Misplaced Pages

Talk:City of David (archaeological site): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:27, 19 July 2021 editDavidbena (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users57,102 edits →Name?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:07, 8 October 2024 edit undoPostmethod (talk | contribs)29 edits →Country ambiguation, citations: new sectionTag: New topic 
(364 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Archaeology |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Judaism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Palestine |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East |importance=Low}}
}}
{{old move
|date1=31 May 2022|from1=City of David (historic)|destination1=City of David (archaeological site)|result1=moved|link1=Special:Permalink/1093236437#Requested move 31 May 2022
|date2=17 April 2023|from2=City of David (archaeological site)|destination2=City of David/Wadi Hilweh|result2=not moved|link2=Special:Permalink/1150746572#Requested move 17 April 2023}}


{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/City of David (archaeological site)|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
{{WikiProject Israel|class=B|importance=high}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:City of David (archaeological site)/Archive|numberstart=1|maxarchsize=75000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=5|minarchthreads=2|format= %%i}}
<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->


== Missing items (archaeology) ==
== ] rediredts here ==


Ahiel's House, Burnt Room, House of Bullae... ] (]) 09:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
why is that? The city of David and the ophel are two different places, adjacent, but not the same. The city of David is just south of the ophel.--] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


==old Testment?== =="City of David==
By what right is a site that preceded David named after David; especially a naming that was chosen by a French archaeologist in 1913? Even if this is a common name by independent and reliable sources - which I am not sure it is yet - why is none of the naming controversy highlighted in lede, instead of being relegated to a small sentence in the Naming section? Note that its common name in the region to the Arab inhabitants, which probably included Mizrahi Jews, was/is called Wadi al-Hilweh? ] (]) 09:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
"Silwan has a significant historical value, and was mentioned in the Old Testament, " ---Where? I have done several searches... not under that spelling. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:Article also needs some expansion on the politicization aspects of the sites by illegal Israeli settlers. ] (]) 10:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Ophel has four references:
:It's just the name for the archeological site, the name of which is the preserve of the archaeologists, however, POV-driven that naming may be. It falls under ]. ] is already a separate article about the surrounding area. ] (]) 10:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
::Check the references below, the archaeological site is referred to by both names - regardless of whether the archaeological site is part of the wider valley of the same name or not. ] (]) 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:::Both names might have been used for both the dig site and the area, but the dig site is more commonly known as "City of David" and the area as ]. See the quote from the first source: {{tq|Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, especially Wadi Hilweh, where the dig is located.}} This was hashed out and resolved through two prior RMs - ] and ]. ] (]) 10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
::::As far as all the sources mentioned tell, the two names are also used interchangeably for the site. ] (]) 10:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)


== Requested move 17 April 2023 ==
1. Neh. 3: 26-27
Moreover the Nethinims dwelt in '''Ophel''', unto the place over against the bwater gate toward the east, and the tower that lieth out. After them the Tekoites repaired another piece, over against the great tower that lieth out, even unto the wall of Ophel.
2. 2 Chr. 27: 3
He built the high agate of the house of the Lord, and on the wall of Ophel he built much.
3. 2 Chr. 33: 14
Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish agate, and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.
4. Neh. 11: 21
But the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel: and Ziha and Gispa were over the Nethinims.


<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
If these are the refereces to '''"Silwan"''' in the old testament, there should be something added about when and where the name was changed from '''"ophel"''' to '''"silwan"'''
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
Hey. since this page is controversial because of the Jewish and Palestinian identity conflict, why not find out what the Bible and the Quran agree upon in the story of Abraham in Genesis and write that down?


The result of the move request was: '''not moved.''' <small>(])</small> – ]] ] 18:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
==Silwan, Ophel and the City of David==
----


] → {{no redirect|City of David/Wadi Hilweh}} or ] – Wadi Hilweh is used along with the City of David name for the archaeological site in most sources (regardless of the fact that the site is within the Wadi Hilweh valley anyway), here's a few examples:
The nonsense on this page is becoming a nuisance. I am attempting to calm the waters (pun on gihon and siloam) by separating Silwan form the the City of David/Ophel, each to retain its historic meaning.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* ] (]) 10:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose'''.The name "City of David" is far more frequently used to refer to the archeological site. You appear to be confusing the archeological site with the neighborhood, for which there is already a designated article, named ]. ] (]) 11:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
::You haven't demonstrated that City of David alone is used "far more frequently". The above results are the main results I got from a quick google search. ] (]) 12:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose:''' Per above. This move request, already made highly unusual by the non-standard slash in the proposed destination, would simply re-ambiguate a situation that other editors, myself included, have been at pains to disambiguate. Yes, the "City of David" is a ''tour de force'' of revisionist unempirical biblical archaeological POV-ishness, and creates a mess that the ] disambiguation page basically exists solely to redress, but it also is what it is. The dig site is simply ''not'' well-known as the "Wadi Hilweh archaeological site" or "Wadi al-Hilweh archaeological site", even though it may have intruded upon and contributed to the erasure of ] neighbourhood. ] (]) 11:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
::] is a possible compromise, considering that as shown above, every time the site was mentioned in reliable sources, the Palestinian name was mentioned along with it. ] (]) 12:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:::As mentioned by Tombah, there is considerable source confusion between the neighborhood and the dig site - the neighborhood is also called the "City of David" by its settler inhabitants, and that is what many of these sources show. What you would need to make your case would be sources very specifically referring to the dig site as "Wadi Hilweh XXX". ] (]) 12:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' City of David (Silwan) redirects to ] after all the earlier renaming and disambiguating kerfuffle gone through earlier. The only thing possibly still worth doing is to specify a separate CoD (tourism) to clarify further Elad misdeeds.] (]) 12:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== 1200-1000 BC ==
Silwan - for material about the Arab farming village that spread into a modern neighborhood of Jerusalem.


Let me tell you a story about a man who was looking for information on Jerusalem in the years 1200-1000 BC... ] (]) 20:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
City of David/ Ophel - for the ridge from Siloach/siloam going uphill and encompassing all of the built structures thereon ( including the Meyuchas family home ) and all ancient structures, Jebusite, Israelite, Hellenistic - if anyone finds one, Hasmonean - Herodian, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic.


== 1 Kings 11:27 ==
All material on the City of David on this page was recently vandalized by Kool dood1. It won't undo. I am looking for an appropriate curse for vandals who with a keystroke eliminate entire pages of material. I'm sure that the Jebusites had some apt ones. wish I spoke Jebusite ] (]) 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26


In July 2024, the Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University announced the discovery of a moat that a moat that split the City of David in half, separating the palace and Temple Mount from the rest of the city. It was at least nine meters deep and 30 meters wide, and extended across at least 70 meters, from west to east. (source: ) ] (]) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
==Vandalism==


== Country ambiguation, citations ==
I have just incorporated much of the vandalizec material, incorporating it into a version edited with a good-faith effort at attaining some sembalnce of balance. It needs work. I'll try to get back to it. ] (]) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26


"The City of David is one of the most excavated archaeological sites in the country and one of the first to be excavated."
==Structure==
Citations needed for both of these claims, as well as the ambiguity of the use of 'country' ie State of Palestine is the country. ] (]) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added subheads for each archaeological period. I will work at filling them in.03:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> I moved all archaeological and historical material on the page into the appropriate section.] (]) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

==1099 to 1853??==

Did nothing happen in this period?? This seems decidedly strange. I added something about the 1948-1967 period. I hope this is of some help. ] (]) 23:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
:Found this article after reading about ], and I came here to post exactly the same thing! Surely someone must have information on the missing three-quarters of a millennia. Very odd indeed. ] (]) 10:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
::I will in about two months or so :p I'm an ultra-Zionist and a student of Israeli Archaeology, I'll just say that right now, but I'll try to be objective and of course use reputable sources (scholarly books and articles mind you, not websites). Currently taking a Jerusalem: Through the Ages course. Anyone have a problem with that or do you want that period to lay barren? :p ] (]) 09:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

:::According to ], this area fell into diuse during the period from 1099 to 1853, mostly because the focus was on expansion to the West. I don't have a written source for it sadly. =( ] ] 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

== Not a modern neighborhood ==

Its the name of a biblical place and an archaeological site turned national park:
*
*

The name was used for the western hill of Jerusalem for a time (the one known today as ]):
*, p. 320.

The national park/archaeological site is located within the Arab village of ] in the Wadi el-Hilwe neighborhood:
*

The archaeological remains from that site indicate that the ] and ] were built in the 9th century BCE, meaning that they could not have been built by ] or ] (even ] does not dispute this chronology, contrary to what our articles say on this subject):
*, p. 302

Anyone interested in helping to make this clearer to the reader? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

== Add a picture showing the landscape from there? ==

I have been there about 2 years ago and I remember that there was a nice landscape from there (in the place with the archaeological excavations), can somebody please put a picture of it in the article? Or maybe a panorama?--<span style="background-color: #75ab00; border:1.5px solid #bad57f; font-family:Segoe Print; font-size:80%;"> ] ] </span> 06:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

== Removed POV text. ==

The removed text might support the claim that there was a real King David, and that he ruled a large kingdom, but it did not refer to the claim about the dating of the structures that were mentioned. Therefore it should not be used to support the previous claims. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

**I do not follow your reasoning; the paragraph appears to balance the previous paragraph and appears to be properly cited. ] (]) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

::: AG, I agree that the paragraph was sourced, but it does not directly relate to Mazar's claim about the wall. It relates to another structure, and another site. It could be used as evidence of a Kingdom of David with an organised centre, but it can not be used as evidence of the City of David, or a wall there. I have removed the preceeding section which suffered from the same problem. Both are synthesis or ] in the way that they are used in this article. Regards.] (]) 12:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

== One-sided POV text ==

The following text:

"Though largely inhabited by Arabs, with some Jewish homes in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Arab homes, reportedly causing damage Israeli planning authorities have approved plans to relocate inhabitants to turn the area into an archaeological park."
is one sided and POV. Archaeological digs in urban areas always excavate under resident's homes. To claim that damage has occurred to the houses, it's not enough to quote a partisan website (IMEMC) that quotes unnamed residents claiming their houses were damaged. Also it is partial to claim that Israel plans to raze houses without mentioning that these houses were built without a permit and that the municipality offered to legalize most of the buildings. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The archaeological digs are wholly anomalous, being conducted by , under roads, and houses and schools without consultation, as Rabbi . The damage is widely reported or complained of; even excavations kept on running beyond their permits, without sanction (2004-2007); all sources in this area, even Haaretz and Ynet have lots of partisan reportage; that Israel razes houses, the law is used to seize 'absentee propertee,' and hand it over to settlers, that housing permits for high-rises continue, while no Palestinian resident can build legally or make extensions; that evictions occur on the basis of dubious muncipal law that is invalid for an occupied territory; that all muncipal deliberations about that territory are instruments of an occupying authority in favour of transforming such key historical areas into sites that privilege one version of history; all of this is amply documented, and it is a key part of the reality covered in this article.] (]) 16:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The statements "being conducted by a private group, not a public authority" is incorrect. The digs are being conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority and funded by the Ir David Foundation . This is also spelled out in the Israel Antiquities Authority website - "...archaeological excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority is currently conducting in the “Walls Around Jerusalem" National Park in the City of David, with funding provided by the ‘Ir David' Foundation."
I see no outside confirmations of the damage caused other than partisan claims - how about posting pictures or independent, non-activist journalist confirmation of the alleged damage?
Finally, you ignore the comment on the fact that the proposed renovation plan legalizes most of the illegally built houses. So it's not just "raze Palestinian homes to make the area into an archaeological park"

] (]) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence is syntactically incorrect: "Though largely a Palestinian township, with some Jewish settlements in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Muslim homes, reportedly causing damage".
"Though" is used to connect contrasting clauses. "Excavating under many Muslim homes" does not contradict "largely a Palestinian township". It actually follows that if most residents are Palestinian, excavations will be under their houses, doesn't it?
Also - why refer to the religion of the residents? Would it make a difference if they were Christian Arabs?
This definitely needs cleanup] (]) 09:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:The statements "being conducted by a private group, not a public authority" is incorrect.

You didn’t read the link, which is to Don Futterman ] Feb. 27, 2013
*<blockquote>(1)For almost 15 years, '''one of our most important national parks and archaeological sites, the City of David, has been managed by a right-wing NGO'''. The City of David, an archaeological site immediately south of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, is '''one of Israel's only national parks to be run by a private entity''', and considering that it is located smack in the middle of a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem, there could not be a worse choice than Elad.'''Elad is a 27 year-old private organization''' that works to strengthen exclusively Jewish ties to Jerusalem. Now that the District Court of Jerusalem has canceled Elad’s management contract with the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the Authority has an historic opportunity to fully return the City of David to its own control. '''The decision to grant Elad responsibility for running the City of David in the first place was most likely intended to promote Elad’s Judaizing agenda,''' and our outgoing national government and the Jerusalem municipality didn’t object to ramming Jewish settlers down the throats of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian population, whether actively collaborating or signaling approval with a wink and a nod.</blockquote>

Dafna Laskin, ] 04/14/2013
*<blockquote>(2)Elad’s founding and goals are based on the assertion that the Biblical land on which modern Silwan was built, must be re-inhabited by Jewish families. To that end, '''they have been bankrolling excavations in the village for decades,''' and the main finds can be seen today at '''the City of David, a national archeological park that was privatized and given to Elad,''' and which attracts some half a million visitors annually. '''The archeologists digging at the site were hired by the AA, but paid by Elad.''' The controversy stems from the fact that '''the AA, which oversees all archeological work and certainly at the City of David, is essentially in partnership with and funded by a private organization with clear ideological goals''' – chiefly, to utilize the archaeological finds as a means of promoting the self-described “Judaization of east Jerusalem.”</blockquote>

As to the reported damage which the IP/Daniel Cohn team deny, on spurious grounds, see now
*(4) Emek Shaveh
<blockquote>The snowstorm that hit Jerusalem last week caused collapses and severe damage in areas near and above some of the archaeological excavations taking place in the village of Silwan. Collapses of the ground-level have become routine in Silwan, recurring annually with the first rainstorm. Most of these occur near the southern part of the tunnel, connecting the Shiloah Pool with the Givati parking lot (see map, near No. 12). This section has an earth filling several meters deep. It seems that, the ground-works in the tunnel affected the ground stability in the region. A similar occurrence was evidenced past years. More substantial collapse occurred in an area adjacent to the excavation commenced in 2013 (see Emek Shaveh’s new publication:Remaking the City, Chap. 5 and in the attached map between no. 7 and 6). The storm crushed a significant part of the side steps and fill adjacent to it. (Attached photo shows detached iron staircase.)Shortly after the yearly collapses, the Jerusalem Municipality, the Parks Authorities, Elad and the Antiquities Authority( IAA) hasten to patch up repair the damage. Undoubtedly, this will be the case this time too.It is our opinion that the land collapse is the result of several causes: 1. The village of Silwan is constructed on landfill and not on stable bedrock. In the case of a storm, the ground break through and undermines the stability of the structures above it. 2. The fact that year by year the collapses occur near the archeological excavations of the tunnels, points at the excavations as one of the major factors in this severe damage.The responsibility at this site is held by several organizations: 1. The Nature and Parks Authorities - for the national park. 2. IAA – as conducting the excavations . 3. Elad organization – as the sponsors of the excavations. 4. The Municipality of Jerusalem. ] (]) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)</blockquote>

No doubt the lead needs tinkering further, but the reverts so far are a POV pushing 'cleaning up' of the factual mess. Israel is the occupying power, its laws are systematically opposed to Palestinian residency, and the lead cannot allow in wiki's neutral voice language suggesting that Palestinian housing there is 'illegal'. It has to be phrased to show that this determination is an Israeli POV.] (]) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
::<blockquote>"Though largely a Palestinian township, with some Jewish settlements in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Muslim homes, reportedly causing damage</blockquote>
::The syntactical criticism above is correct. So the line can be adjusted along these lines:
::Archaeological digs sponsored by the private Elad group in this predominantly Palestinian township are excavating under many Muslim homes, repèortedly causing damage to the area. ] (]) 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
:::Several objections to this:
1) Not clear what is a "Muslim home". Do homes have religion? If you already wrote that this is a predominantly Arab neighborhood, why mention this again? To the reader, it would appear like the archaeologists are singling out Arab residents to dig under their houses
2) I went over the links you provided (most if not all by partial sources with a clear agenda) and I don't see any evidence of reported damage (one would think pictures would be easy to provide).
3) In those links I also could not find even claims, let alone evidence, of digging under homes. I can only see (unsubstantiated) claims of structures caving in due to nearby digs.

If you cannot provide RS substantiating the "excavating under homes" claim, I think it should be removed or at least rephrased to reflect this.
By the way, the Haaretz link doesn't work. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== 1RR ==

'All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.'

Daniel Cohn has broken the rule, and knows it, since he is consistently advising editors like me to 'take it to the talk page' (where the banner has this rule) while he himself has never deigned to take his perspective to this page.
: I did, as 134.191.232.71 (yes, I forgot to login) on 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*
*

: I was not aware of this rule. I don't see how advising an editor to take it to the talk page is proof that I knew the rule - this is a general advice I've seen used in many edit summaries.] (]) 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Two breaks IR) so I expect this has to be reverted, since the editor is in fault, and refuses to take, further, his own advice.

: Not correct - I did post my objections to existing text in the talk page prior to reverting the edit as you can see if you check the undo date vs the talk entry date] (]) 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

*cf(3) ] (]) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

::I see he was blocked. ] (]) 07:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

:::There is no need for proof that you knew the rule. As it says at the top of this page, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." In other words, you are expected to have read the large message at the top of the talk page. ] (]) 09:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

:::: Absolutely and that's why I didn't complain about the block. I was simply refuting Nishidani's "Daniel Cohn has broken the rule, and knows it, since he..." which is trying to prove the false remark that I knew the rule. That's all.] (]) 09:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

==Supposed==
I have restored the "supposed" in "For the supposed city of King David's birth, see ]." Something that is not an established fact cannot be expressed as an established fact using the narrative voice of the encyclopedia. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:I'm not sure of this. Nearly all of the early historical material is not secured as an established fact, but scholarly shorthand usually ascribes things according to tradition, even for legendary figures: Abraham of Ur etc. The legends concerning David (who in reality may have been a local bandit) at least in Samuel are unanimous in associating him with Bethlehem. By logic, if ''supposed'' here, I guess one should write also that Bethlehem is the ''supposed'' birthplace of Jesus, if only because it is mentioned as such only in the birth myth passages of three gospels but generally ignored thereon in. ] (]) 17:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

::Actually, the birthplace of Jesus is considered Nazareth, not Bethlehem. This is the majority view among historians and Bible scholars <s>and ] also subscribed to it in a book published during his papacy.</s> ] (]) 17:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::This is how the sentence should be structured on Misplaced Pages: The supposed Jesus was supposedly born Nazareth and the supposed David was supposedly born in Bethlehem. --'']] ]'' 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Your 'Nazerath', sounds like Nasser's wrath, so have, without prejudice, corrected.] (]) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Um, the sentence doesn't mention Jesus, and sarcasm often indicates lack of a reasoned argument. The sentence is not part of the article, it is pointing readers to another article. Sean is correct, Misplaced Pages should not be stating "This article is about a neighborhood in Jerusalem. For the city of King David's birth, see Bethlehem" as fact. Material within an article often has enough context so that we do not have to continually repeat that the material isn't historical fact. Do we really have to take this to NPOV? ] (]) 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::Doug. It's not a problem that worries me. I'm just not certain. Use an adjective like 'supposed' and you signal to the reader more than simple 'factual' prose requires. The 'supposed' is 'neutral' from one perspective but, from another, it takes a stance. This was my original instinctive reaction. IN Jewish tradition, the term 'city of David' means the Jebusite capital David conquered. In Christian tradition, the 'city of David' means Bethlehem, and also, since they revere the OT, Jerusalem.
::::::Further, if we now concentrate on the sentence, one could easily created problems for the first part. 'Ir David' is '''not''' a 'neighbourhood in Jerusalem' in either the accepted meaning of neighbourhood in English and the specific colour it has taken on in Israeli English (reflected in wiki), a residential (Jewish) area. It is the site of an archaeological dig in a restricted area around the 'stronghold of Zion' of the Biblical Jerusalem within the 'neighbourhood of Silwan'. Thus that too is not a statement of fact, but a POV, which happens to be that of the people behind the Elad operation. ] (]) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Good points. Some of them refer to the title of the article and to the first part, right? So we need to separate them out. What I think we can say is "For the city traditionally considered to be King David's birthplace, see Bethlehem." If we can agree on that, I'd suggest starting a separate section for the other issues. ] (]) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::That's fine by me.] (]) 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
::<s>So now we are resorting to calling King David a bandit, are we? That description actually more aptly fits Mohammed, who looted Mecca and massacred its Jewish population. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--></s> (MO fits banned user ])
:::You need to read some books about David by Baruch Halpern, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. ] (]) 00:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::: or, if you are in a hurry, I Samuel 27:9,11; but where is David refered to as a bandit in this aricle? ] (]) 19:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::No need to mention it here. It's about an archaeological dig, not 'David'.] (]) 20:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::::As Augustine recalled a captured pirate telling Alexander the Great, all great creators of new states are thugs, pirates, mass murderers, etc. David's probable origins are not exceptional. Things haven't changed much (robber barons etc), it's just tht algorithms function as swords these days.] (]) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::Let's just ignore this IP, given their other edits and block and the need to oversight one personal attack, he/she will be blocked again shortly, possibly by me. ] (]) 10:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::I asked a CU, Alison, who confirmed the IP was a sock of JarlaxleArtemis. Now blocked of course along with some accounts. ] (]) 14:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

== Archaeology section ==

Does anyone else agree that the "Archaeology" section in this article is a total mess, needing a significant overhaul? It looks like someone has tried to create a tourist guide to the site than write an encyclopaedia article. ] (]) 10:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

== Suggestion: Wadi Hilweh and City of David are two differnet things in the same site. ==

Hello, I am new to this page, yet I have noticed something that seems to be incorrect. The opening pasgae state that:
:''The City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David; Arabic: مدينة داوود‎, Madīna Dāwūd) is the Israeli name for the neighbourhood of Wadi Hilweh (Arabic: وادي حلوه‎) in Silwan.''

In the bible, "City of David" is a biblical term to the city that King David built. Today, the name City of David refers to the archaeological site of what is thought, by some archaeologists, to be Jerusalem of the pre-Babylonian exile.

Wadi Hilweh is a Palestinian village that was built upon the archaeological site, during the 19th century. They are two different things.
How can I change it without causing quarrel?

Can I change the sentence to:
:''" City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David; Arabic: مدينة داوود‎, Madīna Dāwūd) is the name for archaeological site, that some evidences suggest to be ancient Jerusalem. It is located under the nighbourhood of Wadi Hilweh (Arabic: وادي حلوه‎) in Silwan."''

Thanks, ] (]) 14:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

: OK, I will take the silence as a yes :-) <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Court rule? ==

Hi, in accordance to the spirit of consulting before changing the text, I want to consult again. I have checked the claimed in this page that says:
:"Ongoing archeological digs by the private Israeli settlement group Elad will eventually be excavating under some Muslim homes, possibly causing damage".
The claim of damage was brought before the Israeli court of justice, and where fund to be unfunded. The court ruled that no evidence for damage was proved, and that the excavations stand in every legal demand and they were checked and found to be safe and undamaging ().

My dilemma is whether to add this comment about the court rule, or remove the text in accordance what the court found after investigating the matter? ] (]) 08:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

:I'd say remove it. ] (]) 12:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


:: Thanks, I'm removing it. ] (]) 13:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

== Bullae ==

I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. ] (]) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, the press release does ] the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. ] (]) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. ] (]) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. ] (]) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:OK no problem but we can still write that it might suggest it. There is no reason to delete it entirely. Lets try to slow down here and try to write objectively. ] (]) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

:OK so instead of crediting to King David lets just say it reflects "a greater political complexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape than has been appreciated recently" ] (]) 00:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

:This seems neutral
:In 2012 and 2014 six bullae were found at Khirbet Summeily suggesting a greater political complexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape than has been acknowledged by many recent scholars who tend to dismiss trends toward political complexity occurring prior to the arrival of the Assyrians in the region in the later eighth century b.c.e
:] (]) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

::That scholarly article simply does not state anything about David, so it does not ] your edits. ] (]) 02:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

::Also, it does not mention anything about the City of David, so it is not germane to this article. ] (]) 02:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
==Rewrite requested==
<blockquote>The 10th century BCE is considered the century during which the Bible describes the reign of King Solomon.</blockquote>
This sentence suggests that the Bible is being written in the 10th century contemporaneously with the putative events. etc.] (]) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714074915/http://www.ir-amim.org.il:80/eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Silwanreporteng.pdf to http://www.ir-amim.org.il/Eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Silwanreporteng.pdf

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

== Vice news report ==

An interesting report from ] on this situation: https://news.vice.com/video/a-city-divided-jerusalems-most-contested-neighborhood

One person they interviewed called the area "the core of the volcano" of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

It feels like our article is underplaying the controversial nature of this area.

