Talk:City of David (archaeological site)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name?

This article name appears non-NPOV and not in a small way.

"Two realities seem to be ignored, however, by most visitors: the many centuries of historical legacy that link the Palestinian Silwani to this place and the lack of archaeological data on the Southeast Hill supporting the biblical narrative of King David’s conquest and rule in the city."

Finding Jerusalem Archaeology between Science and Ideology Katharina Galor 2017

Not to mention that the whole thing is in occupied East Jerusalem and all Israeli activities there are null and void/illegal including settlements, archaeological park, digs and all the rest. Maybe there is a place for an article about the multiple excavations in the area (each one has a name, Givati, Kenyon, E, G, whatever) discussed from a strictly archaeological viewpoint.

Called something like "Archaeological sites in Silwan" since that's where they are? Selfstudier (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Apart from being non-NPOV, it does not even exist, certainly not now and the evidence for it having existed in the past is suspect. There is a legal structure (Israeli) called City of David archaeological park under the auspices of the INPA, then subject of a management contract with a settler organization. It is not clear which areas are included in this park/management contract. CoD is an ideological based marketing tool for archaeological tourism, the sites exist but have nothing to do with any CoD other than in the minds of zealots seeking any excuse to demolish Palestinian homes and install settlers. Another possibility is to merge this with List of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem and treat it apolitically.Selfstudier (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The article, "City of David," should not be politicized (IMHO). The site is a historical site, whether the name has change umpteen times since King David once settled in the city. It's like the article Canaan, which describes the country from a historical perspective, rather than from a political perspective, although its name, too, has changed many times since the Canaanites first settled in the country.Davidbena (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am complaining because it HAS been politicized. There is no such site, there are a bunch of sites (10 to 12 depending on what you include) hiding under a POV label (used for marketing purposes by a settler organization).Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, after reviewing this article, I can see just how much it has been politicized. The real article is in the archaeological section. Hmmm. The article needs "doctoring."22:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The history bits belong in Silwan, this article should just be on the group that has attempted to take over the neighborhood and the associated controversy. nableezy - 22:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Silwan has an interesting history of its own. I would suggest going back to the time this article was created and see the original edits and what was the focal point in his article. What exactly was he trying to portray in this article?Davidbena (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You can see just how far this article has gone from its more neutral theme here and where it stands today. Hmmm. If editors can agree, perhaps the aricle should be limited to only its ancient history when that part of the city was known specifically by that name, and, in this way, we can remove all the more recent edits that are non-related.Davidbena (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There isnt anything here that isnt a part of the history of Silwan. I think the inclusion of it here is a pretty basic WP:POVFORK in that it attempts to include the same material under a different framing. nableezy - 23:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As in many Wikipedia articles, we find, both, a site's historical Arabic name and its historical Hebrew name, with slightly different takes on each article. While they are somewhat similar to a fork, they do not really fit into the same category as WP:POVFORK. They're different in scope. Just to name a few: Dura vs. Adurim; Nablus vs. Shechem; Qila vs. Keilah; Yibna vs. Yavne; al-Karmil vs. Carmel; Hawsha vs. Usha; Battir vs. Betar; Az-Zakariyya vs. Zekharia. And there are many, many more. Even Canaan vs. Palestine - which two articles speak about the same country - are not your usual "fork." I would prefer to see the political mess removed from this article, since it distracts from the historical site in its purest and truest form. While Silwan is the current name of a place in Jerusalem, it was formerly called Accra, and long before that it was called the "City of David." Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"its historical Hebrew name"?? It was not called CoD until recently. It's even explained in the article "First suggested in 1920 for this particular area, the term "City of David" was used officially from the 1970s onward, following the capture of East Jerusalem by Israel, but today the name with its biblical and political connotations is questioned by some in the archaeological academic community." Too right it is.Selfstudier (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The page should be called City of David National Park (I think that's the official name given to it by the INPA but I might be wrong) and it should be clarified which of the actual sites are under management by the settler organization (is Givati included?).Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. Historical geographers have simply applied the old name, "City of David," to the old site, just as it appears in 1 Kings 11:27, and just as it is explicitly stated in 2 Samuel 5:9. You may also wish to read Smith, G.A. (1907). Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics and History from the Earliest Times to A.D. 70. Vol. 1. London. pp. 156–160.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), where on page 157 the author, George Adam Smith, writes: "In 168 BC the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes, after sacking and burning Jerusalem, fortified the City of David with a great and strong wall, with strong towers, and it became unto them an Akra or citadel" (END QUOTE). The name of the site has changed throughout the many centuries. Again, since the title speaks about a specific time-frame in which the city was so-named, the article's scope ought to be limited to that particular era.Davidbena (talk) 11:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem with that suggestion, in which case the recent digs and all that ought to go in List of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem which is just sitting there waiting for it, and Silwan stuff can go in Silwan.Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, like all other archaeological sites, where digs were made to discover the city's past, there is nothing amiss about having verifiable, archaeological evidence in the article which directly treats on the site. We have done this for almost every archaeological site (e.g. Gezer, Lachish, etc.) The List of archaeological excavations is only a general overview, without the detail that is more commonly placed in specific archaeological sites.Davidbena (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The digs are a fact, that they are anything to with a biblical CoD is not accepted fact, per the source above (and there are others) "Two realities seem to be ignored, however, by most visitors: the many centuries of historical legacy that link the Palestinian Silwani to this place and the lack of archaeological data on the Southeast Hill supporting the biblical narrative of King David’s conquest and rule in the city."Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have not looked into the archaeological data. Where the archaeological finds relate specifically to the era of King David, these, I would think, should be used. By the way, the IAA has conducted scores of archaeological digs around this ancient site. Davidbena (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Locations of archaeological digs in Slwan

That's the problem, the whole City of David thing is seen just as the settler promotional thing and not a biblical CoD thing (that's just the cover). In case you haven't figured it out, all this bears directly on the Sheikh Jarrah/Silwan evictions.Selfstudier (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that we must remove any references to "settler promotion" as it relates to this historic site - be they Japanese or German, since here we're talking only about a historic place mentioned in historical and academic records.Davidbena (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I still think we are talking at cross purposes here, https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/39_Pullan_City_of_David_0.pdf Note how it is referred to as "City of David archaeological park" that's what it is, that's how everybody sees it, not the way you are speaking about it. More nonsense at Jerusalem Walls-City of David National Park.Selfstudier (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01811-w

"Mizrachi and other researchers point to a site called the City of David, located in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem. An organization called the Ir David Foundation (El-Ad) is authorized by the government to sponsor excavations there and run the City of David National Park. El-Ad claims that the biblical King David built a palace in the City of David 3,000 years ago and says it is “dedicated to the preservation and development of the Biblical City of David”. But there is serious disagreement among archaeologists as to whether the large structure that El-Ad identified as King David’s palace was actually from the era in which the biblical king supposedly lived, and whether this ancient stone structure can be linked to him. “El-Ad’s narrative is based on biblical history, not archaeology. They are content as long as archaeology doesn’t contradict their reading,” says Raphael Greenberg, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University. He argues that El-Ad is “supported by the Israeli administration, that uses archaeology selectively to market its ideology”. Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Depending on the sources used, you can find a review of the Modern Park, itself, or you can find relative and vital information on the ancient biblical site known as the "City of David." There is already an article entitled City of David National Park, which, if I'm not mistaken, incorporates both this place, among others, in its general purview. This article, however, is different, as it speaks specifically about the biblical site aforementioned. I see the situation as being like the Adullam-France Park, for which there are other articles that specifically speak about the places within the Park, such as Hurvat Itri, etc.Davidbena (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The article City of David National Park is a redirect to the article I just pointed you to above..the Jerusalem Walls baloney, did you even read it? Duh.Selfstudier (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the other article that you've mentioned (Jerusalem Walls-City of David National Park) is more broad in its scope. Our article here is more specific. There's no need to conflate the two.Davidbena (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Both of these articles are ideological in content and this one dismally so. This convo is serving no useful purpose since it is now clear from your commentary that you are quite happy with that situation.Selfstudier (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

10 reasons the “City of David” is not the wholesome tourist site you thought it was Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, we have been discussing very useful things. I totally agree with you that the current article is not quite up to par, because of its overt ideological (political) stance. We have already discussed what must be done, namely, to remove the ideological (political) content, and to restore this article to its neutral and historic format. As for the other article, you are free to start a discussion about it on its Talk Page.Davidbena (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I haven't decided on the best way to proceed as yet, I am in the process of putting together all the sources, it is clear that the "City of David" is just an invention in the given context, one could write an article about the debate over it's existence/location but that is not this article. Most serious sources put "City of David" (ElAd version) in scare quotes for just this reason. It's also IN the Jerusalem Walls park according to Israel itself and if you go to the INPA site, they only really talk about the City of David component.(tourist $ for IsGov/Elad/settlers, yummy). Anyway, I need to collect together all the sources so we can do something about this mess.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Invention? We have shown you the biblical sources, and there are many academic sources, as well, that speak about the "City of David" in its historical context. Are you trying to rewrite history, or, perhaps, interject Original Research?Davidbena (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

As I said , this conversation is not going anywhere at present. I just said in my previous comment there is room for an article about existence/location (including unverified biblical fairy stories if it makes you happy) but this article is not it. I also said the Elad version is an invention, which it is.Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we stick to a discussion based around actual sources so I have pasted an (incomplete) set of these to be going on with in the section below, add biblical sources in their own section if you like but afaik that type of sourcing is not acceptable RS (unverifiable). Btw, I am assuming you are no longer tbanned, is that the case? Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate material

@Selfstudier:, Can you please list here for me the "duplicate material" that you thought might be unnecessary in this article? If you will do this for me, I will work on it. Otherwise, much of the material added is actually novice, insofar that it has not yet been mentioned in this article. So, too, the section "Background" is of utmost importance, as it gives our readers an introduction into the subject matter.Davidbena (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Davidbena: See below. I have not yet deleted anything (at least I don't think I did, I will check), merely rearranged what was already in the article together with the material you added.Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I did accidentally delete some stuff, not your stuff, stuff that was there before, I put it back now.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The edits should be restored in their entirety, until we can get the input of our fellow editors and contributors. There is, without question, vital information to be had in that new section.Davidbena (talk) 10:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I just explained that nothing has been deleted, only rearranged, the material you added is still there, it is in the section biblical archaeology (it is not "background") together with the material that was already in the article on that subject so there is some duplication that needs fixing.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

As for input of other editors we will get that in the rm, no doubt (coming soon).Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent editing

@Davidbena: I can't say I blame you for trying to write an article about the "historical City of David" but as I already have pointed out above, that is not this article, one could be created for that once this one is suitably renamed. This article was plainly always about the "existing City of David" (the entity described in the lead). The two are connected (I will provide sourcing for this) only in the sense of the controversy created by the use of a historeligious Israeli naming for the current enterprise.Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I firmly disagree. I see no real difference between the "existing City of David" and the "historical City of David," except perhaps in semantics. In my most humble opinion, this article is specifically about the historical City of David, with a view to what is happening in that area today. We can submit a RfC to get a broader view of the public. Just look again at how this article is connected to the site by the name "City of David." Even the current article makes passing remarks as to the accuracy of its "historical nature," and attests to that fact.

Background

The "City of David" is the name applied to the city of Jerusalem in ca. 1000 BCE, and is not to be confused with the modern organisation by the same name and which showcases a relatively small excavated portion of the larger city. The ancient city is first mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, in 1 Kings 11:27, in 2 Samuel 5:9, and in Nehemiah 3:15–16, being the name given to Jerusalem after it had been conquered by King David and who is said to have ruled in the city for 33 years.

One of the stated objectives of the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) since its establishment in 1865 was to search for the true location of the biblical "City of David" and to report on its findings. However, after 130 years of research, surveys, and excavations in Jerusalem, only a few of the targets relating to the area of the City of David have been achieved and neither the location of the tombs of David and Solomon or the Ophel are known.

The prevailing view of archaeologists is that the ancient site of the City of David lay on an elongated spur facing north-south, extending outside the wall of the Old City, south of its southeastern corner, in the southern part of the eastern ridge next to the Gihon Spring. The City of David was the ancient epicenter of Jerusalem and whose boundaries stretched from the Temple Mount in the north, thence southward to the Pool of Siloam, including the area marking the Kidron brook in the east and the adjacent dale in the west. Its area is about 50 dunams (ca. 12.3 acres). The beginning of its settlement dates back to the Chalcolithic period and the Early Bronze Age, largely built-up around the natural spring, although not known then by the name City of David. Instead, the city of ancient Jerusalem was called Jebus, whose name was changed to the "City of David" after it was captured by King David. His son, Solomon, extended the wall to the north and added to it the area of the Temple Mount whereon he built an edifice (Temple) to the God of his fathers. From the eighth century BCE, the city began to expand westward beyond the dale.

The City of David is one of the most excavated archaeological sites in the country and one of the first to be excavated. Many researchers of Near Eastern history often took part in digs within the City of David, among whom were: C. Warren - 1867-1870; H. Guthe - in 1881; F.J. Bliss and A.C. Dickie - 1894–1897; R. Weill - 1913–1914 and 1923–1924; M. Parker and L. Vincent - 1909–1911, in which they documented the location of tunnels and artifacts discovered in and on the bedrock in the areas around Warren's Shaft on the eastern slopes of the mountain above the Gihon Spring; R.A.S. Macalister and J. G. Duncan - 1923–1925, who discovered the Ophel ostracon in Wadi Hilweh of the City of David; J.W. Crowfoot and G.M. Fitzgerald - 1927-1928; K.M. Kenyon - in the years 1961–1967; Y. Shilo - from 1978 onwards and more.

More recent excavations (2000–2008) were conducted by R. Reich and E. Shukron on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, and where they detailed Iron Age II findings in a rock-cut pool near the Gihon spring. In the "City of David Visitors' Center," before it was opened to the public, excavations were conducted in and around the general area of that site by a team of IAA archaeologists, again confirming the existence of a city dating back to the Iron Age II, and continiuing unabated to the Early Roman period, and which, when the Jewish exiles returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, they continued to call the immediate area surrounding the Pool of Siloam by the name "City of David," although this name was eventually replaced by the name Accra (חקרא‎).

A countervailing view held by Finkelstein, Koch & Lipschits (2011) that the City of David is to be placed on the Temple Mount has largely been rejected by scholars of historical geography. (END QUOTE)

Our job here is to work collaboratively on this noble project, and, therefore, with the input of our fellow editors perhaps we can reach a consensus whether or not this section is important to this article and should be added.

References

--Davidbena (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not preventing any editor from working on this article, are you? As mentioned above, an rm is inbound, we will get lots of input at that point, I imagine. After all, you were not that interested in it either until I commented in talk. And to repeat, all that material above is right there in the biblical archaeolgy section (you could perhaps call it something else but it is clearly not just "backgound", it is a major contributor to the controversy around this operation.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Where we might disagree is that if, indeed, the material already exists in this article (not all of which does), it ought to be consolidated into one historical section, which gives a general overview of the site, which we have done until it was deleted by you. As I said, the things discussed are of vital importance to our understanding of this historical site.Davidbena (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

The material was not deleted, it has been consolidated under a different heading ("Biblical archaeology" rather than "Background") with other similar material that was already present in the article. The resultant duplication needs fixing.Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion 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.

---

There is a debate between contributing editors whether or not this article relates to the "Historical City of David," based on the comments in the previous section of this Talk-Page. Comments welcome.Davidbena (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Include the new section with the above edit.Davidbena (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment All the above material is in the article verbatim already so this RFC is pointless.Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

That is not true, as anyone can see. And where there are occasional overlaps, for greater clarity, everything should be consolidated into one historical section detailing the ancient history of the site. Even the biblical references were NOT all cited.Davidbena (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I have no objection to the above material being included in the article and so this RFC is pointless unless it is the case that you are instigating an RFC merely to ask whether it should go into it's own section entitled "Background". On that point, we do disagree but that is not what this RFC is purportedly about.Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now copy pasted the entire text above into the article just to make sure that nothing was lost in prior editing (apparently not).Selfstudier (talk) 12:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, this RfC is closed.Davidbena (talk) 11:06, 27 July 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.

Selfstudier (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Archaeological finds section

What, if anything do these finds have to with the historical "City of David". I agree they have been found in a site with "City of David" as a name, but other than that, what exactly?

eg We have a section, Early Bronze Age (3500–2350 BCE), in which it says "Pieces of pottery have been found." Is that supposed to be meaningful in any way? Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

What do archaeological finds have to do with the City of David? They were found in the City of David.Davidbena (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I can find pottery shards in my back yard.Selfstudier (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Material temp removed form article as probably out of date

The right to control both the archaeological and the residential aspects of the City of David is hotly contested by Israelis and Palestinians. There is a proposal to turn most of the area into an archaeological park, and to transform a part of the Kidron Valley currently inhabited by Arabs into a park to be called the King's Garden.

References

I already included up to date material about King's Garden in Parks section and not sure about the other material, might be out of date/superseded.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, For Your Information: the book "Israel Guide - Jerusalem (A useful encyclopedia for the knowledge of the country)", vol. 10, pp. 166–167 mentions the King's Garden (Jerusalem) as being one of the places relevant to the historical "City of David," and is described there as "an area that is at the confluence of the dale (Hebrew: גיא) Tyropoeon and the Kidron Valley, in which there have been planted many fruit trees that are nourished by the water run-off of the Pool of Siloam." The author goes on to cite its recollection in Jeremiah 39:4. According to the same author, the road that traverses the garden is built over a thick wall that dates back to the Second Temple period, and it is what actually created the dam-like structure that formed the ancient Pool of Siloam, known as Birket al-Ḥamrah. Remnants of this ancient wall were unearthed during the excavations conducted by Bliss and Dickie (1894–1897), as well as other more ancient finds dating back to the Bronze Age. The gardens are watered, he says, by a conduit carved at the bottom of the southern ravine belonging to the "City of David."Davidbena (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This just tends to confirm in my mind the blending or blurring of current activity with historical, the historical beiing that KG is (part of) a supposed historical/biblical CoD, whereas the current situation is an extension of dispossession activity via settlement and park declarations spearheaded by settler orgs/government.Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. The record speaks for itself. The general area may have been a garden area directly outside the settled portion of the City of David, yet still belonged to the city. We can only rely on our sources. According to our academic source, the road that traverses the garden was next to the Old Pool of Siloam, that is to say, the Lower Pool. When you go to the Wikipedia page Pool of Siloam you can see a map of both the Upper and Lower pools of Siloam, which are in relatively close proximity. The Lower Pool was the place of the King's Garden, which would mean a "green area" directly outside and belonging to the City of David. Here, one of our main commissions as faithful editors is to avoid Original Research. Let us stick to the sources.Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, happy to do so, I will mainly be going with Galor, p125 et seq.for the scholarly consensus and the blurring ("Archaeology, religion and politics entangled") p 127 on. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If there is a "scholarly consensus," by all means use it. If, however, it is a question of dispute, then make note of that fact too.Davidbena (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Grandmother, eggs an all that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

JAP/Davidson

OK, we have https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-elad-wins-right-to-run-jlem-archaeology-park-after-appeal-1.5408359 so it seems that Elad also runs the Jerusalem Archaeological Park (no WP article but a stub on simple WP http://simple.wiki.x.io/wiki/Jerusalem_Archaeological_Park).Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

https://madainproject.com/jerusalem_archaeological_park seems to think that JAP includes City of David among other things? Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-right-wing-group-to-lose-control-over-jerusalem-archaeological-park-1.10048780 Settler Group Loses Control Over Jerusalem Archaeological Park So yes, Elad was running JAP/Davidson Center but their contract has not been renewed as of this July.Selfstudier (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

1) Where and what is "City of David"?

Since the beginning of Israeli settlement in the area in the 1990s, Israeli officials and media have widely used the name “City of David” to describe part of Silwan. In the narrow sense, the name City of David refers to the hill upon which stood ancient Jerusalem, bordered by the Temple Mount to the north, by Wadi Hilweh Street (or its Israeli name, Ma’alot Ir David, or City of David Ascent) to the west, and by the Kidron Valley and the Gihon Spring to the east. For the Palestinians, the City of David area is a part of the Wadi Hilweh neighborhood, which is part of greater Silwan. In the second half of the 19th century, archaeological missions began excavating this hill, which slopes down from the Dung Gate toward the Gihon Spring and the Siloam Pool. Shady Dealings in Silwan 2009

"One of the most important sites in the Jerusalem Walls National Park is the City of David (ancient Jerusalem)." & "The national park surrounds the Old City of Jerusalem. The main area that has been arranged for visitors is the City of David, on the south side of the Old City near the Dung Gate (in the area that used to be the Giv'ati parking lot). Israeli Nature and Parks Authority Jerusalem Walls-City of David National Park

"The sites in Silwan/City of David are under the overall management of the Nature and Parks Authority (Silwan is part of the Jerusalem Walls National Park ) and the Elad Foundation." [https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/CulturalRights/DestructionHeritage/NGOS/EmekShaveh.pdf Israeli Activities in Archaeological Sites in East Jerusalem and the West Bank: Five Case Studies]

"Mizrachi and other researchers point to a site called the City of David, located in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan in East Jerusalem. An organization called the Ir David Foundation (El-Ad) is authorized by the government to sponsor excavations there and run the City of David National Park. El-Ad claims that the biblical King David built a palace in the City of David 3,000 years ago and says it is “dedicated to the preservation and development of the Biblical City of David”. But there is serious disagreement among archaeologists as to whether the large structure that El-Ad identified as King David’s palace was actually from the era in which the biblical king supposedly lived, and whether this ancient stone structure can be linked to him. “El-Ad’s narrative is based on biblical history, not archaeology. They are content as long as archaeology doesn’t contradict their reading,” says Raphael Greenberg, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University. He argues that El-Ad is “supported by the Israeli administration, that uses archaeology selectively to market its ideology”." Nature News Feature 24 June 2020

"Two realities seem to be ignored, however, by most visitors: the many centuries of historical legacy that link the Palestinian Silwani to this place and the lack of archaeological data on the Southeast Hill supporting the biblical narrative of King David’s conquest and rule in the city."Finding Jerusalem Archaeology between Science and Ideology Katharina Galor 2017 p.120

The site known as “The City of David” is the location of ancient Jerusalem and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country. The ancient remains discovered at the site are presented to the public as proof of the accuracy of the biblical depiction of Jerusalem under the rule of King David during the 10th century BCE. This claim, however, is highly contested within the archaeological community. The following paper presents the leading interpretations for the find known as “the Large Stone Structure (LSS)”, and popularly referred to as the “King David’s Palace.” The Debate Over “King David’s Palace” 2020

"'David’s City’ archaeological park and its associated religious settlements present one the leading arenas of religious–nationalist advances in the Holy Basin today. David’s City is situated on a steep and narrow spit of land that extends southward from Dung Gate in the Old City wall, within the borders of the Jerusalem Walls National Park." Wendy Pullan; Maximilian Sternberg; Lefkos Kyriacou; Craig Larkin; Michael Dumper (20 November 2013). "4.David's City in Palestinian Silwan". The Struggle for Jerusalem's Holy Places. Routledge. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-1-317-97556-4.(p 76)

