Talk:Siloam inscription

Zada

Why is the mysterious word spelled "Zada"? Isn't it better to spell it ZDH, since we don't know its vowels? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Likely from Aramaic “azad” meaning “to be gone/missing/empty/void” and subsequently feminized (denoting negative space) to become “zadah” or Zada. By this logic, the inscription reads: “…called to his counterpart, (for) there was a ‘void’ in the rock, on the right…” Azad is also an Aramaic loanword to Arabic, Farsi and Old Persian, wherein it means “free” (as in “freedom”) which may derive from the notion of free/empty space. This approach may also illuminate the original meaning of Ohr Mazd, name of the Zoroastrian deity, which could arguably then be rendered as “light from the void.” Imahd (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

inscription type

Should mention the fact that it's conspicuously not a conventional ancient middle eastern royal building inscription (e.g. "I king X of Y built Z..."), as would have been expected for an inscription found in that location... AnonMoos (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this water diversion project was conducted in a hurry (due to the looming threat of an Assyrian siege) and that it was a stealth project crucial to the security of the city, specifically its access to potable water. Not something one would want Assyrian spies to uncover. The inscription was also located in an area that was not visible to the public. (Can't find my ref for the last point.) Imahd (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Language

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Archaeology#Paleo-Hebrew.2FPhoenician. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you state that the comment about the text being referred to historically "as Phoenecian is ... untrue". Can you prove this? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read the works from around the time of the discovery, many of which are at Siloam_inscription#Bibliography. Schick, Sayce and Waterman all refer to the inscription as Phoenician.

• Schick (1880): "Phoenician Inscription in the Pool of Siloam"
• Sayce (Oct 1881): "...the inscriptions of Mesha and of Siloam represent two different forms of the Phoenician alphabet..."
• Waterman (1882): "...the ancient inscription in old Phoenician characters..."

Oncenawhile (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Paleo Hebrew is an accurate description of the language used. Thankfully, descriptions and characterizations become more accurate over time. The text is Paleo-Hebrew. Paleo-Hebrew uses the Phoenician alphabet/characters and evolved out of Phoenician in the way that languages generally evolve out of one another. It is, however, distinct as the language of this place/time period. It was referred to as Hebrew in the time period you posted, as well as, more importantly, being referred to as Hebrew today. The current arrangement of the text is the best for reducing, rather than increasing, confusion. From the Waterman source, which seemingly was selectively quoted from

"The inscription is the oldest Hebrew record of the kind yet discovered. It is an early contemporaneous specimen of the language of the old Testament, written in that ancient form of Phoenician alphabet already known to us from the Moabite stone."..."It not only gives us the Phoenician alphabet in a more archaic form than any previously known, but it brings before us the Hebrew Language as it was actually spoken in the age of kings"

Paleo-Hebrew is the correct description of the language, and conforms with the popular, contemporary description of the language of this region and time period.Drsmoo (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are getting confused between language and script. These are two different things. We are having this conversation in the English language, but we are using a script most commonly referred to as Latin.

You wrote above that "Paleo-Hebrew uses the Phoenician alphabet/characters". So I think we are in agreement. The clarification of this that you removed from the article is needed.

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Paleo-Hebrew is clear as to the script being used. Just as articles describing works in the English language have no need to specify Latin script. Drsmoo (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The subjects of articles on works in the English language are all described by their sources as being in English. The situation here is that the key original sources all described the script at Phoenician. We should explain this to readers and not hide from it. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

They describe it as being early Hebrew wth Phoenician characters. Fortunately, there is a well established word for that very situation, that word is "Paleo-Hebrew" Drsmoo (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong - the term "Paleo-Hebrew" refers to the script, not to the language. This term was invented in the 1950s, hence the confusion when reading original sources regarding an artifacts discovered in the 1880s. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you've acknowledged that the script is Paleo-Hebrew. Describing it accurately is not confusing. Drsmoo (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Even modern sources call the script Phoenician, as did all the sources prior to the mid-1950s. You clearly have a preference for one term, but that doesn't give you the right to whitewash others. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately I'm doing nothing of the sort. The text is: "written in Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, [2] [3] [4] a regional variant of the Phoenician alphabet." 23:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Niels Lemche

The material in the footnote doesn't seem to be out of line, but it should be kept in mind that he's a famous "minimalist" ... AnonMoos (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

However, the phrase "poor companion" merely reflects his personal subjective disappointment that it's not a classic royal building inscription. Others might find the fact that it's not a classic royal building inscription to be highly interesting. AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not on display" and "Repatriation efforts"

I have added a dubious tag against the "often not on display" statement. We have multiple photographs in commons, and many more are available on other websites, which strongly suggests that this statement, sourced to the Times of Israel, is incorrect. Unless we can find other sources to corroborate the ToI's statement, I suggest we remove it from the lead (it is not relevant to the topic of this article anyway), and attribute it directly to the ToI.

