Talk:Western Wall

_

_

Shmuel Berkowitz

Who is Shmuel Berkowitz, and why is he being considered a "scholar"? Can someone provide evidence of his reliability?Bless sins (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A search came up with this Dr. Shmuel Berkovitz, an attorney, an expert on Jerusalem and a research fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. What does one need to be to be conidered a scholar? Maybe another word should be used. Once I found this, I have not tried to find further sources. Chesdovi (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy sites are more or less Berkovits' profession. He is a world-renowned expert in the field, and he has been doing research for 25 years, as well as teaching and consulting on these topics. He is a member of the Jerusalem Institute of Israel Studies, serves as an adviser to the Armenian Christian community, to the Museum of Tolerance and the Diaspora Yeshiva. His doctoral thesis was put at the disposal of the Israeli team at the Camp David peace talks with Egypt in 1978 as the central reference document about the holy sites. His previous book, "The Wars over the Holy Places," won first prize in 2001, in the field of Israeli security, from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies.

— Haaretz

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=734702 -- Avi (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about the use of descriptors like "nowadays" and "in olden times" peppered throughout this article. It is not good style. I will change to "currently" and "in the past" or something a little more appropriate unless anyone has an objection.Eskimo79 (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And who is he to claim that the wall just became significant for Muslims in the past 100 years? He is jewish and of course he is biased to his own Zionist clan. It should be taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.172.22 (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

GA-Class?

The article has come along way since when it was given B-Class in July 2007: [1] (It then had 6 references!) Chesdovi (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. This article looks close to GA to me too. One item I think of is that the lead could use a little expansion, it should maybe double or triple. One way I think it could expand is to include a sentence to introduce each section and subsection. Just an idea. Then someone has to be there to tweak the prose according to the reviewers comments. Are you going to nominate it? Regards, dvdrw 00:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the history, I see that you added many of the refs. I think you should nominate it if you are ready for the review. It looks good to me. dvdrw 01:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Buraq, the Moslem name, should be in the lead. The section dealing on this aspect is written in a way that downplays Islamic traditions associated with this section of the wall, unnecessarily, and needs some work on it to achieve NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There is confusion in the Siege of Jerusalem section between the western retaining wall of the Temple enclosure, which is what this article is about, and the western boundary wall of the city of Jerusalem, which is what Josephus is talking about. It was this city wall that was spared by the Romans - the text makes specific reference to the "wall as enclosed the city on the west side". The bracketed words [in the Upper City] do not appear in the Josephus text. I would strongly recommend you remove the statement that the Western Wall was spared, also the whole Josephus quote. The destruction of the Temple is dealt with by Josephus in Wars of the Jews, Book VI, Chs IV and V. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

POV issues, likely serious

This article should raise alarm bells on POV. For instance, the events of 1929 are treated in a seriously distorted fashion, the article currently says:

On August 14, 1929, after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall, 6,000 Jews demonstrated in Tel Aviv, shouting “The Wall is ours.” The next day, the Jewish fast of Tisha B'Av, 300 youths raised the Zionist flag and sang the Zionist anthem at the Wall.[30] The day after, on August 16, an organized mob of 2,000 Muslim Arabs descended on the Western Wall, injuring the beadle and burning prayer books, liturgical fixtures and notes of supplication. The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]

Even the most highly regarded Israeli historians give a much more nuanced impression than this - Benny Morris in "Rightous Victims" says that the Muslims long feared a violent take-over of the Wall - p.112 "the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions".

Morris doesn't mention any attacks on "individual Jews" on Aug 14th 1929 (and I don't see a reference for this). Rather, he infers that organised and/or mass violence was brought to the Wall (and for the first time?) by the Zionists, starting the following day with: "hundreds of Jews - some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons - demonstrated on the site". Benny Morris (a very, very long way from being a friend of the Palestinians!) says things like: "In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.[226 Porath, 1976] ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall".

I'm also very alarmed at statements like this "In October 1928, the Grand Mufti organised a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Wall. He ordered new construction next to and above the Wall, with bricks often falling on the worshippers below. The volume of the muezzin was turned up while the Jews were praying.[31]" being referenced to "The Case For Israel", a polemical work that, amongst other things, appears to justify torture and communal punishment. There seems no doubt that the construction work did interfere with worship - but we should be absolutely sure of our facts before claiming it was done provocatively to damage race relations. The Mufti, for all his faults, has too long been used as a propaganda bogeyman with the most absurd exaggeration of his influence. We reference the distinguished historian (who specialises somewhat in Israel) and convinced Zionist Martin Gilbert - but only for the trivial statement "The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]". Again, alarm bells ring - where's his real scholarly input? PR^talk 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, this article is now at GA-class. Pyrotec (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've only documented from RS the POV problems at one section, but problems are clearly evident in several other places. The lead is seriously distorted - the statement "an important Jewish religious site located in the Old City of Jerusalem which is also of significance to Islam" is probably the reverse of the situation - 3/4s of what's now visible was put there by Muslims, some of it relatively recently. The pre-1967 section "Only Jordanian soldiers and tourists were to be found there" looks like Hasbara - access was not restricted by religion, whatever restrictions were placed on holders of Israeli passports. PR^talk 20:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoa! Why did you pass the article when POV issues have been raised? In addition to the occasional POV, the "Wall in Islam" section is way to small. It briefly mentions what Muslims consider the wall to be and the remainder of the section is basically questioning whether or not the wall is holy in Islam or not. There is no mention of Palestinian or Israeli Arab visitation and prayer at the wall and although the restrictions that Jordan placed on Israelis is mentioned, I see nothing on the restrictions Israel places on Palestinians who wish to pray at the Wall. The POV issue was raised by PR and Nishidani before him, but were not addressed. POV is a major issue and should not be dismissed without discussion. Is it so hard just to fix it for the overall quality of the article? Those are two major issues that have been bypassed: NPOV and Broadness. Also, the Mufti issue was not addressed and the "Rabbis of the Wall" sub-sub section either should be merged with the main section or removed from the article. The "Structural damage" section should definitely be expanded. If these problems are ignored and are not addressed soon, then the article which is of a relatively good quality will be nominated for reassessment. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What is in the article is verifiable through references and in-line citations. The minor deficiencies that I raised in the GAR have been addressed quickly to my satisfaction. PR only raised questions, at 16:40 today, of POV about one small section that was a very minor portion of the article. He has not attempted to "correct" what is seen as POV, but has done other edits since. The latest points of POV raised by PR are a matter of emphasis, e.g, should it read "an important Jewish religious site located in the Old City of Jerusalem which is also of significance to Islam", or "an important Islamic religious site located in the Old City of Jerusalem which is also of significance to Israel", or some middle way? I don't have a strong view on that point and it appears that PR's view is not sufficiently strong to impel a "correction" of the perceived POV. The article will be at GA-level regardless of how the emphasis is laid in that particular sentence. The second claim of POV is an alleged distinction between "discrimination" by religion versus discrimination by PassPort holder, but no supporting evidence has been provided yet to back up the claim.