2) History

"In October 1991, settlers turned the City of David into a site of political confrontation between archaeologists and national-religious Jews who, with the financial and political backing of the Likud-led national government, sought to revive modern Jewish settlement on this ancient site. Through the organization of El-Ad, not only did the settlers take over several Palestinian houses in the village of Silwan, they also sought to build houses over the ancient archaeological remains. Following the architectural model of the rebuilt Jewish Quarter, they intended to preserve the archaeological remains at the basement level of contemporary housing units. 24 While some archaeologists did not take this move seriously ("It is just a publicity stunt on part of El-Ad to raise money"), others were outraged." Nadia Abu El-Haj (24 June 2008). Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-00215-6.Facts on the Ground

This article addresses the continuously shifting politicization of archaeological heritage on two distinct levels. Firstly it focuses specifically on the growing influence of ultranationalist religious settler associations in ongoing settlement and urban redesign of East Jerusalem. Secondly it draws attention to the importance of the spatial design strategies mobilized to this end, leading to a distinctive form of what has recently been termed ‘heritage manufacturing’.4 A previous article published in this journal revealed the exclusionary narrative propagated by ultranationalist settlers at the City of David. In this article we explore the ways in which this nationalist, neo-biblical narrative has been developed into an urban design and landscaping strategy, charting the dramatic physical transformation of the site in the past ten years. Jerusalem Quarterly 39, 2009 ‘City of David’: Urban Design and Frontier Heritage

Sixty-ninth session of the United Nations General Assembly, Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan: Report by the Secretary-General, A/69/348, 25 August 2014

33. Archaeological excavations and parks are also used as a way to control land for settlements, mainly through the funding, participation and endorsement by the Government of Israel of archaeological projects led by settler organizations. Observer organizations report that several archaeological projects in the Old City of Jerusalem are being used as a means to consolidate the presence of settlements and settlers in the area. On 3 April 2014, despite several objections presented by Palestinian residents of the Silwan neighbourhood, a Palestinian community with a population of 45,000, located around the southern Old City wall in East Jerusalem, the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee approved a project known as the Kedem Compound. The Kedem Compound includes a museum, a visitors centre, and a parking lot covering around 16,000 square metres. The plan was presented by Israel’s Nature and Parks Authority and the Ir David Foundation, also known as Elad, which works to strengthen the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, notably the Silwan area. The Kedem Compound would constitute a gateway to the City of David National Park, a touristic archaeological site controlled by the same organization.

34. Furthermore, Elad presented plans, covering an estimated area of 1,200 square metres for the construction of another tourist compound above a site known as the spring house in Silwan, an ancient structure built above the main spring. Palestinians in the area have been prevented from accessing one of their main sources of water, since Elad has blocked the entrance to the spring by walls and fences. According to the Ir Amim archaeological organization, the plan was submitted for objections in February 2014. According to Emek Shaveh, an organization of archaeologists, an examination of the placement of the excavations and the planned tourist centres (the Kedem Compound, the City of David Visitors Centre, and the Spring House tourist centre) shows that a contiguous line of Israeli settler presence along the entire northern boundary of the Silwan area is being created.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier:, To solve all the confusion, the first two paragraphs should be moved further down in the article and put within a separate section of its own. The section should be called: The site's status today. In this new section, all the other "intricacies" involving modern-day disputes can be added, and the "Archaeology" section can be expanded. I can also help fill-in material related to its history and archaeology.

With that, the lede paragraph should be changed to read:

• The City of David is the location of ancient Jerusalem. It is located on a narrow ridge running south from the Temple Mount. The area now called the Old City lies to the west of the Temple Mount. It was built as an expansion of the earlier city in the Herodian era. In ancient times, Jerusalem's original site, the City of David was separated from the Temple Mount by the the Ophel (Hebrew: העופל, perhaps meaning "fortified hill"), an open area in the Jebusite, and the site of large government buildings under the Israelites. The city was naturally defended by the Tyropoeon Valley (valley of the cheesemakers) on its west, the Hinnom valley to the south, and the Kidron Valley on the east. Today the archaeological dig and visitor center are one of the major tourist destinations in Israel. (END QUOTE).

References

Davidbena (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"The woman's name is Eilat Mazar. Munching and gazing, she is the picture of equanimity—until a tour guide shows up. He's a young Israeli man accompanied by a half dozen tourists who assemble in front of the bench so they can view the building. The moment he opens his mouth, Mazar knows what's coming. The tour guide is a former archaeology student of hers. She's heard how he brings tourists to this spot and informs them that this is NOT the palace of David and that all the archaeological work at the City of David is a way for right-wing Israelis to expand the country's territorial claims and displace Palestinians." Kings of Controversy Was the Kingdom of David and Solomon a glorious empire—or just a little cow town? It depends on which archaeologist you ask. 2010

Oh, I asked you up above whether you were still tbanned, are you? Selfstudier (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I am permitted to make edits on all Wikipedia pages. And, it is without question that Wikipedia articles ought to be based on reliable, non-POV sources.Davidbena (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

And your idea of a reliable independent rs (your one and only offering so far) is one of the architects of the controversy, Eilat Mazar? Try again.Selfstudier (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you that if I research this matter, I will bring down many verifiable and reliable academic sources; nothing fringe. There is actually much that can be said about this ancient biblical site - without interjecting politics, beginning with research conducted by Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Encyclopedia Judaica. The important thing here is collaborative editing, with the good of all "lovers of knowledge" in our minds.Davidbena (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Good idea, you do that because that is what I am doing. To repeat, the base problem here is that the City of David does not exist so we need some kind of rename here.Selfstudier (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Now where were we, 2009, 2010 so now lets go to 2013 again

