Talk:Ancient city walls around the City of David

This article's title fails WP:NPOV
In real life there is a big debate both over Mazar's dates in general and the date of this wall. I've brought the issue up here Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. It's ironic that the Jerusalem Post article makes it clear that there are challenges to the dating, yet we have a POV title for an article. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also what is the wider view of this, this seems to be the view of one controvershal archeologost. Not the view of the wider community.Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Iagree we need a neutral title, but I am having difficulty thinking of one. We cannot use City Wall (Jersualem) because there are later, such as Broad Wall, Jerusalem. Possibly City of David Wall, Jerusalem because it at least in the region known as the city of david, whether or not it dates back to that period.


 * While I'm at it, perhaps there should be an article on Jerusalem City Wall. There was an article Jerusalem's Old City walls but it was moved to City of David and made more general.     DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While it may well turn out to be from the 10th century, there is no harm in moving the article to a different title pending an independent confirmation of the date. I would argue that, at the moment, this ought to be an article about the discovery of the wall (2010 ancient Jerusalem city wall discovery?), which would allow for further detail and elaboration as independent dating tests are made.  Ultimately, when the wall earns an accepted and widely used, reliably sourced name, we can move it again to that title and focus on the actual wall, with this history as background.  Abrazame (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a name comprising a more precise geographical location, for example: Kidron Valley Wall. Even if the archeologist's claims are proved accurate, the title should include BC.--Supertouch 16:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A different name sounds good but one of my concerns is what happens if another ancient wall is discovered this year? Maybe even by Mazar? Ah, in any case, it wasn't discovered this year so far as I know, just announced this year. And there's yet another potential problem. This may simply be a new section of the wall already uncovered by the Mazars. People, not just the author of this are asking if this could be the case. The title shouldn't include the date, dating this period is too fluid at the moment. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks more and more as though this is a continuation of the wall in the Ophel area she worked on with her grandfather in the 1980s. . Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhpas this this should be in her article, untill we can tell what is what.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A wall of this scale in Jerusalem connected to defensive gate houses is a very major find.  Certainly it deserves and article.  Certainly this needs publication in journals, popular press reports are inadequate by definition, and yet Wikipedia articles routinely go up when finds of this importance are announced.  The articles then undergo correction for years as consensus and evidence build.  Meanwhile, let's be careful to be very objective.  For example, Aren Maeir did not "dispute" the date of the wall.  Maeir is not noted by reticence.  He is famed for using words with exquisite care.  What he said was that the date is "tenuous."  I have corrected the page to quote him accurately.Broad Wall  —Preceding undated comment added 16:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC).


 * I think 10th-century city wall, Jerusalem is pretty neutral. It cannot be Ancient city wall near Siloam, or Ancient walls of the City of David because there are so many.  From different periods.  Even just on the ridge of the City of David.   I figured, since they date from different eras, use the date.     I suggest that we leave it at this and wait for more formal publications.Broad Wall


 * Since other people dispute the date, how can it be neutral? Mazar's whole dating 'scheme', called the high chronology, is challenged.


 * The gateway was explored in the 1960s, Mazar seems to have explored part of this wall in the 80s, have you read ? It may be that some of the announcement is just a repeat of that, eg the chamber gate, the large stone jars with the bakery inscription. The bullae may be exciting as they seem to suggest that a lot of the bullae dismissed as fakes may be genuuine.
 * Maeir "said he has yet to see evidence that the fortifications are as old as Mazar claims". The word 'tenuous' is not related to that, he does not say the date was tenuous, he says "proof of a strong, centralized kingdom at that time remains "tenuous."" (of that, only 'tenuous' is clearly a direct quote. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Leen Ritmeyer is very reliable.  Broad Wall  —Preceding undated comment added 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC).


