Talk:Qal'at Bustra

Where it is, exactly.

The coordinates given are slightly off. I'll fix them. Meanwhile, to see exactly where it is, click here and look for the point marked "786" in the middle of the page. That's right in the middle of the ruins (source: detailed maps in an archaeological report that I will add shortly). That map shows the border about 300m away, but Google Maps shows the border with a bulge passing through the ruins. The ordnance map is more official and I don't find that bulge on any other map, but there is a chance google is more up to date. How do we get a definitive ruling on that? Pre-1948 maps show this in Lebanon and not Syria, so I don't know of any Syrian claim. It isn't on the Sheba Farms side of the accepted international border. Zero^talk 10:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, did some additional sleuthing. The border shown at Amudanan is a perfect match for the border in the current UNIFIL deployment map (I overlaid them in Photoshop). The UNIFIL map is nothing like what Google shows. Israel withdrew from south Lebanon (except Sheba Farms, whatever the story is about that) in 2006, see the UNIFIL press release. In case that's not proof enough, the exact position of the border south of Qal'at Bustra (within a meter) is mentioned in this 2006 Wikileaks cable – it exactly matches the border shown at Amudanan. In conclusion, this site is about 300m inside Lebanon, both according to the international border and according to the facts on the ground. Anyone wish to differ? Zero^talk 12:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally the identification of the point on the map with the name "Qal'at Bustra" is confirmed by the book of Shimon Dar, which gives map coordinates to 100m precision. Zero^talk 03:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

link that doesnt belong here

Someone added a link to "Archaeology of Israel" in the see also section. This place is not located in Israel, so there is no reason to have it here as it is unaffiliated. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If the article Archaeology of Israel was about the activities of Israeli archaeologists, then the link would clearly belong since the main excavations were done by Israelis while this site was under Israeli military occupation. However that article defines itself as about "the study of the archaeology of the present-day Israel" and does not cover the activities of Israeli archaeologists in foreign countries. So it is not appropriate. Note that the status of the Golan Heights is not the issue here; this site is in Lebanon and there is no dispute over that. Zero^talk 03:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Care in editing

Gilabrand added "A farmhouse and temple discovered at the site have been dated to the third to fourth century CE", cited to "The Mosaics of Jordan, Michele Piccirillo; Patricia M. Bikai; Thomas A. Dailey". Let's see how this stacks up.

1. The source doesn't say "third to fourth century CE", but "[third] century B.C.E. to fourth century C.E." (400–600 years different).
2. The link doesn't go to "The Mosaics of Jordan" but to a review of it written by Robert Schick.
3. The author of "The Mosaics of Jordan" is Piccirillo and the other two are only editors (Gilabrand has just copied the running head from the journal page).
4. The review of "The Mosaics of Jordan" by Robert Schick doesn't even have this information. In fact the (incorrectly) cited text lies in a review of an entirely different book!

So even leaving aside the omission of essential data such as year of publication and page number, the edit introduced the wrong information referred to a wrong source misleadingly cited. Don't edit at all if you can't be more careful than this. Zero^talk 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)