Talk:Siloam tunnel

message: actually  in 2 kings 20 v 20 it is recorded that he made the tunnel, so to say that it isnt recorded directly in the bible isnt exactly accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.177.115.119 (talk) 06:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [unnamed thread]

message: The coordinates puts this location in East Jerusalem, which is not internationally recognized as part of Israel:,  it is therefor pov to have this cat and claim that its in Israel as User:Tentontunic did here: . --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Given that there is quite a bit of dispute over whether this tunnel is Hezekiah's, I propose to move it to the generic name Siloam tunnel, which at the moment is not even a redirect. The most recently published archaeological excavations (Reich 2011, now cited) put the date earlier than Hezekiah.  I also looked at the paper of Frumkin cited for the sentence "The tunnel has been securely dated both by the written inscription found on its wall (Siloam Inscription), and by dating organic matter contained in the original plastering." and found that it does not support this date to the exclusion of others.  What it says is "The U-Th age of a speleothem, deposited within ST is 317±18 yr BCE; younger ages were obtained for other speleothems in similar locations within ST." (i.e. too young by 4-5 centuries, which can be explained but doesn't distinguish 700 BCE from 800 BCE).  It also says "The calibrated carbon 14 age of organic materials in AP is 822–796 BCE for a piece of wood, and two ranges of 790–760 and 690–540 BCE for a short-lived plant."  The first date is spot on for Reich's new dating, and none of the three date ranges match Hezekiah's reign (maybe 715–686 BCE).  Also the inscription includes no date and can only be dated roughly. So some rewriting of the text to be less positive is in order. Zerotalk 13:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many scholars have pointed out that the inscription is not a royal foundation or building inscription of the customary type.  However, your carbon dates really would not seem to conclusively prove or disprove anything, with an overall range of 822 to 540 BC... AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the carbon dates only establish a date within a few centuries.  That is significant because even more far off dates have been proposed, but it shouldn't be presented as proof that the tunnel was made during Hezekiah's reign as it seems to be now.  That is a false impression of precision.  Zerotalk 22:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's most commonly known as "Hezekiah's Tunnel", but there's no real diredct proof that Hezekiah actually built it, then the usual solution is to explain the situation on the article page, not change the name of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but I'm not sure if it's true.  In general google "Hezekiah's Tunnel" does better, but in scholar and books "Siloam Tunnel" does better. Zerotalk 08:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name, content 

message: It says in the first sentence of the article: "before 701 BC during the reign of Hezekiah, in Israel." But Israel came into existence in 1948, and Israel didn't exist in 701 BC. It also says in these sources: that he was the King of Judah, not Israel: .--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the early united monarchy and northern kingdom (surviving down to 722 B.C.) are often called "Israel".  But you're right that Hezekiah was king of Judah, not Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate first sentence 

message: I added this category, not realising that it has been added and removed several times before. It seems to be a bit precious and political to exclude it. But perhaps the best way forward would be to have an RfC on the matter. StAnselm (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Tunnels in Israel]], again 

message: Should this page be included in :Category:Tunnels in Israel? 19:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the tunnel is not in Israel, its in East Jerusalem which is internationally regarded as part of the Palestinian territories, and no one recognizes it as "Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, since everyone agrees Israel controls the tunnel this ategory would be more beneficial and appropriate than no category. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

text: No,  since the tunnel is not actually in Israel, regardless of who controls it, it should not be included in this category.  Cheers! RichardMills65 (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Jebus, this really is an example of the politicisation of the mundane. I await the creation of a category of the winds in Israel or Palestine that might give rise to erudite disputes on the various sovereign jurisdictions over which the khamsin blows. However, per the superlatively scrumptious point of Supreme Deliciousness I'll argue no it shouldn't be in this category as the tunnel is not in Israeli territory as defined by international law. If you want to create an obsolete category of tunnels under the de facto control of Israel you could include it in that. FiachraByrne (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that, or modify the category to "Tunnels of Israel and Israeli-controlled territories". --Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea Orangemike. Cheers!  RichardMills65 (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Mediation was never desired as no valid arguments were presented to have the inaccurate category.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: categorization 

message: Zeero, the 7th-9th century origin is not supported by any academic book. Eli Shukron recent proposal is that the tunnel may date few decades earlier than it was estimated. This is mentioned bellow. However, this thesis is not yet backed by historians, while I do not find any evidence or assumption that it may originate from 9th/7th century as you claimed. Therefore please provide source for such claim or I will restore the lead in accordance with the sources provided.--Tritomex (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now two peer-reviewed scientific papers cited in the article that support an origin in the late 9th or early 8th century, compared to Hezekiah's reign from the late 7th century into the early 6th century.  (Assuming I am counting centuries correctly.) Here and here.  I don't mind how exactly this disagreement is presented in the lead, but there is indeed a disagreement and this must be presented somehow. The previous best evidence is also cited (and discussed above on this page too.)  Actually "several decades" is probably misleadingly weak, even though Reich and Shukron use that phrase.  I reworded it to not use that phrase but to state the date ranges explicitly. Zerotalk 08:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, I got Hezekial off by one century.  Fixing it...  Zerotalk 08:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The article currently states "the city walls, if high enough to be defensible, must necessarily leave the Gihon spring outside, thus leaving the city without a fresh water supply in case of siege." However, many cities of the period built defensible walls on low or flat land. And in fact, according to a tour guide at the City of David I spoke to earlier this week, the path to the spring was enclosed by city walls prior to the construction of Warren's shaft. This was a 2005 discovery. There was a big ancient tower over the spring itself, and a pair of parallel walls leading up to the main city fortifications. After construction of Warren's shaft, the walls around the path were left to crumble, while the tower was maintained.--84.228.252.23 (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fortified spring 

message: I propose to merge Siloam inscription into this article. All WP:RS treat the two topics together, and there is a very significant amount of overlap between the two articles. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see that much overlap, and one is an engineering work while the other is an early Hebrew inscription. AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: When I look at the tunnel on Google Maps, I see two watercourses, both of which start at Gihon spring and end at the pool of Siloam. The longer, curvier watercourse is called the Tunnel of Hezekiah. The shorter, straighter one is called the Tunnel of Siloam. Does anyone know what is being represented there? Why is this distinction made on Google Maps but not on Wikipedia? Thanks. Rwflammang (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The short and straight one (if it exists) would be chronologically much later than the one discussed in this article. AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siloam distinct from Hezekiah? 

message: A summary inscription has been discovered in the tunnel, in an area previously thought to be blank, which contains a list of Hezekiah's deeds, including making "the pool and the conduit", giving the date as " the seventeenth year, in the second (day), in the fourth (month), of king Hezekiah" [709 BCE]. 
Proof of biblical kings of Israel, Judah deciphered on rock inscriptions - The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)  Auric talk 19:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See reply at Talk:Siloam inscription... AnonMoos (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New inscription