Talk:Rachel's Tomb

Is the Jerusalem_Center_for_Public_Affairs a reliable source, and should it be used?

As I understand it, this is a political think tank with an agenda, not a reliable source. I do not see any role for this source in an unbiased article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Is UNESCO a reliable source, and should it be used? As I understand it, this is a political think tank with an agenda, not a reliable source. I do not see any role for this source in an unbiased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand it to be an international organisation, part of the United Nations - not a think tank- and its decisions to represent the views of the member governments. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

JCPA is clearly not an unbiased RS on this issue. However I think inclusion is warranted on the basis that they are a significant opinion so long as it is attributed to JCPA and not as fact in the Wiki voice. Dlv999 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be ring-fenced as a partial view.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The NewYork Times described it's head as a long term advisor and supporter of Netanyahu. I feel that this is not reflected in the ways its views are presented in this article, especially in the coverage of the Israeli government's dispute with all other governments bar one at UNESCO - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/world/middleeast/arab-spring-and-iran-tensions-leave-palestinians-sidelined.html 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The JCPA should be deleted and left deleted as its not a valid source versus UNESCO.Historylover4 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Is UNESCO important enough to mention in the lede?

I can't see why it isn't, and can see no explanation for its removal from the lede other than censorship by those who disagree.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How are a bunch of foreign imperialists' views relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which country you are from, but in reference to a religious site that is part of world heritage, the United Nations would seem relevant. There is currently a lot of representation in the article given to arguably "foreign imperialists" - that is to say the Israeli government from the perspective of the West Bank.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In global terms the Israeli position on the mosque is clearly a fringeminority position. The decision by UNESO only recieve one opposing vote. The article is majorly biased throughout, presenting the Israeli position (not accepted by the rest of the world) as the only opinion on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What can be done about this? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per NPOV all significant opinions should be presented. This means the Palestinian/Muslim perspective and the rest of the world as well as the Israeli opinion. In terms of acknowledging that it is a mosque - the Israeli position is clearly the minority opinion, as evidenced by the solitary opposing vote recognising it as a mosque at UNESCO. per NPOV minority opinions should not be given undue weight. Dlv999 (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Have found a quote from the UNESCO document - "These cultural treasures are special to all of humanity in addition to the religious significance ascribed to them by people of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish traditions. Since Israel’s occupation, the Israeli Government has attempted to highlight the Jewish character of archaeological and heritage sites in the occupied Palestinian territory, while erasing or neglecting the universal character of these heritage sites and denying access to all people of faith. This Israeli policy has been used as a political tool to maintain and entrench control over Palestinian lands and resources and as a pretext for its continued settlement activity in contravention of international law. In fact, much of the settlement enterprise is concentrated around archaeological areas where Israel makes claims of exclusive heritage, including the settlements of Shilo, Bet El and Kiryat Arba." It seems to describe the current state of this article quite well.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Muslim and Arab positions are a racist fringe/minority opinion not worthy of being mentioned in this article.

How is the opinion of a modern foreign anti-Semitic imperialist European organization that represents all peoples except Jews and aids a hostile foreign people who invaded Israel that are intent on usurping ancient Jewish sites and history relevant to an article on an ancient Jewish holy site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read Racism. There are not many Jews in the world - they are a small majority in Israel and the territories controlled by Israel. There are a lot more Arabs, and about a hundred times as many Muslims than Jews in the world -[[1]]. UNESCO represents about 49 governments.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. UNESCO has 196 Member States.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226" is a Zionist right wing loony toon, apparently the world is out to "get Jews" put aside those little facts about AIPAC, and Europe leaders bowing before Netanyahu! According to this extremist "Jews are under attack"!!Historylover4 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"Third most important site in Judaism"?

I have been looking for a ranking of important sites in Judaism, but have been unable to find one. While some sources describe this site as the "Third most important site in Judaism", others do not. What or who makes it the third most important site - as opposed to the 4th, or 5th - and is such ranking actually part of mainstream Jewish faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The "source" is likely the "jcpa" again.Historylover4 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a joking riposte to the claim that Jerusalem is 3rd-most holy in Islam. In Judaism, Jerusalem dwarfs everything else in holiness; other sites are mainly either not definitely known and outside the traditional Land of Israel (e.g. the places of events of Exodus), or have a somewhat mixed and ambiguous legacy (e.g. Shiloh)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Many Biblical scholars doubt that these stories reflect any actual persons or happenings - see The Bible and History.

I have added this to the Biblical History section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rachel born 11 Cheshvan 1553 BC

This is definitely not known to history. If some interpretive text claims this, then the text needs to be specified... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)