Talk:Silwan

Merge with City of David

This article and the City of David are about same location at differnet priods. At hebrew the size of City of David article was lead to sperate them, but here both are small so they should be mereged. Troll Refaim 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No Silwan is a Palestinian neighborhood and will be in the future. They should not be merged, you can provide a link if you like to the city of david.

City of David is currently the site of an illegal Jewish settlement in Silwan. The City of David of old has nothing in common with modern Silwan but for geographic location. If the modern City of David is to be included it should be as an illegal neighborhood of Silwan. If the the old City of David is to be mentioned is should be done with links to the pages on the City of David and to any relevant archeological page.

[Addition] Even geographically, they're not the same. The City of David refers to a specific slope where the ancient city of Jerusalem was. Silwan is a newer neighborhood (built during the last 50 years or so) that is across a deep valley from the ridge of Ir David ("city of David" in Hebrew).

What??? At the most three thousand years (at least), this location was populated (The Silwan village was existed with Arab population before the 15 century). The merging has no connection with the type of population or the politics. Troll Refaim 20:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I, too, oppose the merging, though a "better job" should be done to link them to each other & to related topics. I agree with the earlier writer- they aren't the same geographic place. Ir-David refers only to the slope of mount moriah WEST of the kidron valley; kfar ha-Shiloah is on the western slope of "Har hamash'xit" the southern part of Mount of Olives, on the EASTern side of the kidron. The area of ir David is dubbed in Arabic "Wadi xilwe' " - =the sweet stream, alluding to the waters of the gihon spring.

today the media uses the name silwan for a much larger area, but it isn't precise. the Jerusalem municipality distinguishes between "silwan" and "wadi hilwe' " - see the maps on the iri'yah site (http://www.jerusalem.muni.il/jer_main/f1_main.asp?lng=1 , http://gisweb.jerusalem.muni.il/website/yoni/default.htm ).

The two names have completely different connotations, but they both warrant an entry. Ir David should include biblical & archaeological emphasis, with a little about the Jewish residents there. Silwan is associated primarily with the Moslem community and contemporary issues.

Shalom Shilonite 17:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

ElAd Properties, Elad Association

CanadianMonkey has rightly noted that these two -- ElAd Properties, a NY-based real estate company associated with Lev Leviev, etc. and the Elad settler group -- have been conflated in the entry revisions I have written up. However, the sources do not say they are the same. Nevertheless, I know for a fact that they are, I simply cannot find a source at the moment. Just wanted to give a heads-up to any editors here in case I get distracted away from the issue while wokring other pages, and they manage to find such a source. I think it's an important connection to make, personally. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Tawfiq Canaan

Tawfiq Canaan wrote about the spring in Silwan (and many other springs!) in his "Haunted Springs and Water Demons in Palestine" 1922. I have a copy, and I am trying to upload it to gutenberg.org. In the meantime, I have uploaded .jpg to the commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tawfiq_Canaan) ..but I am not sure they will stay there. On my user-page there I have started to transform the .jpg into .txt. (search for Siloam). Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1834

"In 1834, during a large-scale peasants' rebellion against Ibrahim Pasha,[8] thousands of rebels infiltrated Jerusalem through ancient underground sewage channels leading to the farm fields of the village of Silwan.[9]" Doubtful. The sewage channel was choked with rubble when Ronny Reich excavated it a couple of years ago. First century rubble. The water channel was open, of course, but it would not take anyone into the city.Historicist (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, the source—which is certainly reliable—backs the info, so we would need a counter source to argue against it, or else it's original research. Do you have access to one by any chance? And it mentions Silwan right? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph

"The ridge to the west of the tradtional village of Silwan is known as theCity of David; it was the original Bronze Age site of Jeruusalem. Archaeological exploration began in the 19th-century and is ongoing. Vacant during most of the Ottoman period, expansion onto this ridge by Jewish families coming out of Jerusalem and Arab families form Silwan began in the late 19th-century. It is now claimed as an integral part of Arab Silwan."

No sources are sited for this paragraph. A claim that an area was vacant during the Ottoman period should have supporting documents behind it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princesspeach42 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added a source, a very clear photograph from the 1850's. But the "claim" is hardly extreme. The walled city was completely surrounded by farmland in the period, though there was a caravanserai on Derech Beitlechem. The first suburbs come pretty late in the 19th century.AMuseo (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that suffices as a source, since there is a problem in identifying the exact location and it doesn't support "most of the Ottoman period". That still needs a source. Incidentally I am not disputing the claim, just asking for a source. I am certain that the area in question (ridge to the west of Silwan village) was not built on substantially from at least the early 19th century to sometime during the mandate period (except one or two isolated buildings) since I have several very detailed maps. Some of them can be viewed here. The village of Silwan itself is ancient, I trust that you didn't intend to question that. Zero^talk 03:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a map of 1632 showing Silwan village. Zero^talk 04:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yemenite Jewish settlement

This section says in one place "on the eastern slope of the Kidron, north of the Arab village" and in another place "a great extension of the village southward has sprung up, owing to the settlement here of a colony of poor Jews from Yemen, etc. many of whom have built homes on the steep hillside just above and east of Bir Eyyub". It seems to be a contradiction: north or south. Bir Eyyub is at the south end, so I'm inclined to believe the second version. Also I don't see that there is a citation for the first version. Zero^talk 05:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now located suitable maps and "south" is correct. I'll edit... I see that the "Urban Growth" section also says the Yemenite settlement was in the north (uncited). Zero^talk 07:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Dishonest edits

The JPost source used by Brewcrewer is not an article, it is an op-ed by Seth Frantzman. That is not a reliable source for statements of fact, especially for historical issues where there are actual scholarly sources available. The edit also reintroduced contentious material that is sourced only to Arutz Sheva with an edit summary that "jpost is a clearcut RS". I invite somebody to explain why that edit summary is not blatantly dishonest and why editors are inserting propaganda sources such as Arutz Sheva into encyclopedia articles. nableezy - 19:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

the op-ed piece seems insignificant seeing as the content it supports is also refed with another source that you don't dispute. what exactly qualifies Arutz Sheva as a propoganda source? WookieInHeat (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the following books from university presses identify Arutz Sheva as an operation of the settler movement. To use it as a source of fact on a subject which directly involves the settler movement is a clear no-no.

• "group of Jewish settlers in the occupied territories who were opposed to making peace with Palestinians in those territories launched an ideological competitor called Arutz Sheva" Amit Schejter (2009). Muting Israeli Democracy: How Media and Cultural Policy Undermine Free Expression (History of Communication). University of Illinois Press. p. 30.
• "associated with the right wing of the religious Zionist movement" Tamar el-Or and Haim Watzman (2002). Next Year I Will Know More: Literacy and Identity Among Young Orthodox Women in Israel. Wayne State University Press. p. 17.
• "religious-nationalist station, voicing the ideology and interests of the settlers in the occupied territories" Motti Regev and Edwin Seroussi (2004). Popular music and national culture in Israel. University of California Press. p. 37.
• "the settlers' radio station" Motti Inbari and Shaul Vardi (2009). Jewish fundamentalism and the Temple Mount: who will build the Third Temple?. State University of New York Press. p. 158.
• "settlers' radio station" Colin Shindler (2008). A history of modern Israel. Cambridge University Press. p. 262.

This association is so clear and undisputed that the content of Arutz Sheva could be used as a source on the settlers' opinion, if it is presented that way. However it absolutely cannot be cited as if it is a reliable third-party source. Zero^talk 05:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone but everyone knows Arutz Sheva is a settler mouthpiece. Here are just a few articles in Haaretz that describe it as such explicity, or even as "owned and run by settlers": [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. And one from Ynet: [13]. And JPost [14] Zero^talk 14:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the JP opinion piece by Seth Franzman, here is the total of everything it says about Silwan: "Silwan, where Yemenite Jews had settled in 1882 was also taken over along with the Old city's Jewish quarter which was razed." This is referring to 1948 and if you read it carefully it does not even say that Jews lived there until 1948. It is indeed dishonest to claim it as a source for "Many of the Yemenite Jews fled from Silwan during the riots of the Arab revolt" which was 1936-8. Zero^talk 06:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The other source offered is the JP article "Documents show Arabs illegally obtained Jewish homes in Silwan". This article reports a claim by the Office of the Custodian for Absentee Properties that five houses vacated in the 1930s were never sold. So it is also dishonest to use that to back a general claim about the neighborhood, and also wrong to present it as a fact rather than as a claim by an interested party. Zero^talk 06:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

citing a bunch of offline publications and claiming they prove Arutz Sheva is "settler propoganda" is a rather weak argument. the op-ed piece is irrelevant as the other sources support the information it is used to reference. and finally, your opinion of the jpost articles honestly doesn't mean the article is not a WP:RS. also i've added another couple refs. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So you openly refuse to address the content of my well researched complaint. That does not present you in a good light and suggests you are not here for aceptable reasons. Zero^talk 10:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Being too lazy to check what real sources, meaning books in libraries, say is not even a weak argument, it is only a demonstration that you are more concerned with pushing a certain POV than creating a reliable reference. nableezy - 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources cited are either unreliable or do not support the material they are being used for. Arutz Sheva is not a reliable source, certainly not on historical matters. Op-eds are not reliable sources. The other sources do not support the material that is being added here. nableezy - 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

all the sources directly mention the content they are supporting. arutz sheva and the op-ed are only two out of five sources for the content you are removing. the LA Times and JPost are legitimate sources. WookieInHeat (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

That is incredibly dishonest, so much so that I am tempted to call it a lie. You re-added a line "after which their homes were occupied by Arab families without compensation." That line is sourced to the following: Arutz Sheva and WHO OWNS THE LAND? this JPost abstract. The Arutz Sheva source has been discussed, now lets look at the JPost. It says the following:

Levy says there are also many cases of properties that belonged to Jews in the Jerusalem area and were abandoned during Arab rioting in the 1920's and 1930's or in the aftermath of War of Independence. Jewish properties in Silwan, the Moslem Quarter and Hebron fall into this category. Arabs eventually settled there without registering ownership.

Levy is "For [Edmund Levy], an expert on real estate and project advancement". You are taking what a real estate agent is saying and presenting it as fact. That is not having a reliable source support your edits. You have demonstrated that you are not concerned with the sources, only with pushing a particular, consistent, POV. Your sources dont support the material you have repeatedly added to the article. Such editing should result in a ban. nableezy - 21:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

i've added another ref that also directly supports the "occupied homes without compensation" section. go ahead and remove the op-ed and arutz sheva refs if you like, the content will still be properly sourced. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

also, i find it rather hypocritical that you accuse me of POV pushing. in this article i tried to neutralize the disputed content by including the rewording of a sentence written by a Zero who also disagreed with the content. over at the Psagot article i attempted to find middle ground by suggesting a new section to satisfy the interests of both sides of the debate. in contrast, you only edit war and delete content you disagree with while consistently arguing in favour of all negative content about israel, regardless of the informations merits. i have been nothing but cooperative and polite while you are rude and flat out refuse to work with any editor who opposes you. now who is POV pushing? WookieInHeat (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont care what you think. I thought I made that clear to you. You make shifting arguments only dependent on POV. You remove properly sourced material and insert poor sources. At Psagot you have been nothing but disruptive, removing whatever makes Israel look less than lily white. Here you have repeatedly inserted material that is not supported by the sources or uses very poor sources. Yes, that is POV pushing. You accuse me of edit-warring here, but count and see who has made more reverts, me or you. Bye. nableezy - 23:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, obviously my suggestion of creating a new section discussing the illegality of israeli settlements in the Psagot article is an attempt at whitewashing israel's image. you keep saying you don't care what i think, yet here you are, debating with me... WookieInHeat (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Zero, your WP:POINT is? That anti-settler Haaretz is a reliable source about criticizing its diametrically opposite Arutz7? Give us a break. --Shuki (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Brewcrewer again makes a blatantly dishonest edit. Nobody said that the JPost is not a reliable source, however the actual material he is inserting is not in the JPost article cited. The JPost article cited says that a real estate agent says that this is true. Brewcrewer either reverted without reading the source, something that any editor actually operating in good faith would not do, or read the source and willfully misrepresented it, something that should result in a ban. Brewcrewer, explain yourself. nableezy - 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the JP article doesn't quote Levy as supporting "their homes were occupied by Arab families without compensation" either. What he actually says (I have the full article) is "The properties were bought by Jews and the titles are still held by Jews. No one ever registered the land otherwise." Incidentally, Arutz Sheva is an unreliable source and cannot possibly be accepted unless it is identified as a settler mouthpiece as multiple RSs describe it. Would we cite the PLO newspaper for facts without identifying it? Zero^talk 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My God, now we've even got blatant lies from notorious Islamophobes. Zero^talk 05:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

1921 riots ?

According to the article currently,

During the 1921 Jaffa riots, Jewish resident of Silwan were attacked, resulting in a few deaths and destroyed homes.

citing a Ynet article [15] which says:

In the 1921, Arabs attacked the neighborhood's residents, killed some of them and torched houses. They "completed" their work in the 1929 riots.

But according to the alt-arch site, [16]

In 1884 the first Yemenites settled in Silwan and for 45 years lived peacefully and in very good terms with their Arab neighbors. It seemed that the people of Silwan, which was known to be a poor village, found common ground with the poor Jewish Yemenites that lived among them.

In the 1929 Arab Riots, not a single Jewish resident of Silwan (Shiloah village) was killed or injured. The Arab residents of the village, led by the Ghozlan family, sheltered their Jewish neighbors and prevented their attack. After a few days of rioting, the British, who mandated Palestine at that time, moved the Yemenite Jews into the old city. A group of Jews returned to live in Silwan after 1929, but following the 1936 Great Arab Revolt, all the Jews left the village.

Despite the attempt to depict the 1929 Arab Riot as a violent incident against the Jews in Silwan, it is clear that it was not the case. From a letter of gratitude that the Yemenite Jews sent to their Arab neighbors, we can learn about the devotion and benevolence that the Arabs have shown towards the Yemenites by undauntedly protecting them, and also about the amity and good neighborly relations that prevailed between the two communities.

So it seems that the ynet article is wrong - or at least misleading - with regard to 1929. Is there any evidence as to whether its claims for 1921 are any better researched? My understanding is that the 1921 Jaffa riots are so named because they were centred on Jaffa. There was knock-on violence elsewhere, but no mention of Jerusalem or Silwan in our article on them.

Can anyone come up with more solid sourcing for this? Jheald (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"Bloody riots broke out in Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem on November 2, 1921, when five Jewish residents and three of their Arab attackers were killed, which led to calls for the resignation of the city's commissioner, Sir Ronald Storrs - the source is Tom Segev--Nopleazy (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So not Silwan then? Jheald (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The first source is reliable and I don't know the basis of reliability for the second one.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The reference books I've looked at don't talk about riots in 1921 in Silwan. There was some localised violence at particular times within the walls of the Old City, but I've seen no mention of rioting in Silwan. An offhand remark in some journalist's rapidly knocked together article is at the lowest level of reliability as reliable sources go. Given that the account is flatly rejected by the "other" side, it's appropriate to flag this as "dubious", and in need of better sourcing. Jheald (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

not sure what you mean by the "other side." besides the other "source" you're using refers to 1929, not 1921.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"for 45 years lived peacefully and in very good terms with their Arab neighbors" --> which would include 1921.

What is needed is a proper detailed source for "deaths" and "destroyed homes" in 1921 -- because at the moment, apart from a bit of journalism from ynet of pretty hit-and-miss accuracy, it's simply not there. Jheald (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but you can't use some website you found to discredit a reliable source. its really that simple.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

An offhand remark in a not especially closely researched article isn't particularly reliable -- which is why a dubious-discuss tag is entirely appropriate. If we're talking about assertions that people were killed and burnt out of their houses, let's see a proper source, from a proper historian. Jheald (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems in Wikipedia is the trusting of newspapers for historical (rather than contemporary) facts. This is not mandated by any policy, nor should it be since newspapers are notoriously unreliable as sources of history. This example is not even a historical article but just a review of some photographs. Can anyone find a good source that there were any deaths at all in Silwan during the 1921 Jaffa riots? I just went through all 64 pages of the official enquiry and I am pretty sure there is no mention of violence in Silwan (or any other place near Jerusalem). Better than that, on page 60 there is a complete list of places where there were casualties along with counts of dead and wounded for Arabs and Jews. The places are Jaffa, Petach Tikvah, Rehovot and Hadera. There were no deaths in Silwan. The newspaper writer made a mistake, that's nothing new. Zero^talk 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you really asking us to trust your original research to remove sourced material?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when is reporting the content of a published document original research? The fact is that an exceedingly weak source made a claim that a very detailed eminent source says is wrong. So it is wrong. Zero^talk 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion from the fact that a source does not mention a certain event and using that conclusion to delete sourced content that contradicts your conclusion is classic Original Research as defined by our rules. If you like, I can being this up at the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard , unless I am missing something.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What he said. Jeff Song (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What he said is wrong. The best available source lists all the casualties. It says so. Original research phooey. Zero^talk 07:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And the only source you have is not reliable anyway. Am I the only one here who actually cares if the article is accurate? Zero^talk 07:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

'What he said' is not an argument. The source from Ynet is dubious at best, and can't be independently confirmed yet in historical sources (I'm still looking). Editors should generally refrain from adding unconfirmed, one-off tidbits from newspapers when historical sources fail to confirm them. I agree with Zero. Get a better source. Nishidani (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the incursion of an anon, just registered today, to revert my edit, on specious grounds, is doubly problematical. We shall have to address this behaviour eventually. Tacit connivance is, also, not appropriate. Anyone can play that game, which is essentially socking.Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Having looked at several quite detailed accounts of the 1921 Jaffa riots (in May), I found no reason to doubt the evidence of the official enquiry that none of the deaths occurred in Silwan. As support, I can (if necessary) cite The Times that things were quiet in Jerusalem. There is another possibility, namely the riots in Jerusalem of early November 1921. Either 4 or 5 Jews died. All the accounts I can find refer only to the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, but it is not impossible that the violence included Silwan. Of course this is speculation, but I mention it as something that can be searched for. If someone can confirm this speculation with a reliable source, we will of course use it in the article. One place to look would be contemporary Hebrew newspapers. Zero^talk 02:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked that possibility yesterday as well, since I thought perhaps there was some confusion between Jaffa riots and the Jaffa gate or Bab al-Khalil, which is to the West, as opposed to Silwan below the Bab al-Maghariba. In Laurens's detailed aaccount (La Question de Palestine, vol.1, pp.588-590) the rioters ran through the centre of Jerusalem, were turned back at the Jaffa gate, authorised to go back to Omar's Mosque, where they tried to enter the Jewish quarter, were repulsed, and killed passers-by in the alleys running off the main street. It's after checking there that I reverted, thinking that, since of 5 Jews killed, the Ynewt article has a few 2 or more, i.e., half or so, murdered in Silwan, that site would have been mentioned. Still, wiki isn't written overnight. I fail to see anything POV in the desire to get ascertainable and verifiable facts, as opposed to vague reports, into articles. Nishidani (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I checked 5 books talking about the 1921 riots and none of them mentions Silwan. My conclusion is that even if the information was/is true, it should be considered wp:undue. 81.247.10.41 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

36-39 arab rioting

can Jheald please explain why there is a need for pretty tags[17] when the sentence lists 3 sources?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The sources talk about the Yemenite Jews leaving in 1938. None of them talk about Yemenites leaving before that; but that is what our article as currently written implies. Hence the {{fact}} tag for a reliable source that Yemenites were leaving after 1936 before in 1938 the remaining Yemenite Jews in Silwan were evacuated by the British authorities. Jheald (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

you read all three sources cited at the end of the sentence?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yemenites

Here is what Parfitt (see refs) writes: "Not only were the Yemenites viewed as a sideshow by the secular, European settlers, they were also viewed as marginal by the long-established orthodox community. Indeed, at first, some of the Yemenites with their different customs, dark complexion, and curious pronunciation of Hebrew were not recognised as Jews at all by members of the Old Yishuv and had to be given shelter and help by the Christians of the American Colony just outside Jerusalem.[ref] Many or them, at the beginning, had to sleep in the open air or in caves in the vicinity of the Holy City. But eventually with the assistance of well-meaning Palestinian Jews they started to establish themselves, initially in the Arab village of Silwan just outside Dung Gate.[ref]" The book of Nini, while not emphasising this point, says on p206 that the leaders of the Yishuv warned them to stop coming and on p207 mentions a demonstration mounted by the newcomers to get noticed. Also mentions the Christians on p205 footnote. The paper of Kark and Ariel is consistent with all of this: "the members of the Colony were the only community in Jerusalem to offer assistance" (it does not say "the only community able to offer assistance"). All four authors are prominent Israeli historians. A newspaper article by a journalist who fails to mention any of this but instead spins a romantic tale cannot stand against sources of this quality. Zero^talk 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh, but Israeli historians are partisan. We know that secular Israelis dispise the Yemenite community, so it is probable that they would wish to sideline their early history in Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be right, but we don't a choice but to locate the best sources we can and cite them accurately. Btw, the general discrimination that the Yemenites suffered at the hands of the Ashkenazi Zionists is very well documented, and not just by secular historians, I'm sure you know that. Actually it is a standard part of the Yemenite's own narrative. Zero^talk 05:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Removed one-sided allegation from intro paragraph - please don't revert without explaining yourself here

Hi, I removed the following half-sentence from the intro paragraph:

"which are ultimately part of a larger plan to create a Jewish majority in Silwan [18]"

That this is the High Court's intention is not an encyclopedic fact, it's a conspiracy theory/allegation claimed by certain people (the cited source is a one-sided pro-Palestinian NGO with a very specific political agenda, not in the least a neutral or authoritative source).

If you want to mention this allegation in the article, fine, but do so in the proper setting (i.e. inside the "Modern Jewish settlement" subsection), and make it clear to the reader that this is a subjective allegation and be sure to mention who exactly claims this.

In any case, this allegation has no place as a statement-of-fact in the intro paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.73.35 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Btselem East Jerusalem paragraph

However this is the result of policies which systematically deny Arab residents permits to build. The planning regime has forced many Palestinians to build homes without building permits. Although building code violations are more common in Jewish neighborhoods, Jerusalem Municipality enforces regulations more stringently where Palestinian residents are involved.

Asad112, you put this section in twice. The source there: a) does not mention this place, Silwan, only East Jerusalem generally. I see that there is an East Jerusalem article. Why would we copy parts of it to here? b) you quote it in an objective voice. I looked up the source, B'Tselem. It seems clear that it is only one position in the Middle East discussion.

Thank you, Aslbsl

East Jerusalem is umbrella term to refer to all the territory that was annexed by Israel in 1967, this does include Silwan. -asad (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. The Silwan article says it is East Jerusalem in the second line.

The source you bring doesn't specifically talk about Silwan. There are many articles and issues about East Jerusalem. It doesn't make sense to repeat them in every place that is in East Jerusalem.

Also, the source is presented as objective fact. It is clearly one of several positions.

Aslbsl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslbsl (talk • contribs) 10:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Silwan is in East Jerusalem by B'tselem's own definition. B'tselem is also an Israeli human rights organization for the Occupied Territories. What they are reporting are things based on research they've done. What B'tselem has reported is also inline with what Amnesty International says:

"Palestinians living in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, faced such tight restrictions on what they could build that their right to adequate housing was violated. Forced evictions were carried out in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, on the grounds that the houses had been built without permits; such permits are almost impossible for Palestinians to obtain from the Israeli authorities."

Also, could please not insert break lines into your posts. It interrupts the flow of the talk page. Thanks. -asad (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know Silwan is in E Jerusalem. No one is arguing that it isn't. The article says so clearly in the second line. The paragraph you inserted is the issue. It is not specifically about Silwan (doesn't mention it), but rather about a general topic relating to all of E Jerusalem.

Why discuss the general issue on this specific page (Silwan) when there is a page called East Jerusalem?