"For a site presented by its current management as one of Jerusalem’s most significant and oldest biblical locales, namely the capital of the united monarchy established by King David according to scripture ,it is rather remarkable that David’s City only joined Jerusalem’s long-established collection of venerated holy places and heritage sites in the last few years. Excavation of the area began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century and, since then, there has been a steadily growing scholarly consensus that significant parts of contemporary Wadi Hilweh constitute Jerusalem’s most ancient area of settlement, home to urban or proto-urban material remains going back as far as c.4000BCE.3 However, right into the early twentieth century only the Virgin’s Fount (Ain Ummel-Daraj) and the Waters of Siloam (Ain Silwan) had any known historic or religious significance and the area had virtually no specific meaning for Judaism or local Jewish religious practice.4 In1920,a French archaeologist first suggested renaming Wadi Hilweh ‘La Cité de David’, explicitly privileging this specific, speculative biblical tie as the narrative leitmotif of the successive excavations,5 which have revealed extremely varied findings, both in type and chronological attribution.6 It was only in the 1970s, when a major Israeli excavation project was conducted there that ‘David’s City’ became the official Israeli designation, initially having no particular religious connotation ;today,the term itself is increasingly questioned in the archaeological academic community. Wendy Pullan; Maximilian Sternberg; Lefkos Kyriacou (20 November 2013). The Struggle for Jerusalem's Holy Places. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-97556-4. Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

As we all know, the title "City of David" appears in 1 Kings 11:27, and in 2 Samuel 5:9, and is discussed by a horde of academic scholars. Of course, this fact is independent of what "other" writers may or may not have written about the site, as one opinion is NOT bound by the opinion of another. We can, however, include all divergent opinions in this article as just that, i.e. "an opinion." What matters here is that there is a wealth of scholarly research on this site from recognized scholars, whether archaeologists or historical geographers.Davidbena (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Bible is not rs and it anyway does not address the fact of today's non-existence even if it did exist at some point in the past.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary source. Of course, we will also bring down secondary sources. Just look at the multiple opinions that exist on the identification of the biblical site Beth-Anath! This, here, is a lot more easy, as there is no one who suggests that the City of David was outside of Jerusalem, while the limits of the city at that time were considerably smaller than what they are today. Moreover, you stand to be corrected. A change of name does not necessarily mean a change of place. Even the name of Jerusalem has changed over the years, as has the name of many other cities. Jerusalem was once called Aelia Capitolina, and the people eventually restored its former name. Long before that, Jerusalem was once called Salem and also the "City of the Jebusites" (Joshua 18:28). You can also take Al-Azariya (Bethany) for an example. Davidbena (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I will continue to provide sources, you can continue to provide your personal opinions if you wish to but they won't count for much in an rm.Selfstudier (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You are free to add your sources. We will do the same, when the time is relevant, as this is a collaborative effort.Davidbena (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

On to 2014 "The claim by Eli Shukron, like many such claims in the field of biblical archaeology, has run into criticism. It joins a string of announcements by Israeli archaeologists saying they have unearthed palaces of the legendary biblical king, who is revered in Jewish religious tradition for establishing Jerusalem as its central holy city — but who has long eluded historians looking for clear-cut evidence of his existence and reign." /AP Israeli Archaeologist Says He Has Found King David's Citadel 2014 Selfstudier (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing (continued)

After some diversions in the sections below, returning to sourcing: A chapter contains a "map" at page 109, its figure title is given as "Map of Silwan site" and a title "Archaeology and El Ad settlement in Silwan 2008" and otherwise the only reference to "David" being the title of one of the buildings, "David's City Visitors Center". Pullan W., Gwiazda M. (2009) Designing the Biblical Present in Jerusalem’s ‘City of David’. In: Staiger U., Steiner H., Webber A. (eds) Memory Culture and the Contemporary City. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230246959_7 The chapter contains the following "The Palestinian think tank, PASSIA, estimates that El-Ad’s control extends to about 50–55 per cent of the land that they consider as belonging to the City of David. The official limits of the park are quite consciously left ill-defined. El- Ad has been planning to expand the archaeological park and construct further residential homes for settlers in the neighbourhood of al-Bustan, known to Israelis as the King’s Valley. While there is a visitors’ centre there are no visual indications demarcating where the park ultimately begins and ends." Passia, Jerusalem: Israeli Settlement Activities & Related Policies June 2009Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

UN reporting by the Secretary General in regard to the Silwan excavations, "However, following the occupation of East Jerusalem, they have become intensely politicized and linked to the settlements in East Jerusalem." "As Elad faced legal challenges to its takeover of property through the Absentee Property Law, it turned its focus to archaeology as a means of appropriating Palestinian property." "Elad projects in Silwan have been harmonized with plans promoted by the Government of Israel and the Jerusalem municipality. A key example is the joint Elad and Israeli National Parks Authority project for the construction of a multi-purpose tourist centre, known as the “Kedem Compound”, located over an archaeological site currently under excavation at the northern part of Wadi Hilweh." (Givati?) Israeli settlements in OPT, including E. Jerusalem and occupied Syrian Golan – Secretary-General report (from 16 May 2014 to 15 May 2015) IV B. Case study: Silwan in East Jerusalem Subsection Archaeological excavationsSelfstudier (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Karima Bennoune UN Special Rapporteur: "Two years ago, the government of Israel announced the ‘Shalem Plan’ (the ‘comprehensive plan’), an overall vision to create a continuum of archaeological tourist sites above and below ground from Silwan (where the archaeological site the City of David is situated) into the Muslim Quarter of the Old City."

"The Judeo-centric narrative which characterizes the site leaves very little scope for inclusiveness and although the figure of King David is also a prophet in Islam, there is no mention of this fact in the signs placed throughout the site. Thus, are Palestinian or Muslim visitors conceptually excluded from this space. The site goes even further by inviting visitors into a Palestinian neighborhood without identifying it to them as such, turning the Palestinians into foreigners in their own home."

