Jump to content

Talk:City of David (archaeological site)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 3 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: (non-admin closure) NOT MOVED User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

No support for the move, and no reason given to use an unnecessary disambiguation phrase. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

City of David → City of David (Silwan) – The vast majority of reliable sources refer to either the possible historic or present location as being Silwan and the location is otherwise unclear. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What is going to happen to the "City of David" title when moved? Will it become a DAB page or a redirect elsewhere? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I hadn't thought about that, usually a move results in a redirect? Isn't the idea that if someone should search for "City of David" then they should end up at this article? Admittedly, there are other articles that come up in a search.Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Most of the article is about the archaeological sites associated with the ancient City of David, the original city of Jerusalem. This is what most people understand when they hear the name, so I see no problem with the article title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The "City of David" as a name is a notable entity of itself, without the addition of an adjunctive written in parentheses.Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I am beginning to get the impression that we should just move all of the stuff that is not about the archaeology/ancient Jerusalem out of this article and put it into Silwan/Elad/whatever articles, that's also an acceptable solution as far as I am concerned.Selfstudier (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the political stuff, yes, but definitely not the "historical" stuff that speaks about this important site, sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians.Davidbena (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
There is not 1 site. That's part of the problem with this article which suffers from a split personality. It blends a tourist development (1 site) claiming to be City of David (a collection of archaeological sites most of which have their own page on Wikipedia) and appropriating the name for economic purposes while not doing any actual archaeology themselves together with a biblical name given to a possibly existing City of David in the distant past. One commentator says that the article is mainly about archaeology but that's not what anyone reading the lead would think. Interesting tidbit, this article was originally created as Ophel, the Jerusalem Ophel presumably, because that's what proper archaeologists used to refer to it as before Elad came on the scene.Later it became Jerusalem's Old City walls and was then moved to City of David so its had a personality problem for a while. Also interesting is another article in similar vein, thankfully no longer extant, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ancient_city_walls_around_the_City_of_David (probably the cause of Arminden disillusionment with this stuff).Selfstudier (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is only one site known as the "City of David," and which one site has many smaller archaeological excavations carried out in the City of David throughout these many years of archaeological exploration. Here, we're talking about the general area, along with the various finds in the scattered archaeological digs and surveys conducted in the ancient City of David. Since any ancient knowledge about the city can only be had by excavating the under-layers of the city, that is why we have belabored the topic of archaeology. It is precisely to understand more about the history of the City of David. If Arminden was disillusioned about the article, it is probably because of what he wrote about the article here.. That was before we made the general improvements in the Lead paragraph. More work needs to be done by removing the non-relevant "political" material.Davidbena (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The "general area" is Silwan. As I said, split personality (due to POV editing afaics). I am going to devote some attention to the Silwan article, which atm only briefly refers to the mess here and make it clear there what this is all about.Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Silwan is the later Arabic name given to the same site, and which Arabic name is, literally, the equivalent of the Hebrew word "Shiloah" (שילוח‎), a name which came to apply to all the area around the natural spring (i.e. the Pool of Siloam). We find in many documents that the Hebrew word "Shiloah" is translated back into the Arabic "Silwan" by 10th and 11th-century Hebrew lexicographers. Still, we are concerned here not about Silwan's modern history (for which we have an article on that), but about the City of David's ancient history, long before it was called Silwan.Davidbena (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Exactly the sort of POV I am referring to. The time before and the time after don't exist for you, do they? I can demonstrate the existence of Silwan which is more than you can do for the "City of David" (either version, new or old).Selfstudier (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Would you prefer that I show you sources for what I've written above? There is nothing greater than a reliable source to dispel any unfounded POV. I am still baffled by why you have taken-up an anti-academic stance on the historic City of David.Davidbena (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't just put the tag on the front page because I was bored. I have been editing/suggesting ways to fix the problems that the tag describes, I am content to wait for someone else to come up with a proper solution. Meanwhile I intend to edit the Silwan article, I expect the page will end up looking somewhat similar to this one (that's another solution, merge what is Silwan to Silwan and archaeology to List of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem, what's left, historic or ancient Jerusalem (not CoD) should be quite short and consist of various archaeologists arguing for and against. All clear now, less baffled?Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Can I ask you what, precisely, disturbs you about the article and which needs fixing? Perhaps if we knew exactly what it is, we can fix it.Davidbena (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe I have explained several times already, the tag is also quite clear. As I said, I will pay some attention to Silwan while I wait for this move request to finish, then decide what to do next.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 7 August 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.

Further discussion

More "biblical" (earthquake this time) https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-evidence-of-biblical-earthquake-uncovered-by-israeli-archaeologists-in-jerusalem-1.10084286 but more interesting (to me) is "The destruction layer was discovered in a structure in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan in excavations conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority and the Ir David Foundation." (afaik, Elad doesn't actually do any excavating, I think they pay something towards the cost).Selfstudier (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The earthquake that happened during the reign of Uzziah king of Judah has been corroborated by this recent archaeological discovery in the City of David. See here.Davidbena (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I haven't an Instagram account nor do I need one so that will have to remain a mystery. Anyway, the Haaretz article already says that? Selfstudier (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