] (]) 23:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

== Infobox ==

Hi {{ping|Poliocretes}} is it not correct that the Jewish population living in the area run by the Ir David Foundation have their local amenities run by them? and others like it, suggest that this is the case. Just because it is not a formal municipality, places such as ]s still deserve to be treated equally on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
:CoD is not technically any sort of municipal unit, it's the name of a hill within Silwan, which is governed by the Jerusalem municipality. Elad is an extremely powerful and proactive NGO promoting Jewish settlement in the City of David. It has secured the rights to run the national park which it uses to further promote its political agenda, but even it has to go through the Jerusalem municipality to get things done (see for instance with its reference to the local planning commission). Describing CoD as a municipality or an "unincorporated area" or Elad chairm Be'eri as holding a municipal role are pure ]. These words have meaning, they are not applicable here. I don't see how this article "suggests" otherwise, and "suggests" is not good enough for Misplaced Pages anyway. If you think the site is not being treated equally on wikipedia, that can be fixed, sources are not lacking, but the solution is not shoehorning it into something it is not. Besides, Israel Hayom? Seriously? You disappoint me, Once. ] (]) 18:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ir-amim.org.il/eng/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/Silwanreporteng.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100508143755/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/king-davids-palace.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/king-davids-palace.asp

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

== Section "New Testament references for the City of David being Bethlehem" ==

Entirely unsourced, apparently OR and fairly irrelevant. I don't think anyone would dispute that Bethlehem was also once known as the City of David. He was, of course, from the tribe of Judah, whose land Bethlehem is in. <strike>Perhaps a brief hatnote to the Bethlehem article would be useful, but</strike> this section should be removed. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 13:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC) <small>Comment struck - I see we have a good hatnote already. --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 13:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)</small>

:I agree entirely. That's not the way to use primary sources in any case, and we've got the hatnote. ] ] 16:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC) who is not dweller
::Thanks, Doug. {{done}} --] (]) <small>Become ]</small> 09:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140801001643/http://archpark.org.il/waterStudies2.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/waterStudies2.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143144/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143144/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161224003103/http://www.archpark.org.il/about_gen.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/about_gen.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143144/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1a.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143153/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1b.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1b.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143202/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1c.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1c.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721143214/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1d.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations1d.shtml

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Culture/Archaeological-find-in-Jerusalems-City-of-David-may-answer-100-year-old-mystery-43189
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207062814/http://www.cityofdavid.org/ to http://www.cityofdavid.org/

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

== Any Jews there 1939-47/48? ==

A (possibly unsourced) line claims that after 1948 war "its Jewish population was expelled." As far as I know, after 1929 riots or at the latest aduring1936-30 Arab revolt, all the Jews were expelled from Silwan, including Wadi Hilweh, by the British authorities who didn't feel they can offer them security. Were there any Jews left thrte in 1948 to be expelled? I guess not. Please clarify, if proven wrong remove the false claim. ] (]) 12:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

== The word "speculation" is out of date and context and does not reflect the facts ==

The first sentence claims the archaeological site is "'''speculated'''" to compose the original urban core. Hillel Geva in explains the significant variation in population density coefficients used by several archaeologists. Much confusion exist as to the time frame for each of the density coefficients especially spanning Middle Bronze II to Iron I: 18th–11th centuries BCE. Geva claims the Middle Bronze Age area of the city can be estimated at 40–50 dunams on the lower-southern section of Mount Moriah. Steiner proposed that the fortified MB II city had a population of only 1,000 (2001: 22), while Lipiński’s estimate is 880–1,100 (2007: 4). Geva takes into consideration the city’s role as a royal stronghold, proposing that the number of inhabitants in Jerusalem in the Middle Bronze Age was '''at most''' 500–700. Garstang, Wilkinson, Steiner, Lipinski, Ussishkin, Mazar and Finkelstien are some of the many archaeologists and historians who attest to the development of the urban core of Jerusalem. The word "speculate" denigrates the academic effort and research that preceded this Misplaced Pages article. "Speculate" is unnecessary, it is politically loaded to reduce the significant proof and development of urbanization covering paleolithic, chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron age discoveries within the 40-50 dunam area of the original urban core. The words "'''is speculated to'''" needs to be removed and sentence worded "...'''the archaeological site which composes the original urban core'''..."
] (]) 04:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

== Hebrew Bible ==

This section appears to be WP:OR

<nowiki>
==In the Hebrew Bible==
===In the Abraham narrative===
A town called ] is mentioned in this era in the biblical story of ] ({{Bibleref2|Genesis 14:18–20}}), which may have been Jerusalem.

===In the King David narrative===
The Bible says Jerusalem was a ] city, which was captured by troops under ]. The biblical description is very brief ({{Bibleref2|II Samuel 5:6–8}} and {{Bibleref2|1 Chronicles 114–116}}), leaving space for speculation about how exactly the town was conquered, also due to the lost meaning of the ancient Hebrew word "tzinor". It is inferred from {{Bibleref2|I Kings 11:27}} that he breached the walls, and if the "tzinor" in {{Bibleref2|II Samuel 5:8}} is understood as 'water shaft', then ] climbed up first into the city by using the ancient water system at the ]. The Bible then says that the Israelites continued to use the Jebusite walls, repairing them where needed, and extended the city northward, under ], to include the Temple Mount ({{Bibleref2|I Kings 9:15}}).
</nowiki>

] (]) 13:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

== 1873 bird's-eye view: explain or remove! ==

Current caption of the bird's-eye view of Jerusalem by Illés István (Stephen Illes), 1873: "A single property had been built on the hill facing the houses of Silwan by 1873...."<br>
Really? Please point it out on the 3D map! I can make out several houses on the west side of the Qidron riverbed. None on the ridge. There is a "single house" near David's Tomb--that means: on the wrong hill, Mt Zion. Please explain. Maybe Illés was inaccurate, or worked on older data, not including the Meyouhas house. Or that house was further south (right), outside the frame; I don't know, but neither do 99% of the users (not to say: all of them).<br>
Please '''either clarify, amend the caption in a relevant manner, or remove the picture as irrelevant'''. Thanks. ] (]) 16:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
:It says “single property”, not single house. It is likely a house plus outbuildings. We have to stick to the source, which says only one family lived there at the time. ] (]) 11:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Ping|Onceinawhile}} As far as I know, Meyouchas built on the ridge and, I think, close to the saddle. Not at the eastern foot of the ridge. I don't believe the map contains this property - at all. That's my point. There seems to be no connection between illustration and caption. The connection necessarily needs to be made by an acceptable source, not by any of us, poor ole' editors. Cheers, ] (]) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping| Arminden}} Google maps shows it at {{coord|31.7714|35.236}}. That seems consistent with the small building here, no? ] (]) 20:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I now read this:
http://m.cityofdavid.org.il/en/virtual_tour/meyuchas-house-city-david
This seems to mean that
*A. The Meyuchas house is gone
*B. It was over the T1 and T2 structures and the finding place of the Theodotus inscription, on the eastern slope of the ridge.

