Talk:Silwan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Merge with City of David

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ElAd Properties, Elad Association

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

Tawfiq Canaan

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

1834

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

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

Unsourced paragraph

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

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

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

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

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

Yemenite Jewish settlement

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

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

Dishonest edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36-39 arab rioting

can Jheald please explain why there is a need for pretty tags[15] when the sentence lists 3 sources?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Yemenites

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

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

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

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

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

"which are ultimately part of a larger plan to create a Jewish majority in Silwan [16]"

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

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

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

Btselem East Jerusalem paragraph

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

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

Thank you, Aslbsl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a bit from Ir Amim:

"Since 1967, fewer than 20 construction permits have been issued to Palestinians in the Wadi Hilweh area, while the permits that were issued were mainly for minor additions to existing construction. As a result, the vast majority of buildings in Silwan in general, and in al-Bustan in particular, are built without permits." [17]

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

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

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

1873 model

If anyone is in or going to be in Jerusalem, it might be worth adding a photograph of Silwan as depicted in Stefan Illes's 1873 1:500 scale model of Jerusalem, now in the Tower of David Museum. This shows the village of Silwan as it was before the Yemenite settlement. Some photos can be found on flickr [18], [19], and on the museum website [20], but unfortunately they are not appropriately licensed for us to use here (and, for pictures of Silwan, the angle could be better). Jheald (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Silwan can also be compared on the 1865 map [21]. Jheald (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Lots more nineteenth-century maps, from Hebrew University: [22] Jheald (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Incidents

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

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

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

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

1921 riots ?

According to the article currently,

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

citing a Ynet article [23] which says:

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

But according to the alt-arch site, [24]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1936

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

When was the Jewish community evacuated?

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

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

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

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