This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
User:Huldra, when you say that "the pools are purely Roman work, not from Solomon's time at all," that would depend on what exactly you're talking about with respect to the pools. True, in Roman times they extended an aqueduct from these very pools to Jerusalem (see here), to supply water to the city. But the source of the water is a matter-of-fact, coming from the nearby ʻAin ʻEiṭam (Spring of Eiṭam), and which source of water was used by King Solomon to build pools. At least, that is the conventional thought of scholars. Because the pools have yet to be excavated - although its source is well-known - we were cautious with our words and wrote: "The pools are thought to date back to the time of King Solomon, having been built by him and which are alluded to in Ecclesiastes (2:5, 6), where it says, 'He made for himself pools of water.' According to Josephus, Solomon would take leisurely rides to this site in his chariot.[1] Your words, however, showed no caution whatsoever, but you assumed that Solomon had nothing to do with these pools whatsoever. Firstly, there is a conventional view that says that the pools are somehow connected to King Solomon, as you can see by the writer of this article, Dima Srouji, here, who wrote on the second-page of his article: "In the neighboring village of Artas, the first pool and aqueduct are popularly held to have been built by King Solomon, an attribution reinforced by Artas historian Sanad Mousa. Yet some Palestinians and others involved with the renovation of the pools believe that the traces found through excavation in the last centuries point only as far back as the first century AD." (END QUOTE). Actually, both views are correct. One of the aqueducts is of late antiquity (only one pool having thus far been dated to around the mid-2nd to mid- 1st century BCE, based on its late masonry), but the pools' original foundation is long thought to have been built by King Solomon. Hence: "The pools are thought to date back to the time of King Solomon." And then there is the writer of another article, written in Bethlehem in 2014 (see here), although he / she mentions the pools also in relation to Suleiman the Magnificent. True, the writer is not an archaeologist, but he or she is basing his/her words on a conventional view that exists, and which theory has its foundation in the writings of the historian Josephus, where he writes in his Antiquities of the Jews (8.7.3), the following account: "King Solomon rode upon a chariot... and used to take his progress out of the city in the morning. There was a certain place, about fifty stadia distant from Jerusalem, which is called Eitham, very pleasant; it is in fine gardens, and abounding in rivulets of water; thither did he use to go out in the morning, sitting on high [in his chariot]." (END QUOTE). The ancient name of this water source, ʻEiṭam (Heb. עיטם), is actually eponymous, named from one of Judah's descendants who lived in that area of the country (see I Chronicles 4:3). A city by that name was also named after him. In fact, Israeli archaeologists have identified this city with the ruin now known as Khirbet al-Khuaḥ, a ruin that is adjacent to Solomon's Pools. For this, see: Biblical Encyclopaedia - Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Period, Bialik Institute, vol. 6, pp. 186-187. The Sages of Israel, during their redaction of the Babylonian Talmud in the 5th-century CE often make mention of this site, with respect to the aqueduct that was built there and which once extended as far as the Temple in Jerusalem: Yoma 31a, Zevahim 54b, Shabbat 145b, and Bekhorot 44b. By the way, this place is not to be confused with the "Rock of Eitam," a different place described by Victor Guérin.---
This is simply not acceptable in the lead. Yes, we can have further down as a tradition, but there is zero archeologiacal evidence that this is in any way related to King Solomon, so he and his charity has to go out of the lead. Huldra (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but there is also no archaeological evidence that proves that the pools were not originally built by King Solomon. The aueduct is something different. The best that we can do is cite what local tradition says about the place, and that is important, without any doubt in my mind. The pools are renowned because of King Solomon. Israeli archaeologists have identified the nearby ruin as being Eitam, where Solomon frequently visited, according to Jewish tradition.Davidbena (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"no archaeological evidence that proves that the pools were not originally built by King Solomon", ok, there is "no archaeological evidence that proves that" Stonehenge wasn't built by King Solomon either....that doesn't make us write that they were built by him!!
See what dr Masterman wrote back in 1902: link, pp. 105−106: "Whether any part of it goes back to Solomon's time, as is claimed, is more than doubtful. It is the custom in the East to associate any great work with the name "Solomon;" hence we get "Solomon's Pools," "Solomon's Quarries," "Solomon's Stables," etc.-he is the country's ideal of wisdom and greatness. The fact is, we know nothing of the early history of this great work. Josephus states that Pontius Pilate made a "current of water" to Jerusalem," Huldra (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many of Masterman's claims have long been debunked.Davidbena (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But not this one, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We all agree that these pools are ancient, but why do we need to mention modern settlements from the 1980s or 1990s, (settlements that had exactly nothing to do with the constructions of the pools!) ...in connections with the pools? It makes absolutely no sense to me, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We ALWAYS mention modern towns and cities in relation to old sites. There's nothing wrong in doing so, as it gives our readers a sense of direction. Your last "edit summary" clearly shows that your objection to mentioning Israeli towns in relation to Solomon's Pools is because you disagree with Israeli settlement of lands formerly owned by Arab Palestinians (See here), some of whom may have actually sold their parcels of land to Israelis. In any rate, that is a poor excuse. We should only concern ourselves with directional bearings. Jews and Arab Palestinians, Druze and Bedouins, etc., we all share the same country.Davidbena (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Israeli settlements are not "Israeli towns" when it comes to the International community, and I think you know that very well, Huldra (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the International community is divided over many of these issues, and, besides, the legality of Israel's hold of these territories is not dependent upon International law, nor upon the International community. We can cite their objection, but this does not change the fact on the ground. The borders of ancient Israel overlap those of Galilee and the modern West Bank, with a millennia of Arab history and culture interspersed. While it is true that the San Remo convention of 1920, and the United Nations in 1948, recognised the establishment of a Jewish homeland, let us not forget that Israel's "legal" connection to the land does not begin with these international instruments of "peace" and "world order," such as laid out in one convention or another, for if that were the case, I can assure you that they will use those same instruments to divorce Israel from its own land. Do not put more authority in their litigation than what Israel's rights convey to them by virtue of Israel's history in the land. The sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are entitled to cherish their ancestral homeland and choose to live therein. Of course, this doesn't mean that Jews should evict Arabs from the land, those who have lived here for hundreds of years. We share the land together, in spite of all the wrongs and ill-will that has happened between the two peoples. It is not our role as editors to pass judgment and to say that one people have no title to the land, or are not entitled to live in this country, or that they have no part in the country. Try remaining neutral. That is what I am asking of you to do. If not, you are being disruptive as per Wikipedia's policies. Oh, and one more thing: Israeli settlements, be they new or old, are still towns.Davidbena (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David please stop sharing your personal views on the rights of the sons of Abraham, they are not in any way relevant or conducive to the purpose of this page. Finally, the cited source says the Pools "skirts around the west side of Bethlehem (parallel to today's Hebron Road), not that they are north of Efrat or any other settlement. If you want to include that some colony is near this cite then bring a source that makes any note of that, but try not to forget that for Efrat, Beitar Illit, or any other settlement Israel has established that the most common term to describe them in reliable sources is "Israeli settlement". That is what matters here, not the rights of Isaac and Jacob. nableezy - 05:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to removal of Efrat in diff: mapcarta (whose description doesn't seem to even mention Bethlehem) is far from a great source. If we are using a map as a source (which is possible - see the Wikipedia:Using maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles essay) - we should stick to a neutral descriptor - in this regards, the Givat HaDagan neighborhood of Efrat (the most northern one along the road) is some 300-400 meters from the easternmost pool and would seem somewhat relevant. Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra No, a town can be a settlement. These two do not preclude each other. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser, you know as well as I do, that Israeli settlement is something else that what is presumed by "Israeli town". By "Israeli town" we mean towns in Israel, pre 1967. Please start a RfC, if you want to use "Israeli town" for Israeli settlement. A RfC is also in order for mentioning possibly mythical figures in the lead. Huldra (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
