Talk:Silwan

message: 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)
thread_title: ElAd Properties, Elad Association 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Tawfiq Canaan]] 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 1834

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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.  Zerotalk 03:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced paragraph 

message: 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. Zerotalk 05:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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). Zerotalk 07:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yemenite Jewish settlement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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. Zerotalk 10:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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? Zerotalk 23:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dishonest edits 

message: can Jheald please explain why there is a need for pretty tags when the sentence lists 3 sources?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: you read all three sources cited at the end of the sentence?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  36-39 arab rioting 

message: 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. Zerotalk 15:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Zerotalk 05:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yemenites 

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

message: 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 , , and on the museum website , 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)
replies: text: Silwan can also be compared on the 1865 map . Jheald (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Lots more nineteenth-century maps, from Hebrew University:  Jheald (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1873 model 

message: :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.Gad Barzilai & Elie Rekhess, 'Israel,' in Ami Ayalon (ed.),Middle East Contemporary Survey 1991, Volume 15, Westview Press/Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Affairs, 1993 p.460.
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Incidents 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1936 

message: 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. Zerotalk 08:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was the Jewish community evacuated? 

message: About: Ath Thuri and Siwan Areal photo, It looks to me that the names of  At Tur and Silwan have been interchanged  on the photo? Huldra (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not the explanation.  What is labeled "Ath Thuri" on the photo is Abu Tor, not At-Tur.  You can match the photo to Google Maps pretty easily, maybe this link works. I don't know if this is a simple error, or whether "Ath Thuri" has a meaning I'm not aware of. Zerotalk 01:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks, Huldra (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: 140.107.63.196 (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add a demographics section?  

message: User:Huldra and User:Zero0000, yesterday, I visited the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem and perused through two books suggested by Huldra. In them, they discuss the immigration of Yemenite Jews to Jerusalem in 1882, and their contacts with the American Colony. In the book, Anna's House - The American Colony in Jerusalem, by Odd Karsten Tveit (pub. in Cyprus 2011), while recollecting their journey to Palestine, the author writes on pages 73–74:  "Altogether, 500 Jews had been convinced by this messianic prophecy and decided to leave their homes in the Yemeni city of Sana'a. They sold all their belongings and set off on a journey to Jerusalem... When the 500 reached the Red Sea coast they were discouraged from going further. It was not true, they learned, that land was given away free. Some returned to Sana'a, others were fooled into boarding a vessel which took them to India instead of Palestine. The rest, around 200, went to Aden, where they got a steamship through the Suez Canal to Jaffa. From there thy travelled on foot all the way to Jerusalem. ...The 200 Yemeni Jews were starving and sick, some had malaria, others typhus and dysentery. Horatio (who ran the American Colony with his wife, Ann Spafford) explained through the interpreter, that the rabbis were welcome to come to the Christians' house just outside the Damascus Gate... Not all the Yemenis came, but many did... The poorest and weakest of the Yemenis were given room in the house. The rest stayed in tents, huts or caves, just outside the city wall."
Earlier, on page 71, the Swedish author, Odd Karsten Tveit, wrote of Ann Spafford's first impressions of the Jews of Yemen, when she first saw them in May of 1882: "Last Sunday, 220 Jews came and among them were three learned rabbis." Odd Karsten Tveit, himself, described on pages 72–73 the Jewish group from Yemen in the following terms: "One day, the Americans left the city through the Damascus Gate and travelled north, passing the Jewish colony of Mea Shearim, a name taken from a verse in the Book of Moses... They continued further towards some fields, which were near what the Jews believed to be the grave of the High Priest, Simon the Just. There, Anna saw a group of people sitting in the shade of some primitive looking tents made of rags, sacks and mats, all of them dark-skinned, with dark hair and eyes. Both men and women were unusually beautiful. The men sported the side curls worn by Orthodox Jews, and many had long beards, but otherwise they were dressed like Arabs. Thy were rather short and thin, and when they stood up their stride was very graceful, just like the Bedouin.... The strangers could not understand classical Arabic, and spoke a dialect their interpreter did not know, but he understood that they were Jews, and that they had come to Jerusalem a week earlier from their home in Yemen, southern Arabia." ----Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating, once integrated with the works you mentioned in the previous section.  David, have you considered writing a book or extended article on this subject?Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Tudor Parfitt, in his book, The Road to Redemption (Leiden 1996), writes on page 53: "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 pronunciations 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. Many of 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." ----Davidbena (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, User:Nishidani, I have not considered writing a book on this particular topic. Be well. Davidbena (talk) 15:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just as a note. I've always been struck, given the great difference in their traditions, the diffidence and difficulties they often encountered among the Ashkenazi elite themselves in the 50s, that Albert Einstein, the acumen of Ashkenazi Jewry, felt an instinctive bond with them. This came out during a musical evening where B'rakha Zephira sang some Yemeni songs; Sergei Eisenstein responded with the hauteur not unusual among the Ashkenazi (well, he was rather disconnected from that tradition however), but Einstein, perceiving his distaste, spoke of the mashma'ut yahadut teman. See the wonderful book by Mark Wagner,  Like Joseph in Beauty: Yemeni Vernacular Poetry and Arab-Jewish Symbiosis, 2009 p.4  Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for telling me this wonderful anecdote about Einstein, User:Nishidani! I had no idea that he knew them personally. I will make every effort to read the book that you cited. Again, thanks!Davidbena (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

text: One more thing: I have seen written in the book, "Me-Teman Le'Tziyyon" (From Yemen to Zion), published in Tel-Aviv in 1938, pp. 184-185, that the land in Silwan whereon the Jews of Yemen eventually settled was given to them by a man named Boaz the Babylonian who had formerly owned the property. It was decided that houses would be built there for the Yemenites who at that time were living either in tents or in caves. The building of these houses began in earnest at the beginning of the year 5645 anno mundi (late 1884), and two houses were completed in the Spring of 1885, after which the Yemenites were no longer without homes to live in.Davidbena (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know, offhand, David, how many of the Jews settling in Silwan descend directly from the earlier Yemeni community?Nishidani (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The American Colony and their relations with the Yemenite Jews 

message: Before going into those dogged discussions, can somebody please help out with the basics in local geography and recent settlement history? Even the lead cannot give any decent population figures - 20,000 to 50,000!!! SLIGHT difference! - because it "depend[s] on how the neighborhood is defined". Well, if WP is an encyclopedia, we'd better define the topic at hand.
Street names: Google Maps is of no use, it mainly shows the Hebrew street names even in Palestinian areas.
Where is Wadi Hilweh? The article equates the City of David with Wadi Hilweh ("City of David (Wadi Hilweh)"), which seems wrong: even Google Maps shows a "Wadi Hilwa Street" WEST of the SE Hill alias City of David. So I guess CoD at best is PART of WH. Correct?
What are the Arabic and English names of the streets E and W of the City of David? To the east one runs at the bottom of the Kidron Valley and one (or a branch of the first) higher up Kidron's western slope, along the Siloam Channel. To the west of the CoD it's a street called "Ma'alot Ir David St." by Google Maps. Farther west is the crescent-shaped Wadi Hilwa Street, which has nothing to do with the CoD. "Wadi" would indicate a valley, but the Central/Tyropoean Valey (same as Hilweh along this segment?) seems to be smack in between "Ma'alot Ir David" and "Wadi Hilwa" streets.
What are the names of the different parts of Silwan? When were they settled? On old photos, there are houses on the slope east of Kidron Valley and at first none, then very few on the SE Hill/CoD. I don't know about areas even farther west, towards Mount Zion, which are now apparently part of Wadi Hilweh. The Al-Bustan (King's Garden) neighbourhood south of CoD is also relatively new (Mandate? Post-48 Jordan?).
It's useless to argue about Meyouhas' house on SE Hill, or of Yemenite houses in East Silwan (btw, only there?), as long as all this is not sorted out. We seem to use "Silwan" now for anything Palestinian between St Peter in Gallicantu and the old Silwan east of Kidron Valley, and that's confusing. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wadi Hilweh is the name used for a residential neighborhood "immediately outside the walls of the Old City, mere meters from al-Haram al-Sharif".  On the west side of the valley, so not part of historical Silwan.  I don't know if it is an official name in any sense, and I don't see it on a map (but it must be, there is even a web site devoted to it: ).  As for the history of Silwan, I have maps from different periods that show every building.  In 1864 there were only a few small buildings on the west side of the valley. In 1946 there were more buildings on the west side of the valley but still sparse and scattered compared to very dense building in Silwan on the east side.  I don't know when dense housing began on the west side; maybe during the late Jordanian period.  There was still only scattered buildings in the late 1950s, if one of my maps is to be believed. Still looking for the perfect summary... Zerotalk 23:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Incidentally you can "walk" along these streets using Google street-view. I thought there might be signs with the street names, but I didn't find any in any language. I didn't try very hard, though. Zerotalk 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

