This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism 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
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 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? PRtalk16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. PRtalk20:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk09:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk22:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). PRtalk20:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk20:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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! PRtalk09:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. PRtalk15:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk16:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk21:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk21:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. PRtalk10:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'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.'
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Disputed
Please answer the treatise "The Temple Mount and Fort Antonia" (1998) [1] which shows the Western Wall is not of the Temple but Antonia Fortress. -lysdexia 02:51, 3 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [2]ADM (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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]
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? Zerotalk02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[1]
--------------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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: [5]. The entire world view is that its part of the Palestinian Territories:[6]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank according to:
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)[reply]
No map at all then? This issue is causing to much drama on to many articles. If there is any chance that it is also confussing the reader then simply remove it.Cptnono (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of not using a map at all, or using such a tiny map that is geographically unrecognizable to the majority of people, why not use the map SD provided? No one has provided a legitimate, factual, counterpoint. I don't buy the "my way or the highway" bit. -asad (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wall was in East Jerusalem from between 5:00pm on May 28, 1948 until 10:00am on June 7, 1967. Since then it has been in eastern Jerusalem, and managed as part of Israel. Why should Jerusalem be viewed as being part of the West Bank anymore than being part of the Corpus separatum which is still prescribed by the IC? The West Bank implies an area that belongs to an Arab party, but Jerusalem's status is yet to be determined and is not the legal teritory of either Israel, Jordan or the PA. Chesdovi (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ad nauseum: East Jerusalem part of Occupied Palestinian Territory, per international law, per near worldwide recogniztion of such facto per all the above reasons stated that you continue to ignore. Ad Nauseum. East Jerusalem is not yet to be determined, it is currently occupied Palestinian Territory. Legally (by near unanimous consent) it is occupied Palestinian territory, therefore, the suitable map would be the one SD provided. This is not the Israeli MFA Web site. I have no problem debating you, but you have absolutely failed every time you try to refute the FACT that this is occupied Palestinian Territory. And your constant recycling and word mingling is getting extremely old, Chesdovi. -asad (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have worldview source saying EJ is PT, we have no source contradicting this. Based on this, we have no other option but to correct the map to the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, you are right now basically just saying: "no", I have provided a world view source saying its part of the PT, you have not provided a worldview source saying its not.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying there are not sources that say it is simply "Jerusalem"? This article isn't about international law arguments and "world view" still has a significant minority view as opposed to a fringe view. This argument is lame. It is in Jeruselem according to sources, right?Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that's your prerogative, but unfortunately for your position, have you provided zero sources, other than weak evidence that is been shot down by official damning proof. I say we move forward with this if your final comment on the matter is that you are not convinced, otherwise, please provide a LEGITIMATE source. -asad (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asad claims that "the Israeli Parliament rests in West Jerusalem, under full and internationally recognized, sovereign, Israeli territory." That is not 100% true. Also, that "East Jerusalem part of Occupied Palestinian Territory, per international law," and that "East Jerusalem is not yet determined, it is currently occupied Palestinian Territory. Legally (by near unanimous consent) it is occupied Palestinian territory." The real view of the IC is that EJ forms part of the CS, and while most consider it "occupied territory" and propose it be ceded to Palestine, it is not "Palestinian territory" any more than WJ is part of “Israeli territory”. EJ may be OT, but it is currently administered by Israel. Before Israel's control, the city was shown on maps as forming part of Jordan, but even then it was not recognised as "Jordanian territory". The UN has never granted Israel WJ and neither has it granted EJ to "Palestine". Now I may be wrong, but the term OPT may not actually denote Palestine as in belonging to the PA, rather it quite innocently means territories occupied by Israel in historic Palestine, but given that the term PT connotes an association the PA, it cannot be used to define parts of Jerusalem which would give the impression that it forms part of land internationally recognised as legally belonging to the PA. Chesdovi (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of of the different legal implications between a General Assembly suggestion and a Security Council resolution? Because if you were, you would understand that corpus separatum has no legal backbone and saying the UN considers that to be the borders of Jerusalem is just as valid as saying the UN considers the partition plan borders to be the borders of Israel. -asad (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the only border Israel yet has to determine is its one with the West Bank. The UN have demarcated its border with Lebanon and Syria. When peace was made with Egypt and Jordan, the final border between each of the countries were set. The '48 ceasefire line is not the international border, as 242 makes clear. It is clear that the IC consider the status of Jerusalem as CS. It is not Israeli territory, nor Palestinian territory. EJ may be called "Arab", but thats because its descibing what the area is in reality, just like the map should show whose control it is under in reality. Most Arab countries do not recognise Israeli presence in WJ, let alone in Israel itself. They also reject the CS plan. So we cannot say "West Jerusalem, under full and internationally recognized, sovereign, Israeli territory. Chesdovi (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, ad nauseam. I never claimed it was a border in the sense of demarcating to sovereign states. The 1949 armistice line only serves a purpose to demarcate the land Israel captured illegally in 1967. For that purpose, the border is pretty clearly defined. And it just so happens, in the Jerusalem area, one of the most western edges is right on the outside of the walls of the Old City (which contains the Western Wall). We have provided source after source of showing that East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory, the only thing you have provided are snippets from books that source 30-year-old committee meetings which more than likely are completed unverifiable on the internet. Please provide a source, not a book with footnotes as the source, the source SOURCED in the footnotes. -asad (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The land was caputed legally. The question of illegality would refer to the settling of civilains there, etc. Occupation is a legal function provided for in IL. It was Jordan who illegaly attacked. If you don't want to go 30 years back, (the UN position still stands, as does Res. 242), we can always use current US policy which views EJ as separate from the WB. Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not aware of the bombing of Egyptian Airfields?? Anyways that is a different discussion, what amazes me, is that when directly asked to provide sources you never do. Could you provide a source that shows it still stands? Because I have already provided sources showing that East Jerusalem is lumped with in with the West Bank which is considered OPT. -asad (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the centralized discussion failed but it still seems like a problem having this image on this article. File:Israel location map.svg can be used with the bottom not saying "Israel" but instead "Jerusalem" which appears correct regardless of the city's status in the eyes of the intl community. Highlighting "Palestinian Territories" seems inappropriate since "Israel" is also a possible location. Furthermore, it is not like the Gaza Strip is united with the other areas so why is it highlighted? The image I suggest is clear enough (there are disputed territories seen by the highlighting) but there is no confusion as to a lesser accepted and confusingly designated entity being the focus. Other solutions include: No map at all since it only serves to emphisise a particular viewpoint (why we don't use flags), a map of the city, or a map with all areas highlighted but boundaries clearly defined. No one has presented a map of the city with a marker or a map of the region with a marker but without highlights so those seem like solutions that should not be considered unless someone plans on creating them. Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These books in no way outweigh the worldview sources already provided previously in this discussion, nor do they come from a body which has a legal voice. Finally, not a single one has footnotes or sources. I'm reverting back. -asad (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying the discussion is closed, I am reverting it back to a version which worldview sources agree upon. Though it is funny after my comment, you inferred that I would be "edit warring" if I reverted back because there was no "consensus", but you made no such comment after Jiujutsuguy's comment and subsequent revert. That doesn't say a lot about your credibility and ability to act neutrally. -asad (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The site is not anymore in the Palestinian territories as it is in Israel. The status of Jerusalem is undefined. The US for sure does not view Jerusalem as forming part of the Palestinian territories, like it does not view any part of Jerusalem as part of Israel. The reason why we have the Israel map is because Israel controls the area. We have the PA map for Joseph’s tomb. And the Gaza map for Gaza Synagogue. We have the Israel map for Cave of the Patriarch’s and Western Wall and Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read all the above provided sources showing that the IC views East Jerusalem as part of Occupied Palestinian Territory. And by your argument, we should have replaced the maps of Iraq and Afghanistan with that of a United States map when the US was occupying and controlling those countries. -asad (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The US does not claim those lands. There is dispute about Jerusalem. Some sources will say it is PT, other will say neither PT or IT, like the CIA handbook. Between 48-67, there was even a dispute with regard to EJ being viewed as part of Jordan or not. So what makes you so sure it truly is part of PT now? The whole of the WB remain undefined. It was never part of a Palestinian run entity in the past. And some parts are still not run under a Palestinian entity. We cannot have the PA flag or map showing PT. I will add that during 48-67, EJ was shown as part of Jordan, it being under J control. Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asad, the location (israel vs. OPT) is a matter of dispute, and there does not seem to be consensus for your position, esp.when your biggest supporter so far has turned out to be a sockpupeting hacker who was just banned. So instead of edit warring in the article, please discuss here to get to a consensus version. If I may toss my 2 cents here, I don't think you are going to get a lot of sympathy for the POV that the wall, which under every realitic scenario will remain in Israeli hands, should be presented in a map that says it is Palestinian. Rym torch (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Temple Mount, not merely the Western Wall, is holy to Jews too, not just Muslims as the icons imply. -- Avi (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the map is denoting holy sites rather areas were the faiths pray. If the map was to insert symbols for holy sites, the western wall should also have a crescent symbol, as it is holy to Muslims as well. -asad (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I a concerned about the removal of a video showing praying at the site. We have a whole subsection o prayer at the wall so I don;t se ow it can be POV. The video is appropriately licensed. I was incorrect when I said the video did not say it is in Israel. It shows at the bottom for a matter of seconds. And some people do consider it in Israel. That is also discussed in the sources. This video offers media that is a benefit to the reader.[11]
I don't think anywhere in WP policy does it say that videos are not held to the same standards as the rest of the content on WP. If we wouldn't write Jerusalem, Israel in an article or a map, why would we write it on a video? What makes the video so special?
Yes, it is a good and interesting video that, but it should be edited and held to the same standard as any other bit of content is on WP. No reason to settle for less. -asad (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the claims that the wall is in Israel needs to be removed from the video. Also, I think the enitre section under Media, should be removed under WP:Galleries. There are numerous images already throughout the article, and the images in this section do not add anything new to the article. The appropriate place for mass images would be the commons where there are 181 images of the wall already. Passionless-Talk22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
wailing wall location map
The wailing wall location map (second figure in the article) doesn't indicate the wailing wall location in any way I can see. If I just missed it I'm sorry - but if I did miss it, maybe it is because the location is not shown obviously enough. After all, the purpose of the second figure is to show the location of the Wailing Wall, not to just show a map of Jerusalem. How about a nice arrow, or maybe increase the line weight of the Wailing Wall's lines, to make it more obvious. Something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.237.168.167 (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two important images nominated for deletion! Please help
'Its importance to Judaism is less ancient than is commonly thought. We know, for instance, from ancient Jewish pilgrims and travellers, that in 1481 the Mount of Olives (outside the Old City) and not the Wailing Wall was the place dedicated to the annual commemoration of the destruction of the Temple. F.E. Peters, in his comprehensive collection of travellers' and pilgrims' documents on Jerusalem, observes that it was only from the early sixteenth century that Jewish visitors described te Western Wall and connected it with the earlier tradition of the 'Presence of God'. Even the 'official' history of the wall by Ben-Dov ety al.openly states that for hundreds of years there has been no mention at all of the wall in the written sources.' Simone Ricca, Reinventing Jerusalem: Israel's Reconstruction of the Jewish Quarter after 1967,I.B.Tauris, 2007 pp.39-40
An 800 year old wall holding back part of the hill jutting out from the Western Wall leading up to the Mughrabim Gate partially collapses. Authorities believe a recent earthquake may be responsible[2][3]. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Recent events" section of the Temple Mount article would appear to be a more appropriate location. Because the collapse took place in 2004, the item should be stated in the past tense ("collapsed", "believed", "may have been"). Hertz1888 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "One old woman was buried under the houses as the bulldozer razed the area". The Hebrew Wikipedia ( https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/שכונת_המוגרבים#.D7.AA.D7.97.D7.AA_.D7.A9.D7.9C.D7.98.D7.95.D7.9F_.D7.99.D7.A9.D7.A8.D7.90.D7.9C ) has a different version: a woman without signs of injuries ("ללא סימני פגיעה") was found dying and efforts to help her were to no avail. Clearly there's a contradiction between the versions. If she was "buried under the houses" there ought to have been some marks upon her. Perhaps she died of heart attack (or of old age)? Four (!) references are provided as, I suppose, a proof for the English version, but clicking them I found no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.76.194 (talk • contribs)
Someone who is crushed might not have obvious external injuries. Here is the description by Tom Segev in 1967 (pp. 400–401):
Some refused to leave their homes. The bulldozers approached and the weeping residents departed only after the walls of their houses began to come down. Floodlights lit up the darkened area. One elderly woman was found beneath the ruins of a wall. She was unconscious and clearly dying, although there were no external signs of injury. She was taken out of the rubble in her bed and efforts were made to help her, beneath the floodlights, among the clouds of dust raised by the bulldozers. By the time medical help arrived, the woman had died.
A more detailed description of the destruction of the Mughrabi quarter is in Gorenberg, Accidental Empire. He identifies the source of several versions. About the woman who died he says only:
A semiconscious old woman, Hajja Rasmia Tabaki, was pulled from one half-destroyed house and died in the course of the night.
I did not found this claim anywhere. Extraordinary claims needs multiple sources. The woman who died was obviously not the victim of "bulldozing"--Tritomex (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also the claim that the Mughrabi quarter was 800-year old needs sourcing!--Tritomex (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Please if anyone can check this (bulldozing of old woman claim) as the sources provided eighter do not support this claim or are not reliable.--Tritomex (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources I just gave are reliable sources. And there is nothing in the least extraordinary about it. Actually it is a very well known story. Zerotalk15:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. There's no problem there. As for the 800 years, that's a round figure, and like all round figures, a touch rubbery if you hairsplit. Founded in 1197 it was demolished in 1967, i.e. it was 770 years old, thirty years short 800. The convention is to round off to the nearest century, but if the three extra decades worries the life out of you, you're welcome to adjust to almost/roughly 800 yr old. By the way Rashid Khalidi says the number of Muslim residents evicted was approximately 1,000 (Palestinian Identity: Construction of Modern National Consciousness 2010 p.17)Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re Zero's self-revert
I think the text Z04 thought suspect is so.
"Most Jews, religious and secular, consider the wall to be important to Judaism since it was originally built to hold the Second Temple." —
Compare:-
(a) A site that had never been considered to possess extra holiness and that had been used for centuries in Byzantine and early Muslim Jerusalem as the municipal dump was transformed into a landfillof political, financial, nationalist and religious passions. … Those who consider themselves “normal” Israelis long ago convinced themselves that the Wall has no meaning to them. Enlightened parts of society treat it as a laughable load of stones. Anshel Pfeffer At the Western Wall, the sacred stones might become the stepping stone for Third Temple dreams at Haaretz 15 May, 2013
(b)'The first testimony to the transformation of the Western Wall into a sacred site for worship comes only from the 16th century. “It is known that in the past sanctity was not attributed to the Wall, and the [early] written sources and writings left by Jewish visitors in the Middle Ages testify that the Western Wall was no more important than the other walls of the Temple Mount,” according to Dr. Gabriel Barkay, a professor of archaeology at Bar-Ilan University, in an article in the journal Ariel in July 2007. The Wall, he wrote, became a holy site only in the early modern period. “From the start of the sanctification of the Western Wall, in the 16th century, the traditions in the texts of the Sages were transferred from the western wall of the Temple to the western wall of the Temple Mount,” . . . In the 20th century a tradition began to take root, whereby the Western Wall was said to be the spot where the Prophet Mohammed tied his flying horse Al-Buraq after the journey from Mecca to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Because of this, the 1928-1929 disturbances are called the “Al-Buraq Revolution” by Arabs. Historians have found that this version of the story of the winged horse developed only after the Jews began to attribute importance to the site, and that it was politically motivated.' Ofer Aderet Prayers, notes and controversy: How a wall became the Western wall at Haaretz, May 14, 2013
The romance in both sources and our article illustrate blindness to the way 'traditions' are invented, consolidated, finessed for 'everyone' who is loaded with an ethnic or national identity. Now, let's see which editor ignores most of these articles' indications but jumps in to insert just the stuff about the al-Buraq legend's function! Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I'm collecting stuff on al-Buraq. Only the very best, of course. What is in this article is self-contradictory, and basically useless. Not as bad as Al-Buraq mosque though, which is simply wrong (see my comment in the talk page there). Alas, Aderet is wrong about it too; the tradition is provably much older. So much to do... Meanwhile, can we find Barkay's article? See here about Ariel. Zerotalk13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Aderet is wrong or certainly, as is often predictable, phrasing things in a highly partisan manner which, if you are not a careless reader, will mislead. See, if you haven't read it already, The ladder of ascension in Alexander Altmann, Von der mittelalterlichen zur modernen Aufklärung: Studien zur jūdischen Geistesgeschichte, Mohr Siebeck,1987 pp.30-58 esp.p.57. By the way, every scrap of historical notice about praying at the wall is registered. No mention is made of the number of Jewish travellers who ignored it.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see this secular scepticism (and even in religious quarters, Leibowitz etc) about the holiness for Jews (indiscriminately bundled together) of the place, is neatly described by Uri Avnery today Women of the Wall at Counterpunch 17-19, May 2013. He was there the day the Mughrabi Quarter was torn down. 'Diskotel' is brilliant.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I await a similar article by Uri about Jews not being able to pray atop the mount itself. He also seems he thinks the Mughrabi neighbourhood was but a century-old. Seems he's disturbed more by the manner the quarter was brought down, rather than the destruction of antiquities. Chesdovi (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi
The Scroll of Ahimaaz (1050), also refers to the Western Wall as a Jewish place of prayer.[19]
N 19.Die Rolle des Ahimaz nennt im 11Jh. westlich des Tempelplatzes eine Synagoge. (Ihre heutige hohe Bedeutung erhielt die Klagemauer jedoch erst seit etwa 1520.)
Please construe the German source correctly, and reformulate your edit so that text and source correspond. If you don't know what a source says, refrain from using it (Ostensibly it looks like supporting the next sentence, which is sourced to Martin Gilbert. However the German text does not say 'Shortly before the Crusader period a synagogue stood at the site.')Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before I removed this reference a short while ago, I looked at three different translations of Ahimaaz (though one of them, in German, I didn't understand too well). I think it is just an allusion to the Talmudic stories about prayer at the western wall of the temple itself, but that's only my opinion so ignore it. The English translation of Harari says "oil for the inner temple of the sanctuary at the western wall" and there is debate about what it means. One author (Dinur) claimed it proves there was a synagogue on the mount itself. Others (Gil, Peters) propose that there was a synagogue in the vicinity of the Western Wall and suggest (without offering real evidence) that it was inside the wall at the Priest's Gate. The Priest's Gate is now known as Barclay's Gate, whose lintel is visible at the south end of the women's section at the Western Wall. It has been sealed for about 1000 years, but there is a space inside accessible from the top of the mount which for at least 150 years has been called the Mosque of el Buraq. I don't mind Ahimaaz being present, so long as it is presented as a "maybe". It is at most a "maybe". Zerotalk13:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If my memory serves me correct, some early Jewish scholars did view the wall as being part of the Temple itself. Anyway, it seems that all translations cited above agree that there was a synagogue in the vicnity, whether it was at the foot of the wall as we know it nowadays or not, does not really matter here. The fact is, Ahimaz mentions there was a place designated for Jewish prayer specifically on the western side of Temple ruins. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can report what scholars write about, including all opinions. Zerotalk
Incidentally, this 1930 source cannot be used except for the opinion of the Jewish Agency. It is a polemical document produced in the heat of the battle and should not be quoted in neutral voice any more than we would so quote the Arab Higher Committee submission produced at the same time. It is very biased and full of deception (witness the list of sources that don't mention the Buraq story but omitting others, even different issues of the same periodical, that do). Zerotalk14:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But surely we do not discount everything contained in this source? We use it with care, and I think it is safe to cite Cyrus Adler on this point, that the scroll is "definite evidence of worship" at the site. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely the sort of source we shouldn't touch with a 40-ft pole, as my father used to say. That doesn't stop us from citing other sources for the same claims, provided they are good sources. Zerotalk16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin and Chelo
When I checked the writings of Benjamin of Tudela, I saw what seemed to be a very clear reference to the Western Wall. This created an quibble in my poor brain: since Benjamin is so well known, why do so many scholars say there were no clear references to devotion at the Western Wall until later centuries? In addition, there is the story of the "western wall" attributed to Rabbi Chelo, which is also seemingly ignored.
Just now I realised why, and it shows the danger of interpreting primary sources. They weren't referring to the Western Wall at all. Here is proof.
Benjamin of Tudela (edition of Adler, 1907, pp. 22–23):
Jerusalem has four gates-the gate of Abraham, the gate of David, the gate of Zion, and the gate of Gushpat, which is the gate of Jehoshaphat, facing our ancient Temple, now called Templum Domini. Upon the site of the sanctuary Omar ben al Khataab erected an edifice with a very large and magnificent cupola, into which the Gentiles do not bring any image or effigy, but they merely come there to pray. In front of this place is the western wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and thither come all the Jews to pray before the wall of the court of the Temple.
Chelo (edition of Adler, "Jewish Travellers", 1930, pp. 130–131):
The holy city possesses to-day four gates : the Gate of Mercy, at the east; the Gate of David, at the west; the Gate of Abraham, at the north; the Gate of Zion at the south. Leaving the city by the Gate of Mercy, we climb the Mount of Olives, the mountain of oil, the place where of old the red calf was burnt. It is here that we find the valley of Jehoshaphat, the brook Kedron, Bethphage, and the cemetery of the Israelites. ... It is this western wall which stands before the temple of Omar ibn al Khattab, and which is called the Gate of Mercy. The Jews resort thither to say their prayers, as Rabbi Benjamin has already related.
Did you notice the problem? Both these rabbis place the "western wall" at the Gate of Mercy, but the Gate of Mercy is in the east wall of the Temple Mount. Not only does every scholar concur that that is where the Gate of Mercy is, but Chelo says so quite explicitly. Benjamin does too but it is not quite as plain: the Gate of Mercy is not listed in the four gates because it is the same as the Gate of Jehoshaphat according to him (the Gate of Jehoshaphat was in the east wall, according to Gil). Both these rabbis are referring to the east wall. Now I found this conclusion also in the book Jerusalem by F. E. Peters (p328). Peters doesn't suggest why these gentlemen would call the east wall "west", but I will (OR follows): on climbing the Mount of Olives just as Chelo suggests, one sees to the west the "temple of Omar ibn al Khattab" and the wall with the "Gate of Mercy" right in front of it. Zerotalk16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Brilliant. You've matter there for another article). Note that it was just inside the Gate of Mercy, the gate on the wall west of the Mt of Olives, where an inscription was found which reads 'The traveller, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, noted of the Western Wall that all the Jews wrote their names on the Wall'.Menashe Har-El, Golden Jerusalem,Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2004 p.42. Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is not something what could be part of Wikipedia articles.Btw after checking numerous sources I found that the claim that Mugharbi quarter was 800 years old or built in 12th century does not stand.--Tritomex (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we shouldn't have any original research in articles. Therefore, the primary sources Benjamin and Chelo, assumed by some Wikipedia editor to refer to the Western Wall when they don't, are not permissible. We are often lenient in this respect when the content of the primary source is self-evident and uncontested, but that is not the case here. With Chelo, it is even more obvious, since he states explicitly that his "western wall" is at the "Gate of Mercy, at the east". It isn't original research to read a source carefully. Anyway, as I mentioned, the prominent historian Francis Edwards Peters agrees with my conclusion. I just checked Peters' book and he also describes the founding of the Maghrebi quarter in the 12th century, with quotations from the primary sources. Zerotalk01:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tudela should be in the article, along with the problem Peters and others note. Chelo doesn't belong at all, since he says explicitly that he refers to a different place. Zerotalk02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Dov notes a difference of opinion as to which location is meant regarding both these mentions of the "Western Wall"/"Gate of Mercy". We should note Tudela with the dissenting interpretations, but also Chelo, as some have taken him also to mean the Western flank, as opposed to the Eastern retaining wall. One wonders if other later descriptions also refer to the Eastern Wall? I now wonder what indeed the Bach meant in his code, although one author has taken his statement as refering to the Western Wall as we know it today. Chesdovi (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still think we shouldn't use Chelo, it isn't very interesting that some people didn't read him carefully. By the way, don't you think he just plagiarized from Benjamin? His words are so similar, he could have written the same things without visiting. Zerotalk11:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It says "In 1877 the Mufti of Jerusalem considered a Jewish offer to buy the Moroccan Quarter, but a dispute within the Jewish community prevented the agreement from going ahead.[27] In 1887 a promising attempt was made by Baron Rothschild who conceived a plan to purchase and demolish the Moroccan Quarter ... Other reports place the scheme's failure on Jewish infighting as to whether the plan would foster a detrimental Arab reaction". The description of these two events is almost identical. The only source given for the 1877 event is the very weak popular atlas of Gilbert. It seems to me that the "1877" in Gilbert is just a typo for "1887" and there was only one event. Gilbert does not mention two events, and it is strange that he would mention only an obscure event in 1877 rather than the well known event of 1887. Neither of the two sources given for the 1887 event mentions an earlier event. I propose to remove the 1877 event, but I'll wait a while in case someone can find a source indicating that there were two separate events. Zerotalk00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The stones; question source and information
We have this:
The next four layers were added by Umayyads in the 7th century. The next fourteen layers are from the Ottoman period and their addition is (most likely mistakenly) attributed to Sir Moses Montefiore who in 1866 arranged that further layers be added “for shade and protection from the rain for all who come to pray by the holy remnant of our Temple”. The top three layers were placed by the Mufti of Jerusalem before 1967. (Horovitz, Ahron (2001). Jerusalem: Footsteps Through Time. Jerusalem: Feldheim.)
This is highly unsatisfactory. Nobody with expertise in the subject would not know whether or not Montefiore added layers to the wall, and of course this is nonsense. A quick look in his diary (page 177 of volume 2) shows what the quotation is about: "The Governor during this visit [in 1866] kindly gave me permission to erect an awning for the 'wailing place' near the western wall of the Temple, so as to afford shelter and protection from rain and heat to pious persons visiting, this sacred spot." (my emphasis). Then we have three layers added "before 1967". He doesn't know when? Someone does; let's find it. Note that this 1946 image shows the same number of courses of small stones then as there are now. However, there seem to be 2 or 3 more small courses than in this 1870 photo. Zerotalk13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the memoir of Pliny Fisk reports that in 1823 there were 16 courses of small stones (p310). At the moment there are 16 at the north end and 17 at the south end. The situation is unclear. Another source of confusion is the small extension upwards at the far north end. I believe that was built in 1929, and maybe it is a mistaken basis of claims that extra rows of stones were added by the mufti. Zerotalk14:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another deficiency in the article is that that it fails to mention the major excavation done in 1967 (or soon thereafter). The level of the pavement was lowered about 2 meters. You can see from the above photos that there are two more courses of huge stones visible now. The original level was even much lower (witness that the base of Barclay's gate is several meters underground now). Zerotalk13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following— "four layers were added by Umayyads in the 7th century. The next fourteen layers are from the Ottoman period and their addition is (most likely mistakenly) attributed to Sir Moses Montefiore who in 1866 arranged that further layers be added “for shade and protection from the rain for all who come to pray by the holy remnant of our Temple”. The top three layers were placed by the Mufti of Jerusalem before 1967." Was removed from the artical long ago. Although this information may be questionable; it is highly unsatisfactory to leave the article with NO explanation of the source of the most recently added layers to the wall Naytz (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having false information is worse than nothing. What Montefiore did in 1866 is recorded in his diary in detail and you can read it for yourself at archive.org. No actual historian supports this story. It isn't a tradition either, just an urban myth. Zerotalk09:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Who does really think that these uppermost courses are of any importance at all and isn't the Israeli Rabbi of the Western Wall, one step forward! Not me. We don't know who has finished the Royal Stoa and the Western Wall section supporting it since that recent coin find, now Shimon Gibson claims that it is plausible that the wall destruction was mainly due to the 363 earthquake, Ronni Reich contradicts but still is confident that the Romans only did some demolishing a few years AFTER storming the Mount in AD 70 - now THOSE are interesting topics! Who's done some patching at the top, either for good engineering reasons, or just to annoy the Jews praying below, in which decade between 1880 and 1929 - what difference does it make? The eastern bulge has not been fixed properly at all by the Egyptians and the Seam area might collapse any time soon, say some "insiders". The southern bulge has been "fixed" by the Jordanians with neat industrially-produced stones and looks like a new villa in West Amman. Now THOSE are relevant topics to me.