A Proposal

So, if it is only the title of this article that bothers you, would you prefer that the name of this article be changed to "City of David (historical site)"? I would be open to the idea of doing a RfC on the idea of renaming the article to "City of David (historical site)", on the condition that we remove all the current political stuff, and keep this article focused strictly on the historical site in and around Silwan (where the City of David was actually located) and where the main thrust of this article will continue to layout all information relative to the archaeological digs and findings that have thus far taken place in the City of David (Silwan) in order to determine what actually transpired there in bygone years.Davidbena (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's step back into history, Wikipedia history. 2005 effort to change to CoD followed in early 2006 by a very sensible suggestion to merge with Silwan and then it went back to being Ophel and back to Cod and back to Ophel....not exactly sure what happened here....until March 2008, when the term "City of David" is introduced as an aka in edit summary "adding familiar English name for Ophel" while within the article we had "Since the Books of Samuel credit David as the first Israelite ruler of the city on Ophel, the archaeological remains of the city are usually referred to as the City of David."(unsourced).

Then on 13 May 2008, the page was moved from Ophel to City of David (Jerusalem) with summary "City of David is by far the most common English name in use for this area" A week later, the article was moved from City of David (Jerusalem) to City of David with edit summary "no need for DAB" Reading the actual article around this point in time is instructive. "The City of David, also known as the Ophel..."

In 2010, an editor sock blocked in October 2010 added all the archaeology bits as well as disappearing the Ophel aka with a lead rewrite here.

So the title went Ophel -> CoD -> Ophel (a few times) -> CoD added as an aka -> CoD (Jerusalem), Ophel as an aka -> CoD, Ophel as an aka -> CoD. Clearly the article has had a personality problem for some time.

As it stands, the article is somehow arranged around Elad and their activities and the ancient Jerusalem aspect, which did once exist to some extent in older versions of the article, has been in a way subsumed into that, I assume this was deliberate rather than an accidental product of editing over time.

As regards your suggestion I would prefer "City of David (ancient Jerusalem)", no mention of Elad at all (a new article can be created, Ir David archaeological tourism site or something of that sort), Silwan as a bolded aka given that the majority of respectable sources recognize this aspect. The legal aspects, Israeli and International law, need to be comprehensively explained. Criticism of the archaeology unrelated to Elad needs to go in as well.

I don't think we need anything formal if we two agree, there doesn't appear to be that much interest in the article and we can just leave it up for a while to see if anyone else wants to chip in with comments.

Before I forget we also need an agreed definition for "the area". According to Emek Shaveh, A Privatized Heritage: How the Israel Antiquities Authority Relinquished Jerusalem’s Past (2014) "The ridge extending south of the Temple Mount – termed the "Ophel" in old maps, "City of David" by archaeologists, and "Wadi Hilweh" (a neighborhood in the village of Silwan) by its residents – is the ancient core of Jerusalem." ie (ancient Jerusalem). Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

You can bring up all the past discussions and "history" of this page as you like, but what matters is the current consensus. As for the area, this, too, is clearly defined by scholarly sources which is backed by consensus. The bounds of the City of David, according to modern historical geographers, expanded from the southern wall of the Temple Mount (Haram esh-Sharif) and extended as far as the King's Garden. All places in-between are mentioned as being included in the ancient City of David. It seems to me that you are plainly against the historical site "City of David." Your POV will get you nowhere, but perhaps topic banned. And, if I might add, the historical City of David did not not begin with the organisation "Elad."Davidbena (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I responded to your proposal, you don't agree (I think, there is no constructive response to consider). This will be about the fourth time that I have had to say that engaging with you is simply not productive. And it is you who has a topic ban to your credit in this area, not I.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, I have added into the article along with two sources, a definition of the area "ancient Jerusalem". So if you have any reliable sources beyond your personal assertion that says different or that "ancient Jerusalem" is not the same as "City of David", feel free to add those in.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The pix here which I am not at present advocating as RS show the extent of CoD (ancient Jerusalem), I especially like the last one.Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: What is in the past is in the past and we all learn from our mistakes. But isn't it you who are having a hard time with accepting historical truths? I have actually sought to compromise with you about the article's title. Why bring-up Elad, in the first place? The historical City of David goes back far beyond Elad. We have tons of reliable and verifiable academic records that speak of this ancient site. Without mixing historical data with the modern, perhaps you should add a section entitled "Proposed housing units in the City of David"? This, indeed, would involve Elad. I'm saying this as a person who has no input to say, one way or the other, about the proposal.Davidbena (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I go by sources. I edit the article with sources. I have provided a lot of them. I have no idea what "historical truths" even means, all truth is relative and in the eye of the beholder. I didn't bring up Elad in the first place, it was in the article when I got here. You proposed removing all the political stuff, I agreed with you but now it seems you think that Elad stuff is not political so we will never agree. I will happily edit about anything in the article and I will source those edits. Of course, you are at liberty to do likewise.Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you have provided sources, but the source for Elad that you use is a privately-run organisation named "Emek Shaveh"; not a scholarly-academic based source. It ("Emek Shaveh") deals primarily with why the City of David should NOT be made into a "political" issue (as Elad is, allegedly, trying to do), as it ("Emek Shaveh") seeks to keep the archaeological site known as the City of David apolitical. Again, the way for us to do this is to add a separate section and to insert the political stuff there. Do you agree?Davidbena (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't prevent you from editing the article but no, because first you said you wanted to remove the political stuff and now it turns out that you do not and that we do not even agree on what is political. My view is quite simple and I will back it up with sourcing, City of David (Elad) is distinct from City of David (ancient Jerusalem), you appear as Elad when it comes to blurring distinctions, better if you provide sourcing for your opinions and then you can add the material into the article. You can contest sources if you please, I have added other sourcing besides Emek Shaveh and will continue to do so. I have plenty more saying the same or similar things, it is trivial to find such. What is difficult to find is anything supportive of Elad other than from those you would expect.Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. We both voiced concern about the "political stuff." Go back over our early correspondence on this Talk-Page. Personally speaking, I see no point in having any "political issues" raised in an article that speaks purely about a historical site. However, I was also trying to go half-way with you and to reach a compromise, since I see that you have insisted on bringing up these issues (in spite of your earlier objection to them). I will not write about these issues, but if you wish to do so, I think that it is best to write about them in an independent section. Elad and its ilk ought to be mentioned in that one section. Anyway, just to clarify matters: Elad does not represent the historical City of David, but is merely an organisation with its own agenda - non-related to this article which treats on a historical site. The same organisation is also known as Ir David Foundation, and, as such, the vast majority of information dealing with them ought, naturally, to be put in that article, with only vague references to it here. That organisation, as can be expected, may have some overlapping interest in the history of the site, but with any "political agenda," here is where our article parts ways, as our main concern is to teach the general public about this historic site - a site that came into existence long before Elad was established as an organisation. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I misunderstood you at all. You made a proposal and I made a detailed response, including the removal of all Elad material, you rejected it and there's an end to it. I am not going to do it all over again. I will edit the article, you can do the same and we will see where we end up.Selfstudier (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
May I ask you a simple question? Do you wish to remove all the "Elad stuff" and put them in the article Ir David Foundation? If so, you have my blessings to do so.Davidbena (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I already indicated where I thought it ought to go in my response to your proposal. My response included other things besides Elad. Since that is dead in the water, there is nothing to discuss. It's a fluid situation, go with the flow.Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Since we are here to improve Wikipedia, can you please show me a diff where I rejected the removal of all Elad material, and the diff that shows your response to me with your new suggestions? Unless you're happy with everything as they currently stand, show me the diffs, or else tell me why this, my most recent suggestion to put the Elad stuff in the article "Ir David Foundation", is unacceptable to you. As you know, this here is a new suggestion which has merit, and you have said nothing concerning it.Davidbena (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't really like repeating myself but I will. You made a proposal, I responded. Included in my response, its in the subsection of this RM called "A Proposal" just above, you or anyone else can easily read it but I will repeat it here:

