentions in geography books etc. Normally these numbers are many times greater than any mentions of ancient cities. This does not provide an indication of how many mentions of Ashkelon pertain to any historical topic, but we can assume that most of the mentions pertain to the modern city and that only a minority pertain to historical topics. However, despite the numbers being hugely swollen by modern geographical mentions, the name Ashkelon still barely ekes out a lead against mentions of ancient Ascalon. This shows the huge pedigree of the Ascalon and its considerable significance as a topic – entirely independent of modern Ashkelon. So why, on any level, should the prodigious historical topic of ancient Ascalon be somehow considered subordinate, as if its a footnote, to the largely geographical topic of modern Ashkelon, rather than occupying the base name for which it is clearly the uncontested primary topic? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar let me reply to you based on your arguments.
1) As for the WP:NCDAB, this is clearly a technical, miniscule issue. What matters is WP:COMMONNAME.
2) The fact you brought up google results doesn't matter, becuase we don't know what does these sources refer to. There are plenty of other topics under the name Ascalon, such as place and people's names. This goes the other way around, we don't know whether these sources refer to the biblical name or to the modern city. This analysis is too broad and no conclusion can be drawn from it. I have provided a long list of reliable, academic works which all use the name Ashkelon, including the principal research projects that studied Ashkelon in the last decades. From that I have said that Ashkelon is the conventionally accepted name for this site in its entirety. I will be happy to provide more examples.
You have completely ignored all the sources I have provided, and brought your own. That is a clear confirmation bias. Bolter21 (talk to me) 21:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and brought your own What's wrong with that? Why is that confirmation bias? Or is it just when they do it? Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you have only ignored the entire, vast literature on the medieval history of Ascalon in favour of some papers on pot shards. The city is famous and has two historic battles notable enough to have their own pages named after it. To suggest that "Ascalon" is not a topic is ludicrous, and if it is a topic, what is it, if not this ancient city? These are questions that do not appear to have been asked before this RM was begun. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to decide whether potsherds are important or not, and for what the city is famous for? This is clearly WP:OR. Is that a real argument? I have said that Ashkelon is used in scholarly work to describe the site in all periods, while Ascalon is used only for Hellenistic-Crusader periods. You have responded by providing more sources that refer specifically to these periods. Hence why a confirmation bias. Your argument is clearly refuted, and instead of addressing that issue, you continue to look for more of the same evidence that supports your claim, completely ignoring the evidence that contrasts it, especially that which according to WP:COMMONNAME is the proper one. I have added another, broader list of sources. You cannot discard them because you don't like their field of study (being archaeology). Ashkelon is an archaeological site, most of the information about it actually comes from archaeological investigations. Hence why when you look up JSTOR and Google Scholar, Ascalon will mostly refer to historical material, while Ashkelon will refer to both historical and archaeological material. Add to that the fact that when you want to visit the ruins of Ascalon, you literally type Ashkelon in Waze, and there is an official name for it, that is known to tourist, and it is pretty clear this place should be called Ashkelon aka Ascalon, and not the other way around. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page isn't about the archeological site, but the ancient city, and the ancient city is covered in far greater depth in historical records than it is by archaeological evidence. There are writings from people who lived in Ascalon, like Eutocius of Ascalon and Antiochus of Ascalon; a famous communication, the Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon; and the County of Jaffa and Ascalon was a major crusader polity. You are overlooking a vast historical context that has worked its way into the titles of at least half a dozen other historical pages. By contrast, can you name a single other historical topic related to the ancient city with a page title featuring "Ashkelon"? Iskandar323 (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn't about the archaeological site but the ancient city? Do you realize how absurd that sounds? These are virtually synonymous! At your request, it was hard finding any source that is strictly historical. For example, you yourself have provided some sources. I have no access to King Richard I and the walls of Ascalon but clearly it touches a topic that has been studies archaeologically? I have some selfies with the crusader walls I'll be happy to share with you. Do you think they are irrelevant? The study of the walls mentioned in the sources? As for Keeping the Hydra in its cave: Viewshed analysis and the Frankish blockade of Fāṭimid Ascalon (1132–1153) this is clearly an archaeological subject. A viewshed analysis is available only through the actual site. As for Sinai gr. NF Σ3: A Dated Palestinian Manuscript of the Liturgy of Saint James (Ascalon, 1097/8), that is indeed a purely historical matter, as far as I am concerned.
This logic is false. This article deals with an ancient city, that is today found at an archaeological site. Everything related to it, whether it was studied through historical investigation of written records, or whether it was studied through archaeological investigations, is relevent. In truth, today you can hardly find many studies that don't mix them both. Almost all of the "archaeological" articles deal with historical questions. Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is archaeological evidence blended into the study of all periods. I perhaps should have clarified what I had thought would be obvious, which is the distinction between purely archaeological content, i.e. excavations focused on the metal ages, and the classical period onwards, where historical literature informs the understanding of the topic each and every step of the way, and can often even stand alone. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems like the common name as shown by Arminden PeleYoetz (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a policy-based response. If it were the common name for the topic (which Arminden in any case in no way demonstrated) then this page would move to the base name and displace the modern city. Even if the argument were that the modern and ancient city compete equally for the base name, that would require the modern city to also be disambiguated. This does not appear to be the thrust of the proposal, which instead seeks to take the title from a naturally disambiguated term (for which it is the clear primary topic) to a parenthetically disambiguated term, against the advice of WP:NCDAB (as well as WP: CONCISE, from which the natural disambiguation preference of NCDAB is presumably derived). Iskandar323 (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sources that use the name Ashkelon when referring to the ancient site. It is important to note: no one disputes Ascalon being used to describe this place in Hellenistic-Crusader times. And yet, in all periods, it is always referred to as Ashkelon. Here are a few examples:
Middle Brozne and Late Bronze Ages (~2000-1200 BC)
‌Iron Age (~1200-530 BC)
Persian period (530-330 BCE)
Hellenistic period (330-63 BC)
Roman period (63 BC - 330 AD)
Byzantine period (330 - 641 AD )
Early Islamic period (641-1099 AD)
Crusader period (1099-1230 AD)
  • In the chapter "Crusader Coastal Fortifications: Preventing Longshore Raids in the Shallows, While Keeping the Sea Approach Open and Safe" in The Art of Siege Warfare and Military Architecture from the Classical World to the Middle Ages, edited by Michael Eisenberg, and Rabei Khamisy, Oxbow Books, Limited, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/tau/detail.action?docID=6424378. It starts with: The First Crusade (1096– 1099 CE) arrived at the Holy Land by land. After a century, the great majority of the Crusading forces, as well as pilgrims and commercial traffic, were seaborne (Mollat 1967; Prawer 1970). During the First Crusade, coastal towns were avoided. The main Crusading force went directly to conquer Jerusalem, and the coastal towns, supported by the Fatimid navy, yielded later and only after prolonged sieges. Ashkelon, a major port city on the Egyptian border, fell to the Crusaders only in 1153 (Lev 1984; Hamblin 1986).
Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you've demonstrated that there are a bunch of iron age and bronze age period references and that you were able to cherrypick a couple of sources each from other eras. I'm not sure what that is meant to demonstrate. Obviously it was called Ascalon in the Hellenistic period and there are literally endless scholarly sources mentioning Ascalon in the Hellenistic period. Cherrypicking a handful of sources that use your preferred name from each period and suggesting that that means it is always called that is just ludicrously fallacious logic. The above is obviously no kind of proper, objective source analysis, and I'm not sure it tells us anything. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Iskandar. I have said at the top of that list, and I will say it again. Ashkelon is always used to refer to all periods. Ascalon is only used when referring to Hellenistic-Crusader times. I have never tried to say that Ascalon is not used. I have said a dozen times by now, it is used only for a specific scope and time range - history of the Hellenistic-Crusader periods. Ashkelon on the other hand encompasses both the archaeological and historical matters, and touches all periods. The list shows that scholars do not refrain from using Ashkelon to describe this place, even though it was actually called Ascalon. Believe me that I am not offended by the name Ascalon because I am Israeli or anything like that. But it s simply not the adequate common name here. And I don't get all this hate for archaeology. I don't know if you have ever been to Tel Ashkelon. I have been there over a dozen times (it's a nice place, I really suggest seeing it). Some of the most monumental findings there is the Canaanite gate. I really suggest you go visit. If you ever come visit Israel, I will be happy to take you on tour to see some sites and museums. Gas on me, you would be kind to buy me a sabich.
Do you have any recent scholarly sources that refer to the history of the site prior to Hellenistic/Persian periods (i.e. over 2500 years of history - when it was a Canaanite and later Philistine kingdom) that uses Ascalon? Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may be talking at cross purposes. Principally, I don't think the argument that you are presenting -- that simply having sources using the name to refer to a variety of periods -- means much. That's fine, but it doesn't establish weight for the name. The weight for the name Ascalon is provided by it being far more famous, having huge corollary usage and being the far bigger name in actual recorded history. You dismiss the relevance of the history, and of the city being referred to as Ascalon in historical recollections from Hellenistic times through to the Crusader period. Historical sources, in discussing the subject in these periods -- so the vast bulk of the recorded history of Ascalon -- refer to it by this name. To term the historical city differently would be too bastardize the historical accounts. Now if someone wants to create an article purely about archaeological excavations at the site then I'm sure there would be a case for calling it something to do with "Tel Ashkelon", simply because that it what it has been dubbed in modern Israel, which is the context in which most archaeological research has been performed. But on a page discussing the actual history of the ancient city, there's far less contest in usage. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 you are again making this false statement, that archaeology and history are two separate universes. You can't and shouldn't separate Ashkelon's history from its archaeology. This is absurd. That's like going to the doctor but refusing a physical check, insisting he will diagnose you base on the opinions of your family members. That the article is lacking in earlier periods does not mean that it had no history in earlier periods. I am willing to wager that most of the people who know Ashkelon know it not because it is one of the thousands of ports in the classical Mediterranean, nor because it was a site of the crusaders who lasted less a handful of centuries. It is mostly known because of its Biblical connection. I am also willing to wager that most people who know it otherwise know it because they visit Israel, and not because they are classical or medieval history nerds (I am an archaeology nerd so apparently the joke's on me). Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Different subdisciplines have different names for the same thing all the time. Table salt and Sodium chloride are the exact same thing. Nobody is making a wide-ranging "history and archaeology are totally separate" claim, but this does appear to be a case where we unhappily do in fact have different names in different disciplines for the same thing. I think you've sold me that "Ashkelon" is used by archaeologists (fair enough, nobody is sure of the contemporary name of the oldest eras anyway, so why not use the modern name), but would it help if we added like 20 links to historical accounts mentioning "Ascalon"? 200 links? SnowFire (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure even that's correct. There are just as plentiful archaeological papers under the alt spelling of "Ashqelon". It's really alt names galore. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, cross purposes. And I think you wager poorly. Most people, including most Christians I know, will unlikely to have ever made their way to the bits of the Bible where cities like Ashqelon (correct academic transliteration I believe) are mentioned, or will have forgotten the sermon. However, anyone who has read about medieval history for any length of time at all will have very rapidly come across the name Ascalon. The sieges of it turned the tides of war. And that is neglecting everyone who has read about the history of Greco-Roman Palestine. I believe there's even a rumour about Herod's family coming from Ascalon, though I believe it's been dismissed as hearsay versus the Idumean origin theory. Iskandar323 (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ashkelon is famously mentioned in the song of David mourning Saul and Johnathan. It is also one of the pentapolis, the main Philistine cities. The Bronze and Iron Ages include a very broad history, a period in which Ashkelon was a capital of a kingdom. Either way, none of us can or should claim which period of Ashkelon is more important, which I have never intended to. It is impossible to avoid the problem of Ascalon only referring to only a portion of the site's history with the opinion that that particular portion is more important or popular. All of Ashkelon's periods are more important. The scope of the article is clearly both the history and archaeology of Ashkelon from prehistoric times to medieval days. We can't decide that the scope of this article is only from the Hellenistic. Its the same place. We shouldn't divide Ashkelon into articles over different periods. Anyway, as long as the scope remains on all of its history and archaeology, it cannot be said that Ascalon fits the scope, while Ashkelon certainly does, with plenty of recent academic evidence to support that. Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just make another article for Ashkelon, there are enough differences to justify that and put a hatnote on each referring to the other. Selfstudier (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why have two articles? All Encyclopedic articles show Ashkelon from prehistory/antiquity to medieval times, why should Wikipedia be different? This is the same site, the same place, even the same name (with a slightly different way to pronounce it). Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, this RM is not going to get a consensus. Selfstudier (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a competition you know... There is an issue, we cannot refrain from resolving it by saying "Up to you, this RM is not going to get a consensus". If there was a consensus towards MOVE, would you've commented differently?
Right now the article deals with history and archaeology of Ashkelon from prehistoric to medieval times. I have started this RM becuase I am in a process of expanding it. All the sources I use refer to Ashkelon. It only make sense that this article will take that name, based on the vast array of sources that use that name for all periods, while Ascalon is only being used in some contexts. Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean is that you are editing it to fit your POV as expressed in this RM, old trick. Selfstudier (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the Iron Age and archaeology was there in the first place. See the version from before I started editting this article. As you can see, it had Iron Age, Bronze Age, Neolithic and Archaeological research. Don't make false accusations. There is no trick and I did not change the scope of the article. There is nothing bad or wrong with expanding the sections about this place. Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As per consistentcy with Siege of Ascalon and Battle of Ascalon. This is more than a consistentcy argument, though. If it was a common name it should be possible to demonstrate it first for those major events. Ngrams results are not conclusive but make a similar point. "Ascalon" only refers to ancient city, whereas "Ashkelon" can refer to the ancient city and the present one. The fact that Ascalon is nearly as common, and assuming a significant amount of references to the present city, would indicate Ascalon is much more preferable name in English.VR (Please ping on reply) 03:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous RM. Nothing has changed. Still the common name and the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looks like Ashkelon is the common name, and if it wasn't and the two names were as common, this is a Semitic city, in a Semitic speaking area, Iit would be preferable to use the Semitic name. EliasAntonakos (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This "looks like" is based on what is a widespread miscomprehension in this discussion as to what a common name looks like, while none of the rest of this has anything to do with naming policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In addition to all occurrences of Ashkelon in modern academic literature, supplied by @Bolter21 and @Arminden, the name Ashkelon also consistently appears in historical sources from the biblical period, through the Roman, Byzantine and the beginning of the Crusader periods. For example, see the following list of manuscripts (I omitted the biblical sources since they appear to be known, I also brought only one example from each corpus so as not to be tedious. All the dates are taken from the Historical Dictionary Project, by the Academy of the Hebrew Language):
