Talk:Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites

Some questions

@Makeandtoss: thanks for writing this interesting article.

Technically, aren't the Hashemite family custodians of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, rather than any of the sites themselves?

Also, the article mentions occasional funding of the Holy Sepulchre, but never formal "custodianship" of any Christian sites. Is that correct?

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: My pleasure. I think the custodianship extends to various sites rather than just the Waqf or just Al-Aqsa, especially as the peace treaty article refers to "shrines". Furthermore Waqf was only established after Jordan extended its control there in 1948, the custodianship however dates decades before. The formal recognition of the Christian sites was made during the Jordanian-Palestinian agreement in 2013.This TOI article mentions it, but wrongly claims that the peace treaty included the Christian sites. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The pre-48 claims are complex and conflicting. The role in 48-67 was clear. There was a continuing influence in 67-94. The peace 94 treaty states "Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.".[1] Per my understanding the status here (vs. Israel and vs. the PA (different arrangements, at this point mainly towards a possible future)) is quite amorphous in regards to what is included and what the role is - it's not defined or hammered down in nails. A major point of influence, however, is the Jordanian financing and direction of the Waqf - however the role, as I understand it, is wider and undefined.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: They are neither complex nor conflicting. Read this excerpt a Times of Israel article:

“ While the Supreme Muslim Council (SMC) was in charge of administering the site, the then ruler of Mecca and leader of the revolt against the Ottoman Empire Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, whose son became the first king of Jordan, was accepted as its custodian by the SMC leadership. This custodianship has been passed down by to subsequent Jordanian kings. ”

Makeandtoss (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a speech from last year where Abdullah states: "the Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem is a historical duty and responsibility that we are proud to carry."[2]

To make this article robust I think we should link to the specific treaties which gave them these rights. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The peace treaty article dealing with custodianship is quoted in its entirety and the Jordanian-Palestinian agreement is probably classified. But sure do whatever you want. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Any idea where the 1924 agreement might be?

Also, I have added a blank section covering the situation between 1967-94, where we can write a sentence or two re the Waqf’s continuing control during that period. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a "verbal agreement" according to the Times of Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Royal Palace pic

This article is about Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites. Tel Al Ful is not a holy site, and not remotely connected to any Jerusalem holy site. This article is not about claims Jordan may have had to the West Bank before relinquishing them as part of a peace treaty it signed with Israel. This picture is simply not related in any meaningful way to the subject of the article, so please stop edit warring it back in, and read WP:ONUS - there is no consensus for its inclusion. Attack Ramon (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS doesn't apply as I am not trying to include anything, the picture has been here for a year. And I am not edit-warring, I asked you to open a discussion so we can reach a new consensus that may challenge the long-standing version. The article's title may indeed talk about a specific thing, but the article has wider implications. My personal opinion is that the image is an addition to the article since it shows the significance of Jerusalem to Jordan due to its religious value. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You've twice restored a picture that was removed- that is edit warring by defintion. The article's title is what it is about - and this picture has nothing to so with it. The article is not about "the significance of Jerusalem to Jordan" As there is no consensus to include this picture, and WP:ONUS says ' The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.' - I will be removing it, and I ask that you seek consensus for its inclusion here. To be clear: No such consensus exists at the moment. Attack Ramon (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And you removed the picture twice. Isn't that also edit warring by definition? I restored the status quo. This picture has been here for a year which means that it does have consensus. ONUS talks about inclusion. Nothing is being included here as it has been there for quite a long time. I don't understand your slightly aggressive replies as this is only a minuscule issue. I wouldn't edit war to keep this here if there is no consensus for it from a range of editors. Lets wait for a bunch of other opinions. If they see it is relevant then the picture will stay; and if they see it is irrelevant and should be removed then so be it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The half built palace isn't really relevant. The article is missing a few good pictures of the Temple Mount and the Jordanian funded waqf personnel.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not a new addition, making the claim of following WP:ONUS curious. WP:NOCON however says