"As regards your suggestion I would prefer "City of David (ancient Jerusalem)", no mention of Elad at all (a new article can be created, Ir David archaeological tourism site or something of that sort), Silwan as a bolded aka given that the majority of respectable sources recognize this aspect. The legal aspects, Israeli and International law, need to be comprehensively explained. Criticism of the archaeology unrelated to Elad needs to go in as well......Before I forget we also need an agreed definition for "the area"."

Your response to this was to suggest that my POV would get me topic banned. QED. Bye bye, now.Selfstudier (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand you. My rejection of your post had nothing to do with the above words just now quoted by you, but rather the impression that I got that you were dissatisfied with the archaeological evidence already mentioned in the article showing the bounds of the ancient "City of David." You see, you spoke clearly about the "Ophel," with no mention of the other sites (as if to dismiss all the other evidence). For me, it looked like a red flag (i.e. POV). I wish to apologize to you if I was rash in my judgment. I suppose what triggered this was your earlier comments about the CoD and the negativity that I felt in those comments. Sorry about that. For the record, I can agree with you on the need (perhaps) to add an additional clarification in the title [e.g. "City of David (ancient Jerusalem)"] and which will, inevitably, clarify that we are not talking here about Elad (Ir David Foundation). It is like a disambiguation of sorts. As for your suggestion to create a new article where we can put the Elad stuff, there is no need for that, since an article already exists. It is called Ir David Foundation, which is the same as Elad.Davidbena (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The business about the Ophel was evidence for a point prior, namely that "the area" was in the past (possibly inaccurately or simply colloquially) referred to as "Ophel" and then over a period of time morphed into CoD. By itself I have not a problem with that transition except that subsequently, CoD (historical) and CoD (Elad) have become entangled in such a way as to suggest they are the same thing when they are not. After all, there is still an "Ophel", is there not?
I have resolved "the area" of CoD (historical) with 3 different sources, one as of 2021 so I think that part is clear enough now absent any source in contradiction. I have not as yet resolved to my satisfaction what Elad thinks the area might be but I have determined that it is not the same as CoD (historical) and is intricately bound up with politics.
The Foundation engages in a few different activities besides CoD tourism (settlement activity for example). As you have doubtless seen there under a heading of Tourism, "In a program called "Ancient Jerusalem", they bring visitors to the three sites of Biblical Jerusalem..." and separately a section entitled Archaeological Excavations, a continuation of the obfuscation here. Rather than use that article, already a mess, and make it worse, there is more than sufficient material to justify a spin out (a "main" from there, something from here) article on the subject of their activities in Silwan.
But I digress, there is no rush, personally I am content for the time being to make no drastic changes and continue to add sourced material to this article until all is crystal, if that is actually achievable. We can agree to alter the name now or later, I am pleased that we appear to have some measure of agreement on that front at least. Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I am happy that we have come to see eye-to-eye on this matter. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