Al Ameer son has raised a number of points about perceived omissions from the article and gives helpful examples on how the article might be improved. There does not appear to be any recent evidence of edit wars, so I must presume that those editors who claim to see lack of balance in the article do not wish to improve the article themselves; and I don't understand why that should be so. Can I suggest that both editors expand the sections / subsections that they consider in need of expansion, adding adequate references and in-line citations to enable their statements to be verified. Again, expanding the "structural damage" section has no bearing on the Broadness of the article, or whether the article is at GA-class or not. The riots in February 2007 over a wall built in 19 BCE could be "down played" as a very recent event, but POV in this section would be unwise bearing in mind the sensitivities of the wall. However, you are welcome to expand that section, subject to the constraint of WP:Verify.Pyrotec (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well put. The source hunting shall begin and the info instated as soon as possible. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent.Pyrotec (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this business, and I am more usefully engaged elsewhere. However, I can tell you of (and prove that) some parts of the article are severely POV - and I can point out one of the major problems, atrocious sources. We use a sensational passage from a book that was publicly discredited - in Scarborough Country on Sep 8th, 2003 the author of "The Case for Israel" said "I will give $10,000 to the P.L.O. in your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false". Go here for the challenge made and proved, (relevant part at minute 27.0 but lots that's significant) in a radio exchange that resulted 16 days later, Sept 24, 2003. (It's also on YouTube somewhere). According to p.80 of "The Case for Israel" book, "between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs fled their homes" where Morris says 200,000 to 300,000 (p.256 of "Righteous Victims"). The $10,000 was never paid - hardly surprising, when the book stands credibly accused of "appropriates large swathes" from another hoax book - and then "goes one better ... cites absurd sources or stitches evidence out of whole cloth". There is another apparently wholly unjustifiable claim in the book at p.126, also mentioned at the debate. We use this source to claim that the Islamic establishment deliberately provoked the Jews by doing work on the wall? The allegation doesn't make any sense unless you suppose that Islam didn't care much for the wall - an astoundingly insulting and totally false insinuation. With adherence to Reliable Sources Policy so poor, there can be no way this article does the project credit. The article can only have been written as Hasbara, and it takes no more than a glance over it for this to be obvious. PR^talk 09:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I will read Morris, but if this article is Hasbara why don't you attempt to balance it? I don't see why, for instance one of the passages mentioned could be changed to (for instance) "thousands of Arabs fled their homes: two to three thousand according to Ref 1, or 200 to 300 thousand according to ref 2" and the necessary sources provided; there are also many other ways that sentence could be rewritten. WikiPedia works on WP:Consensus, you have the power like any other editor to change/improve articles, subject to the WP:verify. You can also do it now; if I do it, it will not happen until I get hold of a copy of Morris, read it and decide what changes need to be made.Pyrotec (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The "2,000 to 3,000" figure has been proven in a live, U-tubed, interview to be a complete falsehood - by a faux-historian who is not going to retract. And this is just one of the most obvious problems in an article that seems calculated to incite derision of one of the world's major religions. We demean the product of everyone elses efforts by this kind of conduct. PR^talk 22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, Don't jump to conclusions! Dershowitz states twice in the interview words to the following effect: "My argument it’s very serious, that many of the Palestinians were told to leave by the commanders. If in fact 200,000 were told to leave instead of 2,000, that strengthens my argument. That is the argument that I make. If the book says 2,000 to 3,000 there were only two explanations. Either it is a typographical error or I have to check the book obviously, I was referring to a smaller phase. But it would be ridiculous for anybody to understate when the purpose would be to overstate." Personally I think it was a typo. 00 was missing after the 2! Chesdovi (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way this book could ever be an RS, it's a polemic, some of it "extreme" in the usual sense of the word eg discussing good ways to torture - needles inserted under the finger-nails (sterilized needles, of course). The author knew there would be problems and attempted to choose the battleground (and confuse the issue) by offering a $10,000 prize to anyone who could find an error. He proceeds to hog the interview but two clear errors are brought to his attention in the time available. In actual fact, errors are not really all that significant - it's the polemical problems which are really serious, particularly claiming to be quoting established human rights organisations and failing to do so (sorry, this from memory, get back to you presently if you're puzzled). PR^talk 20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this book is a RS or not is now not an issue. There was only one reference to Dershowitz in the whole article. I have reworded that particular paragraph and supplemented it with another two sources I hope are acceptable. The only words that have been retained due to the Case for Israel source is "with bricks often falling on the worshippers below". Chesdovi (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations - but why mention the falling bricks, when every single reader knows that building work is always dangerous and disruptive of it's nature? And we're still saying "These were seen as a provocation by the Jews who prayed at the wall.[35][36][37]" based on a) Dershowitz, b) a disturbing "tried to establish Muslim rights" (never been doubted) and a distorting c) "in order to demonstrate their exclusive claims to the Temple Mount" (Muslims had exclusive rights). It reads like Hasbara - if we have to go there for lack of scholarly editors (and I'm one of the culprits), then at least lets not pretend we've done a great and NPOV article. PR^talk 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This reads very much like WP:Soapbox, the article is with the scope of WP:Palestine and some of their members have contributed to help improve it. Why not join and help improve the article and remove the Hasbara that you see in it. Making statements about the "acceptability", or otherwise, of book authors used as sources is hardly WP:NPOV. The NPOV way, if agreement cannot be reached, is to state both viewpoints (and reference them).Pyrotec (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PR, how can you say that a sentence that previously read: “In October 1928, the Grand Mufti organised a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Wall”, still lacks NPOV when reworded to: “From October 1928 onward, Amin al-Husayni, the new Grand Mufti, organised a series of measures to demonstrate the Arabs' exclusive claims to the Temple Mount and its environs”? Whether or nor these works were done deliberately as a provocation is not inferable from the revision (ref. 36 does state: “deliberately antagonised”). The fact is that the Jews saw them as a provocation. Mention of the falling bricks, unintentional as they may be, show why the Jews felt disturbed during their prayers. Since the Muslims believed they had exclusive rights, they tried to demonstrate this fact? There were a number of commissions to determine what rights both groups indeed had. We should not second-guess that the Muslims “had” exclusive rights here. The "tried to establish Muslim rights” ref. quote you find disturbing because they “have never been doubted” is just your POV. Did the Jews doubt the Muslims rights to the Wall? Most certainly. Let’s stop the nit-picking and try to bang out a version that is suitable to everyone. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead

PR wrote: The lead is seriously distorted - the statement "an important Jewish religious site located in the Old City of Jerusalem which is also of significance to Islam" is probably the reverse of the situation - 3/4s of what's now visible was put there by Muslims, some of it relatively recently.

According to the article, only the top 3 rows were added by a Muslim. The first 7 are Herodian, the next 4 were “added by Umayyads”. This means during that period, maybe by Jews? Even if it was done at the behest of a Muslim governor, it is doubtful that it was done to enhance the significance of the site. It was probably general maintenance, as layers of the same period are also found on the southern wall. The next 14 rows were added at the request of the Jew Monrefiore. Provide infomation which would change the wording to something stronger than "significance". Is it holy because a winged steed was teathered there? (NB. I read a hadith that said Buraq was tied to the Sakrah). I think the lead should give more weight to Judaism as it has gained the status of the holiest and most venerated Jewish site. Chesdovi (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, the article so totally neglects this side of things that we've no way of knowing. Well, except we know that the Wall was very, very, very significant to Muslims - and that side of it is totally missing from the article. PR^talk 20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that "the Wall was very, very, very significant to Muslims?" If this is true, we need it to be included. I have come accross the following: In the "Encyclopedia of Islam," there is no mention of the Western Wall in relation to Al-Burak. In the entry under Hara al Sharif, the wall is called the "Wailing Wall" without any reference to it's being sacred to Islam. Official guidebooks issued by the Waqf as recently as 1990 say nothing about the Western Wall being significant to Islam. A British commission of inquiry into the riots of 1929 issued an official finding of fact that the Muslims never used the wall as a prayer site and it was "never sacred to Islam." Chesdovi (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm wrong on this score, then I'm wrong. But I can hardly see how it's not highly significant to Muslims, because they'd mostly built it, and we know how very upset they were that the Zionists were intent on seizing it. The Umayyads are the first Caliphate. Part of the problem we've got is the Hasbara mindset we're having imposed on us by which Islam and Judaism are completely distinct and that they hate each other. When of course, in the Middle East they weren't very distinct, and certainly didn't hate each other. PR^talk 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. If the bulk of the wall is Herodian (look at the size of the courses), how could it be mostly built by Muslims? Herod predated the formation of Islam by around 600 to 700 years. As for being upset, isn't it not more likely that they were upset at losing any ground to the Jews in 1948 and 1967, as opposed to the wall having any inherent sanctity to Islam? The wall's discussion in Lamnetations Rabbah, which is Mishnaic in origin and thus predates the formation of Islam by around 400 years or so, does indicate reliably that it was very important to Jews centuries before Islam existed. -- Avi (talk) 04:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure now. The Muslims have clearly resented, very bitterly, the suggestion they hand the wall over - the pressure for which became violent by 1922 at the latest (cf Morris). We seem to have nothing to indicate that the space in front of the wall, and the surface of it, has any religious significance to Islam, though the wall itself, as a margin of the Temple Mount can hardly not be significant. I'm in no position to explain the Muslim position, what I can tell everyone is that, to the "passer-by" there's a noticeable hole.

And to anyone who knows anything of the other history, the whole article looks highly lop-sided. The Military Government of the British (Allensby, Bols) was/were profoundly irritated by the Zionists - but Colonel Storrs, their subordinate in Jerusalem, turned a blind eye to Jabotinsky "seems scarcely credible ... openly drilling at the back of Lemel School and on Mount Scopas [sic] ... no word of it reached either the Governorate or the Administration until after the riots."(The Palin Report, p.68 cited Huneidi). Knowing this, we say Storrs "hoped some of the money would be used to improve Muslim education"? C'mon guys! PR^talk 09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The article does clearly state why the wall is significant in Islam. I will nevertheless try and expand on this. Chesdovi (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing things like the photo caption in that section "Some Muslims have declared the Western Wall as belonging to the Al Aqsa Mosque, top right". At first sight, that appears to be a calculated religious snub. The Wall is in the disputed section of Jerusalem and almost everyone in the world thinks it still belongs to the Muslim establishment. To cast doubt on that ownership is dubiously partisan - and to imply it's a minority view is simply false. PR^talk 15:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

PR. Chesdovi is, in my experience, a cool-minded and receptive editor. If you disagree, do some work, go systematically through the refs., compare them to your own knowledge, and make suggestions, concretely. There are plenty of things to correct, elide or amplify here to bring it up to snuff. Take just one instance, which caught my eye today while glancing back over the article.

Text:'In the second half of the 16th century, Suleiman the Magnificent gave the Jews exclusive rights to worship at the Western Wall and had his court architect Sinan build an oratory for them there.[16] '

Source: n.16 Karen Armstrong (a RS, but not good to cite on technical things), says: 'In the 16th century, Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent permitted the Jews to make the Western Wall their official holy place and had his court architect Sinan build an oratory for them there.'

I.e. that 'exclusive' is editorial POV, whoever put it in. (Actually Suleiman's firman has a complex history behind it, and may well have been motivated by his desire as a Turk to encourage Jewish immigration as a counterbalance to Arabs, who inclined to revolt against the Ottomans). I note there has been a few days ago some discussion over the 1920s episodes. I've tried, Chesdovi, to give an NPOV review of modern sources on these clashes in the Mohammad Amin al-Husayni article, in the section dealing on the Western Wall. A glance at that, without my blowing my trumpet, may help in reviewing a few things here. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident that User:Chesdovi is indeed cool-minded and receptive. However, the article is currently rife with things that seem, well, calculated to insult the religion of the very people who (I think I have this right) still own the Wall. Ownership of the wall is something else that is simply, well, missing. I'm keen that the article be factually accurate too - but there must be people around better equipped to improve that side of it than me. PR^talk 16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Many editors will justifiably see the remark that Muslims own one of Judaism's most revered sites as calculated to insult the religion of the very people who worship there - so perhaps it's time for you to lay off these insulting remarks. NoCal100 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither of these comments is helpful. Or be specific or . . The whole area was under waqf property arrangements, and it was Moslem property for 1400 years. It is not an insult to remark that. Israel in 1967 simply asserted the right of conquest to a holy place, destroyed the Morocco Quarter and 4 Islamic sites, and made the plaza a place for worship. It has, as the document shows, strong religious meanings for Jews, though their worship therr has been historically rare for 2000 years. It also figures in Muslim itineries for pilgrims (al Buraq) as a place of prayer for them. The traditional arrangement down to Zionism was that it was Moslem property, with customary Jewish rights to pray there. Most Moslems knew little of the wall sector al-Buraq, as most Jews knew little of the Wailing wall, outside of rabbinical traditions and local Jewish fervour. These are what are called 'the invention of traditions' and al-Husayni invented as freely as did his Zionist competitors, both however building a national or pan-national 'tradition' out of relatively rare historical data.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

On its medieval object of religious reverence for Muslims in Ibn al-Murajja’s itinerary (the 13th place. ‘The place which the Angel Gabriel (Jibril)drilled with his finger and tied up al-Buraq), see Amikam Elad, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, Brill, 1995 pp.70f.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes going on are so major that I can't follow what's happening, but Chesdovi seems to be doing a good job, including improving the section I was looking at yesterday. I'm still seeing things like "PA-appointed Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri, believes that the Wall belongs to the Muslims alone" that seem doubly sectarian. However, I'm not sure how good the article could ever become if we're simply not allowed to state parts of the situation according to regular or internationally accepted norms. PR^talk 21:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why this 'I can't believe' etc,PR. Just check round, and help Chesdovi, who's done a large amount of the work here, to fill out the sources. Stick, please, to books, articles, and textual control. If this thing has to go to GA shortly, he needs positive help, not queries. Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the In the second half of the 16th century, Suleiman the Magnificent gave the Jews exclusive rights to worship at the Western Wall, I had replaced the quote with a better (Armstrong) ref and not re-worded it. I have now amended it and added a further ref. Chesdovi (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have come across: Religious importance of Buraq: Memorandum by President of the Supreme Muslim Council on The Moslem Buraq. 04 Oct 1928, CO 733/160 in the footnotes of Palestine: A Modern History on Google books. However, can't seem to get any further info on the net. Any suggestion? Chesdovi (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm to bed. I have several sources somewhere in files, and will do some checking tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage and would direct you page 102 which offers a number of sites where Buraq was tied up. (I couldn't view pg. 101) It seems that according to the most recent tradition, the place was located on the south-western tip of the mount. Chesdovi (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing significant improvements going on at this article. PR^talk 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've got some suggestions, PR, please help us out, esp.re sources. If you have Rashid Khalidi's 1997 book, . . :) Nishidani (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have lots of good sources to hand, but not every book on every subject. I can recognise Hasbara and reserve the right to identify certain edits as crap. PR^talk 21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

NO. You have the right to express an opinion on the talkpage that you consider it to be Hasbara, or crap, or both. You do not have the right to identify it as Hasbara, crap, or both; but you could (if you are willing to do so) provide quotations in the article that illustrate a particular viewpoint, subject to WP:NPOV.Pyrotec (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't wish to break up these signs of harmony, but today I received a copy of Goldhill, Simon (2008) Jerusalem: City of Longing. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univeristy Press. ISBN 978-0-674-02866-1. Note: Goldhill is Professor of Greek Literature and Culture at Cambridge University. I quote from page 77:

The more interest the Jews took in the wall, the more the Muslims responded. A myth started circulating that Mohammed, when he rose to the heavens from Jerusalem, tethered his magic steed al Buraq by the Western Wall (which is to be known thus by the Muslim community as al-Buraq wall: the Jordanians put up a sign to this effect). The story only comes into being in the late nineteenth century, and has become popular only much more recently still: older sources give quite a different spot for this brief moment in the story of the Night Journey. The myth attempts to locate the wall as a significant site for Muslim religious narrative, a claim that leads inevitably to the assertion of property rights. [I miss the next bit out to avoid further offence - Pyrotec] It is a good example of the competitive myth-making that is such a feature of the Jerusalem landscape. [After that follows some examples of Jewish myth-making - Pyrotec].

I'm quite sure that this will be dismissed as Hasbara, but the counter argument is that the book also contains examples of Jewish myth-making. Goldhill states (page 97) that the Station of the Buraq is marked by a stone bench located on the Haram al-Sharif - it is the traditional site where the magic steed of the prophet Mohammed was tethered.Pyrotec (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Goldhill has written several excellent books apparently, the one I am familiar with is on language and sexuality in Aeschylus's Oresteia. He was trained as a Derridean textualist in classical studies. He is not on this reliable, and what he says happens to be wrong, as one can see by looking at Khalid Rashidi (from memory) on page p.225 notes 23,25 of his 1997 book, to cite just one source. KR is an archivist on these questions, SG just a passionate browser of places and books, like the rest of us. Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to look at: The Institute for Palestine Studies (1968). The rights and Claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Wailing Wall at Jerusalem. Basic Documents Series No. 4. Beirut: The Institute for Palestine Studies. This contains a full copy of the report of the Commission appointed by His Majesty's Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the approval of the League of Nations, to determine the rights and Claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Wailing Wall at Jerusalem, December 1930. The Moslems said that the wall was sacred; however, almost the whole of their argument concerned Status quo, legal ownership of the wall and the adjoining properties, lanes and courtyards. The Commission did not accept the statement that the wall was sacred to them- Waqf property was not sacred and the Al Buraq was tethered at the precise spot where the small Mosque was set up.Pyrotec (talk) 08:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to a full copy of the report at: Report of the Commission appointed by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with the approval of the Council of the League of Nations, to determine the rights and claims of Moslems and Jews in connection with the Western or Wailing Wall at Jerusalem (UNISPAL doc A/7057-S/8427, 23 February 1968). I think the commission section does need expanding. Chesdovi (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to comment on, or edit in, the content of this document/discussion. The first part I noticed refers to a White Paper of 1928, which seems to make quite definite statements (I don't know if the views of scholars and legal minds changed 2 years later, or at any time between now and the present day, I've not examined the whole thing). I'm concerned that this article cannot be written to the RS - in which case, we should withdraw the GA accreditation and attach an "unfinished" tag. I'm very sorry if this is disappointing to editors who are hard working, scholarly and skilful, but there is too much of the content of this article that is missing, and too much that is unsatisfactory. PR^talk 10:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pyrotec, you write:-

'The Commission did not accept the statement that the wall was sacred to them- Waqf property was not sacred'

Simplifying, you confuse. Waqf property was not in itself sacred but

'With reference to the Wall itself matters are different. The Commission is prepared to accept the statement of the Moslem Side, i.e., that the Wall as a whole, by reason of Mohammed's visit with his steed called Al Buraq, is sacred to the Moslems. But in the opinion of the Commission this fact does not exclude the maintenance of the sanctity of the Wall to the Jews as well.'

as the document cited by Chesdovi shows (p.47, if I recall)Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing I find difficult to grasp is why the commission accepted that the whole wall is sacred to Moslems. Was the whole wall used to tie up this celestial being? If Buraq was tied to the Wailing Wall section, surely just one stone should be sacred, as the Black Stone on the Kaaba. Usually, when associated with events, sacredness is limited to certain spots. Saying that the whole wall is sacred by dint of one stone is interesting. (Note the fact that there are a number traditional sites, and that the tradition of the Western Wall of the Mount most probably refers to the southern tip.) Remember that the commission were trying to prevent the recurrence of riots and were therefore trying to keep everyone satisfied. Keeping the status quo was most probably their aim. So it is no wonder that they accepted the Muslim claim of sacredness. The report can be used as a primary source in a historical context, but whether or not it can be used as a source to designate sacredness is questionable. Are there any external sources within the report that point to Islamic sacredness, as there are with the Jewish claims? Chesdovi (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is going off the point. The fact is that Muslim sacredness of the wall due to the flying horse al-Buraq is already mentioned in the article. It doesn't look that there is more material to add to The Wall in Islam section. If there are no sources, then, PR, there is no "content that is missing". I am sorry the Jewish section is extensive, but it just reflect the sacredness of the wall in Judaism. The sentence you tagged was referenced to a book which states It was not only a historic moment – it was a moment of faith and religious experience, even for hardened secularists. Chesdovi (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Chesdovi, you've come hard up against what troubles a lot of academic editors of Wiki. I.ew. professional knowledge, training in the use of documents, etc., tells one accessible reliable sources clearly fail to give the full story, and yet editorial conventions, by necessity, do not allow one to write the text according to personal, even deeply informed understanding. One is strictly limited to what the texts one can access say. I happen myself not to believe that the Wall was sacred to Muslims. I also happen to believe that the wall was not sacred to 'Jews' as opposed to a number of Jerusalemite Jews, and certain schools in the rabbinical tradition, and that most Jews historically knew little if anything of the wall. The anecdotes from the medieval period reflect rare anecdotes issuing over few centuries from a community that numbered a thousand or so people, who mainly thought an area on the Mount of Olives was the place to pray and weep for the lost glories of the Judaic past. Like the Four Holy Cities of Judaism, there grew up, slowly, after the Sephardic expulsion from Spain an attachment in certain circles to these areas which was earlier relatively unattested, and with the onset of aliyah, religious and secular Zionism in the late 19th century, the mythic centrality of the Wall assumed the status of a fideistic cynosure as news from Palestine was diffused throughout the popular Yiddish and Hebrew press, informing the world's Jews that their brethren in Palestine were attached to this place. The Muslims naturally reacted to this appropriative (for that was what it was) (re-)invention of tradition (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1982) by their own counter mythology, and this was the seed for increasingly violent clashes. The picture of Herzl atop the mosque of al-Aqsa, which was a montaqe in the New York Press, for example, in 1920-21 was relayed to Jerusalem, and fed Arab suspicions that this was the ultimate object of Jewish claims to worship at the wall. A feedback system of disinformation between the parties ended with the massacres of 1929. Identity, like it or not, is constantly reinvented, especially in nation-formation - there is a vast literature on this, and Palestine illustrates its logic rather than constituting some exception. The Wall itself is a misnomer, since it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Temple (the real focus of rabbinical nostalgia), but a late structure built by a Roman puppet, some might also say, quisling, namely Herod who in modern orthodox Jewish law was not even Jewish, since his mother was a Cyprian, but in the law of his time might have been, even though Josephus calls him an Idumean, Jewish through assimilation but basically Arab ethnically, some sources say even of Askalon philistine origins.

To use sources selectively, and read them in order to patch up an ethnic belief-systerm or worldview, attributable to a people, a faith, a community, is what modernity is about. Go into the details, and this collapses. By now the Western Wall is fixed in the Israeli and diaspora imagination as what the article says it was, an age old cynosure of Jewish hopes. It, as opposed to Jerusalem, or al Quds for Arabs, was no such thing. That is the essential problem, as I see it, in writing this article. I don't envy you your task. Good luck with it Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are an interesting read. I am no academic, and you probably are more well versed on many of the related topics here. Let me just add that the rabbinical traditions, namely the Zohar, which writes that the Divine Presence rests upon the Western Wall and the Midrash which quotes Rav Acha who transmitted that the Divine Presence has never moved away from the Western Wall, do not apply to only Jews from Jerusalem. All Jews, based on these traditions, view the wall as sacred. I cannot speak for most Jews in previous centuries and whether they knew of the wall or not. But those who studied the main backbone of Jewish legal and philisophcial works, will have come across the Wall and its special significance. These are included in the writings of the leaders and codifies of the Jewish nation: Radvaz, Yoel Sirkis whose commentary is printed in Arba'ah Turim, Jonathan Eybeschutz, Jacob Ettlinger, etc. The Wall is just not comparable to the Four Holy Cities which have no source in Jewish texts. There is no doubt that the wall was used as an issue by the Zionists in their propaganda, but I would not go as far and say it was a “invention of tradition”! The rabbis put an emphasis on remembering the destruction of Temple and Jerusalem. The wall was not the main thing, but it is what’s left, so naturally, it has become significant. When the Temple stood, the Western Wall was most probably quite insignificant, besides from the fact of being part of the Tempe complex. However, as this article describes, after the Temple was destroyed, it most certainly did attain a sacred status. The midrashim attest to this. The physicality of the place, the closest one could get to the holy of hoiles, makes it so. If Jews would not have been exiled from their land and banished from Jerusalem for centuries, I am sure that the significance of the Wall would be beyond doubt. If the Jews had held onto Jerusalem for as long as the Muslim’s had, there would not be any Islamic structures there. Taking into account what history planned, Jewish attachment and mention of the Wall is impressive. I do not wish to debate the matter of whether the wall had significance for Jews before the 18th century and whether the Western Wall in Judaism is a myth, (This is noted in the opinions section). Lot’s of the History section deals with 1850 onwards. The Jewish section cites mention of the wall in Jewish texts. I am confident that this article is of GA standard. Chesdovi (talk)

The Zohar, excuse me if I am presumptuous and perhaps ignorant in my presumption, is not, strictly speaking, a 'rabbinical tradition'. On this indeed it is not quite reliable, since scholars have shown the author had only a very vague knowledge of Palestine. It was an esoteric text, in conflict with the kind of halakhic Judaism theorized by Maimonides, which gained a certain avid readership, and popularity some centuries later. It was widely believed that only males with a considerable initiation in the depths of Jewish learning, over 40, could even dare read it. When I think of 'the Jews', I think of all Jewish people, not to this or that tradition among one school or another, or a rabbinical world of intercommunal commentary. Most Jews historically did not know, or presume to know, what the law was. That was the function of a rabbi. Just as most Catholic or Protestant cannot cite chapter and verse of the doctrines which inform exquisite debates in their various ecclesiastical hierarchies. It is one thing to speak of the 'Western Wall' within a certain vein of learned literature, another to speak of popular Jewish feelings. Even among the learned, the wall is not mentioned, but just generically, the ruins of the Temple. I would like someone however to explain to me why Moses Maimonides, in the text quoted by Rabbi Eleazar Azikri, says that he entered the site of the Temple and prayed there. From memory, he seemed more taken up by Hebron that by a specific site, 'The Western Wall'. Nachmanides, who only found 2 Jewish families there, spoke of weeping over the ruins of the Divine Sanctuary, not of the Western Wall.

Just as it is one thing to talk of the federalist papers as they are understood within constitutional historiography in the United States, and another thing to speak of what the American public understands by them. In the latter instance, we may be talking of 'Americans' both are referring to the same 'tradition'. The public however, hardly knows anything about the federalist papers, and even, when snippets are quoted, tend to identify Madison or Jefferson's opinions with Communism). I was speaking to a Catholic rigourist some weeks ago, and upset him when saying: 'Of course, apply the law too strictly, and much that is useful to civil life would be impossible, because sinful.' He replied, 'Nonsense'. I in turn replied, 'Only if St Thomas Aquinas spoke nonsense'. 'What do you mean?'. 'I mean, multae utilitates impedirentur si omnia peccata districte prohiberentur.'

I cite this to show that much of what a scholar might harvest from the recondite literature dealing with a faith, a belief-system, a world-view, is not known to, or has little purchase on, the community that formally subscribes to, or is ethnically attached to, that faith or belief-system. This is true of the Jews, as it is true of the Dogon, the Daoists or Catholics or whatever community you like. My objections therefore are not to evidence that in rabbinical traditions or even the Zohar, things like the Western Wall have a mystical value or aroused in the learned a powerful affective attachment. I am simply stating the obvious. Most Jews throughout history down to modern times probably did not have their piety leavened by erudite disquisitions or lyrical prayers on the Wall. The modern attachment, now that the world is interconnected, people undergo instruction in their beliefs, nations diffuse selected traditions to highlight what is now thought to be central (the WW is now thought central because of Zionist showcasing of it as the jewel in the crown of Jewish claims to Jerusalem and a homeland within Palestine). The process whereby this eclectic harvesting of the abundant world of tradition to winnow and thresh out symbols to serve as foci for passionate collective identity is one which also systematically represses other knowledge - the point was made by Ernest Renan in a famous 1882 lecture, 'What is a nation?'

I'm boring you with a lecture. To be brief and recap. If the text says, 'in Jewish tradition' that is one thing. If it says 'for all Jews' (implying throughout the ages) then it requires a very strong reliable source, not making that assertion, but one that builds its generalization on the basis on a detailed survey of Jewish popular belief and opinion throughout the ages (impossible to do, since it was far too varied). The phrase, secondly, 'invention of tradition' refers to a specific book by that name, quite famous for opening up a large new perspective, from which we have learned that most of what we respectively, as citizens and members of various cultures, take for granted as 'traditions' were in fact late constructions dating even to three or four generations back. Lastly, I refrain from editing this article, and have no desire whatsoever to trouble its GA status. The few remarks I have made are those I thought obligatory, as a bystander. NPOV means, functionally, the capacity to see one's own perspective through the imagined eyes of another who shares an opposed understanding, and edit so that both viewpoints achieve balance. That the evidence points towards a more intense rabbinical or pious attachment to that section of the wall historically, seems to be strong. If Maimonides and Nachmanides did not specifically name it, but rather wept at the ruins of a generic Temple, their attachment was not to the wall, but to the Temple. All the more so, even if it is an argumentum ex silentio, Jews throughout the ages were certainly mindful in their thoughts and prayers, of the Temple, but I very much doubt that one can write to NPOV standards by suggesting they imagined, as now all Jews can imagine and visit, a fragment of wall as being that Temple, or the beloved Jerusalem of Biblical memory. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of what you say can be attached to many holy sites, as you have mentioned. Has Al-Aqsa Mosque also undergone the same process? I don’t see anywhere in the article where it says “Jews have venerated the wall for centuries” or similar. It is always “according to Jewish tradition” or “Jewish sources write” or “such and such a pilgrim mentioned” etc. The article does not talk of what the wall meant to “Jews” of previous generations. Indeed, many Israeli school children today are probably not aware of the religious significance of the Wall or the Mount. Is there need for this be mentioned? The fact is, that today, the midrash and laws have been put to paper, and any reference has become of significance to contemporary religious Jewry. As far as I know, whatever images were conjured up in the minds of Jews praying and mourning for the Temple in the diaspora, the fact that Maimonides rules referring to the Temple Mount that “the first sanctity sanctified for eternity” and the early texts which attached the Divine presence to the Wall, is enough for the Wall to have holiness nowadays, albeit, retroactively. Meaning that even if world Jewry up till recent centuries had not viewed the Wall exclusively as a holy site, the holiness was still upon it. And as soon as Jews started growing in number in Jerusalem in the mid-1800’s, the Wall also gathered importance. They could view it, touch it. The Southern wall was ignored, as was the Eastern and Northern wall. So I am not sure why this has become such a problem. You seem to be using this talk page as professing the assumption that historically Jews never thought of the Wall as a holy place, but for what purpose? The article does not claim “Jews” ever thought of it as such.

Regarding the ruins that Maimonides and Nachmanides mentioned; did they refer to the haram area with it’s mosques? Or was it a wall? Maybe a heap of rubble? We don’t know. I have heard the Wall being referred to as Serid Beit Mikdasheinu, which translates as “the remnant of our Temple”. So maybe a generic term was being used. Chesdovi (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have given the wrong impression.If so I apologise. My responses were to remarks on the talk page (with some latent regret that the Moghrabi quarter after 1967 and its four shrines weren't redesigned by negotiation, to allow the plaza to accommodate worshippers). I find this above GA status. It is generally speaking a very good article, and your labours have enriched the encyclopedia. I reread it quickly, and from memory (apart from the minor correction I made). 20,000sq. metres of the plaza have the capacity to accommodate 400,000? Doesn't that work out as 20 people per square metre? p.s. check p.84 the Meron Benvenisti book does not (n54) support the text here(2) The phrasing 'Jews became forbidden by official decree to place benches and light candles at the Wall' is stylistically awkward in English. The problem is 'became', which is clearly intended to indicate a starting point in time but that is implicit in 'were'. 'Became forbidden to' grates on native ears (at least mine) because, even if acceptable, one tends to expect 'from' after 'forbidden'. If one wrote, 'Jews were thereafter forbidden from placing benches and candles by the Wall' it would be better. 'Light' candles creates an amiguity (not heavy/used for lighting) as well as being a pleonasm.Nishidani (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rashid Khalidi

I have looked at Palestinian Identity: The Construction of Modern National Consciousness by Rashid Khalidi and have not found anything of particular relevance. On the contrary, he compliments Simon Goldhill who was cited by Pyrotec. On page 216, note 25 he writes: This dispute about the tethering place of an apocryphal winged horse shows that otherwise sober scholars risk getting carried away where religious claims in Jerusalem are concerned. Read: Islamic myth-making. (Note that the version by Ibn Furkah, (d. 1328), was recently added to the article.)

Rashid Khalidi nowhere in his 1997 book compliments Simon Goldhill's recent book (2008). On this remark, Goldhill is demonstrably wrong, and Rashid Khalidi, an expert, right.

On page 17 he writes that immediately inside the wall of the Haram, near the Moor’s Gate, is a small mosque called Jami’ al-Burqa, commemorating the spot where al-Buraq was supposedly tethered. How this has been extended to the whole wall evades me.

Personally, I am of the opinion that "Al-Buraq Wall" is a 20th century conversion of a non-Muslim place of veneration into a Muslim place of veneration. Chesdovi (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I have numerous proofs that a large part of the Israeli landscape is named after Biblical areas that assume by that naming a sacrality they never had in local Jewish-Palestinian tradition and thus constitute conversion of Muslim places into a place of Jewish veneration, as the Muslims did with the Christians and the Christians with the Biblical Jewish world.

It is not proper to cite selectively. The full note I alluded to from Khalidi runs to runs:

(A) 'Moshe Gil writes in A History of Palestine, 640-1099 (Cambridge University Press, 1992 pp.646-650, of a Jewish synagogue during the early Muslim period which he locates in the vicinity of the Western Wall, but his pinpointing of its location seems singularly vague. He does state (p.646) that in Jewish sources of that period, 'we find that the Western Wall is mentioned almost not at all,' while with regard to Bab al-Rahme (sometimes known as Bawabat al-Rahme,. Or Gates of mercy) on the eastern side of the Haram, he notes (p.643) that “the Jews of this period . . used to visit the gate and pray alongside it, and write about it, mentioning its name (in the singular or the plural) in letters'. Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian Identity' n.23 p.216

Comment Why is Moshe Gil's work not cited? It looks authoritative.

(B)n25.'Ben Dov claims (In the Shadow, p.286) that Muslim devotion to this site dates back only to the nineteenth century, and was a response to the growth of Jewish interest in the adjacent Wailing Wall. He refers to a fifteenth-sixteenth century work by the historian ‘Abd al-Rahman b.Mohammad al-‘Ulaymi, known as Mujir al-Din, to show that Muslims earlier connected al-Buraq to bab al-Rahme on the eastern side of the Haram. Mujir al-Din (d.1521) does suggest this in al Uns al-jalil bi-tarikh al-Quds wal-Khalil, (The glorious history of Jerusalem and hebron), 2 vols. (Amman: Maktabah al-Muhtasib, 1973( 2:28). But a much earlier source, Ba’ith al-nufus ila ziyarat al-Quds al-mahrus (Inspiration to souls to visit protected Jerusalem) (Khalidi Library MS) by Ibrahim b.Ishaq al-Ansari, known as Ibn Furkah (d.1328) states (p.26) that al-Buraq was tethered outside Bab al-Nabi, an old name for a gate that both Gil himself (A History p.645), and Mujir al-Din (al-Uns al-jalil 2:31) identify with the very site along the southwestern wall of the haram venerated by Muslims today! This dispute about the tethering place of an apocryphal winged horse shows that otherwise sober scholars risk getting carried away when religious claims in Jerusalem are concerned.’ p.216

To this one might add that The Wailing Wall is the 13th place a Muslim guide mentions as where a Muslim on pilgrimage should pray. 'The place which the Angel Gabriel (Jibril)drilled with his finger and tied up al-Buraq. Amikam Elad, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, Brill, 1995 pp.70ff. See also Andreas Kaplony, The Haram of Jerusalem, 324-1099,, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002; and Simone Ricca, Reinventing Jerusalem: Israel's Reconstruction of the Jewish Quarter After 1967I.B.Tauris, 2007 p.212, who, after citing Khalidi remarks that other sources referring to the tradition of al-Buraq date from the nineteenth century and include the '1840 Deliberation refusing the Jews the right to pave the area in front of the wall (see Abdul Latif Tibawi, Jerusalem; Its Place in Islam and Arab History, (1969) 1978 p.28

Mufti and Palestinians

In the British rule period, there is constant mention of the "Mufti" but no links to Mohammad Amin al-Husayni which leads the uninformed reader to believe that Mohammed Tahir al-Husayni is the mufti being mentioned. His rule ended in 1908. Also there's no mention of Palestinian use of the site for worship. I am aware that Palestinians over a certain age are allowed to enter and pray at the wall. The former issue is an easy one to fix. As for the latter issue, could we find a source and add the info before the article passes the GA review? --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Al Ameer, if you want a cite specifically, I can give one for Palestinians at the southwestern wall, as opposed to the western section that is The Wailing Wall. Or am I to understand we are dealing with worship in the same plaza? Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed

Please answer the treatise "The Temple Mount and Fort Antonia" (1998) [2] which shows the Western Wall is not of the Temple but Antonia Fortress. -lysdexia 02:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "to answer." If the isolated stance of Ernest L. Martin is reliably sourced, there is no reason why his view should not be included in the article. Chesdovi (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It would also be worthwhile to review WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Does someone want to put his citations in? The treatise doesn't seem to apply to his writeup. -lysdexia 06:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.175.250 (talk)

Ummm...

I was perusing through some of the Judaic pages to do some minor edits, and noticed something that made me do a double take in this article's lead. It states that the wall is known as the al'Buraq wall to Muslims. I do not doubt in any way that is is known by this name by many Muslims, particularly some Palestinian and Jordanian Muslims. However, from everything that I've read, the name is of rather recent provenance, and was never known as such among Muslims until the foundation of modern Israel. If memory serves, it didn't really have any circulation until the last two decades or so. from the obscure claims of Mujir al'Din that the Buraq was left there when Mohammad ascended to paradise, which itself is a legend derived from Sahih al'Bukhari, the provenance of the hadith itself being regarded by some as an addition of a later editor; that's of little relevance here, though. I see this has been mentioned on the talk page already in passing, and I don't advocate any necessity of removing it. However, the attribution itself is sixteenth century, and actual naming of it as the "al'Buraq wall" is incredibly recent. I think we should at the very least clarify this, add another source aside from an obviously politically motivated fatwa for the name, and perhaps move it somewhere besides the lead so we can elaborate on all of this. I just skimmed it, but I'm not even sure the fatwa actually names it as such aside from the title (nevermind, it does). For all I know, it may itself be the origin of the name, with this article helping to disseminate it. Since this, like every Jerusalem-related article, is contentious, I thought it best to get some discussion before I did anything. Kaelus (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, its a point of contention. See above, it is discussed both in the "Lead" subsection of the "POV Issues" section and in the "Rashid Khalidi" section.Pyrotec (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jordanian occupation 1948–1967

I was wondering, from whom did the Jordanian capture the old city of Al-Quds and the wall? and why was the Jordanian rule over it considered occupation, while Israeli rule is considered sovereignty? I don't find this neutral? This should be changed. Yamanam (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer is in the article.Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is referred to as the Jordanian Occupation, because their annexation of the site was not internationally recognised, hence occupation. And while Israel's presence is also not recognised, (the last UN resolution on the matter calls for Jerusalem to be internationalised), in reality, Israel excercises its sovreignty over the site. As this matter is disputed, I did want to add a section on the current legal status of the wall and suggestions mooted during peace negotiations relating to future ownership of the site, but I could not find any good sources. Chesdovi (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Jordan exercised its sovereignty over the wall for the period they controlled it, i think both should be changed to sovereignty or occupation. The Israeli rule is not internationally recognised either and if I'm not incorrect then the Western wall and old city were part of the West bank. Which is under occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.16.207 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Jerusalem is viewed differently from the West Bank. See Positions on Jerusalem and Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. This subject matter is so extensive and there are so many diverse "postions" on the subject, I am not really qualified to determine the correct descriptions. But for the sake of neutrality, I believe Yamanam does have a valid point. Even though the artricle on Jordan's rule calls it occupation, I suggest changing both to "rule" which would hopefuly solve the problem. Chesdovi (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes i belive that could be an acceptable compromise. i would prefer it if you did it as edits by account members are more respectable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.16.207 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I will. But why not become an editor yourself? It only takes a second! Chesdovi (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Catholic bishops

I'm not sure, but maybe the article could report about the famous incident that occured in 2007 when 14 bishops were turned away from the wall. It's a fairly high number of bishops, and it informs about Jewish attitudes about people from other religions wanting to visit the wall. [3] ADM (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been many visits to the wall by promenent non-Jewish religious leaders. This has been noted in the article. This specific event is mentioned in the article on Shmuel Rabinowitz. If anything, it informs us about Christian attitudes towards respecting the sensitivities of people from another religion, at their holiest site no less! Chesdovi (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Many non Jewish people have visited the Kotel. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Will Smith, Enrique Iglesias, Pope John Paul II. Perhaps you should read up about Mecca. The city of Mecca doesn't allow non Muslims to enter their city at all! People of all religions are welcome to visit Jerusalem however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.34.55 (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Reply to what the King of Saudi Arabia said:

Actually If Jews have no rights, so are Islams. They have no rights either, only christians have rights and holy places in Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.6.150 (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "Wailing Wall"

The article says that the name "Wailing Wall" was introduced by the British in 1917. If you go to the advanced search at books.google.com and search for the name "Wailing Wall" prior to 1917 you will find numerous disproofs. For example, The Jewish Advocate for the Young by J.J. Reynolds, published in 1859 has it (p34). Horatius Bonar, "Days and Nights in the East" published in 1866 has "Jewish Wailing-Wall" as a chapter running head (p191). Similarly Memories of Olivet by John Ross Macduff published in 1868 has it. Prior to 1917 there are actually tons of examples. So what can we do to fix our article? Zero^talk 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Could this be fixed by saying that "By the mid-19th century, the term Wailing Wall or Jews' Wailing Place, had become common usage in western publications. Reports of 19th century European travellers often referred to the wall as the “wailing place of the Jews”"? Chesdovi (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was always taught at school that the name of Wailing Wall came about during the years between 1948-1967 when Jews weren't allowed to visit their holy site and many Jews wept because they couldn't pray there hence the name Wailing Wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.34.55 (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Buraq?

While the article explains that the term Wailing Wall derived from a translation of the Arabic el-Mabka, and that the Arabs later came to call the wall al-Buraq, it does not explain what al-Buraq means. Translation, please? LordAmeth (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Chesdovi (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor POV/voice issues

I think this is an excellently written article overall; towards that, I would suggest refraining from identifying parties as best as possible by religion. That is, there is a distinct difference between stating (factually) that "a Jewish or Muslim contingent did or said X" as opposed to writing "Jews did X or Muslims did Y." It is sadly commonplace to lump people and policy by religion and it needlessly detracts from otherwise clear legal and historical points made throughout the article. Needless to say, these sorts of issues are often discussed poorly and I'm glad to see some serious scholarship on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.231.187 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing what is properly sourced is usually not acceptable. It is important to know who claimed what in that report. -- Avi (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you asked for a source; I brought the best possible one - the original report from the 1930's, of which those sentences are all but a direct quote. Whitewashing is just as severe a POV violation as smearing; we need to be accurate per the sources. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

UK authority: Western Wall not in Israel

Info from this news article should be added to the article: [4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Resnicoff interfaith service

I am removing the following text. Reason: Too much space given to insignificant occurance. Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Asst. U.S. Sixth Fleet Chaplain Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff leads a highly unusual interfaith service, including men and women. The service was approved by the Israel Ministry of Religious Affairs, in the enclosed area of the Wall now restricted to men.

