Talk:Silwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Project Israel To Do: ...
Close

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. Zerotalk 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". Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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. Zerotalk 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)

"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. 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.

Poor additions by FarFromTheMiddleEast

To editor FarFromTheMiddleEast: You really need to stop trying to write history on the basis of contemporary newspaper reports. They only tell the small fraction of the story that played out in public, and can be highly (and often deliberately) misleading. The real story takes place behind closed doors and we should rely on modern historians who can fill in the details on the basis of records that were not available at the time. The real story is very often quite different to what was public at the time. Your choice of newspaper reports is even eye-brow raising: consider this. It is entirely attributed to an anonymous "source in close touch with the Israeli Government". What does that mean? It could be an accurate account of the Israeli government's position (which was during the war and before the Israel-Jordan armistice), or it could be from someone reporting on a conversation with one Israeli politician. Very likely it is one of those "official unofficial leaks" which governments make all the time to effect public opinion while retaining deniability. Claiming to be willing to do something while actively working to prevent it is normal operating procedure. In the case of internationalization of Jerusalem, there are lots of good sources to choose from. On my computer already I see:

Yossi Katz and Yair Paz, The Transfer of Government Ministries to Jerusalem, 1948–49: Continuity or Change in the Zionist Attitude to Jerusalem?, The Journal of Israeli History, Vol.23, No.2, Autumn 2004, pp.232–259. [Speeding up the transfer of government function to Jerusalem was one of the main ways that Israel used to thwart internationalization.]

Elad Ben-Dror and Asaf Ziedler, Israel, Jordan, and their Efforts to Frustrate the United Nations Resolutions to Internationalise Jerusalem, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 26:636–658, 2015. [as the title says]

Elad Ben-Dror, Ralph Bunche and the Arab–Israeli Conflict — Mediation and the UN, 1947–1949, Routledge 2016. [a book in which this issue features prominently]

I'm actually more inclined to remove it all from this page as none of the sources mention Silwan specifically. Zerotalk 03:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not trying to write based on newspapers. The person who is probably one of the top experts on sourcing for the history around 1948 war is Benny Morris. If you go take a look at his bibliography on page 493 of his 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War, he lists primary sources, published documents, newspapers and secondary works. Almost all of the primary sources that are not Newspapers are archives from the Israeli side. They were the only ones that opened their archives. So most of the books are biased towards Israel anyway because they necessarily have to use Israeli archives. I certainly read the books, but I like using the Western newspapers as citations because you known were the sourcing is coming from. If you cite a history book, you can accidentally end up citing something that is coming out of a Zionist archive. There are no perfectly neutral sources, but the New York Times is the best I think we are going to get. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
There wasn't a unified Israeli position towards all of this. There were a lot of conflicting Israeli positions. I think the New York Times did a good job, probably the most neutral and objective I have seen. In general, its viewed as a top quality source. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Looking at Morris, on page 63 of the 1948 War, he says "The zionists and their supporters rejoiced" when discussing the passage of UN Resolution 181 with the "corpus septartum." FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
All four of the sources you just added regarding the internationalization of Jerusalem are contemporary NYT articles, so yes you are trying to write based on newspapers. And the example I gave is one where you don't know where the information is from; you only know who reported it. Newspapers are not useless, but we can and should rely on historians to interpret them in context, on the basis of additional knowledge. Zerotalk 03:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I'm citing based on the Newspaper, because I view them as more neutral. I'll add a citation from Morris. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
You confirm my impression that your edits are unsatisfactory. (1) None of the sources mention Silwan, so you don't know if any of the "limited offers of internationalization" involved Silwan. (2) Now you have Morris p65 as a source for "More limited offers of internationalization were discussed informally, but agreement was never reached." but not a single word in that sentence is supported by Morris on that page or the next one. You don't appear to understand "the zionists and their supporters rejoiced"; of course they rejoiced at being given a state, but they didn't rejoice at being denied Jerusalem and I challenge you to find a single example. On the contrary, at the first opportunity they tried to take it by force. The most that can said is that they would prefer a state without Jerusalem over no state. These few sentences in the article are going to disappear soon. Zerotalk 05:21, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Silwan is specifically shown in the Ad Hoc Committees proposed City Boundaries for Jerusalem. It's in Annex III. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-195301/ FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Res 181 is what mattered, and it was me who added here that all of Silwan was included, so as to fix the incorrect wording "parts of Silwan" that you previously added here. It doesn't mean that every other internationalization proposal included Silwan. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, a source is required in every case. Tip: Bernadotte's final proposal did include it. Zerotalk 11:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Resolution 181 calls to implement the map in the Annex. It says that in Part III, "B. Boundaries of the city" where it references the annex. The resolution includes the annex within it. It's on last page. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/181(II)
It says the most eastern part is Abu Dis. Silwan had either an unclear border or a border described differently on certain maps during the Ottoman period. I wrote parts because I wasn't sure if all of Ottoman era Silwan was included. Looking at the map instead of the written description, they actually drew the boundary farther than Abu Dis, so looking at that, I agree with you its fair to say all of Silwan instead of parts of Silwan. FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this, Zero0000.
It is helpful to understand why newspapers have been so commonly used as sources amongst recent edits, though the reasoning is surprising. Where available, we should be using sources published by historians for a historical topic. They have the benefit of more time to research, develop ideas with peers, and access to information that may not have been available to journalists. Journalism and historical research serve very different purposes. News is intended to detail events as they unfold while historical research provides more analysis of those events. Historians have the professional grounding and access to provide context to archival material and news reports; citing newspapers is a valid historical approach, but within the structures of Wikipedia we should rely on the work of historians for historical topics. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
So the reason I came across these wiki pages were there were some incorrect things posted about the City of David archaeology site, which has become a major tourist site. I knew there was an incorrect name posted for the wider area. Unfortunately, historians really haven't had a chance to take a crack at the progression of that area yet. It only became of significant interest in the last two decades. That's probably why some of the information was incorrect. Edit: I visited in 2009 or later when a local visitor center had opened that had an English old map.FarFromTheMiddleEast (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI