Talk:Silwan

Merge proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

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

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

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

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

 Done I have edited it here.[1] Onceinawhile (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

  

  Silwan in 1925 (cropped)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.