0-50 CE: 4Q522 frg. 9 col. 1 line 9 (Dead Sea Scrolls)
200-250 CE: Budapest, Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, MS. Kaufmann, A 50 (Mishnah Ta'anith 3:1)
Before 300 CE: Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica ebr., 32: 2 (3rd hand). 51 (Sifrei Deuteronomy)
Before 300 CE: Wien, Oesterreichische Nationalbibliothek, 46. 6:3 (Tosefta Miqwaoth 6:3)
Before 300 CE: St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, Antonin B, 236. (Mekhilta DeRabbi Shimon Bar Yohai 12:16)
Before 300 CE: St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, Evr. II, Heb.-Ar. I, 1685 (Sifrei Zuta Deuteronomy 1:7 p. 165)
400-450 CE: Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Scaliger, 36:1 (Jerusalem Talmud, Shevi'ith 6:1)
400-600 CE: Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica ebr., 111. 1:7 (Babylonian Talmud Qiddushin 31a)
Before 600 CE: Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica ebr., 76 (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 7:2a)
500-700 CE: Rechov inscription
Before 800 CE: Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 222 (Book of Elijah p. 66)
900-1100 CE: Paris, Alliance Israelite Universelle, IVA, 209 (Lament over the troubles of the Jewish communities in the Land of Israel)
1020? CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, NS, J, 15 p. 200 (Letter to Alexandria)
1025 CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, 13J 19, 15 (Letter from the Jewish community of Ashkelon to the Jewish community of Fustat)
Before 1050 CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, NS, 275, 80 (Lament for 9th of Av)
Before 1050 CE: Oxford, Bodleian Library, d.11 (2797) (Judith ch. 4)
1000-1100 CE: Leiden, Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit, Warner, 22. (Karaite literature)
Circa 1060 CE: Budapest, Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, MS. Kaufmann, Geniza, 170, a-b (Letter)
1070? CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, 13J 27, 3 p. 328 (Letter from Jerusalem to Ashkelon)
1082 CE: Cambridge, University Library, Or. 1080J, 89 p. 552 (Letter to Fustat)
Circa 1085 CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, 20, 106 p. 362 (Letter)
After 1094 CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, 10K 7, 1 p. 398 (The book of Eviatar)
Circa 1098 CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, 13J 16, 18 p. 429 (Letter)
1099 CE: Cambridge, University Library, T-S Collection, AS, 146, 3… p. 434 (Letter from Fustat to the Jewish community of Ashkelon)
The above list is clear evidence for the continuous use of the term Ashkelon for the ancient city, through the 11th century. Furthermore, it is evidence against the claim of @Selfstudier, that the ancient city was "in a slightly different location", since we can clearly see that many centuries before the modern city existed, the ancient city was called Ashkelon. The sources are in Hebrew, though certainly not modern, and they are certainly not less reasonable than sources in Greek or Latin. @Iskandar323 performed a google search on studies that mention Ascalon since 2023, a search that yielded an impressive 816 results, but did not mention that an identical search for the name Ashkelon yields an even more impressive 1850 results, more than twice that of Ascalon. He also mentions that "we can assume that most of the mentions pertain to the modern city and that only a minority pertain to historical topics." I beg to differ. Please provide evidence. Besides this, a search on google scholar provides quite a bit of "noise". I recommend searching Jstor, which draws from a pool of reliable academic sources. Searchig for "Ascalon" in the fields of Archaeology and History for 2023 offers 14 results, half of which are republications of material from the 1920s. An Identical search for "Ashkelon" yeilds 17 results, all from 2023. Regarding the vast literature on medieval Ascalon, I dare say that as per the sample provided above, there is also vast ancient literature using the term Ashkelon throughout the Roman, Byzantine, Muslim (or if it is preferred, Medieval) and the beginning of the crusader periods at least, serving as a testimony for its commonality. I am not acquainted with the Christians mentioned by @Iskandar323, but it would be most odd if they were "unlikely to have ever made their way to the bits of the Bible where cities like Ashqelon are mentioned", since the first appearances are front and center in the books of Judges and Samuel, not obscure, forgotten or ignored books in the least. Finally, @Iskandar323, you argue that "the city's most prominent role in history is undoubtedly its pivotal function in the Crusade era", this is your own opinion, but it is a highly questionable one and does not reflect consensus. Uppagus (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Ashqelon (ancient Semitic) gave Asqalanu/Asqaluna/Asqalun in Egyptian, Askálōn in Ancient Greek,  'Asqalān in Arabic and Ascalon in medieval Latin. I guess Romans already modified Greek Askalon to Ascalon. It is called Tel Ashkelon in modern Israel.

Which are the most significant periods and most widely known sources? You decide between HB/OT and history of the Crusades in terms of worldwide popularity. The other sources are only relevant for people deeply interested in history & archaeology.

N.B.: re. use throughout history and (more relevant, and clearly distinct) use in scholarly literature:

Ascalon, especially written in Latin alphabet and with a C, was NOT used, as wrongly repeated again and again, from Alexander till the Crusades, but probably for a while under the Romans (once Latin partly took over from Greek, so late in the Roman period, and before Byzantine Greek replaced again Latin as the official language; the populace never took to Latin), and again during the two Crusading centuries. Very, very far indeed from the alleged 16 centuries.

Use in scholarly literature: decide what counts more, Early Modern to mid-20th c., or the contemporary use.

These are, I believe, the relevant facts in a nutshell. Arminden (talk) 09:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one said otherwise re: scholarly usage. That's why in my first comment I provided some of the many examples of academic publishing on the specific topic of Ascalon since 2023. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though as William Albright noted in "Excavations of Ascalon", the name being challenged here is a timeless one: Ascalon is a name to conjure with. Few cities in the Old World had a more romantic history than this, from the time when its fleets according to Greek tradition, held the thalassocracy of the eastern Mediterranean to its romantic destruction by its own suzerain, Saladin, who thus avoided its impending capture by the Lion Heart. "Wallah," he is reported to have said, "I would rather see my children perish than lose Ascalon!" Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, let's not lose Ascalon! Arminden (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support mainly because the current title is confusing, and seems to be aimed at disconnecting ancient Ashkelon from modern Ashkelon. For the vast majority of cities (especially relatively small ones), we normally have just one article for the city, from antiquity to modern times. Ideally I think the two should be merged, but having the same name is the second best option. —Ynhockey (Talk) 18:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check out City of David. Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they are disconnected? Ancient Asqaluna/Ashqelon/Ascalon is no more the same thing as modern Ashkelon than Jaffa is Tel Aviv. An ancient site being abutted by a sprawling contemporary conurbation does not suddenly make the two things synonymous. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I concour with you on that matter, that is our opinion. The municipality of Ashkelon claims Tel Ashkelon, which is within its municipal boundaries, as part of its history. Unless you have some sources that strictly say that Ashkelon should be completely detached from Ancient Ashkelon, that is just your opinion. Still that is irrelevent for this discussion, and as far as I am concerned, the split between modern and ancient sites is good since these two have differing scopes. Bolter21 (talk to me) 19:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that they are physically detached, by an earthen rampart. This isn't a page on the municipality of Ashkelon; it's a page on the ancient city, which extended no further and no less than it's very distinctive walls. This is also a confusion that you're extending into the archaeology section – placing off-topic findings from other archaeological sites in what is now the modern metropolitan area of the Israeli city into this page about an ancient city whose geographical delineation couldn't be more explicit. If you want to write the page about archaeological findings at Afridar, please do, but don't just conflate topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Manhathen is physically detached from the rest of New York. And again, I've added only what's included in the RS that overview the history of Ashkelon, in all periods. Ashkelon grew out of a series of settlements along the kurkar ridges of modern Ashkelon. This is doccumented in the Ashkelon 5 report. Maybe you should open an article about the Crusader period settlement, to mentioned in a larger article concerning the entire history of the site. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: none of the support comments have explained why the Hellenistic term Ascalon (Ἀσκάλων), which prevailed for more than 2,000 years, should be replaced by the modern Israeli orthography based on very limited usage in Biblical and Talmudic literature. As discussed above, the name is used only eleven times in the entire bible (Jud 1:18, 14:19; 1 Sam 6:17; 2 Sam 1:20; Jer 25:20, 47:5,7; Amos 1:8; Zeph 2:4,7; Zech 9:5); i.e. it was not a major biblical location. Its notability was by far the greatest from the classical period to the medieval period, where Ascalon was the name used. It was even the term used in some bibles, like the Douay–Rheims. All of this is summed up by Ngrams, which shows that historically Ascalon was far more common, and even today, Ascalon is used almost as frequently as Ashkelon, despite the latter name also referring to the modern city. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Onceinawhile, I am happy to hear from you. I do not think that any of my comments explained why the Hellenistic term should be replaced. What I was saying all the time is that this is what academic sources use. Yesterday, I have expanded upon the history of Philistine Ashkelon. While the site was known in Akkadian by some title as as Ashqalunia, it is consistently referred by scholars as Ashkelon, for convenience. The name Ashkelon is probably historically inappropriate, and that's fine - It happens a lot. There is a scholarly convention, that has nothing to do with politics, that chosen Ashkelon as the title that refers to all of Ashkelon's history, from prehistory to modern times. I would like you to replay to the following issues:
    1. Ngrams are irrelevent, because we don't know exactly to what exactly they refer. It is better to use what all sources that touch spesifically the history and archaeology of Ashkelon.
    2. Ascalon and Ashkelon are virtually the same name, it is confusing and inconvenient. This must be addressed somehow.
    3. Ashkelon is the official name of the park, where tourists visit it, regardless of what period they are seeking. The picture on the top of the article is from the park and clearly the archaeological site is inseparable from the history of Ashkelon.
    4. We live in 2024, and in this case, it is most relevant what is most used in 2024. While Ascalon is indeed used to refer to the Classical-Medieval times, Ashkelon is used for both, and for the site itself. Here is a nice example. It was the name preferred by the already nine monographs published by the Leon Levy Expedition, which also covered Classical and Medieval periods.
    5. That Ashkelon was most important in Medieval is purely an opinion and whether true or not, isn't a factor.
    6. The article can be named Ashkelon (ancient city), and the bits that touch the classical periods will refer to it as Ascalon. This name is not to be whitewashed at all. But the title and link. will have Ashkelon with brackets, to comply with RS dealing with the whole of this place's history, the modern park and for convenience.
    Bolter21 (talk to me) 07:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, the ngrams don't suit the POV so should be ignored. Way to go. And the other argumentation is specious as well, it is confusing? Why am I not confused? So Israel made a park? They make parks in lots of places usually for the purpose of aligning a POV with a place. 2024 is Ashkelon, no-one is disputing that strawman. Ascalon importance is an opinion, lol. How about we rename Ashkelon to Ashkelon (modern city). Duh. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ngrams don't "suit the POV" of yours either. They show Ashkelon preveiling over Ascalon in the last century. Despite that, I don't think they are relevant, because there is a vast array of sources using Ashkelon for all periods while Ascalon is only used for certain periods. there's another long list.
    Israel made a park, yes. It is a site in Israel within an Israeli city, it is operated by Israelis and visited every week by Israelis. I happen to be an Israeli and I visited there myself. Any sign there says "Ashkelon". Blaming the state Israel for "POV" is weird and irrelevant. The discussion centers around the fact Ashkelon fits the criteria for COMMONNAME.
    I did not say that Ascalon was not important. It is extremely important as any other period in the site. The name should be kept, in the lead section, in the sections relevant to the relevant periods and in wikilinks. All I am saying is that Ashkelon is a name that is used today in scholarly and official works to encompass the entire history of the site, from prehistory to modern excavations, while Ascalon is only used for spesific periods. There is no work on the entire history of the site that uses Ascalon. There are hundreds of sources using Ashkelon for Prehistory, Bronze Age, Philistine, Phoenician, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic, Crusader and later periods. Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how the Ngrams is still getting misinterpreted. Historically, Ascalon dominates Ashkelon as a name. In recent usage, at face value, these names then have roughly equal usage, indicating that "Ascalon" remains a modern term as strong as "Ashkelon". Recent usage has been further complicated by the establishment of modern Ashkelon, which has split usage of that base name. It is worth noting that this usage has been split twice: both in modern geographical usage and in archaeological usage. The latter is due to the sudden use in archaeological literature of the name Ashkelon to refer to finds within the area of the modern metropolitan city, not the very distinct boundaries of historic Ascalon. This means that usage of Ashkelon is split three ways: referring to the modern city, sometimes to the ancient city, and with muddled usage in the context of archaeology. With the term Ascalon, there is very little split in usage: there is a very obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which is the ancient city. Procedurally, the RM here then seeks to move a page from a title for which it is the clear and unambiguous primary topic, as well as a title at which it is naturally disambiguated from anything else, to a base name that is ambiguous, for which it is not the primary topic, and which requires it to be parenthetically disambiguated – so adding no precision, but generating ambiguity, which must then be corrected, making the page title cumbersome and unconcise in the process. Thematically, it seeks to move a page away from a name that visibly rings out in the history of English literature and in English language history works. It is for this reason that there are so many associated topics with titles using the same name. Again, for the record, we have: Battle of Ascalon, Siege of Ascalon, County of Jaffa and Ascalon, Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon, Antiochus of Ascalon, Eutocius of Ascalon and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani. We have scallion and shallot named after the Latin Ascalōnia caepa or Ascalonian onion, and we even have a German song, Im schwarzen Walfisch zu Askalon that's prominent enough to pop up on en.wiki. Don't even get me started on German usage. Against that we have an English transliteration of the Hebrew that has comparatively diminutive literary penetration. Where are the wiki pages on topics related to the ancient city using the proposed base name and alt name? The entry on the Ashkelon dog cemetery just about qualifies, in relation to obscure practices in the pre-Hellenistic period, but ... is that the fantastical weight that is being asserted? Even the Israeli Exploration Journal was calling it Ascalon in the Persian period as late as 1970. The "nice example" above of a source using the Biblical name for all historical periods is from the Biblical Archaeology Society, so a pretty poor source for NPOV readings. Ascalon is a piece of global history; at one point it was at the heart of global history amid the Crusades, and it's name and fame have passed into literary and historical legend. The modern transliterated nomenclature used in Israel today has no such pedigree in English language sources, and that is precisely what the Ngrams shows, and what should be obvious to all but the most determined not to see it. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Ngrams are interpreted by you, but you don't have any data as to how exactly are they used and what they refer to. You are just showing the provenence of Ashkelon and Ascalon in all contextx. The Biblical Archaeology Society is not POV. Ashkelon was a city in biblical times, and its Greek name is based on its previous semitic name. Yes indeed Ascalon got world fame, but we live in 2024, and now it is part of the modern city called Ashkelon, and there's a park there for tourists called Askelon. If you visit the site and want to search its name in Wikipedia, you will look at the signs and see "Ashkelon". There's an expedition that studies it for almost 50 years now and they have published hundreds of works calling it Ashkelon. Today the history of Ashkelon is much better understood, with many episodes that were probably unknown in the medieval days. Ascalon, refers only to the periods during which it was known by that way, but scholars cotninue to use Ashkelon, even when addressing times during which it was known as Ascalon. Either way, THAT IS LITERALLY THE SAME NAME. And It would be better to have Ashkleon and Ashkelon (ancient city) rather than Ashkelon and Ascalon. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're repeating yourself now. Ashkelon National Park has its own page, and is the place to add touristic details. This is a history page, and is the last sort of page that should bow to recentism. Yes, it's literally the same name, which is why we are using modern Hebrew transliteration for the modern Hebrew city, and the common name in English, based on English literary history and historical works for the historical topic on en.wiki. Iskandar323 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iskandar323 Other than the ambiguous Ngrams, no one have shown that Ascalon is the common name for the site. It is the name used for the Classcial and Medival periods, but Ashkelon is used for all them. You are speaking on the false premise that the scope of the article is only the post Hellenistic periods, but in truth this article began as Tel Ashkelon. And it is still containing information about all historical periods in Ashkelon. Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I said: "common name in English, based on English literary history and historical works". The literary history of Ascalon is centuries deep, and contrasts with the relatively thin veneer of archaeological writings by Biblical archaeologists and the like. In any case, I do not need to prove a common name, since the page already sits at an unambiguous term for which it is the primary topic. You, on the other hand, would need to somehow prove that the split usage of the ambiguous base name that you prefer, for which the subject here is not the clear primary topic, is somehow still the common name here – to the extent that the natural disambiguation should be overridden in defiance of WP:NCDAB. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourecs I have shown prove it is not the common name in English. This article mostly refers to source from the last decades. It doesn't matter what was common in the 1800s. Most sources today, and especially reliable sources that refer spesifically to Ashkelon's history use Ashkelon. The site has a broad history, and Ascalon is only used for part of it. The works of "biblical archaeologists" is not thin at all, and the "biblical periods" are as important as all other periods. I am not sure how unambiguous Ascalon is, given the name that it is as rarely as never used to describe periods earlier than Hellenistic, and isn't used to describe the site identified with it. But since Ashkelon is ambiguous too, given that there is a modern city by that name as well, and that these would better be split into two scopes, the use of Parenthetical disambiguation is better, Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So it sounds like you can't demonstrate that the proposed base name is the common name, and your don't have any other policy-based reason to move away from the natural disambiguation or break consistency with other titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, as well as why we should make the title inconsistent with the half a dozen other articles from the same period that refer to the same name. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tel Ashkelon is in the municipality of Ashkelon. Ovedc (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Modern municipal border is irrelevant here. Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Insofar as the Middle Ages settlement was indeed named Ascalon, I do see the majority of scholarly sources do not use the spelling as an umbrella term for all pre-Nakba stages of the ancient city. Sinclairian (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have Ashkelon (disambiguation) that lists Ashkelon and Ascalon (because people might be looking for either)
    and Ascalon (disambiguation) that only lists Ascalon (the assumption being that anyone looking for Ascalon is in fact probably looking for that and not for Ashkelon)
    I fail to see how renaming Ascalon as Ashkelon (ancient city) is going to help people looking for Ascalon, of which there are quite a few Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you really see how Ashkelon-Ascalon are less distinguishable than Ashkelon-Ashkelon (ancient city)?
    By the way, that's again a misuse of meta-analysis. The pageview analysis does not show you how people reach the article, but just how many views the pages has received. This article is linked to over 600 pages on Wikipedia, including Ancient Near Eastern, Classical and Medieval periods. It definitely appears in the lead section of Ashkelon, which may be a source for much of its traffic. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's not. See Wikinav. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Building on that, incidentally, bugger all people arriving at Ascalon are looking for Ashkelon, and the flow of traffic in the opposite direction is similarly impoverished, so quite clearly the current title and distinction is precise, natural, recognisable, and working exceptionally well. It is also consistent with the half a dozen or so other articles relating to the history of the city that contain the name "Ascalon" in their title and relate to the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and oh course more concise than the proposed title – so that's in fact all five of the WP:CRITERIA satisfied. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the different between one word to three words. It says "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Ashkelon (ancient city) isn't longer than neccessary. Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But Ascalon does it better and a hatnote will distinguish it, to the extent that it even needs distinguishing. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shows that 38% comes from searches, 12% from bots (if I read [2] correct) and 44% from articles, of whom the most popular are Ashkelon, Philistia and Merneptah stele. Some of the others include many Crusader topics, the onions, other Ancient Near Eastern topics and the archaeology. I don't think that proves your point. Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it does. You might as well shut this down now. Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why so aggressive? Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aggressive? I'm sure I could do better than that if I really tried. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure you can. I am not going to take this down, not now and not later. it seems that there are as many Support as Oppose comments. While is seems likely that a consensus will not be reached, it isn't as if either stance has achieved a decisive victory. There is a core disagreement and thanks to Iskandar323 we are getting to the bottom of it. I sure as hell learned a lot about Ashkelon from that discussion. It was and is still fruitful. In the meantime, I am expanding the article, adding information to sections that were mostly there already. Maybe we will discover an alternative solution if no consensus will be reached.
    I don't view it as a wrestling match, where someone who suffers some objections should surrender or "shut this down now". Your comments have some sense and I believe mine have some too, and we will eventually have to find a framework to agree upon.
    Ashkelon is a really cool site. It deserves some more care. Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no opinion on this particular proposal but I wanted to highlight that it involves two recurring issues in our coverage of the history and archaeology of the Southern Levant: whether to have separate articles on the prehistoric, historic (esp. biblical) and contemporary aspects of a particular place, and by extension where to draw the dividing lines; and whether to use historic or contemporary names. At the moment I think we're very inconsistent on both scores, which makes it really hard for readers to get a coherent overview of the history of a place (unless they happen to already know its name in biblical Hebrew, ancient Greek, Latin, Classical Arabic, Old French, contemporary Arabic, and contemporary Hebrew to search for). I know we'll never get complete consistency and things have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but some general guidance on naming conventions in this area, that help less involved editors navigate the obvious POV issues, could be really helpful. – Joe (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.
    I believe my following comment won't change anything.
    I have used the logic of using what the most scholarly sources are using and especially those relevant to the scope of the article. What I found out is that While Ascalon is very common because of its Crusader history, Ashkelon is the most prominent name when referring to all periods, historically and archaeologically, including those periods during which it was called Ascalon. Ascalon, while popular in quantity, is used only when referring to certain periods.
    I see no reason to draw this into POV battle. But for some reason it seems that the Hebrew name, because of its association with modern Israel, offends some people. For over a dozen years this article appeared under "Ashkelon" and was later moved to "Tel Ashkelon". The move to Ascalon was accepted in a short and discrete discussion, closed after mere 8 days, partly on the false premise that the Crusader history is apparently the most important and thus the primary topic, despite the article never being structured that way. Several times it was claimed by those who oppose restoring Ashkelon, that they reject the name because it is chosen by Israelis or Biblical scholars, and they believe it is a POV. But it isn't, there is no I/P dispute over this name outside this talkpage. Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ashkelon region in the 1950s
    Two quick comments:
    • I would very much like to see a Category:Wikipedia naming conventions guideline applicable to Palestine/Israel locations. We have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places in Bangladesh), so we can have one for ARBPIA locations too.
    • I don't think the statement "offends some people" is correct. The logic in my mind has nothing to do with politics. It is simply that modern Askhelon is not historical [Ashkelon/Ascalon] (see diagram on the right), and the 1950s government decision to rename al-Majdal to Ashkelon has created a toponymic mess. Our job is to ensure that the arrangements of our articles mitigate the ensuing risk of confusion.
    The map on the right also highlights one important point. The ruins of the city have been sitting there in statis for 800 years, since the destruction of Ascalon in 1270. Those visible ruins are Ascalon, the crusader city. Sure there has been excavation to lower levels in modern times, but for the best part of a millennium it has been the crusader city of Ascalon (its Greek name, used by the Crusaders) that has graced the coastline. Similarly, Josephus explains that Greeks used the term Petra for the city previously called Rekem by the Nabateans - but for 1,000 years after its depopulation people called it by the last name it had. Greek was the primary official and literary language in the region for much longer than Hebrew, so this tension between Hellenic and Hebraized nomenclature is natural.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are absolutely right in describing the recent history. But I do not think it is so relevant. I was listing what reliable and relevant sources use. If a name was changed some 75 years ago, and since became the common English name for the topic, that's the name we should use. Toponyms change all the time. No one will get confused if we address the issues in the lead section. Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We still call our articles Turkey and Czech Republic, despite official name changes. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onceinawhile I didn't talk about official name, but the one most commonly used in English. Ascalon is as rarely as never used to describe anything before the Hellenistic. Ashkelon is used for all periods in the sources most informative to this discussion. Ceasarea Maritima is a good example. It was known as Qayasria for over a thousand years, up until the last century. The Hebrew name is even closer to it. But the name that is used is Caesarea. Naming conventions have no fixed logic, and it isn't for us to decide all the time. Some time ago, Jericho was switched to Tell es-Sultan, based on the Palestinian government decision. We have many inconsistencies. I will be happy to collaborate with you on finding a naming convention. I am afraid the Archaeology in this site is too contaminated with modern politics. But I remember you and I succeeded and working together despite our opposing views. Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are remaining focused on this "all periods" logic (based on a clutch of modern sources backfilling the modern transliteration across the histories), but missing the much more pertinent issues here as they pertain to Wikipedia naming guidelines – notably, that we explicitly avoid having multiple pages at the same base name with only parenthetical disambiguation to distinguish them, unless we absolutely have to. The only exceptions are where the base name is such an overwhelming common name for both topics that there is simply no other choice – and that simply hasn't been demonstrated here. On the contrary, the name "Ascalon" has a far greater historical literary presence in English, with usage for the historical city becoming at best mixed in recent decades. This is far removed from demonstrating that there is a common name that merits dragging the page away from its very naturally disambiguated title, for which it is, again, the all but uncontested primary topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But Ashkelon does have all periods. For all periods, Ashkelon is the common name. It is much better to use the common name for all periods with parenthesis. Common name is the most important guideline. The Ngrams don't say to what they refer. That there are stories about the siege of Ascalon, the county of Ascalon and the battle of Ascalon, it doesn't mean this is the proper name for the entirely history of the site. Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but your "all periods" malarkey doesn't actually relate to naming policy; it's simply something that you keep reiterating. And what you are calling the "common name for all periods" isn't WP:COMMONNAME, which has a specific meaning – and to prove anything on this domain you'd have to work much harder than simply pointing to a single set of archaeological volumes on the site, which naturally adopts the local terminology for the site, because that's how archaeology is done. But that's just one source, essentially, and it doesn't really speak to the history of the site other than through an archaeological lense. We call Ascalon "Ascalon" because from the time that scholars like Herodotus first put pen to paper through to the present day in either a substantial minority or possibly even a majority of sources – and everything in between, hence all the historical references – scribes and writers have called it Ascalon. This may come as a surprise to you, but there are a lot more literary works on the medieval period than there are on the unkown prehistoric era or dismal metal ages. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why dismal? And Ashkelon is an archaeological site, whether you like it or not. Whether archaeologists use one way to describe their sites or not is of our concern. You can't dismiss Ashkelon as being the common name because you disregard archaeology. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's today an archaeological site, but the topic here is not limited to the archaeological. This is not a pure archaeology page. It is a historical page as much as anything else. No one is dismissing the archaeology; it's just the actual history here is far more salient. If it was just a Tel, sure, have a page on a Tel, but it's not: it's a Tel with a huge story beyond it that looms large in the history books – to which end I provided a sourced quote earlier. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you hadn't noticed I have been expanding on that exact part of History recently, when it was called Ascalon. But the article is not only about the Crusader-Fatimid-Ayyuvod-Mamluk story. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that period your fixation? It was Ascalon, or Askalon if you will, from Herodotus. You're ignoring the entire classical period (and most of the modern one for that matter too). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not ignoring, it just takes some time. I found a good source for Early Islamic and Crusader. These are not my periods of expertise so I am going slower on them. But I must say I am enjoying. I hope you will be satisfied with the results. So much Medieval history has been overlooked in this article. Then I'll use what I have for the Roman, Byzantine and Hellenistic. That way I have managed to expand everything from Late Bronze to the Crusader. I still haven't had the chance to write on the Iron Age I. The MB also needs some attention, given that it is the first major period in Ashkelon. I've once read an article that hypothesizes it was a major kingdom in MB times, which controlled all of southern Canaan. Maybe I'll find it. Then I'll have to again rewrite the EB, Chalcolithic and Neolithic. It would probably take me several weeks at best. There's no gaurantee I'll finish, and no one seems to be too kin to help. Maybe I'll send my sources to some people and we'll make it a community project and turn it to a good article. Oh and the section on archaeology also needs to be rewritten and reorganized. Its an ambitious project, takes some time. Can't work on anything simultaneously. Surely doesn't pay my rent. Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep up the good work! Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, the logic at Caesarea Maritima is in fact identical to here. It is a clearly distinct ancient city, functional destroyed just 5 years apart from this one, and known, similarly, by the name of its most famous period – there rendered in Latin, much as Ascalon is essentially the Greco-Roman name here. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it is not the same, because current scholarly convention uses Ashkelon for all periods, and Ascalon only for certain periods. In the case of Ceasarea, they use the Latin name. Heck even modern places like Tiberias use the Latin name. That's the convention. It would be stupid to change it to Tveria. This is not an Arabic, Hebrew , Latin nor Greek Wikipedia. Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're really not progressing past the same one-dimensional assertion here. Again: Naming policy. Naming policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative I confess i haven't read all of the above so I cannot comment on whether the proper common name is Ascalon or Ashkelon. I do wish to comment that if the above finds the common name to be Ashkelon, I would propose Ancient Ashkelon as the target per WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. Bensci54 (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for a second reading

[edit]

I am pinging here @Onceinawhile:, @Iskandar323:, @Arminden:, @Huldra: with a friendly, non-binding request to overview the sections I've written on the Early Islamic and Crusader periods. I am certain I've made some English mistakes, some phrasing that is not clear and especially I found difficulty in formatting the sub-sections for convenience. Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for expansion

[edit]

Middle Bronze:

Late Bronze:

Iron Age:

Byzantine period:

Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ascalon&oldid=1253781366"