Still: A. If Illés drew his map before Meyuchas built his home, or based ot on previous sketches, then the house cannot pe there and the caption is wrong. B. We need to check if those buildings are indeed at the T1 & T2 site, which is much easyer, since T1 & T2 are important features, marked on most plans. All else is speculation (for instance I'm pretty sure Rabbi Meyuchas didn't build more than one house in the first year, and I think that's when the Illés drawing is from; etc). Cheers,

I looked up the drawing again. There are two clusters of buildings immediately west of the road that follovs the valley floor, with over two dozen structures. That can't possibly be the Meyuchas house. Maybe the upper (northern) cluster, which still means: he wasn't alone. Also, for all I know, T1 and T2 are further up the slope. So we're back to zero. ] (]) 07:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

So far, the ill. and the (vague, since not pointing at where the Meyouchas house is) caption are disconnected and seemingly contradict each other. ] (]) 07:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping| Arminden}} I have fixed this with a better image and description. FYI the house is towards the bottom of the ridge - it can be seen (see the Israeli flag). This is also confirmed by . ] (]) 08:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Onceinawhile}} that's great, thank you, I was really intrigued by it and the area is the focal point of many things. ] (]) 15:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

== Early Islamic period findings: no content yet?! ==

? ] (]) 20:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

== Speculated / thought to be / is ==

{{ping| Arminden}} we have a source (Pullen) who explicitly described the speculative nature of statements concluding that this was "the original core" of the city. You mentioned Palmer, Vincent and Kenyon in your edit summary, but there was actually a very heated debate amongst Biblical archaeologists on this question in the late 19th / early 20th century. It was never proven conclusively, so we should not suggest it was.

Out of interest, what elements of the archaeological evidence give you the strength of conviction here? ] (]) 19:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

:{{ping|Onceinawhile}} The debate is long over. Take any source you can put your hands on. We don't need to reinvent the wheel and prove with mathematical formulas that it's best when round. I'm losing it, I'm out of this Wiki BS, at least for a while. Cheers, ] (]) 20:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC) PS: I did waste more time on that useless text by Ms Pullen. I've read it all (have you?), and it doesn't say a single word that contradicts the archaeological consensus. It announces from the start that its topic is different from that, "it is the takeover of heritage stewardship by a radical settler group in the past fifteen years, and not the hundred fifty years of preceding archaeological work there", so invoking it in this context is misleading. Pullen might have had a reason to write it in 2008, but today her paper has nothing, zero to add to what's already known - beside of being peppered with serious factual mistakes and misunderstandings. If one sympathises with her views, one must deplore how poor she puts it across; if one doesn't, it's easy to point out the bias and mistakes. Waste of time. With no bearing on the topic you picked up: yes, this ridge is as a matter of fact the oldest inhabited part of historical Jerusalem, and it's easy to understand why: the spring and the easily defended ridge (for the time, i.e. the Bronze and Early Iron Age, when artillery and siege machinery weren't well developed). So fact + logic. Nobody who counts is contradicting that. The name "City of David", picked up from the Bible by Josephus, Weill, and Elad & Co. are indeed an issue, but not the archaeology. If "conflict-motivated" editors can't distinguish between the two, there's nothing left to say. It's like removing the term "Temple Mount" from the discussion and replacing it everywhere with Aqsa or Haram. Or the other way 'round, it doesn't matter, stupidity (when they believe in it) or hypocrisy (when it's conscious propaganda) has no single identity. I came up long ago with a tired pun, but it fits here too: the First, Second, Third International are history; the one that will always prevail is the International of Stupidity, with the most democratically spread-out membership across the world. And that's why I'm sorry I'm not in bed already. Good night, ] (]) 22:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
::Hi {{u|Arminden}}, thanks for this – I always enjoy reading your posts. Can I just point out one thing – saying "this ridge is as a matter of fact the oldest inhabited part of historical Jerusalem" is by definition a speculative statement, as the Old City itself has never been excavated. ] (]) 05:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Onceinawhile}} hi, and thank you. No, that's not true. Maybe you mean the Temple Mount, where little (but not absolutely some) archaeological work has been done. The entire Old City has had lots and lots of digs: in the Jewish Quarter, Citadel, Muristan, Holy Sepulchre, Antonia area, Jaffa Gate, Damascus Gate, inside and outside Zion Gate, and lots of salvage digs elewhere. Possibly fewer in the Muslim Quarter, but by no means none (think Western Wall tunnels). It's a Swiss cheese, really. ] (]) 07:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The "no" is a leftover from "by no means", sorry. ] (]) 07:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
:Hi {{u|Arminden}}, there’s a rough map of excavations here: My guess is that less than 10% of the Old City has seen any meaningful excavation – do you think that is a reasonable estimate? ] (]) 10:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

::I agree with {{ping|Arminden}}. "Speculated" doesn't do the archeological findings any justice and is anyway needlessly inflammatory. We can never be sure 100% in archeological or historical matters (or in any other matters) but this is as good as it gets. ] ] 20:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

:::Let's not get carried away. "As good as it gets" is inappropriate – we cannot ignore how deeply politicized this area is, and sadly archaeology is not immune to such influences given its perennial underfunding. Also skating over the point above, that the city itself has been excavated in only limited areas, seems odd given the question is "what is the oldest part of the city". If we are going to question a source which explicitly describes the connection as speculative, we should at least apply some common sense. ] (]) 20:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
::::Sorry, but it's not any editor's job to pass judgment on the opinions of another. "as good as it gets" is my opinion and you will have to accept that. I know that the issue is deeply politicized - that words like "speculation" are used in the article is ample proof for that. So is your attempt to police the discussion.
::::The City of David is pretty well excavated. You do not have to dig up an entire city to gain knowledge about it. The source on which the "speculation" language is based, has been addressed above by another editor. ] ] 22:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::(1)''”You do not have to dig up an entire city to gain knowledge about it."'' The sentence we are discussing is about the wider history of Jerusalem.
:::::(2) Arminden commented on Pullan’s 2008 paper rather than her (and others’) well-reviewed 2013 Routledge-published book; the latter is the relevant citation here.
:::::(3) Please bring sources to support your position. ] (]) 05:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::::(1) I stand by my statement, to which you have offered no rebuttal.
:::::::(2) As his comment further down indicates, this distinction is without merit.
:::::::(3) I think there are already quite a few sources here. Apparently your preferred wording rests on only one author, Pullan. ] ] 13:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
::::::::On (1), I too agree with your statement, but it does not address the issue at the heart of this discussion. On (2) it’s worth noting that Arminden’s decision to throw contempt and disdain at a highly regarded Cambridge professor is disappointing – when one needs to resort to ]s, that tells you something. On (3) if there are really so many, please point them out. ] (]) 15:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Onceinawhile}} hi! We're getting along very well, so as a wikifriend I'd like to whisper to you: read more carefully. Pullen is worthless in this whole discussion. I had written a page-long comment yesterday while riding on a bus, but made a mistake and all went down the drain. So: she's not dealing at all with the identification of the site. Nada, zilch. She's saying in her introduction more or less that "she's not commenting the 150 years of archaeological work at the site". (She can't resist and she does throw a punch in that direction at the end, calling this work imperialistic and Eurocentric, but that's for letting off steam; zero support for it or any focus on the topic). She's only dealing with Elad & Co.'s PR and aesthetics. No contribution to our topic. Dead end. (Not to mention too evident of an agenda, major factual mistakes, and the fact that since 2013 all she's written has become commonplace and is adding nothing new to the discussion, which has constantly moved on at a breakneck pace.)

The Emek Shaveh online article-cum-map is almost the same. The map concentrates on Elad and allied institutions. MANY digs I know very well, which have Wiki articles too, btw, are not there. Jerusalem's Old City is very well documented archaeologically. A living, inhabited town (we're talking just Old City) can never be fully excavated, think Rome or Athens or Budapest. It's not Petra or Chichen Itza (in Petra the state actually did have to offer a deal to the Bedouin to move out and into a built village, and lately they've been slowly moving back into the caves; never an easy task.) That considered, a lot has been done.

Best example: the decade-long controversy about how large Jer. was during the monarchy, if it did or not cover the Western Hill. Maximalists vs. minimalists. (Btw, the minimalists said: Jerusalem consisted for many centuries of only the SE ridge/hill, what we're calling here -or not- City of David. Never disputed after the first discoveries by Warren etc.) Who won? The maximalists, and undeservedly ruined Ms Kenyon's reputation, who's done excellent work, including on the SE ridge/C.o.D., but supported too vehemently the minimalist theory. See the Broad Wall. Discussion closed.