I'll try to reduce breaks, but they are spacing between paragraphs. Aslbsl (talk) 12:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant because the Jerusalem Municipality is the entity currently governing municipal issues regarding Silwan. The preceding paragraph talks about about the structures that are built illegally in Silwan, and this paragraph gives depths on the issues facing the residents of Silwan should they decide to build. -asad (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The East Jerusalem article mentions many such issues. Why pick this one? By that logic this should be pasted in every E Jerusalem place article, something that makes no sense. Aslbsl (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Aslbsl asked me to see if I can contribute to this discussion. The problem with this edit is that it is, especially the first sentence of it (However this is the result of...), a synthesis of sources — see WP:SYNTH policy for what synthesis is and how to avoid it. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the paragraph could do without claiming that it was a result of "such and such policies". But the claim for there being so many illegal structures in Silwan really warrants an explanation. -asad (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess we need some specific source on Silwan to explain the phenomenon. I'd search Palestinian and Israeli central bureaus of statistics publications for the basic facts, and NGOs and think tanks publications for the interpretations. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't think that is necessary. Silwan residents are subjected to the same sort of difficulties that any other resident of East Jerusalem is, be it in Silwan, the Old City or Wadi Joz. Basic understanding of B'tselem's definition of "East Jerusalem" makes it entirely clear. As the article is now: Paragraph one gives statistics of the "illegal" structures existing in Silwan > paragraph two explains why so many of those "illegal" structures exist using a B'tselem source that cites the area of representation of the report being East Jerusalem (and we know that B'tselem's definition of East Jerusalem includes Silwan). No new conclusions are being drawn, therefore it cannot be classified as original research. -asad (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I searched for something specifically discussing permit discrimination in Silwan, but news/NGO items that came up deal with recent demolition or zoning plans, and not much else. Aslbsl (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a bit from Ir Amim:

"Since 1967, fewer than 20 construction permits have been issued to Palestinians in the Wadi Hilweh area, while the permits that were issued were mainly for minor additions to existing construction. As a result, the vast majority of buildings in Silwan in general, and in al-Bustan in particular, are built without permits." [19]

-asad (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Asad, you said you "updated per source," but in fact you reversed ElComandanteChe's removal of the material. In any event, I paraphrased the paragraph you posted here (which does talk about Silwan) to provide the same context. The section also looked messy and I didn't see anything about squatters, so I reorganized the passages.Aslbsl (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just took out another section for the same reason as above. It does not talk specifically about Silwan and might belong in the general East Jerusalem or Israeli settlement articles. I also reworded a passage which was not fully quoted and was more rhetoric than information, and I added new information that I came across while working on this. Aslbsl (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

1873 model

If anyone is in or going to be in Jerusalem, it might be worth adding a photograph of Silwan as depicted in Stefan Illes's 1873 1:500 scale model of Jerusalem, now in the Tower of David Museum. This shows the village of Silwan as it was before the Yemenite settlement. Some photos can be found on flickr [20], [21], and on the museum website [22], but unfortunately they are not appropriately licensed for us to use here (and, for pictures of Silwan, the angle could be better). Jheald (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Silwan can also be compared on the 1865 map [23]. Jheald (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots more nineteenth-century maps, from Hebrew University: [24] Jheald (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidents

On October 9 1991, several dozen students of a rabbinical college, accompanied by several right-wing Knesset members, expelled Arab residents from several buildings and occupied them. The settlement operation, occurring a few days before the arrival in Israel of US Secretary of State James Baker, was interpreted by Labor party members as a deliberate provocation orchestrated to thwart peace negotiations.

I removed this section because it seems like it could be one of dozens of similar incidents from both sides. Was this specific incident a major part of the settlement? Were the students allowed to remain their?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslbsl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'seems like' is not an adequate explanation for removal of RS that consider this a significant event, in that the timing of occupying those houses in Silwan was interpreted as related to calculations of their international impact. If someone has a better argument for suppressing the passage, let me at least, the editor who put that there, know why this datum is not relevant.Nishidani (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

1936

The source I provided for the 1936 removal is a memoir by someone who actually helped directly in the removal of the Yemenite community. However the next line says the British removed them 2 years later. Perhaps there is a distinction here between the Yemenite and other Jews. In any case, my edit supplied an eyewitness RS which is then slightly contradicted by the three sources for 1938, and the passage evidently needs closer work.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When was the Jewish community evacuated?

On the basis of this memoir of Sylva Gerber, it is stated that the Jewish community was evacuated in 1936. The source says merely "In 1936, we moved the Yemenite Jews from Silwan into the Jewish Quarter of the Old CIty...". The meaning of "we" is the Jewish Welfare Bureau that the author belonged to. Memoirs are not history books (no references, often no research, just personal recollection) and their reliability is variable. Do we have any confirmation for a 1936 event? On the thought that an evacuation would surely have been mentioned in the Palestine Post, I looked at every article found by the search engine for either "Silwan" or "Yemenite" starting at the beginning of 1936. I saw no mention of any evacuation in 1936, nor in 1937, nor in 1938 before August. No mention of any return of evacuated Jews either. On Jan 28, 1938, there is an article says that the District Commissioner visited Silwan and was told that all was well with the Yemenite Jews living there. Then on August 15 the following appears:

JEWS EVACUATED FROM SILWAN VILLAGE
Ten Jewish Yemenite families, who have been living in Silwan village for the past half-century, were evacuated from their homes in the village yesterday. They have been domiciled in the Old City in quarters provided by the Jewish Community Council. The Jewish occupants of Silwan, — Biblical Shiloah in the Valley of Jehoshaphat — did not leave the village during the riots of 1929. They number some 40 souls, most of the men being employed in the Old City. They were advised by the police recently to move into the Old City, and the Community Council undertook their transfer.

This actually matches the "1936" event in Gerber's memoir very well. Her "Kehillah Welfare Bureau" is undoubtedly the "Community Council" mentioned here, or an organ of it ("kehillah" means "community"). In my opinion, the "1936" in Gerber's memoir is just a typo or misremembered detail for "1938". No, I can't prove it. Searching the Hebrew newspapers at Historical Jewish Press may confirm or refute me. Zero^talk 08:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Great work. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo

About: Ath Thuri and Siwan Areal photo, It looks to me that the names of At Tur and Silwan have been interchanged on the photo? Huldra (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the explanation. What is labeled "Ath Thuri" on the photo is Abu Tor, not At-Tur. You can match the photo to Google Maps pretty easily, maybe this link works. I don't know if this is a simple error, or whether "Ath Thuri" has a meaning I'm not aware of. Zero^talk 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we add a demographics section?

140.107.63.196 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition

Some of the recent additions by User:Davidbena (well, hello again, there!) ...simply do not belong in this article. They belong in, say, Yemenite_Jews#First_wave_of_emigration:_1881_to_1914. I´m thinking of sentences like:

"Based on a numerological interpretation of the biblical verse "I shall go up on the date palm [tree]" (Song of Songs 7:9), in which the numerical value of the Hebrew words "on the date palm" (Hebrew: בתמר) - 642 - corresponded to the Hebrew year 5642 anno mundi (1881/82), with the millennium being abbreviated, Yemenite Jews began leaving Sana'a for the Holy Land. It was an arduous journey that took them over half a year to reach Jerusalem, where they arrived destitute of all things."

"while others moved to Jaffa. Initially shunned by the Jews of the Old Yishuv, who did not recognize them as Jews due to their dark complexions, unfamiliar customs, and strange pronunciation of Hebrew, they had to be given shelter by the Christians of the Swedish-American colony, who called them Gadites"

etc, Huldra (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, welcome. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but not all of these are my additions. I did NOT write the last paragraph quoted by you, and I definitely disagree with it. The Yemenites, in fact, were well-received by Albert Antebi, a Jew whose origins are from Syria. The only disagreement that I have heard about is with the Sephardic community of Jews, who used discrimination against Yemenite Jews, and heavily taxed them. Most of the differences between the Jews of Yemen and the Sephardic Jews, however, concerned only differences in custom and culture.

As for the first paragraph, this is actually a revision of what was poorly written before I made my edit. If you check the history, the sentence was poorly constructed before I made the revisions. Nevertheless, since it pertains to Jewish immigration to Silwan during that year, the particular passage with its curious anecdotal message about the year in mnemonics is very interesting, and well-known in Yemenite Jewish circles. Ma Salameh.---Davidbena (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, User:Davidbena: it does´t really matter ho first put it there: it does not concern Silwan; hence it just does not belong here. Again: Yemenite_Jews#First_wave_of_emigration:_1881_to_1914 seems to me to be the correct place. The Yemenite Jews did not leave Yemen with the express purpose of settling in Silwan, and indeed, at first they did not. Hence; *why* they left Yemen does not belong here. Yeah, I´m sure it was "well-known in Yemenite Jewish circles," ...just like, say, knowledge about Ramadan is "well-known in Silwan Muslim circles": but that does not mean that we should have a large piece about Ramadan in *this* article. Huldra (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, User:Huldra. Since Yemenites settled in Silwan in 1882, and this year had special meaning to them, it is incidental that we mention the reason why. It is all part of the Ottoman period history, which section is narrowed-down specifically to that period in Silwan's history. The larger article, entitled Yemenite Jews, does not speak in great detail about Silwan. This article, however, Silwan, is the place for that. By the way, if you look at the "Yemenite Jews" article, it does mention in the Chronology the immigration of Yemenite Jews to the land of Israel in 1882.---Davidbena (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: I was just thinking, User:Huldra, that maybe we can shorten the sentence to read, "In 1881–82, a group of Jews arrived from Yemen as a result of messianic fervor. The year had special meaning unto them, for which some thirty Yemenite Jewish families set out from Sana'a for the Holy Land." Maybe here, after the words, "The year had special meaning unto them," we can insert a footnote that explains its implication and meaning: "Based on a numerological interpretation of the biblical verse "I shall go up on the date palm [tree]" (Song of Songs 7:9), in which the numerical value of the Hebrew words "on the date palm" (Hebrew: בתמר) - 642 - corresponded to the Hebrew year 5642 anno mundi (1881/82), with the millennium being abbreviated, it was expounded to mean, "I shall go up (meaning, make the pilgrimage) in the year 642 of the sixth millennia." What do you think about this for a better construction? All of the arcane language can be inserted in a footnote. Would that be better? ----Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)22:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The whole point is that they did not set out for Silwan from Yemen, indeed, they lived for many, many years in Jerusalem *before* they settled at Silwan. If you read the history about the American Colony (e.g. in Odd Karsten Tveit, (2011). "Anna's House: The American Colony in Jerusalem") you will see the close relationship those two groups had. If anything, the information you want in this article, is actually more relevant in the American Colony-article. It only serves a certain political purpose to have it in this article: trying to create a special historical significance where there is none. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect, User:Huldra. The Yemenite Jews upon setting foot in Jerusalem in 1882 settled first in Silwan, and only later did some of them move into the newer quarter of Jerusalem, known then as "Mishkanot," while some moved to Jaffa. These Jews were later joined by other Yemenite Jews in subsequent years who settled in the newer quarter of Jerusalem. Still, the first group to come to the country were still in Silwan, where houses were built for them. All of this is documented in historical records. Yaakov Ramon was an eye-witness when the Jews of Yemen entered Jerusalem in 1882, after having walked seven months from Yemen until they reached the Land of Israel. He wrote:

“As one who was born in Jerusalem and one of its citizens, I vividly remember the time when these, our dear brothers, came, [that is to say], our brothers the Yemenites, within the gates of Jerusalem. The beginning of their settlement in it happened to be in the year 1882. It came with the mnemonics, aʻaleh betamar (literally, ‘I shall go up on the date palm tree,’ a verse taken from Song of Songs. These words were expounded to mean, ‘I shall make the pilgrimage [in the year] anno mundi 5,642, or what was then 1882 CE). Many troubles and terrible hardships passed over them, until they finally reached Jerusalem by foot. Bitter and frightening was then their condition. Judging by the sight of their countenance and their way of life, consternation and mental stress had gripped hold on every man. Nearly all were covered in rags and they walked barefoot. They went about the city in search of food for them and for their babes, and at night they slept in the city’s streets. They went inside the grottos of the cliffs and in the caves that were surrounding Jerusalem, and dwelt therein.... In 1907 the [Ottoman] government recognized them as an independent community, according to what they had demanded…. They also purchased for themselves a cemetery on the slope of the Mount of Olives." - Excerpt taken from the book, “The Jews of Yemen in Tel-Aviv” (Hebrew), by Yaakov Ramon, Jerusalem 1935. ----Davidbena (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest you read Odd Karsten Tveit, (2011). "Anna's House: The American Colony in Jerusalem" for another account. That is a well-researched, sober account, based on papers from that period, and without the religious fervour, Huldra (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
• I am familiar with the American Colony in Jerusalem, and have actually visited the place. In the late 1800's, the American Colony provided food, money and clothing to the Jews in Silwan, in an effort to draw them to Christianity. They were a Christian mission. The Jews realized their ulterior motives and eventually broke away from them. Still, User:Huldra, the community in Silwan was well-established, and eventually they built houses for themselves in Silwan. If the Ottoman Government recognized them as an independent community in Silwan, then there is indeed some special historical significance at mentioning them here in this article. In fact, even under Jordanian rule in 1948-1967, the King of Jordan recognized their land holdings in Silwan as being legitimate Jewish property. In my opinion, it would be a greater "political statement" to expunge these facts and not to mention them than to mention them in passing. Be well.---Davidbena (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, what happened was that the Yemenites were at first not accepted by the local Yishuv and would have been thoroughly destitute except for the Christian charities that helped them. It was only later that accommodation was bought for them in Silwan. It is hardly surprising that there are histories that attempt to elide this shameful episode by claiming, dishonestly, that the Yemenites were welcomed with open arms. I'm far from home with little time for editing but I'll add sources and quotations when I get a chance. Zero^talk 15:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Now I see it is already here, with a longer quotation above supported by several sources. I agree with Huldra that the numerology thing has nothing to do with Silwan and so does not belong in this article. Your version is incorrect according to the best academic historians like Tudor Parfitt, who spent a large part of his life studying the Yemenites. I suspect that your source belongs to the genre of "religious history" that is not particularly reliable on facts. The imputation of only ulterior motives to Christians is another characterising feature of the genre. Zero^talk 16:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena "They were a Christian mission." Nope. They came to Jerusalem for several reasons; for the Spaffords: one reason was that mr Spafford had used the money of a client account: (a big no-no for a lawyer, both then and now), so they basically *had* to leave the US. Another reason was that the group apparently truly expected the end of the world, on a certain day. The colony had some difficulties surviving after that day, but they eventually redefined themselves, Huldra (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Zero0000, I totally agree with you that numerological interpretation is only a side issue, and not directly related to Silwan, but is of importance only to the émigrés themselves. I have since excised the long, burdensome and arcane reference to that and have put it in a footnote. By the way, I have been reading a book published by Rabbi Avraham al-Naddaf who immigrated to Jerusalem in 1891 and who speaks about the hardships the Yemenite Jewish community had encountered with the Spanish Jewish community (Sepharadim), who compelled them to no longer make use of their own soft, pliable matzah, but to buy from them only the hard cracker-like matzah made weeks in advance prior to Passover. He is a primary source, and an eye-witness to events in Jerusalem during that period. There were cultural issues involved here. He mentions in his book other problems as well, such as being taxed by them for the public coffers, yet not being allotted an equal share or subsidy as had been given to the Sephardic Jews. Hopefully, I'll go to the Public Library in Jerusalem this coming Sunday to read more about this period of history in the lives of Yemen's Jews who immigrated to the land of Israel. In any rate, the newspaper link in the main article is inaccurate and misleading when it says that they were not accepted by the local Yishuv. There were simply no hostelries to accommodate wayfarers and new immigrants. On the other hand, Rabbi Avraham al-Naddaf writes explicitly in his autobiography that the Sephardic seminaries (Heb. Kollelim) had received the Yemenite Jews from the moment they stepped foot in Jerusalem. See page 56 of book "Zekhor Le'Avraham," published in Jerusalem in 1992 by Uzziel Alnadaf. The Sephardic Jews also comprised the local Yishuv, meaning, the settled Jewish population in Palestine. Davidbena (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, my dear friend from Palestine, I have read the autobiography of Rabbi Avraham al-Naddaf in the book, "Zekhor Le'Avraham," published by his grandson in Jerusalem in 1992, where he mentions the mission and how Jews would go there to receive help and assistance from them. They were reprimanded for doing so, since it was a missionary run by Americans and Swedes.Davidbena (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidbena: I`m not going to repeat myself, but you could try to look into this article, about myth-making, and the book by Tudor Parfitt: The Road to Redemption: The Jews of the Yemen, 1900-1950, which, btw, is strangely absent from the Yemenite Jews article, Huldra (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My dear friend User:Huldra, I will be going to Jerusalem Al-Quds on Sunday, where I have already ordered the book that you've named. I will take notice of its content. Still, if you ask me, a primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, in our case. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The above book, " The Road to Redemption: The Jews of the Yemen, 1900-1950," has very good preview, so you can read a lot of it just by pressing the link. The Anna's House: An American Colony in Jerusalem does not offer any preview, unfortunately. Huldra (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, again, User:Huldra. I especially enjoyed reading the link with the article from Haaretz, describing the hardships faced by the Yemenites during their immigration in 1949-1950. Many of the stories mentioned in the article are well-known to me. I have heard these stories before. One elderly rabbi, Rabbi Yihya Alsheikh (now deceased), told me years ago that many old books and Torah scrolls, one dating back 900 years, were sent from Aden by boat to Jaffa, in wooden crates, but they were stolen. They never reached their owners. Sad, sad stories.Davidbena (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The American Colony and their relations with the Yemenite Jews

User:Huldra and User:Zero0000, yesterday, I visited the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem and perused through two books suggested by Huldra. In them, they discuss the immigration of Yemenite Jews to Jerusalem in 1882, and their contacts with the American Colony. In the book, Anna's House - The American Colony in Jerusalem, by Odd Karsten Tveit (pub. in Cyprus 2011), while recollecting their journey to Palestine, the author writes on pages 73–74: "Altogether, 500 Jews had been convinced by this messianic prophecy and decided to leave their homes in the Yemeni city of Sana'a. They sold all their belongings and set off on a journey to Jerusalem... When the 500 reached the Red Sea coast they were discouraged from going further. It was not true, they learned, that land was given away free. Some returned to Sana'a, others were fooled into boarding a vessel which took them to India instead of Palestine. The rest, around 200, went to Aden, where they got a steamship through the Suez Canal to Jaffa. From there thy travelled on foot all the way to Jerusalem. ...The 200 Yemeni Jews were starving and sick, some had malaria, others typhus and dysentery. Horatio (who ran the American Colony with his wife, Ann Spafford) explained through the interpreter, that the rabbis were welcome to come to the Christians' house just outside the Damascus Gate... Not all the Yemenis came, but many did... The poorest and weakest of the Yemenis were given room in the house. The rest stayed in tents, huts or caves, just outside the city wall."

Earlier, on page 71, the Swedish author, Odd Karsten Tveit, wrote of Ann Spafford's first impressions of the Jews of Yemen, when she first saw them in May of 1882: "Last Sunday, 220 Jews came and among them were three learned rabbis." Odd Karsten Tveit, himself, described on pages 72–73 the Jewish group from Yemen in the following terms: "One day, the Americans left the city through the Damascus Gate and travelled north, passing the Jewish colony of Mea Shearim, a name taken from a verse in the Book of Moses... They continued further towards some fields, which were near what the Jews believed to be the grave of the High Priest, Simon the Just. There, Anna saw a group of people sitting in the shade of some primitive looking tents made of rags, sacks and mats, all of them dark-skinned, with dark hair and eyes. Both men and women were unusually beautiful. The men sported the side curls worn by Orthodox Jews, and many had long beards, but otherwise they were dressed like Arabs. Thy were rather short and thin, and when they stood up their stride was very graceful, just like the Bedouin.... The strangers could not understand classical Arabic, and spoke a dialect their interpreter did not know, but he understood that they were Jews, and that they had come to Jerusalem a week earlier from their home in Yemen, southern Arabia." ----Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating, once integrated with the works you mentioned in the previous section. David, have you considered writing a book or extended article on this subject?Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Tudor Parfitt, in his book, The Road to Redemption (Leiden 1996), writes on page 53: "Not only were the Yemenites viewed as a sideshow by the secular, European settlers, they were also viewed as marginal by the long-established orthodox community. Indeed, at first, some of the Yemenites with their different customs, dark complexion, and curious pronunciations of Hebrew were not recognised as Jews at all by members of the Old Yishuv and had to be given shelter and help by the Christians of the American Colony just outside Jerusalem. Many of them, at the beginning, had to sleep in the open air or in caves in the vicinity of the Holy City. But eventually with the assistance of well-meaning Palestinian Jews they started to establish themselves, initially in the Arab village of Silwan just outside Dung Gate." ----Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No, User:Nishidani, I have not considered writing a book on this particular topic. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, just as a note. I've always been struck, given the great difference in their traditions, the diffidence and difficulties they often encountered among the Ashkenazi elite themselves in the 50s, that Albert Einstein, the acumen of Ashkenazi Jewry, felt an instinctive bond with them. This came out during a musical evening where B'rakha Zephira sang some Yemeni songs; Sergei Eisenstein responded with the hauteur not unusual among the Ashkenazi (well, he was rather disconnected from that tradition however), but Einstein, perceiving his distaste, spoke of the mashma'ut yahadut teman. See the wonderful book by Mark Wagner, Like Joseph in Beauty: Yemeni Vernacular Poetry and Arab-Jewish Symbiosis, 2009 p.4 Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me this wonderful anecdote about Einstein, User:Nishidani! I had no idea that he knew them personally. I will make every effort to read the book that you cited. Again, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra, I saw in Tveit's book on the American Colony where he says that they were not missionaries, although he acknowledged that they were accused of being such. He also writes on page 75, in his book, Anna's House, the following: "After a while, a formal delegation of Yemeni Jews presented themselves at the American colony's house. They told Horatio that a certain Orthodox Jew, one of those who had been deaf and blind to their prayers for help, was now persecuting them, accusing them of breaking Jewish custom by eating Christian food. Some of the older ones, in fact, had even refused to accept food and now were both weak and sick. Horatio understood how serious these accusations were, even if they were false, so he agreed to provide money, instead of food, and from that point on, the Yemeni leaders would come to the colony each Friday in order to receive money... But some of the established Ashkenazim accused the American group of attempting to convert the Yemenis."

Similarly, we find in the autobiography written by Rabbi Avraham al-Naddaf how that in 1892, when he was appointed to head the Yemenite Jewish community in Jerusalem, one of the first things that he did was to forbid Jewish contact with these Christian organisations. He writes: "At first, we forbade [them] and made them outcasts in the community anyone who would go again to receive any money, or any clothing, as they did before from the instigators (i.e. the Christian missions), and even more so those who would go there to listen to their preaching on Sunday in their house of convocation. While even those who would go to work a menial job in their field, such as at the field of Schneller (i.e. the German-run Syrian Orphanage, established in 1861 by the German missionary, Johann Ludwig Schneller built far beyond the Old City, on lands purchased from the villagers of Lifta), be it only for a few hours of the day, so that they might receive their monthly or weekly wages for paying rent, we forbade unto them the clothing that they would give on occasion to the working men. We made it known to them and warned them to desist from receiving [anything from them]. And, thanks be to the blessed God, those who had formerly gone there or who had been errant therein were prevented from doing so. Only a very few refused to change their manner, and would still go there in secret, and occasionally they'd bring [what thy needed] for themselves and take it to their houses in a non-conspicuous manner, but they were held in disdain and for a reproach in the eyes of all the congregation, until at length they too desisted [from going there]." - (Excerpt taken from "Zekhor Le-Avraham," page 24, published in Jerusalem 1992, and edited by Uzziel Alnaddaf). -----Davidbena (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: I have seen written in the book, "Me-Teman Le'Tziyyon" (From Yemen to Zion), published in Tel-Aviv in 1938, pp. 184-185, that the land in Silwan whereon the Jews of Yemen eventually settled was given to them by a man named Boaz the Babylonian who had formerly owned the property. It was decided that houses would be built there for the Yemenites who at that time were living either in tents or in caves. The building of these houses began in earnest at the beginning of the year 5645 anno mundi (late 1884), and two houses were completed in the Spring of 1885, after which the Yemenites were no longer without homes to live in.Davidbena (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you know, offhand, David, how many of the Jews settling in Silwan descend directly from the earlier Yemeni community?Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearer place names, dates; Wadi Hilweh is where?