text: This map has some English street names. Zerotalk 00:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearer place names, dates; Wadi Hilweh is where?

message: It is the solemn belief of this editor that the paragraph which has been placed in the lead and which reads as follows:
:"In 1980, Israel, without formally annexing it, incorporated East Jerusalem (of which Silwan is a part) into its claimed capital city Jerusalem :through the Jerusalem Law, a basic law in Israel. The move is considered by the international community as illegal under international law. According to  Haaretz, the Israeli government has worked closely with the right-wing settler :organization Ateret Cohanim to evict Palestinians living on property whether classified formerly as heqdesh (property pledged to a temple) or :not, especially in the Batan el-Hawa area of Silwan,"
should be moved further down in the article, in the section which reads: "Israeli control". Is there general agreement for moving this paragraph in a place which treats specifically on the issue of Israel, its policies and international law?Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a link showing their decision? Besides, there is still an error in the paragraph. Where it says, "without formally annexing it," my understanding is that Israel has formally annexed Jerusalem and its immediate surroundings, such as Silwan. Therefore, this line must go.Davidbena (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: David, its a question as to whether or not Israel actually annexed East Jerusalem, the law itself doesnt say annex, and Israeli governments in the past have used that ambiguity to argue that they have not violated the prohibitions on acquiring territory through force under international law. That said, Im not entirely a fan of the phrasing, Id prefer what Ive seen in at least one source, that being "acts that amount to annexation". Dont recall the source, be easy to find though. nableezy - 08:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks,Nableezy. I will not make any changes to the paragraph unless I can support the change with verifiable facts.Davidbena (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Huldra. That was helpful. I have yet so much to learn here.Davidbena (talk) 01:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Move of Paragraph 

message: Need streamlining of the article and a section concerning the israeli court ruling of last week and next week.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.161.138.126 (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2018 land-grab by Ataret Cohanim 

message: What are the "Talmudic sources" mentioned in the "History" section? Zamib? Ab. N. R.?
And "Suk v. 1." looks like a reference to the Mishna Sukka, but then the reference would be incorrect...--Arsenal sin platea (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Talmudic sources" 