Back to Emek Shaveh: even somebody who sides with them (as opposed to: hates their guts) must tread lightly with this online publication: it's not signed, which actually closes the discussion. It's also old. And the map is very inaccurate, like I just said, since it forgets to mention that it's not indicating ALL the digs. Which then? Why? Where are the omitted ones? No say. Worthless for this discussion. Just look up Citadel, Holy Sepulchre, Cenacle/"Tomb of David", Muristan (SE part), Via Dolorosa (Antonia area), Bethesda, and lots and lots of sites in the Jewish Quarter and the margins of it towards the Armenian Q. (Cardo), the city wall (Nea, Ayyubid tower and Crusader columned structure, all slightly S of Zion Gate)... Shall I go on? And none on the map. So useless indeed.

Please, try to refrain from going into disputes when the sources you mention are not well understood and are quite one-sided, old, and partially removed from the topic at hand. The SE ridge, whether we call it just that, or (that was the case in the 19th c.) Ophel ridge, or Jebus, or indeed City of David, is the oldest incarnation of Jerusalem. The name City of David has been used as an ideological club against political opponents by Elad & Co., but is otherwise well justified : Hebrew Bible/OT (and it's not just the oldest, easily dismissible parts) + Josephus are together quite a good base. Te opponents are quite careless with therms, too. Wadi Hilwa/Hilweh is not the same as Silwan as such. Hilwa is fast expanding, and we're only talking here about the SE ridge, not what's across the street/wadi/Wadi Hilweh/Central Valley/Tyropoeon from it. Elad is also trying to erase the boundaries towards "Givati" (across the street, so outside the CoD) and Mazar's Ophel (the saddle N of the SE ridge/CoD, and S of the Temple Mount). Carelessness with terms & definitions only leads to useless shouting games. Which I want to avoid as much as verbosity (too late for that, Arminden!!!), so bye for now & good night/morning/...! ] (]) 20:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

:Hi Arminden, thanks for your thoughtful and fulsome reply. I will respond in kind, but for now one initial thought: it would be great to build out the article ''']''' ] (]) 10:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:Attached is another map showing a wider list of excavations (need to zoom into the Old City). The problem is that the vast majority of these are not deep level excavations which match what has been done at the City of David. ] (]) 10:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:A couple of good articles here by the same author.
:* Margreet Steiner, 2016, , History, Archaeology and The Bible Forty Years After “Historicity”. Changing Perspectives 6, edited by Ingrid Hjelm and Thomas L. Thompson, Routledge, pp. 71-84
:* Margreet Steiner, 2014, Bart Wagemakers (ed.), Archaeology in the Land of `Tells and Ruins’. A History of Excavations in the Holy Land Inspired by the Photographs and Accounts of Leo Boer. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
:This certainly suggests that real excavation in the Old City was limited in scope.
:Having read this, my interpretation of the amount of the Old City which has been excavated remains at about 10% at best. Arminden, I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
:] (]) 11:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
:As to the name, I must point out that your statement "Hebrew Bible/OT + Josephus are together quite a good base" is incorrect. I have added the relevant quotations to the article - Josephus is a carbon copy of Samuel, and neither provide any geographical information other than the existence of a wall. If you read the writings of the modern archaeologists who originally drove support for the identification of this area as the City of David, their arguments constituted no more than "this is the oldest wall we have found, so let's assume that it is the same as the wall mentioned in Samuel". ] (]) 11:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Onceinawhile}} hi. Sorry, but I'm not a politician, and picking out the convenient bits and leaving out the rest is not acceptable. You brought up Pullen and Emek Shaveh; I discarded them as a good base for discussion - now you leave them out and pick this or that secondary sentence and contradict it.

No, again: the Old City is inhabited, you cannot excavate more, and that applies to it as to any other (densely) inhabited city. The only recent exception was the Jewish Quarter in 1967, and it has been quite extensively excavated, if you consider that people wanted to move in right away. Apply the right type of comparison - with similar towns & cities, like Cairo, Amman, the Lebanese cities, and you'll see. Tell archaeology is something totally different (and not in today's spirit either). I see nothing else to add to it. And I'll do my best to not spend as much time as I did in the first half year of Covid 19 on Misplaced Pages, so I won't be participating very much in a discussion that is unlikely to inform & educate me in a useful way, sorry, it's a pragmatic and vital decision I need to make.

The Deuteronomistic History, which includes Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, is - in the opinion of most scholars - the work of one or several authors from the time of King Josiah (r. 641–609), with some later additions and edits. Royal scribes did have access to archival material, they weren't the Brothers Grimm, only collecting folklore. Even if that is denied, they knew the city they were living in. So did Josephus, who was an aristocrat and priest from Jerusalem. The name "city of David" is quite possibly initially based on folklore, but the veneration of the royal tombs, some probably more historical than others, was a contemporary reality mentioned both by the author(s) of the Deuteronomistic History (late 7th c. BCE) and by Josephus (1st c. CE), who both place them in the city once called Jebus/C.o.D. The Books of Kings (1+2) use the phrase "city/City of David" and mention a number of kings buried there: Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah. At least the later ones are historical, even the strictest minimalists wouldn't contest the existence of a more substantial Israelite kingdom around Jerusalem from the 9th c. BCE onwards, with a tribal city-state already there in the 10th. Jehoshaphat, if a king of that name did exist, was a contemporary of King Omri of Israel and King Mesha of Moab, mentioned both in the Bible and in extra-biblical sources (Mesha Stele for both, several more for the former). Ahaziah is possibly named on the Tel Dan Stele. It's a period in history where all royal chancelleries in the region kept archives for legal documents including diplomatic correspondence, we're not talking of some pre-historic area or period suffering of illiteracy. It wasn't a space free of historical documents, where any old invention would be accepted. That applies even more clearly in Josephus's time. Going to the extreme: even a Hasmonean cult would have been a good couple of centuries old by the time of Josephus.

Based on that, Weill and those to follow had a good base for adopting a term from the Bible + Josephus. I never said a word about the historicity of a king named David, only about the historicity of the term "city/City of David". Historicity doesn't mean millennia or heaps of centuries: just the reality of a fact or concept in history. And one cannot argue with the historicity of the name C.o.D. in good faith.

To recap:
*The Old City of Jerusalem cannot be considered as archaeologically insufficiently known. It's never enough, but for a densely inhabited area it's relatively well researched.
*The name "city/City of David" is a historical fact.
*The SE ridge is where the city we have been calling for a day or two "Jerusalem" has first developed, first in the Bronze Age and then in the Iron Age. The reason for the location is the Gihon Spring.

This I do care to stress out and insist on. All the rest not so much. ] (]) 16:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

PS: a good source for the minimalist approach on the City of David is "" by Israel Finkelstein & Oded Lipschits (2011), where the Iron Age city above Gihon is proposed to have existed only between ca. the mid-8th c. and 586 BCE. That would cover over two centuries, including the major urban expansion of Jerusalem after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel. The next period of intensive habitation would be the Hellenistic/Hasmonean one. As said, another good two centuries until the informed eyewitness account of the priest Yosef ben Matatyahu aka Josephus. ] (]) 17:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