About the latter; the latest Finkelstein theory is interesting: [1], Huldra (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Josephus disproves the theory of modern revisionists of history (who dare dispute the historicity of King Solomon), as he cites early Phoenician records that were still extant in his day and which prove that there was, indeed, a King Solomon. You may wish to see page 108 in this treatise here written by Louis H. Feldman, entitled Josephus' Portrait of Solomon. In fact, no one doubts that there was a First Temple on the Temple Mount and which had been built by King Solomon. As for the removal of the directional bearing of Solomon's Pools from Efrat, that was uncalled for. It matters little that Efrat happens to be a settlement, as it is a well-populated city with a population of nearly 10,000, nearly on par with al-Khader. There is already a consensus here to keep it. Moreover, MOS:LEAD requires of us to summarize in the lede paragraph the main points discussed in the article. This has yet to be done with your removal of vital information. Davidbena (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do a great mistake by equating what Josephus wrote with "the truth". Remember: he was also a participant in (some of) the actions he describes, and some of his writings have been disproven by archeology. (eg, see the Siege of Masada). As for Solomon: Josephus lived about a 1000 years after Solomon is alleged to have lived: hardly an eyewitness to him. As for me to "dare dispute the historicity of King Solomon"; yeah, well: I do dare. Huldra (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable secondary sources noting any closeness to Efrat or any other settlement. nableezy - 04:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Huldra A locality can be a settlement without being a town. They are not mutually exclusive, that we shouldn't be able to say one over the other. They mean different things. Rfc? What for? Debresser (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
agree, look at a map, it's literally a somes throw from Efrat, no reason to exclude.Sir Joseph(talk) 13:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT is the reason. Please show that reliable sources treat its location as near Efrat or any other settlement as meriting mention. nableezy - 15:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit-warring and misrepresenting the cited sources. Please stop. Answering my objection on weight with an irrelevant policy on OR (I never said it was OR) does not absolve that. You also lack consensus for your addition per WP:ONUS. nableezy - 15:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Israeli town that is closer to Solomon's Pools than Efrat. The name of the town is Neve Daniel. Would you agree to its use as directional bearings, even though its a smaller town than Efrat? Meanwhile, it seems that we have a consensus to include Efrat as a directional bearing. Currently there are four editors who want the inclusion of directional bearings from Efrat to Solomon's Pools (namely, myself, and User:Icewhiz (who mentioned a northern suburb of Efrat by the name of Givat HaDagan), and User:Sir Joseph, and User:Debresser who agreed that a settlement can also be a town (debunking Huldra's objection on those grounds). There are so far only two editors (you and User:Huldra) who do not want its inclusion. The size of the Jewish city Efrat is roughly equivalent to the size of al-Khader. Both cities provide information to our readers as to their relative distances from the pools. Inserting distances, in my view, falls under the category of WP:CALC, and does not require a reference, per se, if the distance can also be proven by a map, which indeed it can be as shown on mapcarta here.Davidbena (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An Israeli settlement established in 1983 has exactly ZERO to do with these pools. (And you need at least a RFC to name them anything other than Israeli settlement), Huldra (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David, can you please provide any reliable sources that show the proximity of this ancient site to modern day Israeli settlements is something that is given any note? Absent that then no, you have not satisfied the basic minimum requirement for material in an encyclopedia article. If you provide such sources then sure we can discuss adding it. But until now you have not, you have simply edit-warred, and originally edit-warred over blatant misinformation. nableezy - 21:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're misrepesenting Wikipedia's policy concerning WP:CALC. Calculations do NOT require a source; we do it all the time on other sites. All you need is a map. If, however, you're asking about the importance of Jewish towns in the so-called West Bank, just look-up some of their names on Wikipedia. In any rate, we have a consensus to add Efrat. Davidbena (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
David, WP:CALC is about OR. I am not saying this is OR. I have never said you require a source for the distance. If you are going to continue ignoring what I actually have said then I dont see how we are supposed to have a discussion. I have said that weight is the issue. That you need to show that the distance to a settlement is something that sources consider noteworthy to include it here. If you would like to respond to that great. But arguing against positions I have never taken is not exactly going to help anything here. nableezy - 21:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Four editors disagree with you. It has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. The Jewish towns are just as important as Arab towns. All of us are entitled to knowing the distances between our cities.Davidbena (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not one editor has addressed the DUE issue. You certainly have not. The location of Israeli settlements, aka colonies, as related to Solomon's Pools are only relevant if reliable sources make them relevant. You have not brought a single reliable source showing that they do. nableezy - 22:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect when it comes to directional bearings.Davidbena (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? If you want something in an encyclopedia article you need to show that it is given weight by reliable sources. That is literally one of the most basic requirements for content on this website. nableezy - 00:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is rather funny that people here talked about measuring distances on a map but never thought to check "about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) southwest of Bethlehem". Actually 5km from this place is enough to get you almost to the most distant edge of the built-up area of Bethlehem. The historic centre of Bethlehem is 3.9km away and the closest edge of Bethlehem is only about 2–3 km away (I can't say exactly because I lost my map that shows the municipal boundary). Regarding Israeli settlements, the Givat HaDagan neighborhood of Efrat might as well be on another planet since it is on the opposite site of the Separation Wall. It deserves no mention anywhere in the article without a source indicating a notable connection. The close proximity to the wall is more significant. Incidentally, one thing missing from this article is the fact that this place is in Area A. Zerotalk 05:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect in regards to the separation wall - as of yet - per B'Tselem's map (as well as any aerial/sat photo) - the wall here (while approved) hasn't been constructed (which also means that guessing where it will actually run is, well, a guess - these un-constructed segments tend to move). As evident in this YNET piece Israelis do visit there (Kfar Etzion Field School). In any event - the separation wall (to the west of the pools, but not to the south) as well as Giv'at Hadagan (which is nominally a neighborhood of Efrat) are relevant geographical features around the pool. Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was misled by the Amud Anan map that shows the wall complete, but in any case you are wrong. The wall directly between Givat HaDagan and the Pools is under construction according to Btselem's map and the scars of the construction are clearly visible on the satellite image. I don't know how recently that map was updated but that part of the wall is either complete or nearing completion. In fact, the high-res image at govmap.gov.il (don't know if this link will work) shows that most of what appears as under construction on Btselem's map (dashed red) is actually built, since its shadow is clearly visible. Zerotalk 07:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: - look again. What is built is a 492 meter long segment (I measured on govmap.il) on the north flank of Beit Hadagan (probably as an anti-sniper obstacle) - it is completely open on both sides - the corresponds to the very small purple (completed) segment in the midst of the the uncompleted dotted red (a bit to the West, and a whole lot - the entire Eastern Flank of Gush Etzion - to the east)). B'Tselem seems accurate on completion status, though I will note that I think they are in error in that they moved the completed segment some 200 meters east (their segment orientation looks like instead of taking the bend to the west, they took the bend to the east). The aqueduct runs through there (or underneath there) as well. The distance from the Northen edge of Beit Hadagan, including a little swerve to the East around the wall, to the easternmost pool is 414 meters (measured as well on govmap.il).Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant to the subject at hand, but I already overlaid all the maps in Photoshop and I don't know what you are talking about. The inverted V that Btselem shows under construction north of BH and the long section shown under construction to the West have precisely the correct orientations and are within about 50 meters of their correct positions. The shadows visible at govmap show that construction is at least well advanced. Zerotalk 09:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are relevant only if reliable sources show them to be relevant. Do they? nableezy - 06:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We often use maps as sources - and any reasonable map has Givat Hadagan here. Unsurprisingly some sources connect between Efrat and the pools - e.g. [2]. This is also relevant in tour-guide information - e.g. per [3], [4] - it would seem that one of the two water sources feeding the pools is near the parking lot in Givat Hadagan - there's a tunnel cutting through the ridge and then an aquaduct running down to the pool. Amat haBiar feeding Solomon's pools - near Efrat.Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely and totally ignoring my argument. To give any weight to the location of a modern settlement to this site requires reliable sources giving that weight to it. inature.info? Are you serious? Your one reliable source does not actually connect Efrat to the pools, what it actually says is Efrat's northern end borders al-Hader, which is near Solomon's Pools and the Dheisha refugee camp. nableezy - 06:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is YNET describing the Efrat well and the 2.8 km aqueduct to Solomon's pools. Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you specify where exactly that says anything about Efrat in relation to Solomon's Pools? I see it talking about a spring beneath Efrat having an aqueduct created to feed the pools. I dont see where it says anything about the location of Efrat being important. In fact it repeatedly gives Bethlehem as the relevant marker for the pools. nableezy - 15:25, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to not include the contested material about the directional bearing from Efrat. Typically the side favoring inclusion of material bears the burden of justification, and a clear majority in this discussion rejected the inclusion of this detail as lacking sources and encyclopedic relevance. --RL0919 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A question came to the fore whether or not we should add the directional bearings of Efrat (an Israeli town of nearly 10,000 residents) from Solomon's Pools, so that the lede paragraph will now read as follows:
Solomon's Pools (Arabic: برك سليمان, Burak Suleīmān, Solomon's Pools, or simply el-Burak, the pools; Hebrew: בריכות שלמה, Breichot Shlomo) are three ancient reservoirs located in the south-central West Bank, immediately to the south of al-Khader, about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) southwest of Bethlehem, near the road to Hebron, and north of Efrat.
Include, per discussion here: Statement by DGG, where a respected editor gave his personal opinion, saying: "Israeli settlements may be towns in the generic sense, but there is no general world consensus that they are in the State of Israel, as distinct from Israeli occupied territory. However, the mere locational marker to the place of that name is not a jurisdictional statement , and it does not make sense to remove it."Davidbena (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra, what does a site's establishment have to do with directional bearings, if I might ask you? Many of the local residents who reside in Efrat are English speakers who perhaps read Wikipedia. Wouldn't they want to know where these Pools are located in relation to their town?Davidbena (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solomon's Pools are in Area A, under full Palestinian control, ie not a place where Israeli settlersby law are allowed to visit, AFAIK, Huldra (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is only a new imposition (for their personal safety), but Israel's historical connection with the site is well-known. People generally want to know what historical places are next to them. Israelis can visit with special permits.Davidbena (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
include it's irrelevant of it has nothing to do with the pool, it is showing where it is now relative to towns in today's map.Sir Joseph(talk) 23:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include as no source has been brought indicating a relevance. Compared to this, almost every source uses Bethlehem and/or el Khader to mark the position. Actually many sources say the Pools are in el-Khader and I'm not sure that has been properly sorted out. Moreover, Israel is busy building a wall that will separate Efrat from the Pools, making their relative positions even more irrelevant. (And, Davidbena, are you really telling us that the settlers of Efrat don't know where Bethlehem is?) Zerotalk 02:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bethlehem is not the issue here, Zero, but rather Solomon's Pools. Is it not a notable landmark for nearby towns and villages? And, yes, ugly walls exist, which I have always been against, but this does not impede us from mentioning the distances between Hebron and cities on the other side of the Green line, although a wall or fence exists between them.Davidbena (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be acceptable, somewhere later in the article, to write that the separation wall is under construction west and south of the Pools and that Efrat is on the other side. Zerotalk 03:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is also an option.Davidbena (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include - not one reliable source has been brought to show that Efrat or any other Israeli settlement is relevant to this places location. Requests for such sources have been met with responses verging from the sources dont matter to "irrelevant of (sic) it has nothing to do with the pool". The most basic requirement for material in one of our encyclopedia articles is that it be verifiable and that it be demonstrated to be a significant view by reliable sources. No reliable source considers it significant that the closest Israeli settlement is Efrat. nableezy - 02:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include - quite obviously. In regards to claims above - one could claim al-Khader has nothing to do with the pools - having been founded as a town in the middle ages, while Efrat (Givat Hadagan being a neighborhood) has history dating back, in this name, to the pool construction. Efrat is of obvious geographic relevance - Givat Hadagan being some 300 meters away (aerial distance, 400 meters walking distance). Perhaps even more importantly - it is hydrologically relevant - one of the main water sources for the pools is in Efrat, and runs in a long aqueduct / Qanat to the pool (this water work being a tourist site in its own right) (reliable source). To sum up - this is obviously geographically relevant (being 300m south of the pools) and is part of the water system.Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So a modern settlement which adopted the name of an ancient place that was almost certainly somewhere else gets the benefit of that adoption! Your arguments are getting worse. Actually there is a far better case for identifying ancient Ephrath (when it meant a place rather than a region) with Bethlehem. By the way, tourism articles are not reliable sources for geography or hydrology. Zerotalk 06:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly think the line of argumentation on ancient settlements is completely irrelevant - I said "could claim". What is relevant is that the modern Jewish settlement is relevant to current geography - one usually describes present day locations (and this is a present day tourist attraction) in relation to modern landmarks - anyone looking at a map in 2019 would - e.g. google maps - would see the Efrat neighborhoods of Givat Hatamar and Ha-Dagan as being relevant landmarks from the south of the pools. It is also relevant as being located on-top of the water source and the aqueduct leading water to the pool - I don't think you are serious contesting Habier spring/waterway being located here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include and absolutely remove Bethlehem as well, since "immediately to the south of al-Khader" is clear enough. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include and possibly remove some other geographical locators as well ( near the road to Hebron?) - though not for reasons given by others. The fact that modern human settlements have no connection to the ancient site is irrelevant to locating these ancient sites. A minimal description of where, ie "Place X is located Ykms North West of Z in Illyria" (where Z is linkable and, ideally, a recognisable name) is sufficient. We aren't a trip-advise source and the info need be no more than that necessary for a world audience to 'get its bearings'. Locals will not need to be informed of this level of detail and 'foreigners' will not benefit from the additional info. Pincrete (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Include, but remove "near the road to Hebron"--too much localization. For more clarity, add the word "and" between "al-Khader" and "about 3.5 kilometres". Purpose of basic geographic orienting for the reader--nothing wrong with it. DonFB (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Artas is the community closest to the pools: If you wish to get to Solomon’s Pools area from Bethlehem, simply take the service taxi (orange minibus for 7 persons) from Bethlehem’s Central Station, located in the lowest floor of the Bethlehem City Mall, to the direction of Hebron. While driving out from Bethlehem, you are going to pass the St. George Gate. Some meters later the taxi is going to turn left and there you are going to see the road leading to Artas, where you could get off. Enter the road and start to follow the walk described in the book, which is quite easy and will take you around 2 hours (both ways).https://vicbethlehem.