Separately, the first paragraph of the Repatriation efforts section is written in a one-sided manner: Even though Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign... it has refused... This inconsistent position

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources like Times of Israel say, not by what editors think is "incorrect". There are actually multiple sources that say this, including ones already in the article - https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/17/3/3 "The inscription is now in a display case in a part of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum not generally open to the public, so it is rarely seen today." Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

That BAS article is 30 years old; for more than 20 years the inscription has been in pride of place in the museum. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

and the Times of Israel article is barely 4 years old. So if you want to claim it is incorrect, find a newer source that contradicts it. Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

And not that I need to contend with the faulty logic behind your personal opinions, but the fact that there are pictures of the artifact does not in any way contradict the statement that they are often not on display. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It contradicts it because those pictures are taken by members of the public on a regular basis. See for example: 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2012, 2014, 2018. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Being infrequently on display (say a few weeks every year) would enable the above, while consistent with the sourced statement that it is "often not on display". And what you describe as "members of the public" turn out to be, in the case of the last photograph, "an adjunct professor at the Jerusalem University College in Jerusalem and Bethel University in St. Paul, MN and serve as a consultant for a publisher and several media organizations." so it is quite possible that he was afforded the opportunity to see the inscription as part of his academic work, in the area closed to public. But again, I am not going to continue this irrelevant discussion, because we go by what sources say, not hypotheses by editors. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a single source in 2017 from a journalist that was not in Istanbul and made no suggestion of having contacted them. I have been there and can tell you that it is on permanent display. That reddish plastic case in all the photos is not how museums store things in archives. It is a permanent display case. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Compare this to:

• The IAA: "Original on display in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum"
• Hershel Shanks (give your earlier reference to Shanks): "It is now on display in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum"

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kenosha Forever: adding this text back without continuing the discussion here is disruptive. The IAA and other sources are very clear that the original is on display. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

what's disruptive is you putting your version back in the article w/o anyone agreeing with you , and referring people back to this discussion in the edit summary, as if such agreement was reached. I explained I am not going to engage in this debate further: We go by what reliable sources like Times of Israel say, not by what editors think is "incorrect", or what their intuition tells them about what a reporter did or did not do. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, see WP:ONUS. “The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” You do not have consensus for inclusion here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that convinced me, as did your earlier remark this not belonging in the lead- it is too much detail. I moved it to the Reaortiationsection, where it makes more sense, and provided the detail there (was previously not on display, now it is ). I also tweaked the "permanent" wording in the lead, to allude to the on-going repatriation dispute. We can't confidently say it is "permanently" there. Kenosha Forever (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Repatriation Efforts

Both sources used in the article highlight this inconsistent position, in so many words. The Times of Israel says:

"And although Turkey has launched a fierce campaign in recent years to secure the repatriation of antiquities it claims were looted from the Ottoman Empire, Ankara refuses to return unambiguously Jewish heritage artifacts to Israel."

And Shanks says "Turkey will be especially understanding of such a request because she herself is seeking—and obtaining—the return of cultural treasures from her own plundered past."

So, unless you have sources that say this position is not inconsistent, I don't see how this is one-sided. It is an accurate representation of what sources say about this issue. Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Shanks is not saying they have taken an inconsistent position; Shanks is simply saying they will probably be sympathetic. We cannot extrapolate from that.

The Times of Israel is clearly taking such a view, but it is not suggesting that it is a neutral view. Its readers are Israelis and so it sells an Israeli view. I have looked at some of the Turkish coverage of the same [1][2][3]; not only does this "inconsistent" theme not show up anywhere, they are saying that it was a 1-for-1 swap (the Suleiman walls building inscription was offered by Israel).