PPS: I had gone through Finkelstein's counter-proposal once and only superficially, but didn't read it thoroughly, so I did it now. It deals with the very unusual problem of having strong BA and IA sources indicating an important city at Jerusalem, but the digs on the SE ridge/CoD only coming up with fortifications around Gihon and on the eastern slope, relatively little pottery, and virtually no residential remains. So where did the powerful ruler as well as the townspeople live? He offers the Temple Mount as a solution. A typical tell settlement, for from the spring and not connected to it by fortifications, at least throughout most of the BA and IA. The theoretical construct is in large parts plausible, intelligent and a well-educated guess, as one would expect from Finkelstein. The problem is that it has no good answer to the presence of the huge spring fortifications, and that it opposes scarcity of finds with - almost none, and no chance of ever being able to test his theory. The very simple counter-argument of his opponents is: the Romans have used the SE ridge as a quarry, as can be easily seen for instance at the T1+T2 structures (Weill's famed "royal tombs"), every item predating the Romans by 5, 10, 18 centuries and still present being close to a miracle. Not a perfect argument either, but actually used by Finkelstein too in regard to the lack of findings from the relevant periods a few dozen meters from the theoretical mound (tell) hidden underneath the Herodian platform. Finkelstein has no good answer to the presence of the massive Middle Bronze spring tower(s) and the fortified access corridor, he admits that a sausage dog-like city stretching down the slope by a multiple of its length just to include the spring makes very little sense and has no precedent or parallel anywhere, and his theory is based on a total ''argumentum ex silentio'', on the lack of findings and not on existing material. As much as I admire his general approach, here he's having a very hard time being persuasive. Maybe there are some logical Lego stones missing to make his theory stand, but for now I find it less convincing than the opponents'. And as long as it's totally based on speculation and one's readiness to accept it, it's pretty fruitless. ] (]) 23:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
:Hi Arminden, thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful reply. I will try to do justice to it.
:With respect to your three core points above
:*''"The Old City of Jerusalem cannot be considered as archaeologically insufficiently known..."'' We both agree there has been a lot of work, we both agree that it has not been 100% excavated. So it is neither black nor white. As to whether the degree of excavation is "enough" to be highly confident of the location of the original core, I believe we can agree that the question is inherently subjective, and we would be best to agree to disagree. I note that you have avoided commenting on my 10% figure, perhaps because you consider it to be not the right question - for example, the northern half of the old city has never been part of the debate given the NT description of ] and the assumption that Helena got the location right three centuries later.
:*''"The name "city/City of David" is a historical fact."'' Yes but with just one source, as you rightly state. I have often found it interesting that people can acknowledge that the historicity of David himself is unproven, yet be highly confident that there was a place called the City of David. It is important to acknowledge that there are zero other sources calling the place City of David in a contemporary sense. Remove references to the story of the Deuteronomist, and we are left with 2,500 years of silence. Not compelling in my view.
:*''"The reason for the location is the Gihon Spring."'' I agree with you - that is the reason why scholars speculated that it would be logical for the original settlement to be nearby the best water source in the area. The scholars who disagree with the theory suggest that it is illogical for the settlement not to have been in ], i.e. at the Temple Mount.
:Overall, it is beyond doubt that there was settlement on the ridge in ancient times, but to state that was the "original core" is a fundamentally speculative judgement. Who is to say that the structures of the original "Jebusite" core were not built from wood with shallow foundations (which would have left very limited archaeological traces) underneath the ] on the Southwestern Hill, or in a small area near the ].
:As an aside, I personally see it as a great shame when attempts are made to shut down interesting questions like this. When tour guides take people around the "City of David" they will speak with great certainty about what was once there, perhaps because it is easier to do so. But isn't it better for humanity for the curious to be told that the question is still open, so that that young people are encouraged to wonder and investigate themselves? ] (]) 12:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
::That tour is just non-stop hasbara, start to finish. And it is deliberately so, what's more. David Landy (2017): The place of Palestinians in tourist and Zionist discourses in the ‘City of David’, occupied East Jerusalem, Critical Discourse Studies, DOI:10.1080/17405904.2017.1284684 ] (]) 13:52, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Arminden}} I was just thinking about this discussion in the context of the article which {{u|Nishidani}} started at ]. I would venture to say that if any place in the world deserves the crown of "most excavated", it would be the ]. Yet here we are today, watching the unearthing of a previously unknown city, right next to two major temples in a place which could hardly have been more obvious to have looked over the last two centuries. To me it shows that modern archaeology is still only scratching the surface of what is out there. ] (]) 20:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

:{{ping|Onceinawhile}} Good thoughts. We agree on many. The details (certainly no wooden Jebusite city walls, as a) not enough wood around, b) no precedent anywhere in the Early Iron Age; not under St James either, as they would have died of thirst before being bombarded to death from the top of the West Hill with date pits by hooligans passing by), but I'm sure those were just quick thoughts. The approach of all professional scholars is to state the general consensus, while giving a notion of how likely it is that this would remain the working theory for long, if not the final truth, and offering plausible alternatives. The SE Hill is the traditional identification for BA and Early IA Jerusalem, with Finkelstein making a good theoretical case for the Temple Mount.

:As to a historical David, I'm also satisfied with the degree of consensus about the reading of the Tel Dan stele. David looks no less historical than ], ], ] and other historical chieftains who became the real or mythical founders of successful dynasties. Do you really care if a real Early Iron Age king build up the memory of a legendary forbear and called his residence after him, even if that grand-grandfather had a different name and was a nomad, rather than a settled king of the hill? What difference does it make? Besides: oral traditions aren't fairy tales, they manage to pass on a good deal of facts over astonishing periods of time. Think of Damascus Gate, called by Arabs Bab el-Amud, Column Gate, after a monumental Roman column that's been gone for the last 1000 years! How many generations is that, 1000 years? The "City of David" was mentioned as a real name by a real 1st-century historian, Josephus. Naming the Ayyubid-Mamluk castle in the Golan ] doesn't make Nimrod real, but Nimrod Castle certainly is a real name (and David is a whole lot more historical than Nimrod, by virtue of the Tel Dan stele). Don't forget: Josephus was a priest from a priestly family, they ran the show in Jerusalem and had access to all the archives and libraries in this former capital town, where religious and worldly power had been one and the same during the Hasmoneans and remained allied well into the Roman period. He wasn't just "quoting the Bible" - there was no canonical text yet anyway, and again, if he did bother, he could access many other sources now lost to us, before the war for sure, and possibly after that as well.

:Where I disagree is the assessment of how well Jerusalem's Old City is known from excavations. Nobody, ever, has excavated every metre of an inhabited place, anywhere. Hardly ever done even with small AND uninhabited settlements. But I've written this more than once. And the "city" discovered today in Egypt was a royal palace city, basically the court and the people needed to support its needs, stuck between two known sites (a temple and smth else, I forgot). For the BA and IA one calls "city" any urban settlement, size and population don't matter much. Archaeologists have been looking for it for a long time, and Hawass knew there must be something in this area, which '''had never been touched before by a spade'''. So no way of calling that general area the "most excavated" site anywhere (and it can't be part of the necropolis; maybe near it). I read there have been several repeated attempts at finding this "city", until Hawass got lucky. Luck No. 1 is that it hasn't been covered by modern buildings, or else there'd be no scoop today in the media.

:There are few ways, and thus places, of starting a city in the Ancient Near East. That's precisely why you get tells: water, defence, trade, agriculture. Always in the exact same spot, from ] till Alexander, 332 BCE. Between ten and three millennia of repetitive reconstruction at the same site, over and over again. Because springs, convenient hills, and valleys don't move. Nobody, not even the most entrenched minimalists, deny the general location of Iron Age Jerusalem. The exact location of IA I Jebus/Jerusalem? Only where a tell makes sense and either has left traces, or where archaeologists were never allowed to dig. This leaves us with the SE Hill and the Temple Mount. You won't get any archaeologist agreeing to Mt Zion, Silwan, the YMCA chapel's basement or whatever. I'm talking archaeologists, or historians who work with archaeological data. I'm never even mentioning the Pavlovian creatures working as Elad-employed & -trained guides at the CoD, those aren't a topic. ] (]) 23:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
::Talking about scratching the surface, Italy has half the known archaeological riches so far retrieved, it is often said, but that only represents about half of what's still buried. I built the steps from one garden to another from huge well fashioned blocks of stonework I found when turning the soil to plant the area. Even this week, small pieces of burnt clay mouldings came up, not significant enough to join the bits of a sarcophagus and a variety of votive statues I have. Next door, there's a large Roman funerary slab still have buried in a wall. When the local school and carabinieri's station were built, kids were trading votive statues found a few centimetres under the topsoil in the former within days, and some mosaics were broken by bulldozers on the latter site. Friends' houses have mosaics walled up in the cantinas. There's no end to it. There's no reason to doubt David of the house of David, any more than suspect Paris/Alexander is reflected in Hittite Alaksandus, and so many other names. Of course the legendary cycles making a Bethlehem bandit into a northern Israelitic emperor, or a Greek Viking-like scion of coastal raiding and colonizing tribes into a wimpish tombeur de femmes around the Bosphorus are all ''cum grano salis'' details valuable for all sorts of interpretations not relating to historical events. It's the attempt to vindicate the historicity of the Bible or Homeric legends that get up one's nose, as I think we all agree.] (]) 08:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

== Where does Givati stand in relation to the Tyropoean Valley? ==

I thought Wadi Hilweh (the wadi as such) is exactly where the Wadi Hilweh Street runs along and that it's following the same line as the ancient Central, or Tyropoean Valley, be it at a several metres higher level. Or that the "]" (built, as we now know, in the time of Pilate, I would think as a more monumental version of a pre-existing street), would more or less follow the bottom of that valley. I couldn't find a '''topographic map of Givati & the Tyropoean Valley''', on the one can google, the ]s and the elevation figures are hardly legible or fully illegible.