Before going into those dogged discussions, can somebody please help out with the basics in local geography and recent settlement history? Even the lead cannot give any decent population figures - 20,000 to 50,000!!! SLIGHT difference! - because it "depend[s] on how the neighborhood is defined". Well, if WP is an encyclopedia, we'd better define the topic at hand.
Street names: Google Maps is of no use, it mainly shows the Hebrew street names even in Palestinian areas.
Where is Wadi Hilweh? The article equates the City of David with Wadi Hilweh ("City of David (Wadi Hilweh)"), which seems wrong: even Google Maps shows a "Wadi Hilwa Street" WEST of the SE Hill alias City of David. So I guess CoD at best is PART of WH. Correct?
What are the Arabic and English names of the streets E and W of the City of David? To the east one runs at the bottom of the Kidron Valley and one (or a branch of the first) higher up Kidron's western slope, along the Siloam Channel. To the west of the CoD it's a street called "Ma'alot Ir David St." by Google Maps. Farther west is the crescent-shaped Wadi Hilwa Street, which has nothing to do with the CoD. "Wadi" would indicate a valley, but the Central/Tyropoean Valey (same as Hilweh along this segment?) seems to be smack in between "Ma'alot Ir David" and "Wadi Hilwa" streets.
What are the names of the different parts of Silwan? When were they settled? On old photos, there are houses on the slope east of Kidron Valley and at first none, then very few on the SE Hill/CoD. I don't know about areas even farther west, towards Mount Zion, which are now apparently part of Wadi Hilweh. The Al-Bustan (King's Garden) neighbourhood south of CoD is also relatively new (Mandate? Post-48 Jordan?).
It's useless to argue about Meyouhas' house on SE Hill, or of Yemenite houses in East Silwan (btw, only there?), as long as all this is not sorted out. We seem to use "Silwan" now for anything Palestinian between St Peter in Gallicantu and the old Silwan east of Kidron Valley, and that's confusing. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Wadi Hilweh is the name used for a residential neighborhood "immediately outside the walls of the Old City, mere meters from al-Haram al-Sharif". On the west side of the valley, so not part of historical Silwan. I don't know if it is an official name in any sense, and I don't see it on a map (but it must be, there is even a web site devoted to it: [25]). As for the history of Silwan, I have maps from different periods that show every building. In 1864 there were only a few small buildings on the west side of the valley. In 1946 there were more buildings on the west side of the valley but still sparse and scattered compared to very dense building in Silwan on the east side. I don't know when dense housing began on the west side; maybe during the late Jordanian period. There was still only scattered buildings in the late 1950s, if one of my maps is to be believed. Still looking for the perfect summary... Zero^talk 23:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally you can "walk" along these streets using Google street-view. I thought there might be signs with the street names, but I didn't find any in any language. I didn't try very hard, though. Zero^talk 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

This map has some English street names. Zero^talk 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Zero, thanks. I should drop this or I'll be belly-up before long, real life is screaming, not just calling. So I'll leave it to others. Only so much: Wadi Hilweh neighbourhood certainly does exist, and is considered - even on the Silwanic website - as part of Silwan, and there are houses in a continuous manner all the way to (almost) St Peter in Gallicantu on Mt Zion. Your map is VERY helpful, shows that Google Maps got it wrong: Google Maps' Wadi Hilweh St is actually Baydun St, and the street bordering the City of David/SE Hill on the west is: Wadi Hilweh St (the settlers' and Google Maps' "Ma'alot Ir David", The City of David Ascent). So we have the street, but what are the limits of the quarter? Maybe from Mt Zion (W) to Wadi Qidron (E), I don't know, leaving to Old/E Silwan only the C19 part E of the Kidron. El-Bustan may or may not be pat of Hilweh (Silwan>Hilweh>Bustan), or it's the third part of Silwan (Silwan = Old/E Silwan + Wadi el-Hilweh + El-Bustan). Whatever. It's probably fluid, I heard that Palestinians have been moving into this area for many decades because Jerusalem offers better chances than the Hebron area, and the neighbourhood has been constantly growing. So Elad & Co. is trying to take over the SE Hill part of Hilweh for the City of David, another bit NW of Hilweh Street for the new museum-cum-whatever at the Givati Parking Lot excavation site, plus single buildings in Old/E Silwan. If that's correct, we could introduce these terms and be consistent from now on. But it won't be me, if I know what's good for me :-) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Move of Paragraph

It is the solemn belief of this editor that the paragraph which has been placed in the lead and which reads as follows:

"In 1980, Israel, without formally annexing it, incorporated East Jerusalem (of which Silwan is a part) into its claimed capital city Jerusalem :through the Jerusalem Law, a basic law in Israel. The move is considered by the international community as illegal under international law. According to Haaretz, the Israeli government has worked closely with the right-wing settler :organization Ateret Cohanim to evict Palestinians living on property whether classified formerly as heqdesh (property pledged to a temple) or :not, especially in the Batan el-Hawa area of Silwan,"

should be moved further down in the article, in the section which reads: "Israeli control". Is there general agreement for moving this paragraph in a place which treats specifically on the issue of Israel, its policies and international law?Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• No, there is not. And I believe there was an arb.com decision that we could have the opinion of the International community in the lead? Huldra (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a link showing their decision? Besides, there is still an error in the paragraph. Where it says, "without formally annexing it," my understanding is that Israel has formally annexed Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings, such as Silwan. Therefore, this line must go.Davidbena (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

David, its a question as to whether or not Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem, the law itself doesnt say annex, and Israeli governments in the past have used that ambiguity to argue that they have not violated the prohibitions on acquiring territory through force under international law. That said, Im not entirely a fan of the phrasing, Id prefer what Ive seen in at least one source, that being "acts that amount to annexation". Dont recall the source, be easy to find though. nableezy - 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks,Nableezy. I will not make any changes to the paragraph unless I can support the change with verifiable facts.Davidbena (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Try this: to quote:

Through a long process above, the following text has been approved for use:

• The international community considers Israeli settlements in (the Golan Heights/the West Bank/East Jerusalem) illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this.

We also have the following guidance on its use.

• From LHvU: "there is agreement of the use of the wording in articles both of multi section length, and single section/stub standard"
• According to LHvU's clarification: "I found that there was consensus for the wording per proposal 2, and for it to be included in the opening paragraph(s) of multi section articles, where it may be expanded per WP:LEDE in the article body, and to be used without further expansion in stub or very short articles." Huldra (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Huldra. That was helpful. I have yet so much to learn here.Davidbena (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

2018 land-grab by Ataret Cohanim

Need streamlining of the article and a section concerning the israeli court ruling of last week and next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.138.126 (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

"Talmudic sources"

What are the "Talmudic sources" mentioned in the "History" section? Zamib? Ab. N. R.?
And "Suk v. 1." looks like a reference to the Mishna Sukka, but then the reference would be incorrect...--Arsenal sin platea (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Geography" is completely empty

... and LOTS of confusion throughout the article is the result.

• Where are the boundaries? W/o this the whole article is built on (quick)sand and close to worthless.
• Can the Garden Gethsemane be seen as part of Silwan w/o far overstretching the term? Smb. smuggled in a picture of one of the olive trees there.
• We should introduce "Silwan (East)" for historical Silwan, and "Silwan (West)" for Wadi Hilweh (whose boundaries are...? The wadi itself, plus the City of David ridge, plus the "Givati parking lot" and how much more to the east? Pool of Siloam, King's Garden orchard, and how much more to the south?)
• Is there an admin. view of this (PA side, Israeli side), as opposed to a historical one (Ottoman, British land property deeds)?
• What's the relation to neighbouring Palestinian townships in terms of territory? Arminden (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Onceinawhile could help? A map, like the one on Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta could be helpful? Huldra (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Silwan in 1943

This is an excellent set of questions that would be good to nail down. I was actually editing on a similar topic earlier today see edit here – another example of the frequent confusion around Silwan.

The map to the right shows the boundaries in 1943, but this doesn’t help much because of the subsequent expansion during the Jordanian period.

Zero0000 might have some ideas here. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be great to have a section on the development of the village borders during the 20-21th century, the boundaries in 1943 would of course be included, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Also young Bolter, though on Saturday night he may have better things to do.Nishidani (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

South part of Silwan's lands in 1943

This second map shows the area south of the previous map in the same year 1943. You can trace the village boundary of Silwan by following the trail of black dots spanning the two maps. I will make a combined map with the boundary highlighted. Note that the land court did not get to the Jerusalem region during the mandate, which is why the boundary is marked as tentative. I also have 1945 and 1946 maps at twice the resolution showing the same boundary. I have a good 1961 map but it doesn't show Silwan boundaries. Was Silwan inside or outside the Jordanian municipal boundaries of Jerusalem? Zero^talk 05:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: have you ever seen any official Jordanian government maps online? It would help a lot for this question, as well as for creating other articles such as Baqoura. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Not that I know of, no. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I only have some of too low a resolution for these purposes. Zero^talk 09:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Every Shabbat has a Motza'ei Shabbat. Started a geography section based on Govmap's borders and two Hebrew books I've found.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 05:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I was just writing to ask you if I was reading Govmap correctly. Perhaps a map showing old and new is in order. Zero^talk 05:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

As for Gethsemane, if that's the same as Gethermane it was (just) inside the village boundary in 1945. Zero^talk 06:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Boundaries of Silwan in 1943 and 2020.

The third map shows 1943–1946 and 2020 boundaries. Zero^talk 07:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Zero0000, this is excellent. Would you mind linking to the "Israeli municipal plan of Jerusalem" that you used for the blue line? The part of the puzzle that is still missing to my mind is the status of Wadi Hilweh. It is consistently referred to as part of Silwan, but in this map is outside the border. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It is here, as Bolter noted in the article. Zero^talk 08:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. There is a button there which says "עסקאות נדל"ן" which seems to mean "real estate transactions". If you press it it shows a few properties within Silwan. I wonder if one of them is the Old Yemenite Synagogue (Silwan); I am struggling to see where it matches the photo in that article. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The important thing to remember is that these municipal designations are historically fluid - the notion of boundaries at the simplest fellahin or other level is based on local land usage and customary clan title- and that one must therefore not slip into the perennial, ingrained habit of seeking a 'toponymic ontology', i.e., thinking that a placename must designate a permanent bounded reality, from the origins down to our day.Nishidani (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. From the name alone it is clear that the Siloam tunnel and the Pool of Siloam were historically considered part of the area. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

According to this map, Silwan was inside the Jordanian boundaries of Jerusalem. However that map is not precise enough; does anyone know where a more detailed map is? Zero^talk 09:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think that map is very precise as it doesn’t even point out the Mount Scopus enclave. These maps are interesting but don’t show the municipal boundaries.

This shows some of the later changes in the municipal boundaries

On a related note, do you know if there was such a thing as Ottoman municipal boundaries? My guess is that the British administration (possibly as early as Samuel) added Wadi Hilweh into the Jerusalem boundaries at some point. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The map of different boundaries on page 2 of that source is interesting. I hadn't noticed that the 1:20,000 maps show both "municipal boundary" and "urban boundary" for Jerusalem. The discussion in the source given (Kark & Oren-Nordheim, p149-150) says: "By the end of the Mandate there were three categories of Jerusalem's urban boundaries. The municipal boundary within the first boundary lines was smaller compared to that of 1924, and included only part of the neighborhoods encircling the city where the Jerusalem municipality could collect property taxes. The second was an administrative boundary delimited by the government tax authorities. It included all of the Jerusalem neighborhoods and most of the surrounding villages. The third boundary defined the area under the authority of the Jerusalem Town Planning and Building Commission." I have maps showing all these boundaries. On the same page there is mention of Ottoman boundaries cited to a chapter of Gideon Biger in a Hebrew book. No map is here but the text reads "Prior to the British occupation, Jerusalem's municipal boundaries included a relatively large area (about 13 sq. km.) surrounding the Old City's walls: from Shaikh Jarrah in the north, to the Sha'arei Tzedeq Hospital in the west, and the Baq'a neighborhood in the south. However, much of this area remained empty. Zero^talk 12:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This publication by Ir Amim says: “To Palestinians, the name “Silwan” denotes the area of 2,194 dunams in southeast Jerusalem that is home to 31,000 people, most of whom are Palestinian. Silwan borders on the southern wall of the Old City and Mt. Zion to the north; the neighborhood of Abu Tor to the west, the Mount of Olives to the east, and the neighborhood of Jabel Mukaber to the south and southeast. The neighborhoods of Wadi Qadoum, Ras al-Amud, Wasat al-Balad, Kharat al-Tank, Bir Ayoub, al-Yaman, Ein al-Louzah, al-Bustan, and Wadi Hilweh are all considered parts of Silwan in terms of the familial and geographic links between their residents.”

