Talk:City of David

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

City of David rediredts here[edit]

why is that? The city of David and the ophel are two different places, adjacent, but not the same. The city of David is just south of the ophel.--ArnoldPettybone 15:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

old Testment?[edit]

"Silwan has a significant historical value, and was mentioned in the Old Testament, " ---Where? I have done several searches... not under that spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.246.108 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ophel has four references:

  1. Neh. 3: 26-27

Moreover the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel, unto the place over against the bwater gate toward the east, and the tower that lieth out. After them the Tekoites repaired another piece, over against the great tower that lieth out, even unto the wall of Ophel.

  2. 2 Chr. 27: 3

He built the high agate of the house of the Lord, and on the wall of Ophel he built much.

  3. 2 Chr. 33: 14

Now after this he built a wall without the city of David, on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to the entering in at the fish agate, and compassed about Ophel, and raised it up a very great height, and put captains of war in all the fenced cities of Judah.

  4. Neh. 11: 21

But the Nethinims dwelt in Ophel: and Ziha and Gispa were over the Nethinims.

If these are the refereces to "Silwan" in the old testament, there should be something added about when and where the name was changed from "ophel" to "silwan"


Silwan, Ophel and the City of David[edit]

The nonsense on this page is becoming a nuisance. I am attempting to calm the waters (pun on gihon and siloam) by separating Silwan form the the City of David/Ophel, each to retain its historic meaning.

Silwan - for material about the Arab farming village that spread into a modern neighborhood of Jerusalem.

City of David/ Ophel - for the ridge from Siloach/siloam going uphill and encompassing all of the built structures thereon ( including the Meyuchas family home ) and all ancient structures, Jebusite, Israelite, Hellenistic - if anyone finds one, Hasmonean - Herodian, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic.

All material on the City of David on this page was recently vandalized by Kool dood1. It won't undo. I am looking for an appropriate curse for vandals who with a keystroke eliminate entire pages of material. I'm sure that the Jebusites had some apt ones. wish I spoke Jebusite Elan26 (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Vandalism[edit]

I have just incorporated much of the vandalizec material, incorporating it into a version edited with a good-faith effort at attaining some sembalnce of balance. It needs work. I'll try to get back to it. Elan26 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Structure[edit]

I have added subheads for each archaeological period. I will work at filling them in.03:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall (talkcontribs) I moved all archaeological and historical material on the page into the appropriate section.Broad Wall (talk) 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

1099 to 1853??[edit]

Did nothing happen in this period?? This seems decidedly strange. I added something about the 1948-1967 period. I hope this is of some help. 82.0.66.100 (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Found this article after reading about Silwan, and I came here to post exactly the same thing! Surely someone must have information on the missing three-quarters of a millennia. Very odd indeed. 82.17.238.199 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I will in about two months or so :p I'm an ultra-Zionist and a student of Israeli Archaeology, I'll just say that right now, but I'll try to be objective and of course use reputable sources (scholarly books and articles mind you, not websites). Currently taking a Jerusalem: Through the Ages course. Anyone have a problem with that or do you want that period to lay barren? :p Hpelgrift (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
According to Eric H. Cline, this area fell into diuse during the period from 1099 to 1853, mostly because the focus was on expansion to the West. I don't have a written source for it sadly. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a modern neighborhood[edit]

Its the name of a biblical place and an archaeological site turned national park:

The name was used for the western hill of Jerusalem for a time (the one known today as Mount Zion):

The national park/archaeological site is located within the Arab village of Silwan in the Wadi el-Hilwe neighborhood:

The archaeological remains from that site indicate that the Large Stone Structure and Stepped Stone Structure were built in the 9th century BCE, meaning that they could not have been built by David or Solomon (even Eilat Mazar does not dispute this chronology, contrary to what our articles say on this subject):

Anyone interested in helping to make this clearer to the reader? Tiamuttalk 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Add a picture showing the landscape from there?[edit]