Montefiore kept on visiting Jerusalem, things he started during one visit he finished during a later one, see Mishkenot Sha'ananim, and his estate continued after his death, so what he did or didn't do in 1869 precisely is irrelevant, but I'm quite convinced that he wasn't allowed to meddle in Waqf business. That he "donated" money to all kinds of authorities, a.k.a. baksheesh, that's an absolute certainty, since he did get things done in Turkish-run Jerusalem. That's not cynical, that is plain knowledge of the daily modus operandi of Ottoman rule anywhere at the time. But that's off the point, even if one tries to figure out how the Turks put that money to work :-)
Good luck and a happy year 2015, user: Arminden.
The date of Moroccan quarter
The claim that Moroccan quarter was built before 770 years (even before most of current Old City ) is unsourced. If Zeero000 has source I would kindly ask him to provide links and DIRECT quotes because in the current sources, such claim do not exist.--Tritomex (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The establishment of the Moroccan quarter in the 12th century, and the confirmation of the endowment in the 13th and 16th centuries, is documented in the book that I cited, which translates the original Arabic sources. Nobody is saying that every building dated from that time (though a few did). You can find the book and check; I don't know of an online edition and have no obligation to provide one. F.E. Peters is a famous scholar and anyway this information is not controversial. Zerotalk00:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have obligation to provide online edition, that is true. However I think you should give us the page and quote from Peters book regarding the date of Moroccan quarter. That is how other facts are sourced in the article. The 770 years is controversial as according to Sara Irving, Palestine book, the Moroccan quarter was established in 15th century. This means that the quarter was at least 150 years younger than claimed. According to another source I have found which I do not consider WP:RS, most of the buildings in Moroccan quarter were built in late 19th century. The reason why I thing that the 770 years claim is impossible lies in the fact that the quartet was built gradually, without any precise year of its establishment.--Tritomex (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, every part of every historic city in the world from Tibet to Timbuktu was 'built up gradually' from the year dot. You might recall 'Rome wasn't built in a day', but it was founded mythically in a certain year when a few thatched hut were raised on the Palatine hill. If you can find a source saying that 'the foundational date is controversial' by all means notify the page.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of Peters' sources is the book of Mujir ad-Din, who is responsible for a lot of what is known about post-Crusader Jerusalem. You can read some of what he wrote on pages 162–163 of Sauvaire's translation. Mujir ad-Din gives 1193 as the year of endowment. You can read about the Madraseh Afdaliyeh's destruction in 1967 here. Another source is the 1595 re-confirmation of the endowment of the quarter, listing the boundaries and recounting the history. This document still exists and Peters has a whole page of translation from it. There's a book of Tibawi that reproduces the Arabic text. Zerotalk00:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explain dubious tag
"Article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement provided for Israeli Jewish access to the Western Wall." — This is commonly stated but false. The Armistice agreement only provides for the establishment of a committee for negotiating such access. [12]. Actually quite a lot of this article has similar lack of precision. Zerotalk17:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading info about Satmar view
The article states:
"Most Jews, religious and secular, consider the wall to be important to Judaism since it was originally built to hold the Second Temple. They consider the capture of the wall by Israel in 1967 as a historic event since it restored Jewish access to the site after a 19 year gap.[140] There are, however, some haredi Jews who hold opposing views. Most notable are the adherents of the Satmar hasidic sect who retain the views espoused by Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, who would not approach the Wall after the 1967 conquest (although he did visit the site during his visits to the Holy Land in the 1920s)."
I suggest it should be changed as it is inferring that Satmar Chasidim do not consider the koisel to be holy. This is grossly false. As a Satmarer, we do consider the koisel to be extremely holy, but do not visit the koisel out of political views, as doing so is a groyse zchis for the Zionist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by יעקב-חיים (talk • contribs) 14:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question reliability of source (Danziger)
Several items are sourced to "Danziger, Hillel (1990). "The Kosel Affair". Guardian of Jerusalem. Artscroll." This book is an adaption by Rabbi Danziger of a biography of Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld written by his grandson Shlomo Zalman Sonnenfeld. The older Sonnenfeld was one of the most important religious opponents of Zionism in the mandate period, though you wouldn't know it from his article in Wikipedia. The book belongs to a genre of religious writing that favors story-telling over factual history. You can see what I mean by reading these extracts from the book. Are those anecdotes literally true? The writer would not consider that important; what is important is that the stories teach us something about the person being eulogized and provide a lesson for us. There is an extremely large volume of such literature. Back to this article, neither the younger Sonnenfeld nor Danziger have any reputations as historians. Danziger is known as a translator and commentator on Talmud and other religious texts. Look at pages 28 (page 29 is missing) of this Neturei Karta magazine to see an attack on the book by those claiming to follow the path of the older Sonnenfeld. I find all of this fascinating, but to use this book in Wikipedia as a source of history is somewhat preposterous. Zerotalk01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the problem in practical terms. It's used I think three times, and when in doubt one does well just to find a better source, but here for one item this is not easy. For the other two one can easily remove either the information given as irrelevant, or replace the source.
(1) The British government issued an announcement explaining the incident and blaming the Jewish beadle at the Wall. It stressed that the removal of the screen was necessary, but expressed regret over the ensuing events.
This is mentioned in Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of Augest 1929 (1930) and should be sourced to that or any other comparable source.
(2) Yitzchak Orenstein, who held the position of Rabbi of the Kotel, recorded in April 1930 that “Our master, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld came to pray this morning by the Kosel and one of those present produced a small chair for the Rav to rest on for a few moments. However, no sooner had the Rav sat down did an Arab officer appear and pull the chair away from under him.”
I think (2) can be removed, per WP:Undue as too particular as a sectarian detail for a general article. It does not seem attested elsewhere.
(3) The Chief Rabbi of the ultraorthodox Jews in Jerusalem issued a protest letter on behalf of his community, the Edah HaChareidis, and Agudas Yisroel strongly condemning the desecration of the holy site. Various communal leaders called for a general strike. A large rally was held in the Etz Chaim Yeshiva, following which an angry crowd attacked the local police station in which they believed the British officer involved in the fiasco was sheltering
(3) seems unattested elsewhere. I don’t doubt the veracity but it does distort by selective quotation the complexities of Sonnenfeld’s position which apropos the wall incidents was highly critical of Zionists also.
If one wants to retain (3) it needs such a balancing statement re Sonnenfeld's position, which attributed the ultimate blame to Zionists. But again, I think the detail could rather be moved to 1929 Palestine riots. The Western Wall has millenial history and should not dwell on a small partisan detail.
Thus for this page, what can be authoritatively sourced to the Commission's results might be retained. The other two are not quite appropriate per WP:Undue and because one statement is selective in its distortion of the record. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed section
The outspoken Orthodox Israeli philosopher, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, felt the wall had become of place of idolatry.[1][2] As only God could possess the attribute of holiness, the so-called "holy places" lacked sanctity. He referred to the wall as "no more than a pile of stones constructed by the wicked king Herod,"[3] and was happy for the site to be returned to Arab control.[4] He was also against how Judaism was being used to further Israeli nationalism and fiercely criticized how the state held military and political ceremonies at the wall.[5] In response to his view of how both the secular and religious had come to treat the wall, he facetiously proposed that the plaza revamped as the largest discothèque in Israel and named the "Divine Disco."[6]
I believe that it is appropriate to be included in the article because, judging by the number of different people referring to his views, it is a prominent view, and therefore should be given due weight. Also, each of the other sections simply list (prominent) individuals and their (prominent) opinions of the wall.—LucasThoms05:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that the plaza has 20,000 square meters, and indeed the source says that. However, the area of the part coloured white in the map at the top of the page is only about 10,000 square meters (I measured it). Does the map show only part of the plaza perhaps? Zerotalk14:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montefiore
As per discusion under The stones; question source and information I am adding mention of the suppossed addition of several layers by sir moses montefior
(Edited from User talk:Arminden) Montefiore did not do anything to the stones of the wall. That is an urban myth that won't die. Probably it derives from a misreading of his diary where he speaks of erecting an awning. Note that at the end of the blog (your second link) there is a link to another blog where it is written that Montefiore did nothing and that "The top three courses were added by the Muslim Religious Council as part of general repair work." I have seen the latter claim elsewhere too, but neither the other source nor this one is citable under Wikipedia rules. I see "Muslim Religious Council" here too, which is probably citable, but it's annoying to have only "recently" when it probably happened in the 1920s or earlier. Zerotalk04:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The story of the awning erected by Montefiore is repeated in his report to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, printed in The Occident, Feb 1, 1867, p502. Zerotalk06:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is something from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Aug 12, 1942): "Minor repairs to the Wailing Wall, involving the replacement of several crumbling stones in the upper rows which endangered worshippers, will be made shortly, it was announced here today. An agreement to this effect has been reached by the Chief Rabbinate and the Antiquities Department of the Palestine Government. Zerotalk04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Sep 8, 1929): "In the meantime, eye-witnesses are reporting continued construction and the addition of six upper layer of stone to the right of the Wall, similar to those previously laid on the left side. The new layers of stone will facilitate the approach from the Mosque of Omar to the Wall." I don't get this, there are definitely not 6 courses more now than there were prior to 1929 (see the photos linked above). Maybe it is referring to parts of the wall south of the "Western Wall". Zerotalk04:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And even more relevant, JTA October 16, 1928: "The question of Jewish right of access to the Western Wall of the Temple, commonly known as the Wailing Wall, was further aggravated by the Arabs yesterday, Sunday, when those claiming property rights to this Jewish Holy Site, commenced building operations on the Wall. It appears that the Moslems intend to add a line of stones on top of the Wall. These operations caused new excitement among Jerusalem Jews and the president of the Jewish community immediately submitted a protest to the District Commissioner. The District Commissioner. The District Commissioner, however, replied that the “Arabs have the right to build over the Wall.” It was stated that Col. Frederick H. Kisch, political representative of the Zionist Executive in Jerusalem, will bring the matter before Acting High Commissioner Luke." Zerotalk04:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And so to the Palestine Post of Aug 20, 1942, p3, we find where the top row of stones originated and also find that the Montefiore myth was believed then too.
"REPAIRS TO THE WAILING WALL COMPLETED" ... The finishing touches will be put today to the repair work carried out this week on the Wailing Wall, and the lower five courses are to be cleaned of the moss and grass that have sprouted in the cracks. Workmen have laid a 38-metre long row of stones along the top of the Wall, above the portion built onto the original by Sir Moses Montefiore in the last century. At the northern end of the Wall, stones were laid to a depth of several courses. The new stones have been laid to guard against the falling of loose stones." (Incidentally the cleaning of moss and grass was cancelled, as reported a few days later.) Zerotalk05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the reason good sources are vague on the top few rows of stones is that they were repaired or added to repeatedly. Zerotalk05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that the sources are vague on the top few layers of the wall. Anything that we could surmise would probobly be OR. However this doesn't take away from the notabilty of the Montefiore story. Many people read this article to find information about the Montefiore story and if it is indeed unsubstantiated that is what the article should say about it
Naytz (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Women's prayer at the Wall" and similar subsections need to be re-written following WP:NOTNEWS
Since nobody has done it yet, I will begin a dialogue here regarding the issue. @VanEman: The problem isn't that the events described are not true, nor is it a problem with sources. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This section and those following it read as if it were a news story written by a reporter, and your edits are only adding to the problem. This is an encyclopedia and these subsections need to be rewritten to conform to encyclopedic style, scope and tone. The point is that there is a controversy and have been protests...all recent names (for example, Linda Siegel-Richman) and exact dates are both non-notable and extraneous information that only serve to bloat an already-long article.--William ThweattTalkContribs21:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could not have said it better. The foregoing, I think, goes to the heart of the problem. My revert was also based on WP:BRD, seeing that the content in question had already been reverted twice by others. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that Orthodox Jewish men delete women. They delete their photographs from newspaper publications, as they did with photoshopping HIlary Clinton out of U.S. government photos. They photoshopped new female MK's out of photographs of the Knesset that was elected in 2015. This is a matter of sexism, discrimination, religious intolerance and censorship. This article is waaaaaaay to long for a normal person who wants a brief overview of the Western Wall. When has the Western Wall been of international interest lately? When Orthodox try to impose their way in a country that wants to have religious freedom for all. Jewish women are no longer going to be deleted. So stop deleting. VanEman (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SOAPBOX, which says in short, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This seems to be an issue for which you have much passion; while not a bad thing in and of itself, that passion is misplaced. This is an article about the Western Wall, not about any perceived problems of "Orthodox Jewish men delet(ing) women". Nor is it supposed to be a comprehensive list of every incidence of discrimination. We have articles such as Discrimination in Israel, Human rights in Israel and Criticism of Israel for such details. What you wish to include adds nothing to the article and has very little to do with the Western Wall per se, however it may be relevant to the specific articles I just linked. I'm going to remove the paragraph in question, please don't re-insert it unless a consensus develops here to do so.--William ThweattTalkContribs21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a need for an article on the subject of women's access to the wall. We have Women of the Wall and even Women for the Wall, but those are too specific. This general article on the wall does not have room for a blow by blow account of the dispute. The article is already way over the recommended article size. The issue of women's access deserves a section, but not a very large one. It would be better to work on what is there, without making it much larger, than adding new stuff every time something happens. Zerotalk00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with WilliamThweatt. I have reverted the same edit from the same editor and for the same reason, I think that was already a few months ago. I don't understand how this VanEman guy hasn't been blocked yet, after all his edit warring and tendentious edits, of which I know a few on several articles. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with previous users particularly WilliamThweatt - However per WP:RECENTISM it should be shortened as a detail of certain era. The "current events" and specific cases should be removed.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Western Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
It is part of the huge retaining wall for the hill (Temple Mount). The temple sat on top of the hill. There is no existing structure believed to be part of the temple itself. Zerotalk13:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Someone told me it was apart of the temple, supposedly proving Jesus wrong about the temples stones. Jesus said that not one of the stones of the temple would remain on top of another. So, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.90.42 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article Changes and POV
Firstly the lead is way too long. In addition, I think the map on the side looks silly and needs to be removed. If you want to make bold changes, it should be discussed here first and then discussed. Sir Joseph(talk)20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Hewre's the Ist 2 paras, 80% mof which is not proper to the lead.[reply]
The Western Wall, Wailing Wall or Kotel (Hebrew: About this sound הַכֹּתֶל הַמַּעֲרָבִי (help·info), translit.: HaKotel HaMa'aravi; Ashkenazic pronunciation: Kosel; Arabic: حائط البراق, translit.: Ḥā'iṭ Al-Burāq, translat.: the Buraq Wall, or al-Mabka: the Place of Weeping) is located in the Old City of Jerusalem. It is a relatively small segment of a far longer ancient retaining wall, known also in its entirety as the "Western Wall". The wall was originally erected as part of the expansion of the Second Jewish Temple by Herod the Great, which resulted in the encasement of the natural, steep hill known to Jews and Christians as the Temple Mount, in a large rectangular structure topped by a huge flat platform, thus creating more space for the Temple itself and its auxiliary buildings. The term Temple Mount originates in the biblical Hebrew name of the hill, Har HaBáyit (הַר הַבַּיִת), lit. "Mount of the House [of God]". To Muslims the same hill and its artificial rectangular encasement is known as the Noble Sanctuary, al-Haram ash-Sharīf (الحرم الشريف).
The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism and is the place to which Jews turn during prayer, and the Western Wall is considered holy due to its connection to the Temple. Due to the rabbinic ban on praying on the Mount, the Wall is the holiest place where Jews are permitted to pray. The original, natural and irregular-shaped Temple Mount was gradually extended to allow for an ever larger Temple compound to be built at its top. This process was finalised by Herod the Great, who enclosed the Mount with an almost rectangular set of retaining walls, built to support extensive substructures and earth fills needed to give the natural hill a geometrically regular shape. On top of this box-like structure Herod built a vast paved esplanade which surrounded the Temple. Of the four retaining walls, the western one is considered to be closest to the former Temple, which makes it the most sacred site recognised by Judaism outside the former Temple Mount esplanade. Just over half the wall's total height, including its 17 courses located below street level, dates from the end of the Second Temple period, and is commonly believed to have been built around 19 BCE by Herod the Great, although recent excavations indicate that the work was not finished by the time Herod died in 4 BCE. The very large stone blocks of the lower courses are Herodian, the courses of medium-sized stones above them were added during the Umayyad era, while the small stones of the uppermost courses are of more recent date, especially from the Ottoman Period.
One quick way of doing this is to strike out flab or expansion.I gave my very aabove. Editors are welcome to remove my strike out signs, and provide their own. Or simply make a short 2 para synthesis suggestion for the above.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that something in the above might not be in the article. Someone has to comb through the long lead and article and make sure that nothing is overlooked. I switched the part about rabbinic ban and put in the link to status quo because that is more accurate. Sir Joseph(talk)20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following from the lead:
The term Western Wall and its variations is mostly used in a narrow sense for the section traditionally used by Jews for prayer, and it has also been called the "Wailing Wall", referring to the practice of Jews weeping at the site over the Destruction of the Temples. During the period of Christian Roman rule over Jerusalem (ca. 324-638), Jews were completely barred from Jerusalem except to attend Tisha be-Av, the day of national mourning for the Temples, and on this day the Jews would weep at their holy places. The term "Wailing Wall" was thus almost exclusively used by Christians, and was revived in the period of non-Jewish sovereignty between the establishment of British Rule in 1920 and the Six-Day War in 1967. The term "Wailing Wall" is not used by Jews and increasingly many others who consider it derogatory. (ref name=Forward>Hillel Halkin (12 January 2001). ""Western Wall" or "Wailing Wall"?". The Forward. Retrieved 28 September 2015.</ref)
In a broader sense, the Western Wall can refer to the entire 488 meter-long retaining wall on the western side of the Temple Mount. The classic portion now faces a large plaza in the Jewish Quarter, near the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount, while the rest of the wall is concealed behind structures in the Muslim Quarter, with the small exception of a 25 ft (8 m) section, the so-called Little Western Wall. The segment of the Western retaining wall traditionally used for Jewish liturgy known as the "Western Wall" derives its particular importance to it having never been fully obscured by medieval buildings, and displaying much more of the original Herodian stonework than the "Little Western Wall". In religious terms, the "Little Western Wall" is presumed to be even closer to the Holy of Holies and thus to the "presence of God" (Shechina), and the undergroundWarren's Gate, which has been out of reach since the 12th century, even more so.