Unfortunately they do not provide their underlying sources. The 2,194 dunums is very specific though. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The small region shown as Silwan at Govmap is only about 350 dunams. Zero^talk 04:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is another definition from another NGO, the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem: “Silwan village is an area of 5.64km2 (5,640 dunams, 1,410 acres). It includes the neighbourhoods of Wadi Qadoum, Ras Al-Amoud, Ein Al-Loza, Al-Thowri, Al-Shiyah, Wasat Al-Balad, Kharat Al-Tank, Bir Ayoub, Hart-Al-Yaman, Al-Bustan, Wadi Hilweh, and Wadi Yasul.“ Onceinawhile (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bimkom's Survey of Palestinian Neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, funded by the Government of Denmark and the European Union, uses the term "Greater Silwan", which is split into four areas. The include maps and details of each of these:

• Wadi Qaddum: Population 11,000; Area 631 dunam: "stretches from Jericho Road in the north to the central channel of Wadi an- Nar in the south; and from the Separation Barrier and Jerusalem’s municipal boundary in the east to the Old Bethlehem Road in the west. The western border of the neighborhood was determined arbitrarily, since in effect the neighborhood is part of the built-up continuum stretching westward through the area of Ras al-Aamud to the center of Silwan. Wadi Qaddum developed spontaneously, without any planning infrastructure, from the early 1970s onward. Prior to this, the land was vacant, with the exception of a few structures."
• Ras al-Aamud: Population 14,500; Area 722 dunam: "The area of Ras al-Aamud is not generally defined as a separate neighborhood of East Jerusalem, but rather as part of the contiguous built-up area of Silwan. Ras al-Aamud borders on Silwan al-Wusta to the west, on the Mount of Olives to the north, on the Old Bethlehem Road and Wadi Qaddum to the east, and on Wadi an-Nar (the Qidron Valley) to the south... The sub-neighborhood of Ein al-Lawza is zoned as open scenic area"
• Silwan Center: Population 23,500; Area 678 dunam: "Bordering on the walls of the Old City and the outskirts of the Mount of Olives to the north, on Mount Zion and Abu Thor (ath-Thori) to the southwest, on Jabal al-Mokabber to the south, and on Ras al-Aamud to the east (where the border is least defined), Silwan Center is comprised of a number of sub-neighborhoods – Silwan al-Wusta, Wadi Hilwe, al-Bustan, and Batn al-Hawa... From the beginning of the 20th century, the population of the village grew, density increased significantly, and many inhabitants moved out to more distant village lands (today the abovementioned sub-neighborhoods, as well as the adjacent neighborhoods – Ras al-Aamud, Ein al-Lawza, Wadi Qaddum, ash-Shayah, Abu Thor, and Hayy al-Faruq)."
• Abu Thor: Population 15,500; Area 911 dunam: "Abu Thor (also known as ath-Thori), is located in central East Jerusalem, south of the Old City and southwest of Silwan. The parcel of land on which the neighborhood developed was given to Ahmad Ben Jamal ad-Din towards the end of the 12th century, by the noted conqueror, Salah ad-Din – a gift for helping conquer Jerusalem. Ahmad Ben Jamal ad-Din was renowned for being inseparable from his ox (in Arabic: Thor), and his epithet gave the place its name. The area began to develop during the last decades of the 19th century, attracting upper-class as well as working-class families of all faiths... the unrecognized sub-neighborhood of Wadi Yasool, located in the southeastern section of the neighborhood."

This adds up to 2,942 dunums. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

In the Israeli sense, "Silwan" is what the source above called "Silwan al-Wusta" (Central Silwan), which is listed inside of "Silwan Central" which makes it quite weird. I think based on the sources mentioned above, there is no way to really have a clear picture of what is included within Silwan. I think as for now, the article should only talk about central Silwan, which according to maps, was the only cluster of inhabitants in the area from the 16th to 19th centuries.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 12:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Almost all media reports about Silwan seem to refer to “Greater Silwan”. See for example the recent media stories about the Old Yemeni Synagogue (defined as the area Hart-Al-Yaman) or Al Bustan demolitions or the City of David. All consistently referred to as “Silwan”. To my mind it is no different to the Old City of Hebron vs Hebron or the Old City of Jerusalem vs Jerusalem. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Bolter21: it seems that the 2000 Jerusalem Master Plan (he:תוכנית מתאר מקומית 2000 ירושלים) included the concept of “Greater Silwan”. See Figure 1 on page 66 of this document. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems too complicated for my patience right now but I'll give you these remarks. I don't know if there is a direct definition of "neighborhood". The website of Jerusalem does not treat Jabel Mukaber, Abu Tur or Ras el Amud as parts of Silwan. These neighborhoods have developed mostly after 1948 as far as I know and didn't expand directly from Silwan. Obviously, Silwan is in the immediate vicinity of these villages, seconded by the walls of Jerusalem. Since Israel depopulated the Arab neighborhoods to the west and there was a de facto national border there, they might technically be its daughters, but as far as it seems, they are completely different neighborhoods. "Greater Silwan" is still not "Silwan". I suppose there is a family connection between the residents of "greater Silwan", especially as most of it was under a single village municipality during British times. And whatever you sent are planning districts, not neighborhoods.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 18:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Siloam and Silwan#Iron Age / Silwan#Roman period cover exactly the same scope. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. It seems to me that it is best to have two separate articles, as one deals mainly with the Arab village of Silwan, while the other article deals more with the historical site, known in other sources as Siloam in Roman times. While both articles speak about the same place, the emphasis is different in both articles.Davidbena (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: An interesting point has been raised below – that there do not seem to be any sources for an ancient settlement of “Siloam”. The Hebrew Bible mentions the Pool of Siloam and the tunnel, and the New Testament mentions the Tower of Siloam, but neither mention a settlement. Looking closer at our article Siloam, it now seems to be WP:SYNTH. Could you shed any further light on this? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: As is known, the Hebrew name for this place is שילוח‎ = "Shiloach", where there is a natural spring (fountain) of fresh water. It was used by the people who settled in the city of Jerusalem. The English translation for "Shiloach" is Siloam. I have no information on its etymology. My understanding is that the Arab village "Silwan" is named after the nearby spring. The spring (fountain) is also called "Silwan," or 'Ain Silwan. To my knowledge, the settled area around the spring was not originally called "Silwan," but rather Accra (חקרא‎) during the Second-Temple period, which is merely a suburb of Jerusalem. The other suburb and which corresponds to the Upper City was called by Jews in the Second Temple period by the name of שוק עליון‎ = "the Upper Marketplace." All this has been explained by Josephus. The name of the suburb, "Shuq 'eliyon" (= Upper Marketplace) is retained in the Mishnah.Davidbena (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena, thank you, that is clear. Are you saying that our article Siloam should be about the spring? I seem to recall reading that Ein Rogel / Gihon Spring were considered the spring of Siloam. If so, then our article Siloam seems to serve no purpose? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no question in my mind that Siloam / Shiloach is a spring. I have actually immersed in it. Whether or not it also bore the name 'Ein Rogel is unbeknownst to me. Needs more research.Davidbena (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena, do you mean the Gihon Spring? If so, then should Siloam be merged with that article? @Arminden: what do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I am not familiar with the relationship between Gihon Spring and the Pool of Siloam. I immersed in the Pool of Siloam, or what is also called in Arabic 'Ain Silwan. There are several photographs of the place in Wikimedia Commons, which I'll post here for you to see. Some photographs are, obviously, old, and the place has since been renovated:

• Ain Silwan
• Outlet from Hezekiah's Tunnel
• Pool of Siloam / Ain Silwan
• Shiloach Pool / Pool of Siloam
• Pool of Siloam, after renovation
• Pool of Siloam
• Siloam
• Spring of Shiloach

I hope that this was helpful.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Davidbena, thank you, that is clear. Those are great images – I uploaded the first one myself a few months ago, and put it at Pool of Siloam, along with the clarifying map at the top of that article. The others could be added to a gallery there.

So should we merge the articles Siloam and Pool of Siloam? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the logical step. They are the same place, and which is all about the spring of water.Davidbena (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying articles on places in Palestine/Israel should be split according to resident ethnicity, a kind of toponymic apartheid?Nishidani (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't engage in this language and tone Nish. With that said, Right now I support the merge or rather the deletion of the Siloam article, which is poorly written and is just another biblical archaeology piece written as if to a religious audience. I might take a look at that too see if a new article about the archaeological site can be written. As of now, there is no reason to have two articles for Siloam and Silwan. This is what I don't !vote yet.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani:, No, Nick. I am talking only about ancient toponyms that carry different meanings in different times. We have on Wikipedia many double-articles treating on the same place. Take, for example, Shechem and Nablus, both referring to the same place, as they are universally agreed to be the same inhabited place during and before Roman times. Or take, for example, Yibna and Yavne which sites refer to the same place. Or, if you'd like, you can take Battir, which site corresponds with Betar (fortress). The common denominator between all of these double-articles is that, while they refer to the same site, their scope is slightly different. And there are many, many more here.Davidbena (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Nablus is 2 kilometres west of the site identified as Shechem, so that is not an example of toponymic imbrication. Why Yibna and Yavne are distinguished is obscure, unless the desire was to separate the strong Jewish associations of Yavne with the 'grand coalition' of ca.73,- which laid the grounds for Judaism, - from the Islamic associations of Yibna. They overlap and, as I said, in my view, this is a case of discursive apartheid. There is no logic governing article creation in Wikipedia, and these distinctions or conflations are purely aleatory, due to the whims of editors, as far as I can see.Nishidani (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The point is that Shechem was also called Nablus.Davidbena (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

By whom?Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually there are many sources. You may wish to see Josephus, in The Jewish War (4.8.1.), where he calls Nablus by its Greco-Roman name, Neapolis, saying that it is Shechem (Sichem), or, if you read Hebrew, you can see this identification in the article Shechem in Hebrew, here. Rabbi Saadia Gaon, when mentioning Shechem in his Judeo-Arabic translation of the Torah, writes for Shechem in Genesis 12:6 the word "Nablus" (Judeo-Arabic: נאבלוס). I hope that this was helpful.Davidbena (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I always like reading Josephus, and he confirms that Shechem is never mentioned as interchangeable with Nablus. You were misled by the gloss William Whiston naughtily intruded into the text for his predominantly Christian readership alòmost 3 centuries ago. I.e. the Greek runs:

ὅθεν διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος καὶ παρὰ τὴν Νέαν πόλιν καλουμένην, Μαβαρθὰ δ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων, The Jewish War (4.8.1.), from where he passed through the region of Samaria, close by the town they called New(town), but which is called Mabartha by the local inhabitants. Bellum Judaicum 4.8.1. Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The usual problem: ideology is driving the issue. Not the topic at hand. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, what is the topic here? Names travel, Shiloakh-Siloam-Silwan sounds seamless, but it's not. Now from memory, needs to be checked: The Hebrew Bible is dealing mainly with the Gihon Spring, the Hezekiah Tunnel and the pool(s). So are Josephus and the Gospels. All these features are connected to the ridge between Wadi Hilweh (a segment of Josephus' Tyropoeon) and the Kidron Valley, therefore west of the Kidron Valley. The ridge is known in archaeology as the "City of David" or the Southeastern Hill/Ridge. The Arab village is east of that, on the continuation of the Mount of Olives, east of the said Kidron Valley. Silwan only started "growing" westwards (if at all; what's sure is that its name was expanded to include other newly inhabited areas outside the Old City walls) only in the modern period. I don't know if the Arab inhabitants of the neighbourhoods west of the Kidron Valley are related or not to the older Silwanites or were just incorporated into that village by various authorities, to a large degree by the Jordanians. Currently, the Geography paragraph of the Silwan article states that Silwan "is bounded by the "City of David" (Wadi Hilweh)... to the west", stopping this whole argument dead in its tracks - but that's from an Israeli government source, might not be acceptable to all.
The way I see it, for now we have at least two separate GEOGRAPHICAL entities: Silwan, or if you like historical Silwan, or Silwan (East), east of the Kidron; and to the west, on the Southeastern Hill and stretching onto the Western Hill/Mount Zion, plus the valley between them (Central Valley, Tyropoeon, Hilweh), at least one more entity (City of David, and the Wadi Hilweh 'hood west of that, with the fmr Givati parking lot). How do you want to deal with that? The Kidron has always been a separating feature. Canaanite and Israelite Jerusalem have never really crossed it. The Judahite Kingdom only had tombs and high places east of it. Until today, it's a clearly visible physical boundary. Do you intend to ignore that? Weld together Silwan (east) with what's south of the Old City walls? Only by going according to (which?) modern administrative boundaries? If someone can prove that the population of Silwan has organically expanded over the Kidron onto the area west of it, that would be the start of a discussion. But not the end of it - at least some of the residents of the Moroccan Quarter evacuated to Wadi Hilweh during the 1948 war.
The fact that the Christian missionaries who took care of the Yemenite Jews startled the established Jerusalem Jews into action and they of course called the housing project which they quickly built, Kfar haShiloah, Siloam Village, is only natural, considering a) the Arabic name of the village there, and b) the messianic obsession of both the donors and the new immigrants from the Yemen. That's not an argument for anything re. our topic here.
Silwan did use the water from 'Ain Sitty Maryam/Gihon Spring, but they also used Bir Ayoub as a water source. In history, the waters of the Gihon were used for the Temple and for long strethces of time the spring was inside Jerusalem's city walls. Apart from that, fetching water from a reasonable distance was a common practice. Not a decisive argument for putting the spring, which is slightly west of the Kidron, inside Silwan.
So the more I think of it, the less I see a reason to more then link Silwan & Siloam, which has been done already.
We shouldn't be dealing with things theoretically, but rather look at the reality on the ground. I don't know if anyone will start interviewing the Arab residents of Wadi Hilweh about how Silwanite they feel or don't, so... Arminden (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent expositions. I don't consider the comments here ideologically-impelled. Virtually all over the I/P topology one finds immense name confusion in the ancient primary sources, as I think we discussed some years back re the Negev. The other week, looking at sources for Talmudic accounts of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, I noted that one group of anecdotes refers to a place called Kfar Sikhnin, Kfar Sama, Kfar Sisi, Sakhnia, and commentaries every since have identified this with Sakhnin, or differentiated them into unknown localities nearby. A large number of the sources editors are asked to draw on, ancient and modern, are sloppy with toponymy and in these cases, one can only get over the mess if one is lucky to find a scholarly article or book that cuts to the chase through the blurry thickets of slipshod usage to tease out the various meanings as stratified in successive epochs. You'd have to have more arse than Jessie the elephant to cop one that can certify what very close readers like yourself, Zero, Once and Bolter might twig to through personal research, but cannot harvest because of our R(at)S(hit) rules. Go (dis)figure. Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: thanks for your thoughtful post. I was most struck by your statements: ”The Hebrew Bible is dealing mainly with the Gihon Spring, the Hezekiah Tunnel and the pool(s). So are Josephus and the Gospels. All these features are connected to the ridge between Wadi Hilweh (a segment of Josephus' Tyropoeon) and the Kidron Valley, therefore west of the Kidron Valley. The ridge is known in archaeology as the "City of David" or the Southeastern Hill/Ridge.”

