From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Jerusalem is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 23, 2007.

Earliest habitation of Jerusalem predates 5,000 years[edit]

Under the History section, this Wiki page says that the earliest habitation of Jerusalem goes back 5,000 years, but a recent discovery was made in 2016 that actually found settlements in Jerusalem going back 7,000 years. You can read about it here -- --- it was confirmed by the Israel Antiquities Authority, so we should definitely add it in as new findings in archaeology do not add themselves into Wikipedia pages. Any thoughts or should I go ahead with the edit?Korvex (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It is already in the Prehistory section. Zerotalk 05:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
To Zero0000: Alright, that's good, but the Wikipedia page still says earlier that Jerusalem has been inhabited for 5,000 years, although we now know this to be 7,000 years. So that's technically an error now that hasn't been updated since that find. I'm just going to change that 5 to a 7, very simple.Korvex (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Wait up, Zero. I do not have 500 contributions yet in Wikipedia, and so I'm not allowed to edit this page yet. Can you change that 5 into a 7 for me?Korvex (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that this discovery was not in Jerusalem but in Shuafat, which matters because Jerusalem used to be far smaller than it is now. That's why your newspaper source says "Jerusalem area". There isn't a simple way to deal with this, except by some more expansive text. Zerotalk 01:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Zero, you do realize that Shuafat is part of Jerusalem, right? Shuafat is just as much part of Jerusalem as Japan is a part of Asia. The discovery was obviously made in Jerusalem, just read the source I gave or any of the many reports that came about it. So I don't know what you're saying when you claim that it's not in Jerusalem, rather it's just in Shuafat, which is a part of Jerusalem (????). By the way, I do not yet have the 500 necessary total contributions in order to edit this Jerusalem page and change the 5 to a 7, so you're going to have to do that for me bud.Korvex (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Shuafat is part of the modern municipality of Jerusalem, but Shuafat is a place of its own. It has not been part of Jerusalem already in the 16th century when the Ottomans conquered the land and Jerusalem got out of the walls only in 1860. The British municipality of Jerusalem did not include Shafat and so was the Jordanian. Shuafat was only first connected to Jerusalem in the 70s when the French Hill neighborhood was buit and even in 1984 a satelite photo shows that it was still an outskirt. I don't think Shuafat's history should get a large focus in this article.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 00:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying that Shuafat was not part of ancient Jerusalem? I'd like some sources if you are saying this. Also -- even if it only joined to Jerusalem in the 70's as you say, that would in fact imply that the current Jerusalem does in fact go back 7,000 years. If Shuafat was not Jerusalem in ancient times, then what was it? Korvex (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Shuafat was definitely not part of ancient Jerusalem. There were no cities even a fraction that large in ancient Palestine. If you want to see the relationship between the two in the 19th century, go here. Shuafat (Shafat) might not appear on your screen; look north. The article already has a mention of 7,000 year old finds in Shuafat. A better case needs to be made for more mention of it. Zerotalk 01:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
There are lots of maps of ancient Jerusalem in the Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem by Dan Bahat. None extend the boundaries of Jerusalem anywhere near Shuafat until the modern era. Zerotalk 01:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course we should say area or near ancient Jerusalem. We'd be misleading our readers if we suggested otherwise. Doug Weller talk 07:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
To Korvex: If Shuafat was not Jerusalem in ancient times, then what was it? it was Shuafat. You do realize there are hundreds of sites within Jerusalem's modern boundaries (if not thousands) of ancient human settlements right? Jerusalem was from the dawn of human settlement to 1860 a one square kilometer city overlapping most of modern day Old Jerusalem. It never extended to Shuafat. The first time there was a connection between they city of Jerusalem and Shuafat was in the 70s, roughbly 7,000 years after the first settlement in Shuafat. The history of Bavaria isn't part of the history of Prussia, although Prussia extended to Bavaria at some point.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Much better put. It was Shuafat. It wasn't Jerusalem. This sort of attempt to make a city look older than it is isn't unique to Jerusalem, I've seen the same claims made for other cities. And "going back"? What does that mean? That there was a place called Jerusalem 7000 years ago? Obviously not. That there's been continuous habitation since then? No again, that's not been shown by the archaeology. Cities are created by the gradual growth of small settlements - looking at the area of most big cities a thousand years ago you'll find (maybe) a small area you might call urban surrounded by villages. Would you say that London goes back to the earliest sign of habitation you could find the that huge area? No, London goes back to the Roman settlement there, no further. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I doubt the place was called Shuafat then. A settlement in the area which is now called Shuafat, sounds more like it. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Good point. I've got another problem. Do we actually have any sources for continuous habitation for 5000 years? The earliest evidence of habitation isn't necessarily the date of the commencement of continuance habitation. It may of course be accurate, I just don't see the sources. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, so Shuafat wasn't part of ancient Jerusalem. I agree. But it's part of modern Jerusalem. Does that not technically make modern Jerusalem a location that has habitation extending back 7,000 years? What's wrong with noting that?Korvex (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that as long as you are very clear about which Jerusalem you are talking, that should also be okay. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, that sounds fair. I currently have under 500 edits, so I'm going to spend the new few days ramping up my activity to make the edit on this Jerusalem page.Korvex (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
No, "extending back" is unacceptable. "The oldest signs of human habitation found" would be acceptable. Doug Weller talk 07:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
How about "The oldest found human habitations"? Saying the oldest "signs" of habitation puts uncertainty on it, whereas there is no uncertainty as to the discovery confirmed by the IAA.Korvex (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Not in archaeology-speak, but looking at the source again it doesn't convey what was found. A much better sources is this one. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

a 7,000-year-old settlement from the early Chalcolithic period in Shuafat.[76] The archaeologists describe the discovery as the oldest of its kind in the region.[65] The Israel Antiquities Authority asserts that the stone houses and artifacts confirm "the existence of a well-established settlement in the Jerusalem area as long ago as the fifth millennium BCE."[77] Ceramic evidence indicates occupation of the City of David, an area considered to be the initial nucleus of historical Jerusalem, as far back as the Copper Age (c. 4th millennium BCE).[7][78] I'd just like to mention that chalcolithic and copper age are the same thing. PiCo (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for Marseilles as partner city[edit]

Is here: <ref>{{cite web |url= |title=Accords de coopération |website=Site Officiel de la Ville de Marseille |language=fr |format=PDF |access-date=2017-03-12}}</ref> I just can't edit it myself because of the protected status of the article. Feel free to use it. --Krokodilgemüse (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2017[edit]

Remove comma following parentheses in first sentence. ZackTheCardshark (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done ProgrammingGeek talktome 22:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ZackTheCardshark (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Jerusalem. 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) 19:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)