David's capture of the town

I have moved from the article the following direct quote from one version of the Bible because it is highly problematical, and has been read in numerous different ways for well over a century. As I have often repeated, where the Biblical text is subject to controversy as to its meaning, it can't be cited as a primary source.

where King David is described as the Israelite leader who conquers the fortified city of Jebus and renames it after himself. This was described in chapter 5 of the Second Book of Samuel, which according to one translation, is said to have stated (verses 7–9):

Nevertheless, David captured the fortress of Zion (that is, the City of David). On that day he said, “Whoever attacks the Jebusites must use the water shaft to reach the lame and blind who are despised by David. That is why it is said, “The blind and the lame will never enter the palace.”[1] So David took up residence in the fortress and called it the City of David. He built it up all the way around, from the supporting terraces inward.[2]

  1. ^ 2 Samuel 5:7-9 (Amplified Bible, Critical Edition)
  2. ^ 2 Samuel 5:7-9, Expanded Bible

Compare this to just one, the most recent, of many alternative readings that can be read into what is an obscure, and much analysed and debated text.

(6)The king and his men set out for Jerusalem, to the Jebusites who had settled the area. David was told:"You shall not enter here unless you remove the blind and the lame."(Meaning,"David will not enter here")

(7)David captured the stronghold of Zion, that is, the City of David.

(8)And David declared on that day:"Whoever attacks a Jebusite-will be struck with the ṣinnōr." And the lame and the b lind are despised in David's very soul. For this reason, they say:"the blind and the lame must not enter the House."

(9)David settled the stronghold and named it "The City of David"; David then built up the surrounding area, from the Millo inward.(Jonathan Grossman, 'Did David Actually Conquer Jerusalem? The Blind, the Lame, and the Ṣinnōr?' ) in Vetus Testamentum vo..69, 2019 pp.46-59, pp.58-59

I am not saying that this alternative should be inserted to replace the Bible. Line by line, there are numerous disagreements as to what the text is saying. The Chronicles version might be used to resolve these cruxes, but that too, is just a biblical version. In historical analysis, there is no agreement that David 'conquered' the area, or if he did fight, whether the area conquered was Zion, or the site named 'City of Daviod' (these can be regarded as distinct) or the 'city' of the Jebusites, which might conceivably have existed higher up the hill.Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nishidani: It's probably best that you removed that complex biblical insert. First, there are differences of opinion on how to interpret it. Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi) brings down two rabbinic interpretations: The first, being that of Yonatan's Targum which states that the "lame and the blind" are merely "sinners" and "transgressors." Another rabbinic interpretation states that the Jebusites had erected statues of idolatry within the city, which are tantamount to being "lame" and "blind," as they cannot walk, nor see. King David hated these graven images and asked that they be removed from the city.Davidbena (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
These are of course Interesting rabbinical speculations, but late guesses, and not informed by the considerable evidence that has accrued since in comparative semitic linguistics. This passage has a vast scholarly literature on it, it is grammatically obscure, as are some of the key words. In secular scholarship the text as we have it is the result of at least two post-Babylonian reducations of a narrative which wasn't quite understood by the authors. There are at least 7 conjectures, for example, of just the word ṣinnôr. I won't drag you into this detail, but you might read certainly with refreshing interest Nadav Na'aman, Jebusites and Jabeshites in the Saul and David Story-Cycles Biblica Vol. 95, No. 4 (2014), pp. 481-497. There is zero evidence for the capture of the town at the time ascribed to David, and the passage can be understood also as alluding to the symbolic change of control from clans linked to Saulites to the band David led. But, in scholarship, nothing for that period is certain: ancient historical details like this remain the material for competing hypotheses. The fact that the rabbinical tradition itself entertains conflicting views underlines that. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I fain not delve into all the biblical commentary on this verse, nor the many redactions that may or may not have been on this particular text, as it most certainly would go far beyond my expertise on the subject. However, in passing, let me say that צינור‎ is explained by one commentator as meaning "pillar," upon which they (the inhabitants of the city) had allegedly erected an idol. In Mishnaic Hebrew, ṣinor means "conduit." The biblical account is that King David took the city from the Jebusites, but he did not make an end of the Jebusites. In fact, he bought the land that is now the Temple Mount from Araunah. Archaeological evidence of a capture is hard to prove; so we have no evidence one way or the other. Lack of archaeological evidence does not mean that an event did not take place. Here, we have only the biblical account (even copied by the authors of the Septuagint in the 3rd-century BCE) to rely upon. As for King David himself, the House of David (Hebrew: בית דוד) is mentioned in both the Tel Dan Stele and in the Mesha Stele. Moreover, that David's progeny (i.e. King Hezekiah) held the city and diverted the waters of the Gihon Spring, just as stated in the biblical accounts, has been proven archaeologically, by virtue of the Siloam Inscription. The nation of Israel is thought to be mentioned in the Merneptah Stele.Davidbena (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
ṣinnôr is cognate with Aramaic ṣinnôra (hook, hence perhaps a kind of weapon, but it has been interpreted here to mean anything from a cataract of water, to the gullet, to the genitals etc.) we don't know, but depending on which of the several possible meanings, the nature of the text's account changes. The same goes for the distinction between Jerusalem and Ir David, which are distinct. This is not the place to go into the details, but I repeat: unless you familiarize yourself with the complexities as modern scholarship analyses them, all you are left with is the rabbinic tradition, and the primary text, and this is not what the encyclopedia focuses on in writing historical articles. Nothing in the Tanakh (or the New Testament) is of value to Wikipedia except as it is explained in terms of the various treatments of each passage in scholarship. Critical scholarship is far more insightful about the several possible meanings of the lame and the blind, for example, than anything one can fish up from fideistic speculation, which should not form our representation of the 'history'.Nishidani (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
That is exactly why I said it is best that we avoid that complex biblical text. By the way, I wasn't the one who added that text.Davidbena (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Split?

Can someone give me a brief version of the leading argument in opposition to splitting this into two articles, both disambiguated, with the primary being a dab page? Levivich 17:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, there isn't one, I have suggested that several times. The exact scope of both needs to be specified.Selfstudier (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
How about (historic) and (Silwan) with the primary article being a dab page listing both? Levivich 19:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Fine by me.Selfstudier (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I think this "solution" might equally be applied to the Silwan/King's Garden situation.Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Levivich: I went ahead with the latter, King's_Garden_(historical) & King's Garden (Silwan) (there was already a King's Garden DAB page). Is that the sort of thing you had in mind? No-one appears that much interested, other than Davidbena, who previously agreed to something like this. So what do you think, be bold and go ahead with a split? Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: Yes, that's what I had in mind, and yes, given that no one seems to be objecting, I think be bold and go ahead with the split. Don't worry, I'll put in a good word when you get dragged to AE ;-) Thanks! Levivich 14:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The "Historic" City of David

User:Onceinawhile, Hi. I saw your recent edit, and it is my understanding that your recent edit here belongs on the City of David (Silwan) which deals with more of the political side of the article and its name. This article here is different and speaks strictly about the historical City of David mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, and, thereby, your edit is out-of-place here. The article on the City of David was purposely split into two, by a decision made late last year for this very reason, so that we would not conflate the two things. Please don't be confused by the Talk-Page. The earlier discussions about the site on the Talk-Page simply reflect a time before the split, when there was only one article, and both topics had to be addressed. Now, however, there are TWO articles: One, the present modern-day site (City of David - Silwan), and, two, the historical site mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (City of David - historic) and which has and is being unearthed by archaeologists.Davidbena (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a modern neighborhood

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

The name was used for the western hill of Jerusalem for a time (the one known today as Mount Zion):

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

The archaeological remains from that site indicate that the Large Stone Structure and Stepped Stone Structure were built in the 9th century BCE, meaning that they could not have been built by David or Solomon (even Eilat Mazar does not dispute this chronology, contrary to what our articles say on this subject):

Anyone interested in helping to make this clearer to the reader? Tiamuttalk 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Supposed

I have restored the "supposed" in "For the supposed city of King David's birth, see Bethlehem." Something that is not an established fact cannot be expressed as an established fact using the narrative voice of the encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this. Nearly all of the early historical material is not secured as an established fact, but scholarly shorthand usually ascribes things according to tradition, even for legendary figures: Abraham of Ur etc. The legends concerning David (who in reality may have been a local bandit) at least in Samuel are unanimous in associating him with Bethlehem. By logic, if supposed here, I guess one should write also that Bethlehem is the supposed birthplace of Jesus, if only because it is mentioned as such only in the birth myth passages of three gospels but generally ignored thereon in. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the birthplace of Jesus is considered Nazareth, not Bethlehem. This is the majority view among historians and Bible scholars and Pope Benedict XVI also subscribed to it in a book published during his papacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is how the sentence should be structured on Wikipedia: The supposed Jesus was supposedly born Nazareth and the supposed David was supposedly born in Bethlehem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Your 'Nazerath', sounds like Nasser's wrath, so have, without prejudice, corrected.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Um, the sentence doesn't mention Jesus, and sarcasm often indicates lack of a reasoned argument. The sentence is not part of the article, it is pointing readers to another article. Sean is correct, Wikipedia should not be stating "This article is about a neighborhood in Jerusalem. For the city of King David's birth, see Bethlehem" as fact. Material within an article often has enough context so that we do not have to continually repeat that the material isn't historical fact. Do we really have to take this to NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Doug. It's not a problem that worries me. I'm just not certain. Use an adjective like 'supposed' and you signal to the reader more than simple 'factual' prose requires. The 'supposed' is 'neutral' from one perspective but, from another, it takes a stance. This was my original instinctive reaction. IN Jewish tradition, the term 'city of David' means the Jebusite capital David conquered. In Christian tradition, the 'city of David' means Bethlehem, and also, since they revere the OT, Jerusalem.
Further, if we now concentrate on the sentence, one could easily created problems for the first part. 'Ir David' is not a 'neighbourhood in Jerusalem' in either the accepted meaning of neighbourhood in English and the specific colour it has taken on in Israeli English (reflected in wiki), a residential (Jewish) area. It is the site of an archaeological dig in a restricted area around the 'stronghold of Zion' of the Biblical Jerusalem within the 'neighbourhood of Silwan'. Thus that too is not a statement of fact, but a POV, which happens to be that of the people behind the Elad operation. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Good points. Some of them refer to the title of the article and to the first part, right? So we need to separate them out. What I think we can say is "For the city traditionally considered to be King David's birthplace, see Bethlehem." If we can agree on that, I'd suggest starting a separate section for the other issues. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So now we are resorting to calling King David a bandit, are we? That description actually more aptly fits Mohammed, who looted Mecca and massacred its Jewish population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.137.180 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC) (MO fits banned user User:JarlaxleArtemis)
You need to read some books about David by Baruch Halpern, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
or, if you are in a hurry, I Samuel 27:9,11; but where is David refered to as a bandit in this aricle? A Georgian (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to mention it here. It's about an archaeological dig, not 'David'.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As Augustine recalled a captured pirate telling Alexander the Great, all great creators of new states are thugs, pirates, mass murderers, etc. David's probable origins are not exceptional. Things haven't changed much (robber barons etc), it's just tht algorithms function as swords these days.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's just ignore this IP, given their other edits and block and the need to oversight one personal attack, he/she will be blocked again shortly, possibly by me. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked a CU, Alison, who confirmed the IP was a sock of JarlaxleArtemis. Now blocked of course along with some accounts. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

Map of Jerusalem 1903-Sanday-William-(d.1920)-Waterhouse-Paul-(d.1924)-Contours-Conrad Schick(d.1901)

FlorinCB (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

Right towards the end of the subheading ‘Archeological Sites’, please remove the hard return and the bullet point after the word “large” to make the sentence connect with the hyperlinked words “drainage system”. See affected area of sentence pasted for guidance here:

“… pilgrims and built over a large drainage system.” IDW acolyte (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: – I think that the original author had deliberately made the Jerusalem Water Channel a separate item, so I jiggled things round a bit to keep it separate but make the language flow better. I hope you are OK with the outcome, IDW acolyte. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

CoD a "holy site? Since when? To whom? Says who?

The site is believed to be the former royal city of the Israelite king David, from whom it takes its name, and is a holy site for Jews, Christians and Muslims.{{sfn|Hurvitz|Shiloh|1999|p=6}}

The link to Hurvitz & Shiloh only leads to a library page, a full quote is very much needed.

Why should it be a "holy site" to anyone? Has anyone claimed it were holy? If there ever was such a claim, it's highly dubious - and unlikely to come from the two archaeologists, Hurvitz & Shiloh. For Shiloh's attitude towards religious fanatics, read his bio. Such claim might be made by some regarding the attitude of some peculiar Jewish niche groups, but only by a huge stretch for Christians and Muslims. Bahais buy every house their prophet has lived in and declare it a holy shrine, but that's not the case with Jews and Muslims, and I'm not aware of any Christian "holy site" connecting to Old Testament figures. The the Constantinian basilica at Mamre and the church at the so-called Oak of Mamre are an exception, but there the 3 angels are reinterpreted as the first apparition of the Holy Trinity, so there you go. Arminden (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously there's the theological notion of Jerusalem as something holy, but I've never heard the same said of its buried ruins - seems like a bit of a stretch. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@Davidbena and Zeex.rice: David, Zeex, hi. I see that the question should be addressed to you. David, you have introduced here (3 August 2021) the notion that CoD "is a place holy unto Jews, Christians and Muslims" and have offered the source as "Hurvitz (1999), p. 6". Then Zeex has reworded it here (22 January 2022) as "is a holy site for Jews, Christians and Muslims", with the source being meanwhile reformated as {{sfn|Hurvitz|Shiloh|1999|p=6}}. So the question from the heading here and the resulting request goes now to David: can you please provide the quote from Hurvitz & Shiloh supporting the concept that the City of David is holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims? Thank you. To Zeex: "a place holy unto" is much more vague than "holy site", the latter being normally associated with worship at the site and normally with houses of worship of some kind, so please be less "bold" with rewording such things in an area of high and permanent controversy. Thanks to you both. Arminden (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Much of the discussion has been led here: pro & con arguments, full quotation from Hurvitz & Shiloh... everything. In a nutshell: not the CoD, but Jerusalem (including CoD) is holy. Hurvitz & Shiloh do indeed write what's claimed in the article, at least in the English translation, but I doubt it goes beyond a commonplace introductory sentence ("Jerusalem is holy, so the CoD is holy"). Arminden (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that a single post-1948 source is sufficient to establish this in Wikivoice. I get the sentiment, but, for the sake of argument, are ancient latrines, tanneries and brothels all sacred, or is it rather the case that a sense of holiness may linger over the concept of a place without necessarily applying specifically to its archaeological remains? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it is just that, in the minds of many, CoD and Jerusalem amount to the "same" thing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Making an unsourced statement here, but the city of Jerusalem itself is Holy, hence the titles "Ir HaKodesh" or "Al-Quds". The historical core of Jerusalem is not only within the walls. To claim that Jerusalem in its walls is holy, but to doubt its ancient ruines are holy seems odd to me. The reason why Jerusalem is holy in the first place is its ancient history, whether it be for Christians in the Roman period, or for Jews in First and Second Temple period (i.e. Iron-Persian-Hellenistic-Roman arhcaeological periods). Obviously, any part of First and Second Temple period Jerusalem. There's the term Holy Basin which refer to Jerusalem's historical and holy core and the City of David is always within it. The problem with the lead section is that we have no access to the source and it seems there is no online version of it. I can certainly try to ask some of the current City of David excavation team for help with that.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, I believe all the main pro and con arguments have been raised at User talk:Arminden#Citing the Source. Also from there, the exact quote from Hurvitz, Gila; Shiloh, Yigal (1999). The City of David: Discoveries from the Excavations. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. p. 6. OCLC 610542128:

"The City of David, a place holy to Jews, Christians and Moslems, is the place marking the old delineation of the bounds of Jerusalem, located on the south eastern hill of contemporary Jerusalem. In shape, it is elongated, somewhat low lying hill which served as the capital of the United Kingdom of the tribes of Israel, and later as the capital of the Kingdom of Judah."

Please make the effort and read what else has been written there. I think there might be little left to say. In short, Jerusalem is indeed holy to different degrees to the 3 religions, but it isn't clear to me if one can declare specifically the CoD three-times "holy" just for being part of Jerusalem, and the authors might have taken a bit of a shortcut. One by one. There is no doubt that in mainstream Judaism all of the ancient walled city of Jerusalem was more holy than anywhere else. I'm not sure how Christianity relates to places within Jerusalem not related to Jesus and people close to him; in the CoD, only the Pool of Siloam is connected to Jesus, and there's been a huge hiatus in identifying the site and worshiping there. There are several online sources about the holiness of Jerusalem in Islam, but again, I can't tell if the CoD can be declared holy as such, beyond once having been part of the city (I also don't know if there's an intra muros requirement in Islam as well; I think the CoD was already outside the walls in Muhammad's time and stayed so thereafter).

The fact that there is no living tradition in either religion connecting the south-eastern hill (CoD) with biblical events from the time before (or after) Jesus & Siloam, creates the necessity of adding archaeology to the mix. I mean, as far as I know, there was no local memory of biblical events there, meaning: no processions, worship, let alone erecting houses of worship before the modern period, and not even now, really. And CoD archaeology is far from convincing everybody, see for instance the lack of a western city wall.

I'm acting here in part as the devil's advocate in order to get the discussion to the point.

Please check further arguments on the indicated page. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have less difficulty with saying directly that Jerusalem is (blah), there is even a book entitled Jerusalem , its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and Islam not my cup of tea but there it is. Selfstudier (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Even shorter at Yitzhak Reiter and Marwan Abu-Khalaf. "Jerusalem's Religious Significance". Palestine-Israel Journal (PIJ) Vol. 8, No. 1, 2001. Extracted from Jerusalem: Points of Friction and Beyond. Edited by Moshe Ma'oz and Sari Nusseibeh. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000.
Jerusalem is not the issue. Arminden (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
No, quite. If you want me to be clearer, I am not comfortable with Jerusalem = CoD in this context. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
We might seem to be on the same page, but we might not. CoD was within the city walls for centuries while the city had a Jewish Temple and was holy to Israelites/Jews in its entirety; it was also part of the city in Jesus' time (miracle of the blind); don't know if intra muros is a condition in Islam (Muhammad's Night Journey), but it's pretty close to the Haram. Do you want to separate CoD from J'lem altogether? Then we're not on the same page. Can we have the sentence "CoD is holy to J, C, M" without saying "as part of J'lem"? That I'm not yet in favour of, need to be convinced. The two authors were not Elad activists, maybe just old-fashioned Zionists. I have no sympathy for Elad. I'm just talking about accurate facts & wording. Arminden (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Do you want to separate CoD from J'lem altogether? No. Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
My problem is that the City of David here is specifically the dubbing of an archaeological site, and not the exact same thing as the "City of David" of myth and legend, which is part theological construct, part ahistorical ramblings and only a minor part historical reality. It is the construct that is holy, not this slice of excavation. One example of a slightly more pertinent piece of disambiguation in the body that really should be in the lead is: "The "City of David" is the name applied to the city of Jerusalem in ca. 1000 BCE, and is not to be confused with the modern organisation by the same name and which showcases relatively small excavated portions of the larger city." Somewhat more critical information than 'holiness'. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Now we're getting somewhere. I'm honestly asking: up until when did the Hebrew name 'Ir David', City of David, stay in use? What does Josephus tell us? Does it show up in parts of the Hebrew Bible dealing with later kings, which tend to be historical? Then we know what we're dealing with. There are lots of toponyms based on people's names, historical or mythical, but the outline of those cities can usually be made out; here even that is hard, so let's start somewhere less mythical than David, if that's an option.
Then let's separate Elad from the City of David concept. Weill came up with the name long before Elad, and numerous serious researchers have looked into it. You can have propagandists you hate, who base their rhetorical spins on real facts, or plausible theories.
I'd like to remind you that it was me who started this discussion: how exactly is the CoD 'holy'? I'm not guiding my worldview after such concepts, but many are, and I'm interested in figuring out if the statement of Hurvitz & Shiloh stands up to scrutiny when one applies the criteria of those who do care about such categories, because it's their world to start with. Like studying a multidimensional world outside one's own perception, but one that 'works' if the conditions one factors in are consistent in an abstract manner.
Having said all that, I feel we should drop it, remove that sentence unless it is supported by more sources, and move on, as it isn't important enough for the time it's eaten up already. Arminden (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
No objection from me.Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Me neither. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

David and the shaft

"R. Reich and E. Shukron....have disproved Warren's theory that King David (c. 1000 BCE) captured Jerusalem by entering into the city through the shaft now known as Warren's Shaft, and have concluded that the shaft was largely in disuse at that time..."

From all I know, the natural vertical karstic shaft was not open at its top end until centuries later, when the bottom of the man-made tunnel leading down to the spring was lowered and the vertical shaft was discovered. So not due to disuse, but of massive, solid rock standing in the way at the time. Arminden (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Galor 2017 (more my cup of tea) says "Reich and Shukron’s excavations established that Warren’s Shaft, was not accessible until about two hundred years after the legendary conquest, dated to around 1000 b.c.e." but doesn't say why it was not accessible, they point to R & S "“Light at the End of the Tunnel: Warren’s Shaft Theory of David’s Conquests Shattered.” maybe it's in there.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm saying, the access tunnel was passing some 2 metres above the top end of the natural shaft. 2 m of massive rock hiding the shaft from those going to fetch water from the spring. Then they lowered the bottom of the tunnel for unknown reasons and hit on the shaft. I know the story. So citing Reich & Shukron for a 1000 BCE "disuse" stage of the shaft is plain wrong. Arminden (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Add a picture showing the landscape from there?

I have been there about 2 years ago and I remember that there was a nice landscape from there (in the place with the archaeological excavations), can somebody please put a picture of it in the article? Or maybe a panorama?-- Someone35 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Disambiguator changed to better reflect what this site is. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

City of David (historic) → City of David (archaeological site) – The current title appears to take the rather fanciful and pointed, presumably tourism-oriented naming for an archaeological site as a 'historical' fait accompli that risks sowing confusion among readers between a biblical myth and an archeological theme park. The current disambiguation device, 'historic' placed in brackets, serves to confuse far more than it serves to disambiguate. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The idea, which originated with @Levivich: as a suggestion for resolving a dispute and with which I agreed (we agreed similarly for the related King's Garden, there being now a King's Garden (historical) and a King's Garden (Silwan)), was to separate the current issues (see City of David (Silwan)) from the historical at the same time as recognizing there is an entity referred to as City of David which is not precisely a place in the usual sense (it is an Elad invention laid over a historical concept, of no fixed state, the latest augment being the Cable car thing, so yes, tourism is a component). At the margins, there is going to be some overlap between what is "historic" and what is "current" and I fret that by changing the name thus, this overlap may get larger. Selfstudier (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I'm not sure I understand the convoluted hoops that have been jumped through here. Why isn't the "City of David (Silwan)" article just titled Wadi Hilweh, Silwan? It's surprising there isn't actually a "City of David" article outlining the biblical myth and its etymology. So we have a site claiming the biblical name without anything ever explaining its origins. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
There was an article called City of David before the split but it was edited in such a way as to mix together all the current IP "stuff" (Silwan, Al-Bustan, displacement, etc) with the tourism and the myth (which a lot believe in).
An editor tbanned for IP area was permitted under the terms of the tban to edit "historical" aspects in IP area articles, which without getting into all the detail, led to disputes. The current situation was the "solution". Is it a fudge, sure, but it's the best we could come up with at the time. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2022 (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.

Distinction CoD vs Givati

They tend to be lumped together, which seems wrong. As far as I know, no western city wall of the CoD was found (or acknowledged by the mainstream researchers community), so the exact border between the CoD and the quarter that developed in the Givati area might be sometimes hard to pinpoint. But not impossible in most cases, and the distinction is there, topographically as well as for most of the archaeological periods. The CoD Foundation tends to attempt to muddy the waters, but we must keep the two areas apart.

The so-called Palace of Queen Helen of Adiabene is clearly in the Givati area, not in the CoD.

The "House of Eusebius": where is it? It has been introduced by editor Broad Wall (blocked since 2010) here, in March 2010, citing Macalister et al. (1926), following the 1923-1925 excavations, but he failed to offer an online link to the source, so I can't check where "on the hill of Ophel" it was discovered. At times, the SE hill aka City of David was called "the hill of Ophel", but that's far too vague for us.

You're welcome to add more examples – and clarify their respective location. Arminden (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Emek Shaveh locates the "House of Eusebius" under the CoD visitors' centre. Solved. Arminden (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Archaeology stops at Byzantine era

So it seems history stopped in the 7th century and the history of the site was frozen in time. Are we really to believe that an archaeological excavation of this site found absolutely no remains or anything from the past 1,400 years? There are tragic cases where all of the upper layers of a site are destroyed by excavators, but I'm skeptical that 1,400 years could be quite so precisely and uniformly obliterated like this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you look today on Jeruaelm you"ll see that the walls do not include the City of David. AFAIK, the outline of these walls was set during the Fatimid period and they kept the City of David outside the walls. I read somewhere that there was a Jewish neighborhood there but couldn't find any sources. Either way, in the Mamluk period the village of Silwan developed, which is why there is the City of David (Silwan) article. AFAIK, the archaeology stops somewhere between the Fatimids and the Byzantines and I have heard once about Early Islamic houses excavated in Jeruslaem.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary reports for the City of David

DO NOT go and paste information from these reports. It would be best if we will not take this huge mosaic of sources and make our own research. It would be more better to use avaiable articles and books written by the excavators, summerizing their work along with the complete analysis of their finds. DO use this sources for reference of the different areas of excavation, who are the excavators and the general periods represented at the site.

The dates are the date of the publication, not of the excavation. Ive added if its a salvage and who conducted it, but may have made some mistakes there...

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

change European Economic Community to European Union 2A02:A03F:9ADD:1C00:8098:5901:3741:35E6 (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks. Done.Iskandar323 (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:City_of_David_(archaeological_site)/Archive_3&oldid=1255188750"