I have not seen a source today which calls the City of David “Siloam”. I have seen many sources which says that Siloam is today known as Silwan.

Are you sure that scholarship considers that “Siloam” was on the City of David / Ophel ridge? I had always assumed that was not possible, as how could ancient Siloam be the same place as ancient Jerusalem? If Siloam was on the western ridge is would not have had the independent history that it has had.

I have always assumed that the Pool of Siloam and the Siloam Tunnel are so named as being the “Pool next to Siloam” and the “Tunnel between Jerusalem and Siloam”. After all, Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate is not in Damascus. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I must have kept it too short, although I've written so much :) What I mean is, based on mainstream theories, not the fringe ones: Jebus included the Gihon Spring within its walls, via a fortified corridor and a spring tower, which the Israelites inherited. Hezekiah built his tunnel from the spring at the NE edge of the city (which stood on the SE ridge; the spring is on the W side of the Kidron, so on the City of David side), to the southernmost point of the city. There are two Pools of Siloam, the story is complicated - where the tunnel ends there used to be one, now greatly diminished, and a short distance downhill there is a 2nd one, which must be the NT pool. Both were within the walls of the City of David, and the tunnel zigzagged underneath the E part of the city. There is an older, Canaanite "Siloam Tunnel", which runs slightly east of Hezekiah's, but still inside the ridge and along its eastern slope. So everything is WEST of the Kidron Valley.

It's interesting to see what Moshe Gil made of the descriptions of Muqaddasi (985), Khusraw (1047), and Yaqut (1225) - I've added it at Silwan#Early Muslim period, although Yaqut is later: Gil is certain that in those days "the spring of Silwan" was the name for Bir 'Ayyub, since they seem to describe a location too far south from Jerusalem's walls as to fit the Gihon Spring. Go figure. Or go and read Le Strange's pages 220-223. Gil probably used the original Arabic, otherwise it would be hard to follow his argument based on that translation. Anyway, you can see how in the 14th century the village at Bir 'Ayyub was no more. No continuity. That's why I'm skeptical about mergers. And yes, continuity, as a way of projection, is always the favourite argument for nationalists of any colour. No matter the facts. That's why I'd be very careful offering any of them ready-made, because not thoroughly enough researched, arguments. Just look at what we have: the Siloam article is heavy on the religious side and light on historical logic, and Silwan is put together as if Palestinian Arabs had always inhabited all the slopes east and south of Jerrusalem, calling them all "Silwan". No boundaries, no distinction made between several historical periods. These two you want to merge? To get what? PS: I have it from Palestinians - many of the Palestinian Arabs living in this area are originally from Hebron and other places south of Jerusalem. Like any big city, it too has a certain pull. And people build w/o waiting for master plans and zoning. Arminden (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And many recent Silwanites hail from Yemen, or Brooklyn. No one is originally from anywhere.: )22:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

OK, so? Then what's the definition of a merged Silwan/Siloam? What should the article be about? The location of the 19th century Silwan most would think of? Oh, can't be, then there's no connection whatsoever to Shiloah-Siloam. Then maybe the SE ridge/CoD? No good, that's not Silwan. Or is it? Or isn't it? What about Wadi Hilweh, actually W and maybe S of the CoD? There are houses going up a good part of the slope of the Western Hill-Mt Zion. The Jordanians wanted Hilweh in, as part of Silwan. Dizzy? I am. So put Brooklyn & Sana'a into the stew and we write an article about the brotherhood of men & all are happy. No...? Ah, Eretz Yisroel & Shiloah, Falastin & Kufr Silwan... Still up for a merger? Arminden (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Arminden, see above Davidbena’s comments re merging Siloam into Pool of Siloam. Then perhaps Siloam becomes a disambiguation page, with Pool of Siloam and Silwan being the two primary targets, and the Tower and Tunnel being subordinate targets. What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, that sounds fine for me. That leaves the heavy lifting to those who're working on Silwan, to figure out what they'r writing about. Don't forget the older tunnel, I think the name they use at the City of David (not that I'm too fond of them) is Siloam Channel; I prefer 'the Canaanite tunnel'. Anyway, it's also a 'Siloam' item. But these are all parts of the old Canaanite Yebus and Israelite 'City of David', so there are other merger requests ahead. And the 'Wadi Hilweh' fan club is just around the corner :) Arminden (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Archaeology seems to be the way forward here and there have been a number of excavations to look up. Also, I wonder if any of the maps of Jerusalem made during the Crusader period show Silwan. Zero^talk 04:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000, I looked through Cartography of Jerusalem, but all the pre-19thC maps don’t show any detail outside the city walls – just other notable places mentioned in the bible.

The earliest I can see is the first scientific map of the city from 1818, which shows a well developed area of Silwan built up along a stream flowing through the Kidron valley. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I have a 1632 map that shows a large number of buildings in the right place. It has no name, but the valley is "Valee de Siloe". Zero^talk 06:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Zero0000, there is one from 1590 here called the “monk’s map”, from the NLI, which shows a group of buildings where Silwan would be. Would be good to add these maps to Cartography of Jerusalem if we can get hi res versions and can find WP:RS describing them. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, that "1590" map appears at NLI as "179?". Not sure if this link will work. It doesn't display for me, and I didn't manage to download it. Zero^talk 09:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, that link doesn't work for me either. I just added a map to the article - is that the same one you were referring to? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: you added a part of the same map. I didn't keep the url from which I downloaded it long ago, but it was given as 1632. Could be just a different edition. I can see now that I misread the map (shameful!) and missed "Vilage Siloe" written there. Incidentally, this 1628 book mentions "Village Siloé" twice. Zero^talk 12:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Zero0000, thank you. FYI I have added it to Cartography of Jerusalem with a description and source. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I uploaded a higher resolution version. Zero^talk 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile and Zero0000: You can get a hi-res picture via Pinterest here. All sources I could find (not many, not academic, incl. JVL, but they've got their info from the National Library) say 1590. "179-?" seems to be a typo. I'd put "1590s" in the description, that's probably what they meant, it's also mentioned as "1590s" or "end of the 16th century" somewhere. I would have said to trust the lady quoted at the Ynet source, but the article puts in her mouth the words "Mamluk period", and that one had been over by some 70 years by the time the Italian monk drew his map. Mind that its' a manuscript, not printed, that is a relevant detail. Sorry for maybe showing up too late, I got lost in Google space and I see that Zero has already uploaded the map. Arminden (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It is a different map that Once uploaded and I uploaded again. Zero^talk 02:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Oncenawhile:To editor Arminden: "Monk's map": I'm not convinced that "179?" is a typo. If it is, then it is a double typo. The notes at NLI say "Probably drawn by an Italian monk, end of the 18th century. The red line may show the Franciscan route to the Holy Places." Since the map curators at NLI are undoubted experts on Jerusalem maps, a similarly expert source should be required to contradict their judgement. Is there one? A possibility is that NLI reassessed the map based on feedback generated by the Ynet article, or Ynet might have misreported. Zero^talk 03:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

We have articles on this map in German de:Gerusalemme (Kartenwerk) and Hebrew he: ג'רוזלמה. Unfortunately neither have meaningful sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Was there a Silwan village in the Late Roman, Byzantine, Early Muslim periods?

All we have so far is only referring to the Gihon Spring and the Souteastern Hill/Ridge, today known as the City of David. The fact that the SPRING or POOLS are called Shiloah-Siloam-Silwan says NOTHING about a village. If such a village existed, I would be tempted to look for it on the hill EAST of the Kiron Valley, where the village is located since at least the 19th century, not west of it, where the spring & pools are. If the village did start west of the Kidron and later moved along with the name, that must be PROVEN. The name is neither proof for continuous habitation, nor for any kind of connection.

One sentence in the article now reads "In 985 [Muqaddasi] noted that the village in the outskirts of Jerusalem and south of the village was ′Ain Sulwan ("Spring of Siloam") which provided "fairly good water" that irrigated the large gardens..." This is such a piece of nonsense like no other. a) "the village south of the village"?! Clearly a mistake. South of the city maybe? b) Only the spring is south of the southeastern CORNER of the walled Old City (S of the Temple Mount at most). The Silwan village we know of today is east and southeast of the spring, and definitely rather E or SE than S of Jerusalem. So, what village? Again, did the village or the name move and cross the Kidron? Or is this a mistranslation and it shouldn't read "south"? Even worse: in the quote Muqaddasi only speaks of the SPRING, he doesn't say a word about any village. If he does mention a village, pls quote the right passage. For now, in this whole paragraph (Early Muslim period) we only have one sentence about a group of people living in the Silwan necropolis that does fit in, all else & the previous paragraph (Roman period) do not even belong here, since they're about anything EXCEPT a village, and their topics (spring, King's Garden, Pool of Siloam, stepped street) are all on the wrong hill. Arminden (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, I read this post only after writing my response to your other post above. It sounds like we are more in agreement than I thought. So if there is no source for a historical village of Siloam, what is our article Siloam based on? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As for Muqaddasi, see here. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

????Armiden, I don't understand your problem with Muqaddasi? To me it is obvious; there is a village (=Silwan) and below the village is a spring (which isn't properly a spring, but is called it (=Ain), anyway, as Onceinawhile pointed out): Ain Sulwan. And below that spring is another, "Jobs' well". Here is another version: p. 49. I don't understand you when you say that Muqaddasi "doesn't say a word about any village"??? Huldra (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

In the misconstrued "quote" there wasn't anything about a village. I went to the source after writing my comment here, which source by the way is a very old translation, found the reference to a "place" called Sulwan, not just its spring, and put the full quote back in. Then I discovered that Gil is putting the location of the Sulwan spring of the 10th-13th centuries into question, being sure that Muqaddasi & Co. meant a Bir Ayyub which, since we're talking about so many centuries full of earthquakes etc. ago, might well have been elsewhere than the modern mosque. You can't take a modern name and project it 100s or 1000s of years into the past, thinking that you'll still be right about the location. Even physical geography changes (slightly), tribes and nations even more, and place names travel, sometimes for kilometres. A Rashidun or Umayyad Sulwan might have had close to nothing in common with the location and population of today's Silwan. The same goes to the Jewish settlers who count David as their grandpa, preferably on their mother's side, and feel like moving back into the old family home when they go to the City of David. Nationalism is based on fairy tales, little wonder the Grimm brothers were German ultranationalists. I love fairy tales including Hollywood, but not here. Arminden (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Arminden, I like and agree with what you are saying, particularly the last three sentences. Unfortunately the vast majority of modern Biblical Geography has it foundations in 19th century assessments of comparative toponymy. We can’t throw the whole thing out with nothing to replace it, but we can make the tenuous nature of these judgements clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you write here, but, I had a problem with you saying that Muqaddasi said there was no village here, when my 2 sources of Muqaddasi clearly said it was. And if sources ~1000years ago give 1) a village 2)a spring beneath it, 3) a spring beneath that, again ...and we find the same today, I think it would be not unreasonable to think they were the same. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The SE ridge ("City of David") was part of Jerusalem, so inside the walls, until 70 CE, then again once Eudocia rebuilt the walls, and Moshe Gil has a nice discussion (footnote 11, see reference list) about when this wall was or wasn't destroyed and/or rebuilt. The Fatimids definitely rebuilt the walls farther up the slope. So no possibility of a "village" there for quite a while, just of a city neighbourhood. In between - revolts, burnt earth, ruins and empty hills. In the Kidron Valley and the hills to the east you have Byzantine monasteries, hermits living in burial caves and monuments, then the Persians and their Jewish allies finish them off. There is a mention of Muslims living in the Silwan necropolis early on. Only Allah knows where they came from and how long they managed to hang on. Think of Abbasid-Fatimid-Ilkhanid-... wars, AND then the Crusaders. Then read Gil. Then there's nothing in the 1300s, says an Arab chronicle. And so on. It's not like Rome, never to disappear and more or less in one place from the beginning till today. Arminden (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"The move is considered by the international community as illegal under international law"

Hello.

I'm wondering if we can modify this statement, given that this statement is not actually true given the fact that the entirety of the land of Israel was granted to Israel through several pieces of international law, most notably the Balfour declaration, the San Remo Conference, the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 which were given the force of law by Article 80 of the UN charter and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties.

Please modify this statement to be more neutral, given the amount of support for Israeli control over Silwan in international law. --VeroniqueBellamy (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Please bring reliable sources to back up your claim.Selfstudier (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So, why don't you consider the treaties I cited "reliable sources"? --VeroniqueBellamy (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTSOURCE, you need WP:RS, it will be rather difficult to find any because your assertion is simply wrong. Selfstudier (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. @VeroniqueBellamy: it seems that you have not read the articles you pointed to (Balfour declaration, the San Remo Conference); they state – using the highest quality sources – the opposite of your assertion. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

I was a longtime wikipedia editor called LamaLoLeshLa back in 2008, when I made thousands of edits and wrote many pages and added many photos, including the one of silwan, poppies and the wall on this page. I wanted to update that photo image so that it reads: Silwan in 2007 (since the image no longer describes what the area looks like since the construction of settlements, etc).

I lost my login info., and the email it was linked to is severely outdated (not sure I have the password for it anymore) or I would have made various edits to this pages ages ago.

Thank you! -LamaLoLeshLa RefcahZonn (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific as to which photo you would like to modify the caption of? Living Concrete (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have edited it here.[26] Onceinawhile (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was… article split into King's garden (historical) and King's Garden (Silwan). Selfstudier (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Merge King's Garden (Jerusalem) (KG) into Silwan. The limited content of KG ( or the al_Bustan neighborhood of Silwan) is already mainly present in the Silwan article making KG a fork.

Google gives 1.6 million hits for "al-Bustan" and 415 thousand for "King's Garden" (many of the latter in the context of Silwan/al-Bustan). The only reason for an independent existence is a disputed development project based on the premise that the area is the site of the biblical "King's Garden", a project that would displace the Palestinian residents and where continuing opposition over more than 20 years has prevented the development from going ahead.

"An area called the Garden of the King is mentioned three times in the Old Testament. Some scholars identify it as Al-Bustan Valley. However, the exact location and nature of the biblical garden are not known and there are no archeological or other findings in al-Bustan to suggest that this is in fact the location."Al-Bustan Neighborhood – Garden of the King.

It is but a part of several ongoing displacement disputes in Silwan and best dealt with there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since the other article (King's Garden) is specific about a certain biblical and historical area within the bounds of Silwan, and since it is specifically known by that name, I see no reason to overload the Silwan article with sites that are not directly related to the larger village itself, particularly since the "King's Garden" refers to an area related to the ancient City of David, a name given to that area of Jerusalem long before the name "Silwan" was ever incorporated into the Arabic lexicon, either by Saadia Gaon (died anno 942) who is one of the first to use the name Silwan in its modern sense, or by Nasir Khusraw in anno 1047 who mentions the place, or by Muqaddasi who mentions Silwan in anno 985, or by the Arab lexicographer Yâkût (author of the Arabic Geographical Dictionary which he compiled in anno 1225) ---- all of whom making use of the name of late, and which name is no more than a corruption of the Greek word Siloam (Greek: Σιλωὰμ). The King's Garden has a history that predates the contemporary use of the name Silwan. In fact, Silwan was formerly called by other names. Therefore, Silwan should focus on matters specifically related to itself, while King's Garden to matters specifically related to itself, just as we find with other articles touching on areas within Jerusalem's city limits and which specifically deal with those particular areas of interest.Davidbena (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  

  Silwan in 1925 (cropped)

  Davidbena, I have just read the article and sources. It looks to me like the connection between this area and the Biblical “King’s Garden” is entirely spurious, and there is no evidence whatsoever that this is the same place as described in the Bible. Do you agree with that?

  In case helpful, the attached map from 1925 shows this area – is it where the word “Valley” is written in the bottom left. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile. You ask me if the location is "spurious". To that I can only say it may or may not be. The point of this article is to describe and treat on its historical significance. Not always are we precise in determining a site's exact location, and sometimes scholars are plainly at odds with each other as to the precise location of a site, such as what we find with Chezib, although here, in the case of the King's Garden, it is fairly certain as we can see here (Nehemiah 3:15) that we're talking about an area directly to the south and adjoining the City of David, and watered by the Gihon Spring, just as Gustaf Dalman concluded after reviewing the research presented by Conrad Schick in 1886. Israeli historian and writer Arieh Yitzhaki, in his article "City of David (עיר דוד)", takes this same position. See his article in Israel Guide - Jerusalem (A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country) - 1980 (in Hebrew), vol. 10, pp. 166-167. He locates the King's Garden precisely beyond and adjacent to Birket al-Ḥamrah, or what is also known as the Lower Pool of Siloam. Still, even if we should not know precisely the bounds of the King's Garden, it matters not, since we're discussing here the historical and biblical site in a broad manner. There is always the potential of inaccuracies when discussing archaeological/historical sites of great antiquity. We can only do the best with what information we've got. If Birket al-Ḥamrah is shown on one of your maps, that would be the more precise location. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment al-Bustan basically means "garden" in Arabic; hence "1.6 million hits for "al-Bustan" " is pretty meaningless: there are a zillon places with that name, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Huldra Lol! That was funny. Yes, al-bustân means "Garden" in the Arabic language, but searching for a biblical site that had ceased to be called locally by that name for at least 2,000 years - owing to the exile of the Jewish people - and where the only vestiges of the name are in the Hebrew Bible, well, you can see why you'd have a hard time finding this site if you search for it by using the Arabic word for "Garden." The place was called by some other name, obviously, since the time when it was last used by David's dynasty. At best, we should be able to find more references to this place by consulting biblical atlases.Davidbena (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The Ghits are not that critical to the case here, "Silwan" has 819,000 hits if that helps and KG has a dab page as well. "Overloading" is not an issue because most of KG is already present in the Silwan article, I think there might even be more about KG in the Silwan article than there is in the KG article. KG is just a redundant fork with nothing to distinguish it other than some bible mentions that may or may not be applicable to the location (worth a footnote, no more). Al-Bustan main claim to fame (or notoriety) nowadays are the persistent attempts to displace its citizenry as in other parts of Silwan so it's logical to address that comprehensively. There are as well some pertinent comments on the KG talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Selfstudier, do you have any reference/s where it shows that the locals in Silwan call the ancient "King's Garden" by the name "al-Bustan"? If so, can you provide those sources for us?Davidbena (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: and @Huldra:, I just now found the answer to my own question. The Arabic Wikipedia page here speaks explicitly about the "al-Bustan" in the vicinity of Silwan. There, it says (translated): "Al-Bustan neighborhood (Jerusalem) Al-Bustan neighborhood is a Jerusalem neighborhood in the town of Silwan, located to the south of Al-Aqsa Mosque. It is located between the Wadi Hilweh neighborhood and the national park built on the lands of Silwan, etc." (END QUOTE). So, the Arabs have traditionally used the name to recognize this ancient biblical site, albeit in its shortened form.Davidbena (talk) 12:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Very good. I don't see what it has to do with the KG article being a redundant fork tho.Selfstudier (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I see you continue to add "biblically" based material to the KG article? Why? Are you going to add the refs that contradict that? The B'tselem ref above and "The claim that a park resembling the biblical King’s Garden should be established there remains unsubstantiated by archaeological research. Moreover, researchers have identified the location of the King’s Garden elsewhere in the city." (https://emekshaveh.org/en/national-parks-in-east-jerusalem-update-2014/). And there are others.Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment OK, the only real objection put forward in opposition to the merge is based on references in the bible that cannot be corroborated and in fact there are references explicitly contesting that identification. So I will wait another while to see if anyone else wants to add anything and if not, I propose going ahead with the merge.Selfstudier (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no consent for a merge.Davidbena (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I presently intend to merge based on KG being a redundant fork. There is no valid reason not to merge. You are the only editor opposing and your opposition is based on biblical references of dubious value. @Onceinawhile:@Huldra: Pinging the only other participants for a yea or nay on the merge.Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No one has agreed, but you, that this is a fork. As it is right now, King's Garden (Jerusalem) is a historical site within the confines of the old City of David, as is Warren's Shaft a historical site within the neighborhood of Silwan, and just as the Western Wall is a historical site within the confines of Jerusalem, or just as Mamilla Pool is a historical site within the confines of Jerusalem. And there are many, many more specific areas of interest within the larger city. You will need a consensus to merge or to view this as a fork, which, by the way, it is not. Can we please get the professional opinion of an Administrator on this, say, User:El C?Davidbena (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, being an admin gives me no greater standing than any other editor engaged in a content dispute, and this isn't a content dispute I wish to opine on at this time, sorry. El_C 17:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I know you have a canvassing habit but I think it best if you stop it now.Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: David has now canvassed 8 (!) editors (as well as yourself) to this discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

To request an opinion, without telling him / her what to say, is that canvassing? I'm sorry, but I did not not understand canvassing as having that specific implication. But to allay further doubt, I will not request any more people to look here at this issue of a merger, unless I submit a regular RfC. Those to whom I sent messages requesting of them to comment, I will rescind the message.Davidbena (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The KG article has a rather large variety of sourced historical, geographic, and textual information which does not fit well here. Ar2332 (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Your vote was canvassed here. Most of the material, other than the uncorroborated biblical material (worth a footnote no more) is already in the Silwan article. Half of the KG article is about the current controversy in Al-Bustan. So your claim has no basis.Selfstudier (talk) 11:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps our fellow editor's vote does, indeed, have a legal bearing, since under Wikipedia's policy of Wikipedia:Canvassing it states clearly: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." (END QUOTE).Davidbena (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That issue is currently being looked into at AE and discussion of it here is inappropriate.Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment It is currently considered although not yet finally determined that this TBAN of August 2020, subject editor Davidbena was not intended to permit participation in formal discussions such as this RM if the article(s) in question are IP conflict related. The canvassing issue mentioned above by editor Davidbena has also been decided against him. Therefore this proposed merge is presently opposed by an editor currently blocked for canvassing and other tban violations and an editor canvassed by him where the editors canvassed were considered as being like minded. I therefore once again propose to go ahead with this merge on the basis of the KG article being a redundant fork if there no further objections. If there are further objections, a possible solution is discussed here (the article can be split into a historical and a Silwan related with dab page, whether this is worth the effort for such a small article I leave to others to decide).Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The are two different entities and each one significant by its own right it doesn't really matter if real king gardens existed or not even in Arabic they have different name --Shrike (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment @Shrike: Then I will go ahead and split the article in two as stated above in accordance with the suggestion here and here.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  Please start split discussion as per WP:SPLIT and I opine there Shrike (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

  I already did it and will close this discussion in accordance with the consensus (three editors) and afaics your comment is saying the same thing as well ie that it is two entities not one.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2021 (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.