In September 1983, U. S. Sixth Fleet Chaplain Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff was allowed to hold an unusual interfaith service at the Wall, in the enclosed area to the left of the exposed Wall, now strictly restricted to men. The ten-minute service was attended by men and women in the U.S. Navy, in addition to some family members, and ended with the Priestly Blessing, recited by Resnicoff, who is a Kohen. A Ministry of Affairs representative was present, responding to press queries that the service was authorized as part of a special welcome for the U.S. Sixth Fleet.

---

--------------NEW COMMENT/RESPONSE: Temporarily replacing this section which was unilaterally deleted, to have the question of deletion discussed on this site by other editors. Chesdovi calls this an "insignificant occurance" -- but it is the only instance to my knowledge when the Israeli Ministry of Religions (misrad hadatot) officially allowed a mixed-sex, mixed-religion official ceremony at the Wall. It hit the papers, including both the Israeli and International versions of the Jerusalem Post (referenced in wikipedia). It was an official action of the Israeli government in honor of the first official visit of the U.S. Navy Sixth Fleet Flagship. FULL DISCLOSURE: ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO ADDED THIS SECTION, I WAS INVOLVED IN THIS EVENT, AND AM NOT NEUTRAL. HOWEVER, I AM THEREFORE AWARE OF THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. I will not be part of the decision, other than this request for a group discussion and decision. I very much think this is a matter to be decided by group consensus, not by one person who unilaterally decides an unusual historical event is "insignificant." NearTheZoo (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Location

For those who do not support showing a map of the West Bank to denote the location of the Western Wall. What do you all support? How is its location within Israel justified? -asad (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is justified because Israel controls and manages the site, just as the Israeli parliament is considered as being in Israel for the very same reason. We have to present the facts as the are. If and when the wall becomes part of an international zone or part of another sovereign nation, the map will reflect that. The West Bank reflects borders that existed for a period 19 years, and they are currently not defined. Using the WB map would be like using the Hasmonean Kingdom map, using a map based on historic borders, but not a current entity. Meanwhile, the Israeli flag flies above the wall, showing that its in Israel. That Israeli presence is deemed illegitimate by the UN does not negate the reality. If it were 1964, the map of Jordan would be used, not the "West Bank". As Israel now holds the site, why should the map of Israel not feature? Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's still not part of Israel. Let's not have this conversation on every possible Jerusalem related page. Actually, it should probably get taken up at the I-P Collaboration section, I may do that. But no, it's not part of Israel according to anyone but Israel. If it's going to become another flashpoint we can just remove the map. Sol (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I did completely removed the map previously, until every single one of my edits was undone by a of a sock puppet (of who's name I will not mention). For the record, I am fine with having a map, so long as it is accurate. -asad (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The recycling of these old, worn out arguments is becoming quite exhausting. This can all end very quickly. Here's how: Chesdovi, please provide a source, other than Israeli, that states that the Western Wall is in Israel? Better yet, please provide a reliable map which shows the coordinates of the Western Wall to be in Israel. Other than that, to clarify something you misstated earlier, the Israeli Parilment rests in West Jerusalem, under full and internationally recognized, sovereign, Israeli territory. The Western Wall rests in Occupied Palestinian Territory, so says the entire world. -asad (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, first just to be clear, are you saying that EJ is Pleastinian while WJ is not Israeli or Palestinian, ie. WJ is no mans land? Chesdovi (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if it is called tim-buck-two, if it resides west of the 1949/1967 "green" line, the world recognizes it to be Israel. East Jerusalem and the Western Wall rests within Occupied Palestinian Territory. -asad (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The Western Walls location is in the West Bank/Palestinian territories, this is the view of the entire world, we must follow Wikipedia policy npov and follow the world view which says that its located in WB/PT. To claim its in Israel with an Israel map is a violation of npov and factually incorrect.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Asad, I seemed to have misunderstood you before. Anyway, here is the non-israeli source you requested [5]. Chesdovi (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Please don't tell me that is the best source you can up with, an encyclopedia "Ganges to Graceland". We should all disregard the U.N., the U.N. Security Council, the CIA World Factbook, the European Union, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights watch, B'Tselem, etc. Ganges to Graceland covers it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Nab was happy to use this source to "prove" Rachels Tomb was located in PA. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, is this article about Rachael's tomb or the Western Wall? And am I Asad or Nableezy? It seems like your dodging the fact that every major source in international law and academia regards East Jerusalem to be in occupied territory. So we have two options now, going with what Israel and "Ganges to Graceland" says, or, again, the entire world. -asad (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"Ganges to Graceland" does cover quite alot of the globe. Also, the UNSC has never said the Western Wall is in OPT. Neither have the others AFAIK. The last I heard is that the entire world wants to share Jerusalem and make it an international city. Chesdovi (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This argument is becoming incredibly asinine. Do you want to argue about whether or not the Western Wall is in East Jerusalem? I thought must would understand, when I named all these organizations, they didn't specifically say the "Western Wall", they spoke about East Jerusalem or occupied territory. Logically, this leads me to believe that you don't see the Western Wall to be in East Jerusalem. You should have just said that from the start. -asad (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

SD, i would not go as far as saying the WW is in the WB. Its in EJ. It is another question whether OEJ in in the WB or not. Chesdovi (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SD, you made such a nice map for the Golan Heights (POV as it may be), would you be able to make one we can use for Jerusalem loctions everyone is happy with? Chesdovi (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The map I created is following the entire worldview, there is nothing "pov" about it. I dont have to create a new map for this article as there is already one perfectly fit for it named the Palestinian territories location map: [6]. The entire world view is that its part of the Palestinian Territories:[7]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't presume to speak for the entire world, but it seems to me this debate is unlikely to end anytime soon. There is a way to bypass the entire issue. Since the Western Wall is located in the Old City, which is stated in the lead, would it not make sense to adopt the map used in that article's infobox (File:Map of Jerusalem - the old city - EN.png|250px)? No country names to argue over, and the Wall is already marked on it. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is your objection to using the map SD just provided? Does it not show East Jerusalem? Hell, it evens makes East Jerusalem's color appear not to be that of the West Bank or Israel. Why is that not satisfying? -asad (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't care for my suggestion. WP should miss no opportunity to be apolitical. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted to be apolitical, you wouldn't simply have no reservations using a broad, well geographically defined map that is accurate and that the entire world accepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank according to:

-the UN and the ICJ

Finding definitive statements that it's not part of Israel is like shooting fish in a barrel (have Haaretzreporting it as the opinion of the international community, to start with).

For the record, I don't care what map we use as long as it doesn't conform with the extreme minority view that East Jerusalem is in Israel. Old City is fine by me, I'm just a little weary of this conversation taking place everywhere. Sol (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)