I have been there about 2 years ago and I remember that there was a nice landscape from there (in the place with the archaeological excavations), can somebody please put a picture of it in the article? Or maybe a panorama?-- Someone35 (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed POV text.[edit]

The removed text might support the claim that there was a real King David, and that he ruled a large kingdom, but it did not refer to the claim about the dating of the structures that were mentioned. Therefore it should not be used to support the previous claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.9.238 (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

    • I do not follow your reasoning; the paragraph appears to balance the previous paragraph and appears to be properly cited. A Georgian (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
AG, I agree that the paragraph was sourced, but it does not directly relate to Mazar's claim about the wall. It relates to another structure, and another site. It could be used as evidence of a Kingdom of David with an organised centre, but it can not be used as evidence of the City of David, or a wall there. I have removed the preceeding section which suffered from the same problem. Both are synthesis or WP:OR in the way that they are used in this article. Regards.195.27.17.3 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One-sided POV text[edit]

The following text:

"Though largely inhabited by Arabs, with some Jewish homes in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Arab homes, reportedly causing damage[5] Israeli planning authorities have approved plans to relocate inhabitants to turn the area into an archaeological park.[6]" is one sided and POV. Archaeological digs in urban areas always excavate under resident's homes. To claim that damage has occurred to the houses, it's not enough to quote a partisan website (IMEMC) that quotes unnamed residents claiming their houses were damaged. Also it is partial to claim that Israel plans to raze houses without mentioning that these houses were built without a permit and that the municipality offered to legalize most of the buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.191.232.71 (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The archaeological digs are wholly anomalous, being conducted by a private group, not a public authority, under roads, and houses and schools without consultation, as Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater attests. The damage is widely reported or complained of; even excavations kept on running beyond their permits, without sanction (2004-2007); all sources in this area, even Haaretz and Ynet have lots of partisan reportage; that Israel razes houses, the law is used to seize 'absentee propertee,' and hand it over to settlers, that housing permits for high-rises continue, while no Palestinian resident can build legally or make extensions; that evictions occur on the basis of dubious muncipal law that is invalid for an occupied territory; that all muncipal deliberations about that territory are instruments of an occupying authority in favour of transforming such key historical areas into sites that privilege one version of history; all of this is amply documented, and it is a key part of the reality covered in this article.Nishidani (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The statements "being conducted by a private group, not a public authority" is incorrect. The digs are being conducted by the Israel Antiquities Authority and funded by the Ir David Foundation [1][2]. This is also spelled out in the Israel Antiquities Authority website - "...archaeological excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority is currently conducting in the “Walls Around Jerusalem" National Park in the City of David, with funding provided by the ‘Ir David' Foundation."[3] [4] I see no outside confirmations of the damage caused other than partisan claims - how about posting pictures or independent, non-activist journalist confirmation of the alleged damage? Finally, you ignore the comment on the fact that the proposed renovation plan legalizes most of the illegally built houses. So it's not just "raze Palestinian homes to make the area into an archaeological park"

134.191.232.70 (talk) 10:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence is syntactically incorrect: "Though largely a Palestinian township, with some Jewish settlements in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Muslim homes, reportedly causing damage". "Though" is used to connect contrasting clauses. "Excavating under many Muslim homes" does not contradict "largely a Palestinian township". It actually follows that if most residents are Palestinian, excavations will be under their houses, doesn't it? Also - why refer to the religion of the residents? Would it make a difference if they were Christian Arabs? This definitely needs cleanup134.191.232.68 (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The statements "being conducted by a private group, not a public authority" is incorrect.