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/the-murad-castle-the-solomons-pools/Peter K Burian (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include and I also agree with User:Pincrete - our articles are not tourist guides, and I'm tired of seeing these "from a, from b, from c, etc" in articles. There needs to be a clearly encyclopedic reason for including such information; It's even worse if it's not an easy journey. Doug Wellertalk 14:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Currently, the lede paragraph reads: "...Although the site was traditionally associated with King Solomon, scholars today believe the pools to be much younger, with the oldest part dating to the 2nd century BCE." When reviewing the sources cited for these claims, it is not clear that the belief in the legend that Solomon built these pools does not continue to be upheld to this very day. The wording in the lede makes it sound as if the view is no longer applicable, when, in fact, many scholars still think the original foundation of these pools (or perhaps one of them) dates back to King Solomon. Look again at Leeper, J.L. (1903), where he writes on page 340: "Many scholars hold that both the pools and these vast rock caverns underneath the temple plateau were constructed by King Solomon." Archaeologists, for their part, have no way of determining whether or not the pools were renovated throughout its nearly three millennia of history and/or upgraded with the times. It remains a grey-area, even in archaeological terms. Even the second source is not 100% certain, citing no reliable or verifiable sources, but only "...Their construction was probably gradual, going back to the 2nd century BC while certain waterworks took place during the time of Herod the Great (37-4 BC)." And later, "The dating of the Arrub aqueduct is not certain. It is estimated having been built during the Pontius Pilate time (26-36 AD)," See here. Therefore, the proper wording in the lede paragraph ought to be in the present-tense, is, instead of was (past-tense): "...Although the site is traditionally associated with King Solomon, some scholars today believe the pools to be much younger, with the oldest part dating to the 2nd century BCE." I have sent a written correspondence to Israeli archaeologist, Boaz Zissu, about the age of these pools. When his reply comes, I will render a translation into English and share it with interested parties here.Davidbena (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is very unconvincing. "Many scholars" written by someone in 1903 refers to a group of people who are dead, so it can't be used to source "many scholars" in the present tense. Also, I don't think "is traditionally" and "was traditionally" have different meanings, since "traditionally" by itself carries a past connotation. Zerotalk 05:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept your skepticism. That is why I also posed the question to a modern archaeologist, from our day and age. We'll wait and see what he has to say.Davidbena (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested, this is the question (in Hebrew) which I posed to Professor Boaz Zissu of Bar Ilan University:
האם יש סימוכין (מבחינה ארכיאולוגית) שבריכות שלמה אכן נבנו ע"י שלמה המלך - אפילו חלקן או התשתית שבהן? מה הם המחקרים שנעשו בנידון ומה הן שיטות התִּאֲרוּךְ שיושמו במקום, אם בכלל
Translation: "Is there evidence (from an archaeological point of view) that Solomon's pools were indeed built by King Solomon - even some of them or their foundation? - What are the studies that were carried out and what are the methods of dating that were applied in the area, if any?"Davidbena (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the change from "was" to "is" as proposed by Davidbena and for his reasons. Zero's linguistics is wrong. 12:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
same here. The site traditionally is associated with Solomon. What archeologists find is what they find, but the pools are still associated with Solomon. Sir Joseph(talk) 12:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is surprising about the lede is the failure to mention that the site is controlled by Palestine not Israel. In fact, does the article ever mention that, anywhere?
Demand: Open Solomon's Pools to Jews
Appeal to US ambassador to Israel: Condition US aid for restoration at Solomon's Pools on permanent Jewish access to the site.
The US administration recently decided to transfer $ 1.5 million to the Palestinian Authority for the restoration and preservation of Solomon’s Pools north of Bethlehem. ... "It is well known that all of the pools were handed over to the PA in a mistake of mapping,... "To return the pools to our hands is a goal, but in the meantime we have to act in order to make the site accessible to the Jews as well,"http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/257110
--Peter K Burian (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amitim L’Tiulim, a Zionist initiative dedicated to connect Israelis to their land through hiking, recently approached US Ambassador David Friedman to help make Solomon’s Pools, near Bethlehem, in the Palestinian Authority, accessible to Israeli citizens. ..... "Unfortunately, the site is located in an area under Palestinian control, which is why access to it is not free, as required from tourist, archaeology and tradition sites."
As part of the Oslo agreements, Bethlehem came under Palestinian Authority control without Solomon’s Pools, which were intended to be included in Area C, under full Israeli control. The name “Solomon’s Pools” were marked in the map as being on the Israeli side of the border, but the actual territory was included in the area under PA control.
Amitim L’Tiulim invited Ambassador Friedman to tour the site, in order to understand its historic and cultural value, as well as see first hand the damage caused by its neglect by the Palestinian Authority.
It would be useful to include an account of the new research and the ongoing project in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.87.242 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice journal article. The news article is a bit silly though. Zerotalk 04:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the article, but if the comments by Candida Moss in the thedailybeast.com article are correct, then the "Background" section needs to be completely re-written. It was apparently the work of Legio VI Ferrata, Huldra (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huldra Check your mail. Doug Weller I can send you a copy too if you send me wikimail. Zerotalk 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The key bits are "The architecture of the internal structures within the Dam Wall together with a preliminary typological assessment of the earliest hydraulic plasters within the pool suggests a date within the Roman Period for the initial construction of the LP." and "Ongoing excavations at the top of the Dam Wall support this dating, and suggest a more precise dating to the 2nd century CE. Details will be provided in the next report." Doug Wellertalk 07:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the journal article has less info than the newspaper (nothing there about the similarities with Legio etc). I guess we will have to wait until "the next report", Huldra (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although the archaeological citations in this article appear to be somewhat true, keep in mind the Daily Beast is very anti-Israel, anti-Trump and anti-Bible. Evidence of a 2nd century pool built by the Romans does not equate to no evidence of Solomon's pools or a 2nd Century Roman upgrade. 2600:1700:C360:1530:2506:8921:372D:32F4 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The history part is totally dated; does anyone know the template for "dated"?
The history presently place more importance on the mythical Solomon, than the very real archeological evidence connecting it to Legio VI Ferrata. And I doubt Roman soldiers cared much for the Second Temple; it was suppying Jerusalem, as a whole, they cared about, Huldra (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly does the chapter on history refer to Solomon? I can't see what you are talking about. In any case, archeological excavations undoubtedly show that the aqueducts stretching from Solomon's Pools to Jerusalem did supply water to the Temple Mount. As the article mentions, this whole system was built by Herod the Great or maybe an earlier Hasmonean leader, which were Jewish, so they indeed cared for the Second Temple. In fact, Herod expanded the Temple Mount and rebuilt the Temple. You can actually visit the site where the aquaduect reaches the Temple Mount - it was recently opened to tourists visiting the Western Wall Tunnel. As someone who've been there only a week ago, I can surely recommend it. By the way, Legio VI Ferrata assumed control of Roman Judea only in the aftermath of the First Roman-Jewish War, which took place several decades after the pools were built. Tombah (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article suffers from several deficiencies. One is over-reliance on the HYDRA source, which is not really an academic source. Another is definite statements of things that are only theories. For example, it is not definitely known that the pools originated in the Hashmonean period; it is just a theory. The path of the aqueducts as they approached Jerusalem is only partially understood. Zerotalk 08:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone messed with at least the beginning of this section at some point, writing does not make sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make the edit, but there's a sentence in there that's repeated but also doesn't fit with the sentences around it, like it's just been randomly inserted. As it is, that paragraph now makes no sense. CamphorNoodles (talk) 03:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be an issue with the article's lead image. I think that the square enclosed area in the foreground is Qalcat al-Burak, 17th-century fort. However, the fort is located on the north side of the upper pool (the westernmost of the three). So I think that the image has been flipped. Is anyone able to confirm? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't get a good reply here, consider trying the reference desk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell: I compared the image to aerial photographs and I'm 100% sure you are right. Good catch! I don't think that we can just flip the image back to its proper orientation, as one reason that people flip images is to avoid detection of copyright violations. I have deleted it for now, so we need a new image. Zerotalk 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a simple proof, compare it to this image which seems to have been taken about the same time. Zerotalk 02:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original uploader explained the problem and I corrected the image. So I'll put it back. You might need to clear your browser cache to see the new version. Zerotalk 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Shows it's always worth asking the uploader. I skipped that step as they hadn't edited in a while. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was suspicious about how it could get reversed, but the uploader explained that the original is a photographic slide. It is dirt easy to put it into the scanner the wrong way around because the front and back are indistinguishable except for some printing. Zerotalk 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