 * Here is the latest, from Ritmeyer: “Eilat explained to the press that she reached bedrock, she dug under the floor and found 10th century pottery in the fill under the floors. most media reports did not quote this. she said no evidence of Canaanite structure earlier here. Typology of pottery distinctively Israelite. Original floor preserved in two places.”   It is impossible to tell from press reports how the pottery was situated vis a vis the wall.   The potsherds may, or may not, cornfirm a date.   The difficulty is, people do go to Wikipedia to look these things up.   It may be worth having an article as new information comes out.   What if we moved this to something like Ancient city walls around the City of David, including the several fortification walls that have been found.  The City of David article is woefully inadequate.   Not adequately discussing either recent or 19th century finds, which need to be related to one another in some fashion.   If there were world enough  and time...19:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess the title is ok, let's see what others think. The fill gives a Terminus post quem date (if the dating of the fill material is correct) of the 10th century, ie it shows it can't be older but can be younger. Then there is the question of what 'Israelite' means. The City of David article needs some attention, among other things its description of this wall is pov. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dating of Mazar's wall
More on the dating Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a blog so how RS is it?Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not very, it may help people find other things we can use however. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Title is factually wrong; not in common use; overly "biblical"
a) This structure is not in the City of David: this area has a well-stablished name in archaeology: the Ophel. b) Not "around" by any stretch: the "City of David" was of elongated NS shape. This structure is only part of a post-Canaanite SW-NE wall at what was probably the narrowest part of the town, a bottleneck connecting the old Canaanite city/City of David to the south with the Ophel-and-Temple Mount extension to the north. Canaanite Jebus/Jerusalem had a circumference of ca. 1000 m. 60 metres are not much. In no way "around". c) Name borrowed from the Bible: it looks like an attempt at establishing a name sounding like it was borrowed straight from Hebrew Bible verse of : "Solomon ... finished building ... the wall around Jerusalem." Nobody (real life, academia) speaks of a wall AROUND anything in regard to this structure. c) Controversial interpretation A to Z: the main feature of the structure is the supposed gate and its tower(s). Leen Ritmeyer in November 2011 (!) was still utterly unconvinced by available arguments in favour of it being a gate, seeing it rather as a water distribution point built by Hezekiah. Tedd Bolen even wrote in March 2010 that "most of what she [Eilat Mazar] announced she had previously excavated, announced, and published in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Whatever she discovered in the brief excavation of 2010 either was not announced, not reported, or identical to what she has previously reported. .... The “new understanding” was a reinterpretation of a juglet to an earlier date without any supporting evidence. That allows the entire “gate complex” to be dated to the 10th century. And suddenly you can publish an article entitled “The Solomonic Wall in Jerusalem.” . CONCLUSION: unless proven by good sources, other than Eilat Mazar's, what we are talking about here are First Temple-period (?) structures on the Ophel - Is it good enough for a whole WP page, when WP does not have anything decent on the Jerusalem Ophel? True, it is not conclusively proven that the saddle area is THE Ophel of ancient sources, but the name is widely used, or was so until "City of David" supporters started expanding their area of influence. I am not sure how people would take question marks in the title, but it's good academic practice as long as the controversy is still so strong. ArmindenArminden (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2016 (UTC) - Comment. The term "City of David" is used for a specific archaeological site in Jerusalem, which seems to have been inhabited continuously since the Chalcolithic era. Our current article on the subject covers archaeological findings from c. 4500 BC to the 11th century AD. So I am not sure why you think the term has to be limited to the era of David.

The association of the City of David with David is traditional but somewhat misleading. The historicity of David is debated by archaeologists and historians, since:
 * the Biblical records which mention him may date to the 7th or 6th century BC, some 500 years later than David's supposed era.
 * The Tel Dan Stele dating to the 9th or 8th century BC seems to be calling the Kings of Judah as the "House of David", but the exact meaning is unclear. It is the only extra-biblical archaeological finding which supports the existence of David.
 * While various archaeologists favor identifying certain ancient buildings and forts with David's building activities, both this identification and the dating of the findings are disputed.

If by Jebus, you mean the Jebusites, their existence is not confirmed either. The term Jerusalem seems to predate the era of David, with Egyptian texts from the 14th century BC calling the city "Urusalim" or "Urušalim", and Sumero-Akkadian texts calling the city "uru-salim".The etymology of the name seems to connect the city with a local deity called Shalim, though his exact identity is unclear and based on various interpretations of texts from Ugarit. The Jebusites themselves are mentioned several times in the Bible, but often too briefly to determine anything about their identity. The text mentioning the conquest of Jerusalem in the Books of Samuel simply states: "And the king [David] and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David. And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul.” Therefore it is said, “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.” "

Other than the fact that David hated people with disabilities, the text does not really explain much.Dimadick (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC) --- Hi. I am perfectly aware of each and every one of your arguments and agree with them. But that was not my point. We are using terms because they are popular or in wide circulation. A variation of the theme "perception is reality". WITHIN this game, one has to respect the rules. "City of David" is a name taken from the Bible, not from archaeology, so the Bible sets the rules once you use its terminology. Simple as that. Btw, now I know that "City of David" was indeed used as a name/description in later episodes described by the Bible, so that question is answered. Second, "around" means around. There is not a word here about over 90% of the CoD walls (the circumference of the CoD walls is about 1 km, Mazar's wall is 70 m long). This is not the topic, not was it ever intended to be. The topic is the "Solomonic gate" with its tower and adjacent wall segment which Eilat Mazar thinks to have identified & dated. Such a short segment can be part of anything for all I'm concerned, Ritmeyer, Finkelstein and all other usual suspects are contesting every word from Eilat Mazar's announcements, but her interpretation is the only raison d'etre for this page to start with, so like it or not, but that's the topic. So wrong title, through and through. ArmindenArminden (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC) --- This title contradicts decency and common sense as much as it does archaeological practice and Wiki regulations. For how much longer are we going to tolerate a cheap propaganda attempt by Elad & Co.? Please do change name to "Wall[s] between Ophel and City of David" or alike! We can discuss the exact wording, but this I believe to be the best - honest and still a good compromise. For now, I have changed the first lead sentence according to - decency and common sense, archaeological practice, and Wiki regulations. Please see that the hasbara battalions don't mess with it again.
 * 1) "alleged" ("Eilat Mazar believes...").
 * 2) "northern" only, not "around", as factually only to the N of the City of David and Doron Ben-Ami found none to the W, period.
 * 3) "biblical", since name "City of David" doesn't appear in any extra-biblical Iron Age sources.Arminden (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly RS have described Eilat Mazar's theories, thus we must. Nor is " decency" a valid argument. Read (also) wp:not and wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what RS means, nor do I truly care. The "ancient city walls around of the City of David" DOES NOT EXIST as a term, not in the scientific world nor outside it, it was made up for this silly WP article (don't take my word, google for it), and nobody can convince me that this is accepted WP policy. There must be more than one (useless) WP rule, directive or committee. "Ancient city walls around of the City of David" doesn't exist because nobody worth quoting, E. Mazar included, would dream of using it. What "around" when the CoD HAS no Iron Age IIA city walls? (And that's exactly what "City of David" implies: IA IIA). None found to the E, S, and W; Doron Ben-Ami concluded in 2014, after 7 years of digging at Givati, that there is no wall to be found there and that IA IIA (10th c.) Jerusalem had no fortifications. We're left with some flimsy claim about some wall in the N (narrow side; true, more exposed), brought up by E. Mazar, but hardly convincing any of her more critical colleagues. That much for "around". And none of the constituting terms of this non-title can be supported by good scholarly sources. None. "Of the" maybe the exception. So let's cut it, please. PS: I'm bringing in two more editors I trust (sorry for bothering you with this trifle, but we obviously got stuck). Arminden (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * wp:rs an editor as experienced as you should know what RS means. Also I think you may need to read wp:canvas.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also suggest a new page name, as "The ancient city walls around of the City of David refer" refers to our page title.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Title wrong also in biblical terms
It is based on, King Solomon "took Pharaoh’s daughter and brought her into the city of David, until he had finished building ... the wall around Jerusalem." Clear distinction between "the city of David", explained on BibleGateway as (just) the ciadel of Zion, and "Jerusalem" as it stood once Solomon had exteded it, I presume. This was the ONLY presumed base of this ridiculous non-title, and even this is wrong. Arminden (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very busy off-wiki at the moment, but your argument strikes me as convincing, and a retitling of the page would be the appropriate move at this point (my own feeling is that it shouldn't stand on its own, since it looks like a celebration of Mazar's 2010 work and nothing else, and might be merged?) Nishidani (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you ant the page renamed as?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * At City of David, it has a "See also" to here and says "Ancient city walls around the City of David, actually north of it, where it borders the Ophel". Maybe this material or some version of it would sit better in there?Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the retaliative dearth of sources maybe a merge is a good idea.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a POV fork of various legitimate archeological expeditions. I have redirected to the person making the claim. jps (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst I may agree I would rather you had asked first.Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