You didn’t read the link, which is to Don Futterman the nationalist stink rising from the City of David,' Haaretz Feb. 27, 2013

  • (1)For almost 15 years, one of our most important national parks and archaeological sites, the City of David, has been managed by a right-wing NGO. The City of David, an archaeological site immediately south of Jerusalem's Temple Mount, is one of Israel's only national parks to be run by a private entity, and considering that it is located smack in the middle of a Palestinian neighborhood in East Jerusalem, there could not be a worse choice than Elad.Elad is a 27 year-old private organization that works to strengthen exclusively Jewish ties to Jerusalem. Now that the District Court of Jerusalem has canceled Elad’s management contract with the Israel Nature and Parks Authority, the Authority has an historic opportunity to fully return the City of David to its own control. The decision to grant Elad responsibility for running the City of David in the first place was most likely intended to promote Elad’s Judaizing agenda, and our outgoing national government and the Jerusalem municipality didn’t object to ramming Jewish settlers down the throats of East Jerusalem’s Palestinian population, whether actively collaborating or signaling approval with a wink and a nod.

Dafna Laskin, Shake-up at City of David Jerusalem Post 04/14/2013

  • (2)Elad’s founding and goals are based on the assertion that the Biblical land on which modern Silwan was built, must be re-inhabited by Jewish families. To that end, they have been bankrolling excavations in the village for decades, and the main finds can be seen today at the City of David, a national archeological park that was privatized and given to Elad, and which attracts some half a million visitors annually. The archeologists digging at the site were hired by the AA, but paid by Elad. The controversy stems from the fact that the AA, which oversees all archeological work and certainly at the City of David, is essentially in partnership with and funded by a private organization with clear ideological goals – chiefly, to utilize the archaeological finds as a means of promoting the self-described “Judaization of east Jerusalem.”

As to the reported damage which the IP/Daniel Cohn team deny, on spurious grounds, see now

The snowstorm that hit Jerusalem last week caused collapses and severe damage in areas near and above some of the archaeological excavations taking place in the village of Silwan. Collapses of the ground-level have become routine in Silwan, recurring annually with the first rainstorm. Most of these occur near the southern part of the tunnel, connecting the Shiloah Pool with the Givati parking lot (see map, near No. 12). This section has an earth filling several meters deep. It seems that, the ground-works in the tunnel affected the ground stability in the region. A similar occurrence was evidenced past years. More substantial collapse occurred in an area adjacent to the excavation commenced in 2013 (see Emek Shaveh’s new publication:Remaking the City, Chap. 5 and in the attached map between no. 7 and 6). The storm crushed a significant part of the side steps and fill adjacent to it. (Attached photo shows detached iron staircase.)Shortly after the yearly collapses, the Jerusalem Municipality, the Parks Authorities, Elad and the Antiquities Authority( IAA) hasten to patch up repair the damage. Undoubtedly, this will be the case this time too.It is our opinion that the land collapse is the result of several causes: 1. The village of Silwan is constructed on landfill and not on stable bedrock. In the case of a storm, the ground break through and undermines the stability of the structures above it. 2. The fact that year by year the collapses occur near the archeological excavations of the tunnels, points at the excavations as one of the major factors in this severe damage.The responsibility at this site is held by several organizations: 1. The Nature and Parks Authorities - for the national park. 2. IAA – as conducting the excavations . 3. Elad organization – as the sponsors of the excavations. 4. The Municipality of Jerusalem. Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No doubt the lead needs tinkering further, but the reverts so far are a POV pushing 'cleaning up' of the factual mess. Israel is the occupying power, its laws are systematically opposed to Palestinian residency, and the lead cannot allow in wiki's neutral voice language suggesting that Palestinian housing there is 'illegal'. It has to be phrased to show that this determination is an Israeli POV.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Though largely a Palestinian township, with some Jewish settlements in the area, ongoing archeological digs by the private Elad group are excavating under many Muslim homes, reportedly causing damage

The syntactical criticism above is correct. So the line can be adjusted along these lines:
Archaeological digs sponsored by the private Elad group in this predominantly Palestinian township are excavating under many Muslim homes, repèortedly causing damage to the area. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Several objections to this:

1) Not clear what is a "Muslim home". Do homes have religion? If you already wrote that this is a predominantly Arab neighborhood, why mention this again? To the reader, it would appear like the archaeologists are singling out Arab residents to dig under their houses 2) I went over the links you provided (most if not all by partial sources with a clear agenda) and I don't see any evidence of reported damage (one would think pictures would be easy to provide). 3) In those links I also could not find even claims, let alone evidence, of digging under homes. I can only see (unsubstantiated) claims of structures caving in due to nearby digs.