message: All we have so far is only referring to the Gihon Spring and the Souteastern Hill/Ridge, today known as the City of David. The fact that the SPRING or POOLS are called Shiloah-Siloam-Silwan says NOTHING about a village. If such a village existed, I would be tempted to look for it on the hill EAST of the Kiron Valley, where the village is located since at least the 19th century, not west of it, where the spring & pools are. If the village did start west of the Kidron and later moved along with the name, that must be PROVEN. The name is neither proof for continuous habitation, nor for any kind of connection.
One sentence in the article now reads "In 985 [Muqaddasi] noted that the village in the outskirts of Jerusalem and south of the village was ′Ain Sulwan ("Spring of Siloam") which provided "fairly good water" that irrigated the large gardens..." This is such a piece of nonsense like no other. a) "the village south of the village"?! Clearly a mistake. South of the city maybe? b) Only the spring is south of the southeastern CORNER of the walled Old City (S of the Temple Mount at most). The Silwan village we know of today is east and southeast of the spring, and definitely rather E or SE than S of Jerusalem. So, what village? Again, did the village or the name move and cross the Kidron? Or is this a mistranslation and it shouldn't read "south"? Even worse: in the quote Muqaddasi only speaks of the SPRING, he doesn't say a word about any village. If he does mention a village, pls quote the right passage. For now, in this whole paragraph (Early Muslim period) we only have one sentence about a group of people living in the Silwan necropolis that does fit in, all else & the previous paragraph (Roman period) do not even belong here, since they're about anything EXCEPT a village, and their topics (spring, King's Garden, Pool of Siloam, stepped street) are all on the wrong hill. Arminden (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I read this post only after writing my response to your other post above. It sounds like we are more in agreement than I thought. So if there is no source for a historical village of Siloam, what is our article Siloam based on? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As for Muqaddasi, see here. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: ????Armiden, I don't understand your problem with Muqaddasi? To me it is obvious; there is a village (=Silwan) and below the village is a spring (which isn't properly a spring, but is called it (=Ain), anyway, as Onceinawhile pointed out): Ain Sulwan. And below that spring is another, "Jobs' well". Here is another version: p. 49. I don't understand you when you say that Muqaddasi "doesn't say a word about any village"??? Huldra (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In the misconstrued "quote" there wasn't anything about a village. I went to the source after writing my comment here, which source by the way is a very old translation, found the reference to a "place" called Sulwan, not just its spring, and put the full quote back in. Then I discovered that Gil is putting the location of the Sulwan spring of the 10th-13th centuries into question, being sure that Muqaddasi & Co. meant a Bir Ayyub which, since we're talking about so many centuries full of earthquakes etc. ago, might well have been elsewhere than the modern mosque. You can't take a modern name and project it 100s or 1000s of years into the past, thinking that you'll still be right about the location. Even physical geography changes (slightly), tribes and nations even more, and place names travel, sometimes for kilometres. A Rashidun or Umayyad Sulwan might have had close to nothing in common with the location and population of today's Silwan. The same goes to the Jewish settlers who count David as their grandpa, preferably on their mother's side, and feel like moving back into the old family home when they go to the City of David. Nationalism is based on fairy tales, little wonder the Grimm brothers were German ultranationalists. I love fairy tales including Hollywood, but not here. Arminden (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , I like and agree with what you are saying, particularly the last three sentences. Unfortunately the vast majority of modern Biblical Geography has it foundations in 19th century assessments of comparative toponymy. We can’t throw the whole thing out with nothing to replace it, but we can make the tenuous nature of these judgements clear. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with what you write here, but, I had a problem with you saying that Muqaddasi said there was no village here, when my 2 sources of Muqaddasi clearly said it was. And if  sources ~1000years ago give 1) a village 2)a spring beneath it, 3) a spring beneath that, again ...and we find the same today, I think it would be not unreasonable to think they were the same. Huldra (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The SE ridge ("City of David") was part of Jerusalem, so inside the walls, until 70 CE, then again once Eudocia rebuilt the walls, and Moshe Gil has a nice discussion (footnote 11, see reference list) about when this wall was or wasn't destroyed and/or rebuilt. The Fatimids definitely rebuilt the walls farther up the slope. So no possibility of a "village" there for quite a while, just of a city neighbourhood. In between - revolts, burnt earth, ruins and empty hills. In the Kidron Valley and the hills to the east you have Byzantine monasteries, hermits living in burial caves and monuments, then the Persians and their Jewish allies finish them off. There is a mention of Muslims living in the Silwan necropolis early on. Only Allah knows where they came from and how long they managed to hang on. Think of Abbasid-Fatimid-Ilkhanid-... wars, AND then the Crusaders. Then read Gil. Then there's nothing in the 1300s, says an Arab chronicle. And so on. It's not like Rome, never to disappear and more or less in one place from the beginning till today. Arminden (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there a Silwan village in the Late Roman, Byzantine, Early Muslim periods? 

message: 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)
replies: text: So, why don't you consider the treaties I cited "reliable sources"? --VeroniqueBellamy (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  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)
thread_title:  "The move is considered by the international community as illegal under international law" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have edited it here. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 June 2021 

message: 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)
replies: text: . 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 () 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text:  and , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: There is no consent for a merge.Davidbena (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  Pinging the only other participants for a yea or nay on the merge.Selfstudier (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

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

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