Well, the first thing I think we should do is revert to the edit from early Jan before you put in your boycott edits that you did because you were upset your article got deleted and work from there on the talk page. Then we can discuss. I already posted above some of the lead paragraphs we can delete to shorten that section. You really should discuss your inserts beforehand because 1) they are extreme POV/Fringe and 2) they aren't written very well. Sir Joseph(talk)14:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: This is what I'm talking about. Look at the edit history here, look at his contribution history. He is only here to be disruptive. Can't you do something? Don't you see how nobody else wants to deal with this so he's having free reign? Sir Joseph(talk)15:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about the subject matter to be able to give an informed decision, but I do know that calling other editors "extreme POV/Fringe", saying "you were upset your article got deleted" ("your" article?) and "your edit just proves you are here to be disruptive" is likely to land you another block if you carry on like that. Focus on the article, not who pressed "save page". Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Where did I say he's POV/FRINGE? I meant his article that he wrote that went to AFD and was deleted, he had a few articles in similar topic that was solely to push a POV and if you look at Debresser's talk page, Chesdovi admits he's here to do that. And by fringe, I meant fringe views, that are fringe views on the religious spectrum. The way the article is written, he wants to include his deleted article and throw it in here. That is called disruptive. Perhaps you also need to read a bit clearer, I called his edits POV/FRINGE, which they are. Are edits also now not allowed to be criticized? Are you to tell me if you go to the Western Wall and visit the site, if won't be full of Jews praying? That is what he wants to put in the Jewish views section. Even though it's directly contradicted by the article itself. That is called POV pushing because he has anti-Zionist views. Nowhere did I attack him, and I would like you to retract you from claiming that I did. I never said he's POV/FRINGE.Sir Joseph(talk)15:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: 1) My comment here wasn't necessarily about the history, which I don't even think is necessary. Nishidani and myself were already working on ways to shrink down the article. The lead itself can be shrunk down. The nature of this topic doesn't need a history it's not that type of item. But I was talking about his fringe insertions. He believes that if there are 100 people in the world, then the article should give all 100 people equal weight in the article even though 99% of the people believe one way, and only 1% of the people believe otherwise. He wants this article to give the 1% equal or even moreso weight. That is how the article is currently. And then he responds that every article should have POV/FRINGE just because it's large enough. And then you respond that I called him POV/FRINGE, which you still didn't retract, I never called him that, I said the views he's inserting are POV/FRINGE, which they are, and I am still waiting for you to retract your claim that I violated NPA.I think we should revert to the Jan 10 or so stable version and work from there. From the talk page.Sir Joseph(talk)15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's good reason to do a size split. There was good reason to do a size split for a long while. There may be a reason to split other sections as well. What I would suggest here is that Ches goes ahead and creates the split article, if History of the Western wall is an agreeable name. After which, Sir Joseph, you go there and explain which parts you feel are against policy and why.Chesdovi I'd ask for your consideration at this time to not add any further content, as to not add further tedium to this process. Sir Joseph, I'd ask for you consideration at this time to not go striking content before you discuss and come to a consensus. There are RFC's and noticeboards to help you achieve consensus if you two can not agree. After this new article is created and y'all are done of there, come back over here and clean up and compress this article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1) Firstly, I think we should worry about the extreme POV in the Jewish views section. Reading it now firstly it is just a big mess. It also contradicts the higher up prayer section and it is just again Chesdovi's POV. Just look at the kotelkam.com (I think that's the site) and see all the Jews there, according to Chesdovi and his edits, Jews don't pray there. I would hope you would agree that his most recent edits are POV. 2) I would also ask you to let me know if you think saying that his edits are POV/FRINGE are a violation of NPA. According to Ritchie, up above that may warrant me getting blocked again. He said I called Chesdovi POV/FRINGE, and he never retracted that claim. 3) Once the POV/FRINGE part is cleared up we can work on the history but I think we should fix what is broken before we section stuff off. Sir Joseph(talk)16:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting sidetracked, but he did say "but I do know that calling other editors "extreme POV/Fringe"" which I did not say. I called is views that he was inserting. And calling someone's views POV/FRINGE is most certainly allowed, especially if they are, and especially if they are proud of their views. And look at his reply that, where he says that because it's a large article it deserves fringe views. Sir Joseph(talk)16:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issues withe the article are
Ok, no more side track. What are the issues with the article. Pick one section. Be clear as possible the issue. We can go from there. One thing at a time. Sound good?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Wall&oldid=700174778#Jewish section is heavily biased and POV slanted to a fringe element. That last link was to a prior revert before Chesdovi started to insert his POV and even this one is still slightly POV and it also has Goren's statement which is Goren's POV but is factually incorrect and contradicted by this article itself in the Prayer section up above. Goren says Jews only prayed at the wall for 300 years, yet Jews have been Praying at the wall for thousands of years and it's document as such. Then Chesdovi puts in tons of edits about Jews boycotting the wall, Satmar and others, and while indeed some don't go to the wall, they are the 1% of the 1%. Perhaps a sentence of mention, but as the article reads now, you, as someone who might not be familiar, might think that the majority of Jews follow the fringe opinion. Sir Joseph(talk)17:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He is merely cherry picking non notable sources that he can find. Clearly Jews have been praying at the wall for thousands of years. As for his other edits to the Jewish section, those are certainly undue and should not be allowed either. Look at how it is written now. That is why I want it reverted to the way it was then, even though it is still heavily slanted. Sir Joseph(talk)17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Goren's statement which is Goren's POV but is factually incorrect and contradicted by this article itself in the Prayer section up above. Goren says Jews only prayed at the wall for 300 years, yet Jews have been Praying at the wall for thousands of years and it's document as such.
You say Chesdovi is using poor sources to push a POV, and asserting Shlomo Goren, a rabbi of great prestige whose name is incised to the right on the walkway up into the Western Wall plaza, got it all wrong. We're not supposed to bring preconceived personal views in to articles, as you are doing. By the way, I see one can't correct things there, except by a request to an admin. On this particular matter, the source should be cited not as http etc +p.300 but as follows:
Amnon Ramon,'Delicate balances at the Temple Mount, 1967-1999,' in Marshall J. Berger, Ora Ahimeir (eds.,) Jerusalem: A City and Its Future, Syracuse University Press, 2002 pp.296-332 p.300.
Wikiedpia is not a source, but I dug thru and found one. Shlomo Goren seems rather prominent a person. This does not actually contradict the prior. It's not written in wikipedia voice as the others are. Why should it be excluded?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say Goren wasn't a great scholar, but in this case he's obviously incorrect as Jews have obviously been praying there for more than 300 years. Sir Joseph(talk)17:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this section is on Jewish views. This is Goren's view and he's a rather prominent Jew. The article is not saying his view is correct just mentioning his view.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shlomo Goren played a key role in discussion of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall post 1967, and his view is certainly relevant. There is no doubt about that. The whole problem, one I think Chesdovi's suggestions are trying to readjust, is that there is a generic narrative in Jewish-Israeli identity politics about the Wall which glosses over the very many complexities of both historical literature on the wall, and rabbinical disputes about it over the centuries. Sir Joseph is comfortable with the former, and discomforted by the reminder that things are not so simple. On Wikipedia, we just try to get in all relevant angles calibrated by WP:Due.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, are you saying before the article painted a picture of Jewish unity but that's not the actual case? These changes attempt to at least address the disunity in the bounds of WP:UNDUE?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I said was that Goren might be extremely scholarly, and it's very ironic that Chesdovi uses him as a source since Chesdovi wouldn't eat his food or trust any of his halachic rulings or consider his conversions, etc., but that in this case he is either being misquoted or incorrect. Jews have been praying at the Western Wall for more than 300 years. That is a factual statement. Do you agree? Furthermore, putting in extreme Satmar and NK views doesn't help the article one bit.Sir Joseph(talk)17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To address one of the points of contention here, I see nothing wrong with "captured" OR "recaptured" as it indeed WAS the result of a war. However, if there are people who feel this wording lends itself to one belligerent being somehow an aggressor or unjustified, maybe the wording can read "came under Israeli control". Just a neutral observer here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_map_Jerusalem.png){kind=link}