If you cannot provide RS substantiating the "excavating under homes" claim, I think it should be removed or at least rephrased to reflect this. By the way, the Haaretz link doesn't work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcohn (talkcontribs) 08:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1RR[edit]

'All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.'

Daniel Cohn has broken the rule, and knows it, since he is consistently advising editors like me to 'take it to the talk page' (where the banner has this rule) while he himself has never deigned to take his perspective to this page.

I did, as 134.191.232.71 (yes, I forgot to login) on 10:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielcohn (talkcontribs)
I was not aware of this rule. I don't see how advising an editor to take it to the talk page is proof that I knew the rule - this is a general advice I've seen used in many edit summaries.Danielcohn (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Two breaks IR) so I expect this has to be reverted, since the editor is in fault, and refuses to take, further, his own advice.

Not correct - I did post my objections to existing text in the talk page prior to reverting the edit as you can see if you check the undo date vs the talk entry dateDanielcohn (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I see he was blocked. Dougweller (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for proof that you knew the rule. As it says at the top of this page, "Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence." In other words, you are expected to have read the large message at the top of the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely and that's why I didn't complain about the block. I was simply refuting Nishidani's "Daniel Cohn has broken the rule, and knows it, since he..." which is trying to prove the false remark that I knew the rule. That's all.Danielcohn (talk) 09:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Supposed[edit]

I have restored the "supposed" in "For the supposed city of King David's birth, see Bethlehem." Something that is not an established fact cannot be expressed as an established fact using the narrative voice of the encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of this. Nearly all of the early historical material is not secured as an established fact, but scholarly shorthand usually ascribes things according to tradition, even for legendary figures: Abraham of Ur etc. The legends concerning David (who in reality may have been a local bandit) at least in Samuel are unanimous in associating him with Bethlehem. By logic, if supposed here, I guess one should write also that Bethlehem is the supposed birthplace of Jesus, if only because it is mentioned as such only in the birth myth passages of three gospels but generally ignored thereon in. Nishidani (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the birthplace of Jesus is considered Nazareth, not Bethlehem. This is the majority view among historians and Bible scholars and Pope Benedict XVI also subscribed to it in a book published during his papacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This is how the sentence should be structured on Wikipedia: The supposed Jesus was supposedly born Nazareth and the supposed David was supposedly born in Bethlehem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Your 'Nazerath', sounds like Nasser's wrath, so have, without prejudice, corrected.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Um, the sentence doesn't mention Jesus, and sarcasm often indicates lack of a reasoned argument. The sentence is not part of the article, it is pointing readers to another article. Sean is correct, Wikipedia should not be stating "This article is about a neighborhood in Jerusalem. For the city of King David's birth, see Bethlehem" as fact. Material within an article often has enough context so that we do not have to continually repeat that the material isn't historical fact. Do we really have to take this to NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Doug. It's not a problem that worries me. I'm just not certain. Use an adjective like 'supposed' and you signal to the reader more than simple 'factual' prose requires. The 'supposed' is 'neutral' from one perspective but, from another, it takes a stance. This was my original instinctive reaction. IN Jewish tradition, the term 'city of David' means the Jebusite capital David conquered. In Christian tradition, the 'city of David' means Bethlehem, and also, since they revere the OT, Jerusalem.
Further, if we now concentrate on the sentence, one could easily created problems for the first part. 'Ir David' is not a 'neighbourhood in Jerusalem' in either the accepted meaning of neighbourhood in English and the specific colour it has taken on in Israeli English (reflected in wiki), a residential (Jewish) area. It is the site of an archaeological dig in a restricted area around the 'stronghold of Zion' of the Biblical Jerusalem within the 'neighbourhood of Silwan'. Thus that too is not a statement of fact, but a POV, which happens to be that of the people behind the Elad operation. Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Good points. Some of them refer to the title of the article and to the first part, right? So we need to separate them out. What I think we can say is "For the city traditionally considered to be King David's birthplace, see Bethlehem." If we can agree on that, I'd suggest starting a separate section for the other issues. Dougweller (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That's fine by me.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
So now we are resorting to calling King David a bandit, are we? That description actually more aptly fits Mohammed, who looted Mecca and massacred its Jewish population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.137.180 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC) (MO fits banned user User:JarlaxleArtemis)
You need to read some books about David by Baruch Halpern, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
or, if you are in a hurry, I Samuel 27:9,11; but where is David refered to as a bandit in this aricle? A Georgian (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to mention it here. It's about an archaeological dig, not 'David'.Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
As Augustine recalled a captured pirate telling Alexander the Great, all great creators of new states are thugs, pirates, mass murderers, etc. David's probable origins are not exceptional. Things haven't changed much (robber barons etc), it's just tht algorithms function as swords these days.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's just ignore this IP, given their other edits and block and the need to oversight one personal attack, he/she will be blocked again shortly, possibly by me. Dougweller (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I asked a CU, Alison, who confirmed the IP was a sock of JarlaxleArtemis. Now blocked of course along with some accounts. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Archaeology section[edit]

Does anyone else agree that the "Archaeology" section in this article is a total mess, needing a significant overhaul? It looks like someone has tried to create a tourist guide to the site than write an encyclopaedia article. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Wadi Hilweh and City of David are two differnet things in the same site.[edit]

Hello, I am new to this page, yet I have noticed something that seems to be incorrect. The opening pasgae state that:

The City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David; Arabic: مدينة داوود‎, Madīna Dāwūd) is the Israeli name for the neighbourhood of Wadi Hilweh (Arabic: وادي حلوه‎) in Silwan.

In the bible, "City of David" is a biblical term to the city that King David built. Today, the name City of David refers to the archaeological site of what is thought, by some archaeologists, to be Jerusalem of the pre-Babylonian exile.

Wadi Hilweh is a Palestinian village that was built upon the archaeological site, during the 19th century. They are two different things. How can I change it without causing quarrel?

Can I change the sentence to:

" City of David (Hebrew: עיר דוד‎, Ir David; Arabic: مدينة داوود‎, Madīna Dāwūd) is the name for archaeological site, that some evidences suggest to be ancient Jerusalem. It is located under the nighbourhood of Wadi Hilweh (Arabic: وادي حلوه‎) in Silwan.[2]"

Thanks, Talyaron (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will take the silence as a yes :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talyaron (talkcontribs) 04:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Court rule?[edit]

Hi, in accordance to the spirit of consulting before changing the text, I want to consult again. I have checked the claimed in this page that says:

"Ongoing archeological digs by the private Israeli settlement group Elad will eventually be excavating under some Muslim homes, possibly causing damage".

The claim of damage was brought before the Israeli court of justice, and where fund to be unfunded. The court ruled that no evidence for damage was proved, and that the excavations stand in every legal demand and they were checked and found to be safe and undamaging (here is the court rule in Hebrew).

My dilemma is whether to add this comment about the court rule, or remove the text in accordance what the court found after investigating the matter? Talyaron (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say remove it. Doug Weller (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks, I'm removing it. Talyaron (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bullae[edit]

I have consulted "IRON AGE BULLAE FROM OFFICIALDOM'S PERIPHERY: Khirbet Summeily in Broader Context." Near Eastern Archaeology, Dec2014, Vol. 77 Issue 4, p299-301. It says neither "David did it" nor "Hebrews did it". It could be equally well "Philistines did it". So, it is a leap of faith to posit the bullae as evidence for David's kingdom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

To be sure, the press release does verify the claim that it is possible that David had a state, however the peer-reviewed scholarly article makes no mention whatsoever of David, nor of any state of Hebrews in the 10th century BCE. It does claim that the definition of state is muddy, and there might have been something like a state there in the 10th century, however it nowhere claims that it was a Hebrew state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The press loves speculation if it is wild and sensational enough, scholars concentrate on facts and evidence. The claim that those bullae are evidence for David and Solomon is a far fetched explanation. Such claim is likely to attract funding, but would not pass through peer-review in a respectable scholarly journal. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The link between the bullae and David is missing, and without such link there is no way to attribute them to David. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

OK no problem but we can still write that it might suggest it. There is no reason to delete it entirely. Lets try to slow down here and try to write objectively. Sadya goan (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
OK so instead of crediting to King David lets just say it reflects "a greater political complexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape than has been appreciated recently" Sadya goan (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
This seems neutral
In 2012 and 2014 six bullae were found at Khirbet Summeily suggesting a greater political complexity and integration across the transitional Iron I/IIA landscape than has been acknowledged by many recent scholars who tend to dismiss trends toward political complexity occurring prior to the arrival of the Assyrians in the region in the later eighth century b.c.e
Sadya goan (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
That scholarly article simply does not state anything about David, so it does not support your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, it does not mention anything about the City of David, so it is not germane to this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite requested[edit]

The 10th century BCE is considered the century during which the Bible describes the reign of King Solomon.

This sentence suggests that the Bible is being written in the 10th century contemporaneously with the putative events. etc.Nishidani (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Vice news report[edit]

An interesting report from Vice News on this situation: https://news.vice.com/video/a-city-divided-jerusalems-most-contested-neighborhood

One person they interviewed called the area "the core of the volcano" of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.

It feels like our article is underplaying the controversial nature of this area.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

Hi @Poliocretes: is it not correct that the Jewish population living in the area run by the Ir David Foundation have their local amenities run by them? This article and others like it, suggest that this is the case. Just because it is not a formal municipality, places such as unincorporated areas still deserve to be treated equally on Wikipedia. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

CoD is not technically any sort of municipal unit, it's the name of a hill within Silwan, which is governed by the Jerusalem municipality. Elad is an extremely powerful and proactive NGO promoting Jewish settlement in the City of David. It has secured the rights to run the national park which it uses to further promote its political agenda, but even it has to go through the Jerusalem municipality to get things done (see this for instance with its reference to the local planning commission). Describing CoD as a municipality or an "unincorporated area" or Elad chairm Be'eri as holding a municipal role are pure WP:OR. These words have meaning, they are not applicable here. I don't see how this article "suggests" otherwise, and "suggests" is not good enough for Wikipedia anyway. If you think the site is not being treated equally on wikipedia, that can be fixed, sources are not lacking, but the solution is not shoehorning it into something it is not. Besides, Israel Hayom? Seriously? You disappoint me, Once. Poliocretes (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Section "New Testament references for the City of David being Bethlehem"[edit]

Entirely unsourced, apparently OR and fairly irrelevant. I don't think anyone would dispute that Bethlehem was also once known as the City of David. He was, of course, from the tribe of Judah, whose land Bethlehem is in. Perhaps a brief hatnote to the Bethlehem article would be useful, but this section should be removed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC) Comment struck - I see we have a good hatnote already. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely. That's not the way to use primary sources in any case, and we've got the hatnote. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC) who is not dweller
Thanks, Doug.  Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Any Jews there 1939-47/48?[edit]

A (possibly unsourced) line claims that after 1948 war "its Jewish population was expelled." As far as I know, after 1929 riots or at the latest aduring1936-30 Arab revolt, all the Jews were expelled from Silwan, including Wadi Hilweh, by the British authorities who didn't feel they can offer them security. Were there any Jews left thrte in 1948 to be expelled? I guess not. Please clarify, if proven wrong remove the false claim. Arminden (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)