The language you are proposing Even though Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign... it has refused... This inconsistent position too strongly favors one side in what is obviously a negotiation. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't read Turkish, and I am hesitant to use a mechanical translation for something which is likely nuanced. But to the extent that the Google translation of e.g the first and seconds source is accurate, they don't support your framing this as some sort of negation going on in which Turkey was offering a 1:1 swap in order to get the Suleiman walls building inscription. Instead, they present this is as yet another offer by Israel, in addition to or an alternative to the Elephants offer already in the article (to give Turkey something of cultural importance to them, found in Jerusalem and currently in Israeli hands, in order to get something the Turks stole from Jerusalem and are hiding away in Istanbul) , but nothing about this being a Turkish offer, or even something they were willing to negotiate over or accept Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"Even though Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign to repatriate Ottoman-era artifacts..." is an aggressive argument from Israel's point of view. It is not acceptable to make it in Wikipedia's voice. It can only be presented as an attributed opinion and it should be balanced by an attributed Turkish opinion. Zero^talk 09:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

No where in the source its says its Israeli POV. You welcome to bring additional sources on this matter --Shrike (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I have brought additional sources, from Turkish media, above. They position this very differently. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, I don't see it please post it here Shrike (talk) 10:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Shrike, [4] Onceinawhile (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign" is factual statement that is admissible if it is properly sourced (with due consideration of how well "aggressive" is supported). "Even though Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign.." is not a factual statement but an argument. If the argument is presented we must report whose argument it is, because Wikipedia does not make arguments in its own voice. Zero^talk 10:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

, We may attribute it to the newspaper and then give view of Turkish newspapers too. Please propose a wording here in talk Shrike (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The full quote is above, and sourced in the article. "And although Turkey has launched a fierce campaign in ...". We can use it exactly as the source, a reliable newspaper, did. There's nothing that says we can't use "although " or "Even though...": it is commonly used on wikipedia - see " Although the most-viewed videos were initially viral videos..."(List of most-viewed YouTube videos), or "Conway emerged as a vocal Trump critic, even though his wife, Kellyanne Conway, worked for Trump" (George Conway). Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, is this a widely used argument, or just the view of a single journalist at a single online newspaper? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of Turkey's efforts to repatriate their own artifacts with their position on the Siloam inscription was made by Shanks, as well. Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

They did not make the argument though - so it does not support Wikipedia doing so. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

See also this: "Turkey was never a colony – and yet, its protectionist attitude towards archaeology and claims for the recovery of artefacts are continuous, and are growing in strength since 2002. Additionally, due to the influence of its vast and lengthy Ottoman Empire (1299-1922), Turkey itself displays artefacts of a variety of foreign countries in its museums. This has led some scholars to question whether Turkey would have the right to claim for its objects to be returned, if its own museums survive with collections of previous colonies." [5] Kenosha Forever (talk) 16:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this language is good. "This has led some scholars to question whether Turkey would have the right" is more neutral wording. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to use something like this, in a rewording of that paragraph shortly.Kenosha Forever (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, we had a good discussion here, but we did not agree to include the same argument three times in the text. Your current proposal[6] bookends the paragraph with the argument, hitting the reader with it like a sledgehammer. We should make the argument once on an attributed basis, and that’s it. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We specifically discussed the "Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign" phrasing, and 3 editors agreed to it. Then you unilaterally removed that with no discussion. You are being disruptive here. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your proposed paragraph is as follows: Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign to repatriate Ottoman-era artifacts it claims were looted by imperial powers. It has also refused Isreal's request to repatriate the Siloam inscription (and other artifacts unearthed in Ottoman Palestine and transferred to Turkey).[19] Scholars have commented that the inscription has little, if any, significance to Turkey, and as evidence point to the fact that it was not on display in a public gallery in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum.[20][21] Hershel Shanks, founder of the Biblical Archaeology Review, has written that Turkey should be amenable to a repatriation of the Siloam inscription, given its own repatriation efforts, [22][23] and other scholars have questioned whether Turkey can demand that its objects be returned, when its own museums refuse to return artifacts taken from previous colonies.[24] The text makes the same argument four times in a row. You do not have support from any editors to repeat the argument in multiple different ways. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, it does not. My initial paragraph was simply to repeat what a reliable source had written - that while Turkey has been fiercely campaigning to repatriate its artifacts, it has been refusing to return artifacts demanded by others. This was objected to on the grounds that it was argumentative, so instead , my current paragraph has the following structure: (a) Turkey took position x on its artifacts (factual, no argument) , (b) Turkey took position y on artifacts required by others (again, factual, no argument). [a and b were agreed to by all editors other than you.] (c) scholars have noted this is inconsistent. I am happy to go back to my original proposal, but you are not going to unilaterally water this down to just "Turkey has refused to return the Siloam inscription (and other artifacts unearthed in Ottoman Palestine and transferred to Turkey) to Israel." Kenosha Forever (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No editors have agreed to repeating the same argument four times. Can you justify why we should do so? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

We are not repeating the same argument four times, as explained above. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

• Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign to repatriate Ottoman-era artifacts it claims were looted by imperial powers. It has also refused Isreal's request to repatriate the Siloam inscription (and other artifacts unearthed in Ottoman Palestine and transferred to Turkey). => Argument: Turkey is being hypocritical, so they should give it to Israel

• Scholars have commented that the inscription has little, if any, significance to Turkey, and as evidence point to the fact that it was not on display in a public gallery in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. => Argument: This doesn’t matter to them so they should give it to Israel

• Hershel Shanks, founder of the Biblical Archaeology Review, has written that Turkey should be amenable to a repatriation of the Siloam inscription, given its own repatriation efforts => Argument: Turkey is being hypocritical, so they should give it to Israel

• other scholars have questioned whether Turkey can demand that its objects be returned, when its own museums refuse to return artifacts taken from previous colonies. => Argument: Turkey is being hypocritical, so they should give it to Israel

This repetition is inappropriate, and cannot stay in this form. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, (1) is not an argument but a statement of facts. In fact, this sentence was rephrased as it is specifically as a result of what other editor has said, that such a phrasing would NOT be an argument(See above - "Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign" is factual statement that is admissible if it is properly sourced (with due consideration of how well "aggressive" is supported). " Even though Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign.." is not a factual statement but an argument."(2) Is additional context, and a different argument - aside from any reciprocity, these artifacts mean nothing to Turkey, and scholars have commented on that as yet another reason for their return (4) is the only place where the argument that Turkey is being inconsistent is made.

(3) Is interesting - when I sought to use that source as support for my contention that the argument against inconsistency is made by multiple sources you argued the opposite - that it is not making that argument - see above "They [Shanks] did not make the argument though - so it does not support Wikipedia doing so." (your comment, of 18:19, 23 February), but now, suddenly your tune changes, and you claim it is making the same argument.

Now, I am perfectly willing to go back to my original formulation - dropping (3) and just using that as another source supporting the argument, which means we can use it in Wikipedia's voice, per multiple sources. But you really can't have it both ways, and you really can't argue opposite positions from one day to the next, in the same thread. Not only is this disruptive, its casts a serious doubt on your good faith. Kenosha Forever (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kenosha Forever: please stop with the attacks. And please read WP:AGF. We should discuss the content only.

Please also read WP:SYNTHESIS. Point (1) above is an example of this, as you have juxtaposed two sentences to imply a conclusion. The way that (3) is positioned in your text is also implying a conclusion.

It is acceptable to imply this conclusion in the article, because it is sourced, but it is not acceptable to do it so many times.

An additional problem here is that a number of your sources do not refer to the Siloam inscription at all. Personally I am fine to keep them here to add additional weight to the points, but they need to be used with care. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, WP:SYNTHESIS is says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."- there is no WP:SYNTHESIS here as the conclusion of point (1) is stated explicitly, in a several individual sources. In fact , it is stated even more explicitly than the way it is in our article in the Times of Israel source, and I've rephrased the conclusion that was very explicit there to address your concern that it was making an argument, and using the formulation suggested by another user, about what would make it not an argument.

There is no repetition here, as explained above, and pointing out that you are changing your argeums, often making bth a point and its opposite according to the direction the debate is going is not a personal attack. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, thanks for this. You are exactly right that we have the argument sourced, so we should only state or imply it using the sources which explicitly make the argument. What your proposed text does is repeat the argument multiple times, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, once following a source and the other times via synthesis. You have acknowledged that synthesis is not allowed; regarding the repetition, please see WP:DUE. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, as explained multiple times ,there is neither repetition nor synthesis here. But I am willing to go back to my original, more concise version - "Even though Turkey has launched an aggressive campaign to repatriate Ottoman-era artifacts it claims were looted by imperial powers, it has refused to return the Siloam inscription (and other artifacts unearthed in Palestine and transferred to Turkey) to Israel [16]. This inconsistent position has been noted by Hershel Shanks, founder of the Biblical Archaeology Review, among others[17][18]." Kenosha Forever (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha Forever, we cannot make the argument in Wikipedia's voice. How about swap it round: Commentators such as Hershel Shanks, founder of the Biblical Archaeology Review, have argued that Turkey's refusal to give the Siloam inscription (and other artifacts unearthed in Palestine and transferred to Turkey) to Israel is inconsistent, since Turkey have undertaken its own aggressive campaign to repatriate Ottoman-era artifacts it claims were looted by imperial powers.[16][17][18]. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, We have multiple sources making that claim, in a much more explicit way. We can't simply attribute it to Shanks, nor elide the fact that we are talking about repatriation, rather than "giving". That Turkey is inconsistent is a fact, not an argument. Kenosha Forever (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

A problem with the language is that a "return to Israel" is not possible because it wasn't taken from Israel. Not only because Israel didn't exist then but because the location it was found is not in Israel today either according to most of the world. I don't think the sovereignty argument should be fought yet again here, but perhaps some wording can be found that is correct yet avoids the issue. Zero^talk 05:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Turkey didn't exist when the artefacts were taken, either. The country requesting repatriation is Israel, and that what we should say. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody argued for "taken by Turkey" or against "requested by Israel". My comment was about "return to Israel" which is a phrase different from either of those. Zero^talk 02:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If they are returned, it will be to Israel, as that is the country requesting repatriation. Not everything needs to be made into a political battle, you know. Kenosha Forever (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree about battles, but the problem is that "returned to Israel" implies they came from Israel, not merely that Israel is the hoped-for destination. That's a political statement. Similarly, "repatriation" means bringing back to the originating country, also a political statement. This is what "return" and "repatriate" mean in the English language; I can't help that and it is not me who is arguing for politically-loaded language. "Returned to Jerusalem" would be fine if the Israeli intention is to display them in Jerusalem. But is that the stated intention? Zero^talk 07:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

And that is exactly why I brought up that "Turkey" didn't exist either at the time the Ottomans' artifacts were plundered, yet we (and reliable sources) refer to that as repatriation, and it is quite telling that you had no issue with the statement that Turkey wants "to repatriate Ottoman-era artifacts", which is in the article. Virtually all "repatriation" efforts worldwide are similar efforts by new political entities (former colonies, new states) to get artifacts "back", when in fact these new entities did not exist at the time. No one has a problem with that phrasing other than people who treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Saray / Seraj

Apparently it was displayed at the Mutasarrif's Saray (Seraj) in Jerusalem? Does anyone know which building that would be today? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The answer is here: Dāwid Qûšnêr (1986). Palestine in the Late Ottoman Period: Political, Social, and Economic Transformation. BRILL. ISBN 90-04-07792-8. although there are a couple of options: "New Residence of Vali" and "New Saray". I assume the latter; now need to figure out which building it is today. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: From Arnon's "The Quarters of Jerusalem in the Ottoman Period" which you cited recently:

The Saray or Saraya (Turkish: ‘palace, government house’) was the building known before as the Takiya (Arabic: ‘dervish hospice, asylum for the needy’) situated in the middle of the traditional quarter of ‘Aqabet et-Takiya. Its full name was ‘Takiyet Khaski Sultan’ after Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent’s wife (known also as Roxilana) who was believed to be the woman who founded it in 1522. Actually she built only an east wing to a building which was built before (see note 27). The building (known in the nineteenth century also as Helena Hospital) served as a free kitchen for poor people until the early 1870s when it became the center of Ottoman government in Jerusalem and was renamed Saray(a) (the other Saraya of the city - known also as Kişla - was adjacent to the north-west corner of the Temple Mount and used as barracks for the Ottoman soldiers). Today the Takiya-Saraya building is a vocational school for children." I guess that locating it on a map wouldn't be too hard. Zero^talk 02:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphanage (number 39) in the Old City of Jerusalem map by Survey of Palestine map 1-2,500 (cropped)

Thank you. It is up the steps here:[7] Onceinawhile (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it might well be User:Huldra/Tunshuk Palace. @Huldra: what do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, User:Onceinawhile: I have little time to be on wp these days, but the above citation sure sounds like User:Huldra/Tunshuk Palace....or part of it, known as Haseki Sultan Imaret today. (Note: the Roxelana waqf only took over part of the Mamluk Tunshuk Palace. Onceinawhile: do you have the Burgoyne-book? Sigh; it is my permanent bad conscience, that have have not added more of it to wp, (yeah; all of the articles (to be made) at User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Huldra, sadly I have never been able to get hold of it. I own a copy of the Ottoman Jerusalem book from the same series though, albeit I won’t be able to get access to it for another few months. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Look in the usual place shortly. Zero^talk 01:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Onceinawhile, User:Zero0000: Looking into this, I actually think it is more probable that this was Al-Tankiziyya; still existing, on the north side of the Western Wall. The Tunshuk Palace was (and still is) used for some "city affairs", but it was the Al-Tankiziyya that was the "official" main place. Today it is used by the Israeli Border Police. Note that it has an article both on he.wp and ar.wp ....but not on en.wp. Sigh, it is high on my "to do" list, (And the map above definitely show the Haseki Sultan Imaret) Huldra (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Huldra, Zero0000, I have been looking into the same in parallel:

• Burgoyne p.487 (re Lady Tunshuq's palace): Another entry in the sijills, dated 985/1578, describes the east boundary of two houses as ‘formerly the palace (dar) of “the Lady”, and now al-‘imara al- ‘amira’. This expression, which is found in an Ottoman repair inscription (plate 48.26) on the south wall of the upper yard, is the normal term in the sijills for Khassaki Sultan’s foundation. Literally it means ‘the flourishing edifice’, or, rather better, ‘the Imperial Charitable Foundation’, that is, the range of Sufi convent, ‘soup kitchen’, caravanserai and stables, which continued to function until modern times, although some part of the complex at the end of the nineteenth century served as a residence for the Ottoman governor of Jerusalem. The buildings are now used as an orphanage with dependent workshops.
• Burgoyne sourced much to p.307 of Max van Berchem's CIA Ville p.307: Dans la rue 'Aqabat al-takiyya, côté sud; plans Wilson (ville) et PEF: Sarai et at Takiyeh; Schick 62 (neues Serai, Wohnung des Pascha) et 62 a (el-Tekïje, Hospital der Helena); Sandreczki T. Cet édifice, ou plutôt ce groupe de bâtiments, est bordé sur la rue par une façade monumentale, percée de deux beaux portails. Celui de l’ouest (Schick 62), d’un style sobre et pur, s’ouvre dans une haute niche couronnée d’un arc brisé; un charmant oculus décore la façade à côté de ce portail. Celui de l’est (Schick 62a), inscrit dans une niche couronnée dun encorbellement en alvéoles, est rehaussé par un beau décor de pierres polychromes. Entre ces deux portails s’ouvre une porte, d’un dessin plus simple et d’un aspect plus moderne, par où l’on entre, du côté nord, au séraï actuel, c’est-à-dire à l’hôtel du gouverneur, dont l’entrée principale est au sud, dans une rue parallèle à celle-ci (n° 143). A l’est et audessous du portail est s’ouvre une quatrième porte, donnant accès dans une cour dont les murs renferment des débris d’inscriptions et d’ornements arabes.
• van Berchem's no 143 cross-refers to p.266 which states: Vers 1870 l’hôtel du gouvernement fut transféré plus au sud-ouest, en pleine ville arabe, dans un îlot d’anciennes constructions qui prit le nom de «nouveau séraï» (Warren, Underground , p.95 en bas; plans Schick 62, PEF Sarai, Isambert 84, Bædeker Sérâi); dès lors, l’autre s’appela «ancien séraï» (plans Schick 61, Isambert 78, Bædeker anc. Sérâi). Son souvenir s’est conservé aussi dans quelques noms voisins (Bâb et Daradj al-serâi). On va voir que l’hôtel du gouvernement fut installé ici vers le début du xv e siècle.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Huge Guthe quotes in German

I have provided now English translations for the original German quotes. What is the common procedure, can the German text now be removed? It is massive. Arminden (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional lines

Some additional text has been discovered, still in place.

Proof of biblical kings of Israel, Judah deciphered on Jerusalem rock inscriptions Jerusalem Post, 16 Dec 2022 Auric talk 19:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, but in the first browser I tried to use to access that link, there were so many videos running and pop-up windows and junk that it was very hard to actually read the article, so it took me a while to access it in another browser. Anyway, the claims in the article are quite sensational in terms of Biblical archaeology (far surpassing the Tel Dan inscription and the Moabite stone in specific details about individuals named in the Bible), so I'm a little reluctant to add them to the Wikipedia article based solely on something in the Jerusalem Post. I would want to know that the conclusions of the discoverer are accepted by some other archaeologists, epigraphers, or relevant scholars. If true, it would explain why the previously-discovered inscription now in Istanbul is not a classic royal building inscription (as has been pointed out many times).. AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)