hi. I certainly don't agree with what you did. I never consciously came across any edit of yours on topics regarding Israel/Palestine, and it's certainly not the right place to play deus ex machina or Alexander & the knot. You didn't merge anything, you simply erased the whole material and redirected to one archaeologist's website, when there is at least one better option - without consulting with anyone, and without telling anyone first what you intend to do. Dropped out of nowhere, didn't ask, didn't talk, and erased other people's work without convincing anyone that you know what you're doing or have a clue about the general topic. God syndrome, a little?

I don't know where the material is. It is needed for a future article on the Jerusalem Ophel (so far we have a paragraph at Ophel). Would you please indicate where it is to be found, or park it here for the future? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: I was preparing the following reply. Everything in it stays as valid as it's ever been. I think this article can serve 2 concrete purposes: The usual info there is: Solomonic gate + ramp+ tower, with main stress on the gate(house). Finkelstein & Co. din't even buy it in 2010 that it's even a gate (only the western half is present, and they offered different interpretations). However, there are a lot of significant findings, and the tower mostly covered by the modern road with its two construction phases is only one of them. Elad is trying to extend the City of David to what is been known at least for the last 4 decades as the Ophel. No to mention a continuum with the Western/Wailing Wall plaza and the W. Wall excavations (tunnel, etc.). That's the tendency. Elad & the Western Wall Foundation are in charge of all, archaeology and tourism. These are the facts. I think we should for now ignore the loss of currency of the term Ophel and call the article Ophel (Jerusalem) and link it (at least via "See also") to pre-existant articles, such as Ophel, Southern Wall, Huldah Gates, City of David, Excavations at the Temple Mount, Charles Warren, Benjamin Mazar, Eilat Mazar, etc. Arminden (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "biblical archaeology" info for those attracted by the significance given to the topic by biblical maximalists and their opponents; and
 * a quick check for visitors who are told this & that by tour guides and info boards set up by Elad.
 * Hard to follow what you want here. The history is preserved so if you think something is worth merging into the article that serves as a redirect, you can find it. However, the subject is mentioned at the new redirect to the level that I think it is covered by reliable sources. I would direct you to think about what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. The two concrete purposes you list are a bit orthogonal to WP:ENC. jps (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm quite poor on technical issues, but I can't figure out where history is preserved, as the page is gone and Eilat Mazar's page history shows no link to this one's. Can you pls indicate a concrete path? And pls, no lingo, no sending to Wiki pages with "seminaries". My point is, the discoveries are what takes precedent. With the concrete user in mind. One wants to understand the archaeology, and by it the history of Jerusalem. The area of the findings is the Ophel. Therefore, the proper place for the material is with the Ophel. Now we have the Jerusalem Ophel as a paragraph on a page with three ophels; it should have its own, where these findings can add to the general picture. The material mentions Warren and B. Mazar, E. Mazar is arguably neither the only, nor the most prominent element here. That means that some users looking for the info won't find it. A digital encyclopedia's best two features are that one can look things up under more than one term, and that you can easily update it. Why diminish the advantages of the former? Arminden (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Still not exactly clear what you are asking for here, but I think you are saying you want to include content on a page you think should be called "Jerusalem Ophel". Right now, this page doesn't exist, but I believe the closest article is City of David. You may be able to incorporate some content from the article that used to be here there, or we could redirect to that article. If you want access to the history of this page, it is available here. Please let me know if there is more I can help with as I am not sure I really understand what you want. jps (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)