If the Tyropoean V. did indeed run ''through'' part of the Givati dig site, rather than ''east'' of it, then a section of the site (on the E) would still be part of the ]. I'd still find it somewhat improbable that any Iron Age city walls, if there have been any, would have been built so close to the valley floor, but that's just my speculation. The ridge is narrow and the slope steep, so who knows. A good topographic map of the area showing the position of Givati in relation to the Tyropoean Valley floor would sure help to define Givati's E section as potentially part of a city on the SE ridge, or not. ] (]) 20:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is an IAA , quite confusing, as I cannot follow the logic of the contour lines (every 5 m, but seemingly jumping in a weird, inconsistent manner). Hard to make out where the ancient valley floor used to be. The from which the plan originates places the entire Givati Parking Lot on the NW slope of the "City of David" spur, which doesn't seem right. Maybe the initial, actual parking lot was E of the valley separating the E and W Hills, and the dig has later extended W of it, across the valley floor and further? ] (]) 23:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

== Finkelstein theory ==

The "Speculated / thought to be / is" section had lost direction and focus if it had ever had such. What does set the question on a stronger foundation is the ] theory, which itself is not new anymore, but now I had more time to listen to some of his Youtube presentations and understood better what he is suggesting. He proposes that the main tell of Jerusalem could be under the Temple Mount platform. He identifies the fortifications from the Gihon spring as an isolated fortress protecting the city's water source, standing several 100 m downhill from the city tell. He never elaborated in the recorded conferences if the walled city and the spring were connected or not by a fortified or underground path, which seems important, since connecting the population to its water source was the common –and only logical thing to do– in Bronze (]) and Iron Age cities (], ], ], ], ]). Lacking a water supply made the cities an easy prey to besieging armies. Maybe he offered some speculative elaboration in written, I don't know. He readily admits that there is no way to prove the theory, since the Waqf won't ever allow any archaeological investigation on Haram grounds. Maybe one day some physical methods from above (thermal? other waves?) will allow non-invasive investigation, but for now that's SF.

So yes, the relatively meager findings, although readily explained by some with the use by Romans of the area as a stone quarry, is invoked as a counter-argument for a BA and IA city before c. 700 BCE, as does the as of now unsuccessful search for a city wall on the western side of the ridge. One N-S wall doesn't yet make a city (although less than that has been invoked at Tell es-Sultan in Jericho to postulate an "oldest city in the world"). These are acceptable arguments forming more than a fringe theory (although many would argue that's not the case), and therefore needs to be given its own paragraph in the article. Anyone willing? Me - not right now. Cheers, ] (]) 13:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

== Name? ==

This article name appears non-NPOV and not in a small way.

"Two realities seem to be ignored, however, by most visitors: the many centuries of historical legacy that link the Palestinian Silwani to this place and the lack of archaeological data on the Southeast Hill supporting the biblical narrative of King David’s conquest and rule in the city."


Not to mention that the whole thing is in occupied East Jerusalem and all Israeli activities there are null and void/illegal including settlements, archaeological park, digs and all the rest. Maybe there is a place for an article about the multiple excavations in the area (each one has a name, Givati, Kenyon, E, G, whatever) discussed from a strictly archaeological viewpoint.

Called something like "Archaeological sites in Silwan" since that's where they are? ] (]) 23:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from being non-NPOV, it does not even exist, certainly not now and the evidence for it having existed in the past is suspect. There is a legal structure (Israeli) called City of David archaeological park under the auspices of the INPA, then subject of a management contract with a settler organization. It is not clear which areas are included in this park/management contract. CoD is an ideological based marketing tool for archaeological tourism, the sites exist but have nothing to do with any CoD other than in the minds of zealots seeking any excuse to demolish Palestinian homes and install settlers. Another possibility is to merge this with ] and treat it apolitically.] (]) 09:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
:The article, "City of David," should not be politicized (IMHO). The site is a historical site, whether the name has change umpteen times since King David once settled in the city. It's like the article ], which describes the country from a historical perspective, rather than from a political perspective, although its name, too, has changed many times since the Canaanites first settled in the country.] (]) 21:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:07, 8 October 2024

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconArchaeology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJudaism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAncient Near East Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Archiving icon
Archives

Index 1, 2, 3


This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Missing items (archaeology)

Ahiel's House, Burnt Room, House of Bullae... Arminden (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

"City of David

By what right is a site that preceded David named after David; especially a naming that was chosen by a French archaeologist in 1913? Even if this is a common name by independent and reliable sources - which I am not sure it is yet - why is none of the naming controversy highlighted in lede, instead of being relegated to a small sentence in the Naming section? Note that its common name in the region to the Arab inhabitants, which probably included Mizrahi Jews, was/is called Wadi al-Hilweh? Makeandtoss (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Article also needs some expansion on the politicization aspects of the sites by illegal Israeli settlers. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It's just the name for the archeological site, the name of which is the preserve of the archaeologists, however, POV-driven that naming may be. It falls under WP:POVTITLE. Wadi Hilweh is already a separate article about the surrounding area. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Check the references below, the archaeological site is referred to by both names - regardless of whether the archaeological site is part of the wider valley of the same name or not. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Both names might have been used for both the dig site and the area, but the dig site is more commonly known as "City of David" and the area as Wadi Hilweh. See the quote from the first source: Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, especially Wadi Hilweh, where the dig is located. This was hashed out and resolved through two prior RMs - here and here. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
As far as all the sources mentioned tell, the two names are also used interchangeably for the site. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2023

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. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks (contribs) 18:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

City of David (archaeological site) → City of David/Wadi Hilweh or City of David (Wadi Hilweh) – Wadi Hilweh is used along with the City of David name for the archaeological site in most sources (regardless of the fact that the site is within the Wadi Hilweh valley anyway), here's a few examples:

Oppose.The name "City of David" is far more frequently used to refer to the archeological site. You appear to be confusing the archeological site with the neighborhood, for which there is already a designated article, named Wadi Hilweh. Tombah (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
You haven't demonstrated that City of David alone is used "far more frequently". The above results are the main results I got from a quick google search. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: Per above. This move request, already made highly unusual by the non-standard slash in the proposed destination, would simply re-ambiguate a situation that other editors, myself included, have been at pains to disambiguate. Yes, the "City of David" is a tour de force of revisionist unempirical biblical archaeological POV-ishness, and creates a mess that the City of David disambiguation page basically exists solely to redress, but it also is what it is. The dig site is simply not well-known as the "Wadi Hilweh archaeological site" or "Wadi al-Hilweh archaeological site", even though it may have intruded upon and contributed to the erasure of Wadi Hilweh neighbourhood. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
City of David (Wadi Hilweh) is a possible compromise, considering that as shown above, every time the site was mentioned in reliable sources, the Palestinian name was mentioned along with it. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned by Tombah, there is considerable source confusion between the neighborhood and the dig site - the neighborhood is also called the "City of David" by its settler inhabitants, and that is what many of these sources show. What you would need to make your case would be sources very specifically referring to the dig site as "Wadi Hilweh XXX". Iskandar323 (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose City of David (Silwan) redirects to Wadi Hilweh after all the earlier renaming and disambiguating kerfuffle gone through earlier. The only thing possibly still worth doing is to specify a separate CoD (tourism) to clarify further Elad misdeeds.Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
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.

1200-1000 BC

Let me tell you a story about a man who was looking for information on Jerusalem in the years 1200-1000 BC... Cornelius (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

1 Kings 11:27

In July 2024, the Israel Antiquities Authority and Tel Aviv University announced the discovery of a moat that a moat that split the City of David in half, separating the palace and Temple Mount from the rest of the city. It was at least nine meters deep and 30 meters wide, and extended across at least 70 meters, from west to east. (source: Times of Israel) 87.0.123.54 (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Country ambiguation, citations

"The City of David is one of the most excavated archaeological sites in the country and one of the first to be excavated." Citations needed for both of these claims, as well as the ambiguity of the use of 'country' ie State of Palestine is the country. Postmethod (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: