Jump to content

Talk:Ashdod

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAshdod was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 13, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 5, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 15, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
January 18, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

older entries

[edit]

Maccabe : One E or two EE?

I put a Maccabee in parens. :(

Maccabi

Maccabi is better. It is not one E anyway. Shmuliko 03:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official name is Maccabi. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review 03/28/07

[edit]

This article seems to be getting fairly well organized, but still does not meet the good article criteria. The images at the top of the article seem out of place, and should be integrated into sections within the article better (history, economy, perhaps). The history section seem very good, but is largely unreferenced. I would move 'modern times' into the history section as a subsection.

Economy & Transportation should be expanded, and referenced. Transportation should include descriptions of all transportation options in the city; roads, street layout, mass transit, buses, air travel, major highways, etc. the Israel Railways template also seems rather awkwardly placed here. I'm not sure what purpose it's serving.

A demographics section on the population is completely missing from the article. The small bits of info under 'income' would fall under this section, and you should include some general population statistics, perhaps census data, etc.

Create a 'government section, and provide details about the mayor & city council there. Move the list of mayors to a separate article, linked to as a 'see also' link from this section.

'Culture & sports' is largely just a list, and should be expanded. Sports might be a subsection within a 'culture' section, but 'culture' also encompasses cultural attractions, media, popular culture, annual events and fairs, and more.

You're going to have to explain what 'Chassidic Rebbes' is. I have no idea?

'Sister cities' should be referenced. There is a Sister Cities International website, but Ashdod has no sister cities listed on that site.

Overall, good start! For help with inline citations & references, please refer to WP:CITE. The good article criteria can be found at WP:WIAGA. You might also try looking at WP:CITIES for suggestions on the structure of city articles, and maybe look at some of the FA & GA articles there for suggestions. Good luck! Dr. Cash 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top Picture

[edit]
On a similar vein, cities' top picture is usually one that actually shows it, either some skyline or aerial photograph. The current photo of the MonArt Center should be moved to the appropriate section and be replaced with a representative one. My use of the Image:Ashdod 2005, rooftop view p2.JPG was reverted - if there is something wrong with the image, then use a different one, but the MonArt is not a good general image. TewfikTalk 18:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't like the rooftop, since it is showing only small neighborhood, far from city center and can not represent anything. The MonArt became one of the city symbols. It can be changed by some aerial view, but meanwhile we have no such image. :( Shmuliko 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about Image:Ashdod Yad-le-Banim.JPG or Image:BeginBlvd.JPG? I particularly favour the latter, which shows a central boulevard, an underpass, and some of the tall buildings and lanmarks. TewfikTalk 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I placed Image:BeginBlvd.JPG in modern time history as contrast between it and Image:Ashdod57.jpg, I think it makes the job. The Image:Ashdod Yad-le-Banim.JPG shows small concert hall and doesn't represent anything. The couple of residents buildings in the background (who put them in administrative, culture and arts area?) does not make it suitable to be a top image. Shmuliko 05:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you live there, perhaps you could go to one of the tall buildings and take a few shots? I understand the contrast you are trying to draw, but if we don't find a better image for the infobox, perhaps another of the modern pictures could do the same job (since the refugee camp is on the beach, perhaps a picture of the beachfront)? Cheers, TewfikTalk 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. But meanwhile I can't find such an image. Instead MonArt is kind of symbol.
What refugee camp??? I missed the point.Shmuliko 10:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold 07/14/07

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • On Hold

What needs to be done

[edit]

This article is much improved since its last nomination, and is getting close to but still does not meet the good article criteria. I placed it on hold for seven days.
1. It is reasonably well written: A lot of the prose seems have been written by a non-native English speaker. This in itself is not a problem, but the prose in this article is sometimes awkward. Remember to use simple declarative sentences. For instance,

  • "The time was noted by James," should instead read,
  • "James noted the time."

or

  • "The food was eaten by Susan," should instead read,
  • "Susan ate the food."

Thus,

  • "Today the city is an important industrial center in the country" should read "Ashdod is an important industrial center."

or

  • "The statement of Ptolemy and Josephus that it was a maritime city, despite its standing 4 miles from the shore," should read, "Despite its location four miles from the coast, both Ptolemy and Josephus described it as a maritime city."

Numbers in the prose itself should be spelled out, unless they are very large or complex. For instance,

  • "213 people marched in the parade" should read,
  • "Two hundred and thirteen people marched in the parade."

But: "As of 2007, the city's population is 123,456." Correct.

Comment The MoS seems to recommend 213 over spelling out. TewfikTalk 19:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendations: Eliminate passive voice where it remains in the article. Also, check the article against the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, and make sure everything is consistent.
Done. I think.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

a) The Bible should not be used as a factual, independent historical record. If you want to include references to the Bible in the history section, then preface the sentence with "According to the Book of Daniel," or something like it, so that the reader knows he is reading a biblical reference.
Done.
b) The "Biblical references" should be folded into the "History" section, with the above in mind, or else all biblical references should be taken out of the "History" section and put into a separate section.
Done. Except the Book of Nehemiah part. The women of Ashdod there means all philistinian women. I don't think I should move it to Biblical mentions. It also referenced with respectfull Hugo Winckler.
c) There are quite a few statements, and even paragraphs, that have no citations at all. I tried to tag them with a "citation needed" tag.
Done. I think.Shmuliko 19:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article ok 07/22/07

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • Pass

All current photos have fair use rationales.

This article has shown tremendous improvement. Good job.

  • One outstanding question thought. It is clear to me, from reading the article, that Ashdod is an ancient city, and that its population at the start of the last century was about five thousand. Yet, in the 1950s, surveyors arrived to build the new city of Ashdod. It's not clear from the article where the new Ashdod was built. Next to the old one? What happened to the old city? Please clarify this in the article.--Mcattell 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

[edit]

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

The lead does not appear to adequately summarize the article, some subsections are too short to warrant there own section (eg. Museums and exhibitions, Sea Transport) and the article is under-referenced. These statements need inline citations:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, Epbr123 10:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only major problem left is that the lead needs expanding. You can have until 5th October to fix this. Epbr123 17:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass! Good work. Epbr123 13:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBS statistics

[edit]

Why don't any income statistics for Ashdod appear in the article? Here's a basic breakdown. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

I place it here, meanwhile, somebody blanks archive pages.Shmuliko (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get additional opinions before FA nomination. It seems to meet FA conditions, but I'm not sure it comprehensive enough. Also some moments can be unclear.

Thanks,Shmuliko 12:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch
I confess that I find writing articles on cities particularly difficult because I'm always finding that they aren't comprehensive enough; they tend to be little more than the history of the place. You may want to look at articles on cities that have reached FA status for ideas. In any case, here's my comments:
  • Higher education. I can't believe a city as large as Ashdod doesn't have at least one college, either full or junior. (Do they have Community colleges in Israel?)
  • Local media. Same thing: any newspapers, magazines, radio stations or tv stations in Ashdod?
  • I found the "Ancient Ashdod" section a bit choppy; it may need more material to smooth out the narrative. Some questions about that section:
    • A "'usurper' Yamani" is mentioned, with no other details. Please explain who he is, or at least put the allusion into some contect.
    • Is there a reason for splitting out the references to Ashdod in the Bible from the rest of the history section? Say, the Bible presents one image of the town, but archeology another? If so, it would be a good thing to bring out the contrast; if not, perhaps you should consider integrating the material.
      • This split was required by GA viewer. It was said that Bible source is not reliable historical reference. Shmuliko 07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Bangs head agaisnt the wall) Many historians quote the Bible as a reliable source, especially for this period. For some subjects, the Bible is not reliable; for other subjects it is. That's why we provide cites -- so the reader can decide for her/himself. I wish people would recognize that, & stop trying to submit sources to the guidelines of Reliable Sources like Procrustes submitted travellers to his infamous bed. -- llywrch 17:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A last issue is the size of the "Ancient Ashdod" section. Like many settlements around the Mediterranean, Ashdod has many thousands of years of history, & the ancient Ashdod would be what many non-Israelis think of when they consult this article. You should consider if/when it would be feasible or a good thing to spin off this section into its own article.
Otherwise, a good start. While there are some nits of grammar or phrasing I might pick at, lots of information here. -- llywrch 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary to the previous reviewer, I have issues with all sections others than history. The transportation section is too short, for instance, and it's divided into short sections. Either they should be merged into a larger transportation section, or more info (which does exist) could be added to each sub-section. Next, the organization of the article isn't that great. For example, I can't see how the average salary is relevant to the Demographics > Population section. 'Origins' is also a weird section name for what it attempts to cover. The culture section is also way too short and has little information. The government section is short and not appropriately sourced. The images should also be moved around to more appropriate sections, for example the location map should be at the top of the article (just below the infobox).

All in all, I believe that the article can achieve FA status given the motivation of the main contributor (Shmuliko), but still requires quite a bit of work. I think that offline research could do this article a lot of good - there aren't any book sources outside of the history section.

Good luck, and I'll try to help with some of the above if I have time. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huge History gaps

[edit]

There is no info at all of Ashdod's history in the first five centuries of Arab rule (except for a less than one-line mention of the Fatimids), and there is nothing on its role during the Crusades or anything on the Ayyubids or Mamluks. The Ottoman history is also too brief. Another thing is the section "Biblical references". Shouldn't this be a part of the Ancient settlement section? And shouldn't the brief passages on Fatimid/Ottoman rule be relocated to their own section? This is very confusing. I will try to expand the Arab/Crusader/later Muslim history, and maybe reorganize the history section a bit. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Biblical references: There was a discussion about this a long time ago, and it was decided to have a separate section for Biblical references, because the Bible is not a reliable source and is possibly fictitious. Therefore, anything that isn't backed by archaeological evidence should be explained as a Biblical reference.
About Arab rule: I don't think anyone left this history out on purpose, and agree that there isn't enough currently, although putting too much would also be undue because during Arab rule this was a very small village. If you decide to expand the information about Arab rule though, please make sure to note that Arab Isdud was not in the exact same location as modern Ashdod, but a few km to the southeast. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of missing information, this article doesn't mention in any place that the town was once called Ashdod Yam. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, sorry for my late reply (it's not on my watchlist). Thank you for clarifying the Biblical references issue. On the Arab rule (actually Ottoman Turkish rule) issue, I have a lot of info now, but, like you said, the Arab village was to the south. So do you suggest I create a different article on Isdud? This would suck up the info from the Ancient settlement section? --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza War

[edit]

How about adding sentence that it was subjected to rocket attacks? --Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a tourist's attraction, you know...--Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulation

[edit]

Morris, in The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited lists the causes for the depopulation of Isdud as Military assault on settlement and Expulsion by Jewish forces. Could the editor who believes that it is "POV" to include this please explain why and provide sources disputing it? nableezy - 19:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As an uninvolved editor, I have reviewed the discussion and the llywrch (talk · contribs)'s closing statement. Given that there has been no further opposition to a merge after several weeks, Greyshark09 (talk · contribs) is within his rights to merge/redirect Isdud to Ashod pursuant to llywrch's closing statement. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP TALKING
As an uninvolved Wikipedian (okay, yes, I have the Admin bit it shouldn't matter in this), there is no consensus: two participants -- Greyshark09 & Nableezy -- appear to oppose the merge, & three support it, which indicates to me that there is no consensus. Moreover, Zero's support statement is mixed, which suggests a 2.5 - 2.5 split is the actual state of this discussion. Rather than close this as "No consensus", & piss off everyone with an opinion about the issue, I believe everyone needs to keep talking. Especially since one option -- resort the material in a chronological manner -- sounds good to me but hasn't been clearly proposed or discussed. And that Ynhockey says this has been extensively discussed in the past, but didn't provide a link to any of these discussions -- which would greatly aid an outside person close this discussion -- & Ynhockey should be given a fair chance to provide these links. So although I used the archive templates on this discussion, consider this open & keep talking. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a further comment by the closer (diff):

    My apologies to Greyshark09: since you didn't explicitly state whether you were for or against the proposal, I had to determine from your comments & obviously misread them.

    To the point: From my reading of the discussion, nothing had been decided -- & even if the consensus was to merge, there was no consensus how to merge the articles -- & I felt that closing the discussion as "no consensus" would not be productive. But after a week, no one continued the conversation -- until Greyshark09 added her/his "support" to merge. By this point, it appears to me that the only person who cares about the issue is G., & if no one speaks up a week from this point -- just to give everyone a last chance to participate -- I think Greyshark09 would be proceeding in good faith to merge them as she/he sees fit. The point of an RfC like that is to give everyone a chance to participate before someone does something; it appears everyone has said what they want to say on the matter, & that's as far as they care about the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    Cunard (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Ashdod (Hebrew) and Isdud (Arabic) is a different prenounsation of the same place name. Similarly to other cases of place names in the region, like Acre/Acco/Akko; Tverya/Tiberias/Tabariyya; Safed/Zefat and others, different periods of the same city/town are described within the scope of one single article. Please share your opinion whether Keep or Merge regarding Isdud, regarding merging "Isdud" into the article "Ashdod". Greyshark09 (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merge per WP:SUMMARY. That article should be summarized here, but that article should remain to allow for greater detail and more material than would be necessary here. nableezy - 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isdud is just 7kb in size, while Ashdod barely reaching 50kb. I would agree with you if the period described (Mandatory Palestine) would have been much more comprehensive.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that is as it stands today. Additionally, the village Isdud was not located in the same location as Ashdod. The Arab village ceased to exist following its depopulation, it did not become Ashdod. nableezy - 18:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are entering a very problematic field, where you are trying to separate various ages into different articles. Note that the Arabic "Isdud" was built not at the site of "Tel Ashdod" and quiet far from "Ashdod Yam" (Ashdod-Sea - ruins from Assyrian period). I believe none of those had a fluent transition into each other and all are located within the municipal territory of the modern Ashdod. The only thing which we might consider is making a separate article on existing notable national park or archaeological site (like in the case of Ashdod-Sea), but in the case of Arabic Isdud, there is nothing left of it, thus it better be covered here in the historic section.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Isdud was directly adjacent to Tel Ashdod overlapping the archaeological digs. I just spent an hour tracking down exact maps. Zerotalk 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So there was Tel Ashdod; Ashdod-Sea (several km to the north); Isdud (back south); modern Ashdod (again to the north) - a ping-pong.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea however: i did participate in editing 1660 destruction of Tiberias and 1660 destruction of Safed, we might use the same, making an article for "1948 destruction of Isdud" as a notable historic event, but certainly not the town "Isdud" itself. What do you think?Greyshark09 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Agree w/merge proposal. When the aggregate size is at/about 100K, a split of some sort -- quite possibly this one -- would be in order.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, for another reason. This article covers the ancient city as well as the Israeli city, but the ancient city was where the Arab village stood, not where the Israeli city stands. If the articles are not merged, almost all the material in here referring to pre-1948 should be moved to Isdud. Merging might be a better option. Zerotalk 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for reasons that have been stated many times. We shouldn't have different articles for the same location. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:45, 21 September 2011 (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.

The arbitration by the administrator resulted in restarting the discussion, thus i invite the participants to clarify their position on the merge proposal.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

dunams

[edit]

I tried to link the word "dunams" to the wiki article on it, but I lost the following measurement in km2. I duess the code is too much for me. Can someone do it? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Material belonging in Kal'at Al Mina

[edit]

@Arminden: Some of the material here, under Ashdod#Crusader_period seem to belong in the Kal'at Al Mina-article. Ashdud, or rather, Isdud, is also treated in Pringle, 1998, but on pp. 116-117. Huldra (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Isdud and Ashdod have already been merged into one article. Today's Ashdod is a rather large town, which includes the territory of both ancient towns, Azotus mesogaios/inland Ashdod and Azotus paralios/Ashdod on the Sea, or whatever you want to call them. Minat al Qal'a is the Umayyad-Fatimid-Crusader castle at Ashdod on the Sea, its ruins are thus now part of Ashdod, even if they belonged to a separate port town in the past, so now it is rightly included in the larger Ashdod article. I have now added a number of clarifications to distinguish them better, OK? Arminden (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

@Arminden: Ok, I´m not quite sure if we should´t treat it in the Kal'at Al Mina-article, and leave a "main"Kal'at Al Mina for that period. Hmm, have to think about it.
Btw; Petersen confused me, in that in both his 2001 and in his 2005 book he gave the pal-grid for Kal'at Al Mina as 132/114(!). I compared that with the pal-grid for Isdud (118/129)....and figured that if Ashdod included both Isdud and Kal'at Al Mina, then it must cover a half of southern Israel..Lol. Petersen has made a mistake (again): the pal-grid for Kal'at Al Mina is 114/132 (Pringle has it correct). Huldra (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Look, I've researched both from books & online sources, and on the ground. I don't care much about Conder or whoever if today it doesn't correspond to the reality on the ground. Tel Ashdod for instance might have been a great source of museum artifacts and knowledge about the Philistines, but the dig site has long been covered over by a huge sand dune and is cut in two by a highway -- so for people who're looking for places one can visit, or see on Google Earth, or do the Khalidi thing and look for pre-48 ruins, or, or... it's irrelevant. Same about pal-grid: current maps don't use it anymore, the PA maybe still does, but that's it. To me the aerial photo I found today on the Hebrew WP page and had a hard time moving over, is the best piece of information in the whole article: you see the shape & size of the fort, its architecture & state of preservation are easy to "read", it's instantly clear that modern Ashdod has swallowed up all of the old Ashdod Yam, the landscape is all there - great! Who needs Petersen if you have smth like this? // Once the structure is in place and confusions are ruled out (Ashdod different from Ashdod Yam, the periods, what's there today), I always prefer adding substantial information over organisational issues. In this case: can you invest the time & effort and bring the info from, say, the christusrex Mada Map discussion?[*] It says a lot about the changing fate of inland Ashdod and coastal Ashdod, which one was the dominant town in which period and why. Negev & Gibson have more on that and the excavations. Also, Ashdod Yam is more than one site: the Assyrian town is a major excavation project and hugely interesting, and I couldn't figure out where exactly it's located in relation to the Hellenistic Azotus Paralus and to the Umayyad fort, and if the latter two do coincide more or less with each other. The question if we should split it onto 2 or 3 pages (Ashdod, Minat al-Qal'a) I personally find less essential, once the main Ashdod page can give a concise & clear overview of where these places are and how they have interacted in history. That does sound essential to me. But this would take more time than I have available, so... it's up to other volunteers out there. Interested :) ? Btw, Zero is sharing my concern over the poorly translated place & article names. Ashdod Yam = Ashdod on the Sea = Azotus Paralus/-ios, but never "Ashdod Sea", as it is now. Minat al-Qal'a ("the port with the fort") is the common Arabic term, and not Kalat Al Mina, which became popular in Israel, but I must admit it's a bit counterintuitive to call not just the port "the port with the fort", but also the fort itself, as Pringle does (#153 on p 72). Maybe he just names the site, but what about the ruin as such? Dilemma. And was the fort all there was to the Byzantine-turned-Early Muslim port, or was it only the citadel of a larger coastal town? The IAA excavation report is totally vague ("fort built over some Byzantine ruins"), so I don't know. As you can see, lots of substantial questions are still open -- to me, but maybe not to the local archaeologists -- and as long as those questions remain unanswered, the current three-page treatment is to me as good as any, as long as all 3 pags are VERY visibly interconnected by text links, "See also", maybe also by over-headings -- no overkill is as bad as leaving any user confused who doen't happen to be an old WP buff.
* http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/discussion/097discuss.html and http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/discussion/096discuss.html Arminden (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

@Arminden: As for pal-grid; Sharon, Petersen and Pringle all *only* gives those numbers: so it is essential that they are in the articles. But they were never meant to be the only ones! Take a look at Amka...and please insert ITM wherever you have it.
As for the 3-articles present system: I have no strong opinion (yet!) about it: I´m also in a process of learning about them. But the thing is: it look as if at least since the earliest Muslims times there have been two distinct settlement areas: Isdud is one, and the other is around Kal'at Al Mina/Ashdod Yam. Most people who visited the area during this time, reported both. Which is why I wonder why there are 2 articles on Kal'at Al Mina/Ashdod Yam, and none on Isdud. (And http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mad/discussion/097discuss.html seems to be a bit dated: takes the fort to be Crusader. Later sources say Umayyad.) Huldra (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Sorry Huldra, but that wasn't my point at all. I said that there is a lot of actual research to be done, on essential points of the twin towns' history and interrelation, and that I don't care much about Pal or Isr grid, organisational considerations and alike, as long as the articles cannot inform in a concise manner WHAT is WHERE since WHEN and what site served WHICH purpose.
I see you concentrate a lot on Isdud / Azdud or whatever one calls it (which did change over time; medieval Arab names were often dropped or modified by the time the PEF did its research, and some changed further until the Mandate surveys). Inland Ashdod/Azotus/Azdud and its port town existed as a duo at least since the Late Bronze Age (see homepage of the Ashdod-Yam Archaeological Project). They don't mention every period in detail, but Early Muslim Mahuz Azdud was not a new creation, and seems to have survived as a ribat and then probably as a regular port until being razed during the counter-Crusade. The fort is the only prominent archaeological feature on the southern beach of modern Ashdod, there seems to be little knowledge or interest in the rest of the medieval port; the main dig concentrates on the "biblical" (BA and IA) cities. Anyhow, while medieval Ashkelon/Ascalon seems to have stayed important as a port and altogether as a regional centre, Ashdod/Azdud doesn't. No finds, little importance, just some mentions in itineraria-thus no extra page for medieval Azdud, while the fort is worth some effort & attention.Arminden (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

@Arminden: I´m not sure I follow your argumentation. While I´m not insisting on a separate article on Isdud, I still don´t understand why we have two articles on Kal'at Al Mina/Ashdod Yam. You seem to think we should have it all into the Ashdod-article, have I understood you correctly? Huldra (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: Hi. Not quite. In general I find it good to have one central article for each location. The habit of separating pre-48 villages/towns from the post-48 kibbutz/moshav/town and attaching the entire history to the "Palestinian" page, while leaving the "Israeli" page with a few lines on Zionist settlement and Hebrew Bible quotations, is plain ridiculous. Places have their own intrinsic character, not even the deepest historical cuts usually create discontinuities worth such sharp dissociation (see Jerusalem AD 70, Straton's Tower-Caesarea-moder Keisariya, etc.) Once we have a page like the one on Ashdod, where all eras have been merged onto one central page, I'm happy. And I'm also happy to have "sub-pages" if required, where parts of a very large topic can be dealt more in-depth. Mammoth pages are quite uninviting, even if one can use a search word and get what he wants with little extra effort. So once "Ashdod" is left intact as one central page, having, say, the medieval fort on a secondary page of its own, is fine with me, not that I count so much, but I mean: it seems to me useful to the WP users, and they are those who matter.
In detail, what does & what doesn't deserve a "secondary page": the fort is visually nice, Early Islam and Crusader fans alike will be interested in a page just about it alone, as will be tourists to the site. It has a largish picture gallery, etc., etc., so I see why it has got its own page, even if IN THEORY it's just one building from one single period from a larger, complicated, multi-layered site, Ashdod-on-the-Sea.
As opposed to the fort, Ashdod-on-the-Sea seems to be of interest only for archaeology buffs. It's hardly been excavated, the Assyrian period, which is what it's mostly about until now, doesn't move many, visually it's mainly mud brick, not much to write home about, but... It needs to be kept distinct from inland Ashdod, and that's very hard to keep clear for the user. I guess that's the best pro argument for a whole page of its own, separate from Ahdod's main page. Why separate it from the fort too? The fort has a lot for the common user, as does the Assyrian layer for the scholar and student. Also, there isn't enough info available as to place the fort in a larger Ashdod-on-the-Sea context, and that would be even more striking if included in the AotS page: was there more to the Early Islamic port? Does the fort stand on top of a Byzantine percursor? Where is it located vs. the Byzantine/Roman/Hellenistic/... port cities? And again the pictures: are there any photos worth showing from the other excavation sites on the beach, or would the fort overwhelm all the rest? ------ And my main point from the start was: why do we waste time on this ADMIN. issue, instead of researching & posting useful INFORMATION about all those MANY unanswered questions regarding Ashdod & environs?Arminden (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

Buses

[edit]

Due to the large Haredi population in Ashdod, many mehadrin lines connect the Haredi neighborhoods of Ashdod with other Haredi population centers, such as Bnei Brak, Jerusalem, Bet Shemesh, Modi'in Illit, Kiryat Gat, El'ad, Tzfat and other towns. The mehadrin lines are operated by Egged, Connex, Egged Ta'avura and Superbus, and do not use the central bus station.

Haven't mehadrin lines been illegal in Israel since 2011, and don't female passengers now have the right to sit wherever they wish? Is the information given outdated? Skinsmoke (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was added 2008 and I just removed it. Officially segregated busses are indeed illegal, though unofficial passenger-enforced segregation remains common. Zerotalk 23:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ashdod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ashdod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab" village?

[edit]

Ashdod (Isdud in Arabic) had a mixed population upon the onset of the 1947 civil war - according to the article in 1945, it had a population of 4,620 Arabs and 290 Jews. It was thus a mixed city of Arabs and Jews (for instance modern mixed cities in Israeli are tagged as category:mixed Israeli communities, so at the British period it should have been Category:mixed communities in Mandatory Palestine), but the article emphasizes in categories and the "depopulated villages" template only the fact that the Arabs were driven out in late 1948, though prior to that in mid-1948 the Egyptian Army drove out the Jews. So, it is rather dubious to say that this was an "Arab village" depopulated by Israeli Army, while in fact it was a mixed village, first depopulated of Jews by the Egyptian Army with collaboration of local Arabs. I suggest to either rename/change the category name or remove this category from Ashdod article. Thoughts?GreyShark (dibra) 17:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Ashdod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ashdod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ashdod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ashdod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petersen, 2005

[edit]

Petersen, 2005, p. 133 is given as ref. in the article....but I cannot fine anything relevant for this article on that page. Thoughts? Huldra (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it always a port?

[edit]

My copy of the Jewish Study Bible includes a bunch of maps that show an "Ashdod" in roughly the same place as this, but several miles inland, and the maps illustrate the region from (at least; I didn't check all of them) the time of Joshua to the time of Elisha. Thing is, I can't find anything in this article that explicitly contradicts the idea that, for example the city grew and reached the sea at some later point in its history, as our description of its early history doesn't specifically describe it as a port but would very strongly imply that to someone who wasn't looking out for it like I was. Are my maps (which are all obviously "approximations") just wrong on this specific detail? Or is our article just missing said detail? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shit. I just double-checked, and the "Elisha" map doesn't include Ashdod (it includes a lot of other details that I described yesterday, and I misremembered), which would roughly fit with our description of the city having been destroyed and then rebuilt near the end of the ninth century. Was it rebuilt a few miles west so as to function as a port? I could check if the JSB includes it in a different location in later maps, but it would obviously be the worst kind of OR to extrapolate from that that the city was rebuilt as a port when it had previously been a little bit inland. Gonna look into this a bit more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Population history

[edit]

The years the article lists for this are arbitrary, so I want to change them, but would like to get some input on the best years to include. It makes the most sense to include past censuses, i.e. 1948, 1961, 1972, 1983, 1995 and 2008, but what about later years? Do we include just the latest (2017), or go for recentism and include every year since 2008 for example? Or 2010 and further, or something else? —Ynhockey (Talk) 08:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

The one of the sources is outdated, and I can't edit it because the article itself is related to ARBPIA and I still don't have 500 edits. http://www.moia.gov.il needs to be replaced with http://archive.moia.gov.il Alex.osheter (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Enigmamsg 20:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Isdud

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Isdud's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hadawi71":

  • From Tulayl: Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in Hadawi, 1970, p. 71
  • From Qaddita: Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in Hadawi, 1970, p. 71
  • From Al-Mansura, Safad: Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in Hadawi, 1970, p. 70 Archived 2015-09-24 at the Wayback Machine
  • From Al-Qudayriyya: Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in Hadawi, 1970, p. 71 Archived 2011-06-04 at the Wayback Machine
  • From Taytaba: Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in Hadawi, 1970, p.71
  • From Al-Zuq al-Fawqani: Government of Palestine, Department of Statistics. Village Statistics, April, 1945. Quoted in Hadawi, 1970, p. 71 Archived 2011-06-04 at the Wayback Machine

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent removal of history

[edit]

A merger from 2011 was recently undone and a discussion is occurring at Talk:Isdud#History. Srnec (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

[edit]

Ashdod

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Article fails criterion 2. No improvement since GAR listing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made into a GA in 2007. There are multiple uncited statements that need to be cited. I also don't feel if this article succeeds at broadness as many sections are too small for me to consider broad enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2023 (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.

Hilarious count of schools in Ashdod

[edit]

Well, it sure is a typo :)

״In 2013, Ashdod had 500 schools employing 3,500 teachers. The student population was 55,000. The city's education budget was NIS 418 million shekels.״ מקף־עברי (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 July 2023

[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.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Doesn't appear to be much (if any) consensus for either of these. The 2nd has some support, but per WP:EXPLICIT, the 2nd move cannot occur without the 1st move being supported. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashdod should move to the routine geographical disambiguation title of Ashdod, Israel given the substantial confusion in this area between the modern city founded in 1956 and the ancient city of Asdudu/Ashdod/Azotus/Isdud (its current title), as well as the associated but equally distinct ancient port city of Ashdod-Yam. The scope for this confusion is made plain by the voluminous literature for the ancient city under the name of Ashdod that exists prior to 1956 – with results after that presumably being split between the ancient and modern entities (and this is before one even considers the hits under alternative names such as Azotus). On Google scholar, unrefined hits for Ashdod reach about 23,300, but fall to 11,000 if you exclude the telltale signs of archaeological papers in the instance, i.e. "tel" and "yam", while you get slightly more than 12,000 hits if you steer the search towards history/archaeology by requiring "tel" to be referenced. This is a strong indication, as one might expect, that at least half of the scholarly literature in relation to the name "Ashdod" is archaeological in nature and about the ancient settlement(s). Both the Ngrams and Scholar evidence make plain that the modern city is by no means the standout WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Ashdod", and thus the base name should be disambiguated. Looking at the current links to this page, it is also plain that a great many are currently incorrectly targeted, such as all the Biblical references, with the intended target being the ancient city. Disambiguation will help resolve this by requiring the sorting of the links between ancient and modern, and by deterring future ambiguous linking. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How much modern vs ancient Ashdod is mentioned in scholarly papers is not an indication of what interests the modern reader - which is what counts for the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.")
Also, the current Ashdod article has a history section which discusses the history of the area and has links to Ashdod-Yam and Isdud, so I would say that it serves as a general article encompassing these topics too. The reader will not be unaware of these entities if they type Ashdod in the infobox and start reading that article. Implementing your suggestion would force the reader to make an unnecessary additional click. Alaexis¿question? 11:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Users searching on either Google or via Wikipedia would just as readily be presented with Ashdod, Israel as an option, so for most users it would alter navigation little. It would have more impact on the inbound links, but these need sorting through anyway. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2nd per Necrothesp and Crouch, Swale. The ancient city seems to have half the hits. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean incoming links? This page has almost 90% of the pageviews. Srnec (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I've already resolved some of the misdirected internal links, but my point was, a lot of links intended for the ancient settlement were coming to this page for the modern one. Given that this page is occupying the base name and common name for both the modern and ancient city (again, everything pre-1956 in Ngrams can only be about the ancient city), it is somewhat hard to tease out what readers were aiming for. And for casual viewers looking for history, the summary here could well be enough (I hear kids have short attention spans these days), making moving on to the more detail history hosted at Isdud needless, though some do move on. Perhaps that means that, from a broad usage perspective, the current setup is functioning. But from a long-term literary perspective, this page is definitely residing at a base name that is, if anything in historical scholarship, more strongly associated with the ancient city. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2023 (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.

“ continued today by his son, Grand Rabbi Mordechai Yissachar Ber Leifer”

[edit]

He died already. 82.36.70.81 (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Please add in the notable residents section:

2603:7000:2101:AA00:951C:542B:7B33:1FC9 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ashdod&oldid=1252173927"