"It is the site of ancient Jerusalem, and marketed by the Elad Foundation as first and foremost the palace of the biblical King David, the first King of the United Kingdom of Israel. While many archaeologists dispute the claim that evidence was found to support the existence of a significant palace from the time of King David, this has not stopped the Elad Foundation from presenting remains as evidence of Kind David’s existence and curating the site as a theme park dedicated to King David" Karima Bennoune Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights Memo/Questionnaire 24 April 2019Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"The site known as “The City of David” is the location of ancient Jerusalem and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country. The ancient remains discovered at the site are presented to the public as proof of the accuracy of the biblical depiction of Jerusalem under the rule of King David during the 10th century BCE. This claim, however, is highly contested within the archaeological community. The following paper presents the leading interpretations for the find known as “the Large Stone Structure (LSS)”, and popularly referred to as the “King David’s Palace.” The Debate Over “King David’s Palace 20 August 2020Selfstudier (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This one is a "must read":

"Intrigued by repeated visits of Trump administration officials to the archaeological tunnels at the foot of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, I examine the extraordinary connection between American and Israeli nationalism, “Judeo-Christian values,” and Holy Land archaeology, and propose a “Pompeo premise” that equates Jewish antiquities and settlement with bedrock values of “Western civilization,” promotes a political narrative of redemption (even if accompanied by massive violence) and relegates Palestinian Muslims to an ephemeral existence. The “recovery” of a “true” Jerusalem, purified of any Islamic content, beneath the contested, chaotic surface of Palestinian and Israeli Jerusalem is delegated to archaeologists, who have for the most part accepted their task."

"One of American Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s last acts under the Trump administration, and perhaps one of his first as an aspiring presidential candidate for the American evangelical right, was a whirlwind visit to the high-profile, settler-run antiquities site of “the City of David” in Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, in and beneath the Palestinian neighborhood of Wadi Hilweh (Silwan), less than two hundred yards away from the Temple Mount and the Al-Aqsa mosque. This dramatic act of political symbolism, which, as stated to the press, “highlighted the more than 3,000 years of Jerusalem’s heritage upon which the foundations of both the US and Israel rest” (Kempinski 2020), offers a clear demonstration of a religious-political ideology that continues to reverberate in Israel and Palestine, even after the end of the Trump years." Forum Kritische Archäologie 10 (2021) [Rafi Greenberg|Raphael Greenberg 'Pompeo in Silwan: Judeo-Christian Nationalism, Kitsch, and Empire in Ancient Jerusalem'] Selfstudier (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Re name

Here we have..... The City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David).

At Ir David Foundation it says..... Ir David Foundation, commonly known as Elad [El'ad] (Hebrew: אלע"ד‎, an acronym for "אל עיר דוד", meaning "to the City of David")

Someone clarify for me, Idk Hebrew, City of David = Ir David = Ir David Foundation is that it? I want to add into the lead something like the park is managed/operated by.... so does "..managed by Ir David Foundation( "אל עיר דוד", meaning "to the City of David"), commonly known as Elad(either עיר דוד or אלע"ד) work?Selfstudier (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here, but, in the Hebrew language, the words "City of David" are written in this way → עיר דוד‎ = ʻIr David. The Foundation by that name is different, and uses an acronym El'ad. The last two English letters, a - d, represent the Hebrew consonants ע‎ and ד‎ (ʻayin and dalet), short for "City [of] David" (a or ע = "city", while d or ד = "David"), and which Hebrew characters can be transliterated either as i - d, or a - d, depending if one wishes to make use of the Hebrew vowel "i" which is automatically read into the text following the letter ʻayin (ע‎). As for the first two letters "el," they are simply the Hebrew word for "To," as if to say, "To [the] City [of] David." It is merely the name given to that non-profit organisation. As for the first two letters "el," they are simply the Hebrew word for "To," as if to say, "To [the] City [of] David." It is merely the name given to that non-profit organisation. My guess is that they used the name El'ad because it is a play-on-words; there also being a word by this name in the Hebrew Bible.Davidbena (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I tell you what, I will put it in English and leave the Hebrew to you, OK? Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Why re-name this article? It makes no sense to do so. This page exists because of the historical site called by that name (i.e. City of David). That should be our primary focus. If there are political notions involved here, I, personally, know of none. Even our Muslim brothers and friends recognize David as a prophet. BTW: There are more than 500,000 entries on JSTOR for the "City of David." And, yet, you think that the name is "misrepresented"!? You've got to be kidding!Davidbena (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The simplest answer is that you cannot show me CoD (historical or Elad version) on any well sourced map. Anyway, I still haven't made up my mind, first thing is to turn the previous train wreck of an article into something that passes muster and perhaps in the process of doing so it will become clear what it should be called.Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia required "reliable and verifiable" maps of all archaeological sites mentioned on Wikipedia, you would be right. As it is, there is no such requirement; only reliable and verifiable scholarly work - with or without their divergent opinions. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so now it's an "archaeological site", well that's an improvement at least. There is a reason so many scholarly sources write "City of David" in scare quotes or write "so-called City of David" or write "City of David/Silwan" (or vice versa) etc etc. Because Silwan exists and CoD does not.Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

My friend, of course Silwan exists! It is the current name of this small enclave of Jerusalem, and which same limited space was once the entire city of Jerusalem during the days of King David, and what was known then as the "City of David." The name "Silwan" refers to the same site, more or less, but from a different timeframe. And, yes, the same area was also called "Jerusalem," at least, what was of Jerusalem at that time, although now greatly expanded. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? I suppose this conversation had to come sooner or later. Even if the article by the name "City of David" should ever be deleted (may God forbid), I can assure you that this will not diminish from the fact that there was a place by that name and that that city was and is the same city of Jerusalem, according to the city bounds at the time of King David. Nothing, in fact, changes. And if this article should ever be deleted (may God forbid), another article will rise in its place, under the same name. Why? Because there is a historical/archaeological site by that name, besides the fact that there are over 500,000 entries for the "City of David" in JSTOR. You see, the historicity of a certain place - once it has been established as fact - is not dependent upon Wikipedia editors and what they write or do not write about the site. It remains an enduring fact. However, as a fellow editor on Wikipedia where facts are important, it is only fair that I warn you that if you should try and change historical truths and facts, you run the risk of permanently being Topic banned from editing all historical sites and archaeological pages on Wikipedia. As I wrote to you earlier, we find on Wikipedia that there are certain articles that treat on the exact same place, but under different names and periods, such as Canaan and Palestine (region). The same would apply here. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

what was known then as the "City of David." The name "Silwan" refers to the same site

You are making an elementary error in thinking that ir David in the Tanakh means that was what the site was known as in David's day. let me illustrate by an example: In Book 22 of the Odyssey, Athena tells Odysseus:

'The broad-wayed city of Priam was taken by your counsel.'

σῇ δ᾽ ἥλω βουλῇ Πριάμου πόλις εὐρυάγυια.Odyssey Bk.22:23o

Such terminology does not indicate the name of the city, but its ruler, so often esp. in ancient texts in numerous languages. 'Priam's city' (Priámou pólis) is an elegantly resonant metonym for 'Troy', just as 'David's city' lends itself to the same function as a metonym for whatever word was used in his hypothetical time for Jerusalem, the archaic name under its many forms.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Silwan exists! It is the current name of this small enclave of Jerusalem, and which same limited space was once the entire city of Jerusalem during the days of King David, and what was known then as the "City of David."

Doing my work for me, WP rules say you can't have two articles about the same place (example Temple Mount aka Haram esh-Sharif/Al-Aqsa which could equally well have been set up the other way around. So what we should have based on your your quote above is Silwan aka City of David (or vice versa) if they are the same place. So arguing it is the same place isn't helping your case at all apart from the fact that there is no real evidence for it. You actually need to argue that it is a distinct place (or entity), however non-existence (now or historically) makes things awkward in either case. The only way out that I can see is to rename to something like CoD archaeological site, which exists courtesy of Elad in roughly the same way that Disneyland exists courtesy of Walt although I can actually place Disneyland on a map.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Givati

Anyone who knows can confirm?

As best as I can figure it out, the Givati Parking Lot dig which the article says is adjacent to CoD is also the site of the Kedem visitor center to be/being built, is that right? (ie the building would be built over the dig? When people say the Givati parking lot, do they mean the dig site?) Selfstudier (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Resolved: "The site known as the “Givati Parking Lot” is another controversial antiquities site within the historic basin. It is an open area at the north end of the Wadi al-Hilweh neighborhood of Silwan, a few hundred meters from the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif and across the street from the entrance to the visitor’s center of the City of David Archeological Park. Prior to the excavations it was used as a parking lot for visitors to the Old City and as a open space by the residents of Silwan. Salvage excavations funded by the right wing NGO, the Elad Foundation, which also manages the City of David Archaeological Park, have been ongoing since 2003. The excavations themselves have been conducted by the IAA with the intention of preparing and authorizing the area for development by the Elad Foundation, which, in turn, plans to build a 16,000 sqm visitor’s center, called the Kedem Center, on the site." [https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/CulturalRights/DestructionHeritage/NGOS/EmekShaveh.pdf Israeli Activities in Archaeological Sites in East Jerusalem and the West Bank: Five Case Studies The Givati Parking Lot]Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The Givati Parking Lot is the site where current archaeological excavations are being conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in that part of the City of David. Excavations began there in 2007, as you can see here. Today, this area houses the "City of David Visitor Center".Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I know what it is historically, I was asking about the current situation but as I explained above, I found it out already. As it says in here "located in the City of David site formerly known as the Givati parking lot" it seems that, unless you know otherwise, excavations have apparently ceased with this Kedem development which will apparently sit on top of the old Givati dig (I tagged it before in the article for an update).Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I know nothing about Kedem. Finally, this article is starting to take shape.Davidbena (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved.Editors do not believe that this is an appropriate use of italics, closing move request in order to make a new one without italics. Selfstudier (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

---

City of David → Italicize and append (Silwan) – Move to City of David (Silwan). What is this article about? The discussion and sources in the section Name? and subsequent sections above make clear that it is NOT about a physical "City of David", either historic or presently existing, as there is no real evidence for either. "City of David" is mainly used as a name to promote tourism and archaeology or as a reference to a supposed historic "city", located in Silwan. When using the name to refer to the archaeological remains or to a supposed historic "city", the area has no defined borders, deliberately so, permitting variation in description at any time. Then MOS:ITALIC stipulates that City of David should be italicized when used as a name including its akas, "ancient" or "historic" Jerusalem. The only other question is whether to specify an existing place, given that the principal usage refers to a location, albeit ill defined, and since the vast majority of reliable sources refer to either the possible historic or present location as being Silwan, this should be appended in bold to the italicized name. Consideration should be given to discussing archaeological details in an article such as List of archaeological excavations in Jerusalem Selfstudier (talk) 05:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: It seems like the motivation of the proposer is a desire to cast doubt on the validity of the subject rather than something based in Wikipedia policy. Italics is not something we usually consider as an RM issue, but the proposal for italics here also does not seem aligned with WP:ITALICS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  An alternative would be to write "City of David" in quotes as is done in many of the sources, arguably italics looks better but I suppose it is a matter of taste.Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not use WP:SCAREQUOTES to express skepticism over the validity of subject names either. Quotes are very very seldom used in the titles of Wikipedia articles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It has not to do with skepticism, it is the usage as a name, like Timeline of the name Judea.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The closest analogy I can think of to try to help you is Bosnian pyramid claims, which puts the word "claims" in the title to clarify that the subject of the article is not necessarily actual pyramids but rather the claims that there are pyramids. You might also want to review WP:FRINGE. I don't have expertise on the subject matter. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. For the reasons described in the article's Talk Page, section "Re-name".Davidbena (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ITALICTITLE—blindlynx (talk) 14:06, 3 August 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.