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

The fact that the material has been included for a year gives it implicit consensus, and yall the ones that need consensus to change it. nableezy - 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Your comment above should be next to the dictionary definition of 'hypocrisy' [3]

The textual material I removed is the same as the caption of the now-removed image , and as both me and Icewhiz have written, the half built palace isn't really relevant to this article. Now, go back and read what you wrote in the above diff - In response to my comment that the onus for inclusion of something was met years ago, you worte "And it no longer is. WP:ONUS is policy, and you need to edit accordingly". Attack Ramon (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Except you notice how the only thing that actually has been challenged on this talk page was left out? You have any policy basis for removing the prose you did? Or would you like to pretend that it actually has been challenged? Speaking of hypocrisy though, you remember your position then? Cus the internet is written in ink: If there was consensus before and there is no consensus to remove it now, then, per policy, the article goes back to the version before the bold edit. Go read the policy, it is quite clear. That argument carried the day there, didnt it? And given what happened at Talk:List of cities in Israel where no consensus was used to justify retaining challenged material, I have come to accept that position. nableezy - 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The hypocritical nature of your editing is not changed by what was removed and what was not. You comments re ONUS and consensus, which I linked to above, came AFTER my argument which you quoted above. And no, my position in that article did not prevail, but instead a compromise version was suggested and included.

But just to clarify any misunderstanding you may have due to insufficient command of the English language, the statement "the half built palace isn't really relevant to this article." is applicable to both the picture and the text, and I object to both, and neither the text nor the picture has consensus. I'll call on @Icewhiz: to make that explicit to you.Attack Ramon (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Or the hypocrisy of saying an editor who restored the material twice is edit-warring when you have removed it what three times now? Yes, hypocritical nature indeed. You challenged it now, it was not challenged when I made the edit. Dishonesty and hypocrisy all in one. Glad things havent changed over the accounts. nableezy - 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I removed it again today, after waiting a week and having another editor weigh-in in favor of removal. That is how you are supposed to edit. Run along now and find something useful to do. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

As Im sure you have seen in my edits, I am indeed working on something useful. nableezy - 00:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit your comment after it has been responded to. It is quite dishonest. Par for the course with you I suppose. And no, on Abu Ghosh what was challenged is still very much in the article. nableezy - 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Procedure or STABLE version aside - is there a polixy based reaaon for this particular picture? To me, in this particular article, it is simply off topic - not related to the holy sites.Icewhiz (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The pic is not in the article. nableezy - 03:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it was removed on 19:15, 13 May 2019 - the subject of the discussion here is on that removal (or retention). Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No, at this point Attack Ramon is also contesting the prose in the history section. I think that prose is fine here as relevant background to Jordan's control of the area and its plans at the time. nableezy - 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean - this content (text on the uncompleted palace)? While the factoid passes WP:V, it seems as equally irrelevant as the picture. How is the uncompleted palace connected to the custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites? Do sources make this connection? If they don't, it is WP:SYNTH to include here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This places it in the context of Jerusalem being considered the "spiritual capital" of Jordan. As does this. nableezy - 21:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The first does not mention the palace. The second mentions the palace as a response to the building of the Israeli presidential residence in West Jerusalem. In short - off topic in this particular article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong page. But both place the building of the palace in the context of Jordan considering Jerusalem its "spiritual capital". I do not think that off-topic to this article. nableezy - 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The palace is discussed in relation to Jerusalem being the "second capital" at the end of the Jordanian period. The palace is not discussed in the context of the holy sites.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Also "spiritual capital". Both sources support that. nableezy - 22:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

WRONG claim, WRONG title

Not "the holy shrines", just "Muslim' holy shrines! Not the Christian ones, and most definitely not the Jewish ones. Propaganda article with preposterous title, shameful for Wikipedia. Arminden (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Custody over Holy Sepulchre? Pipe dream.

Where is the proof for custodianship over the Holy Sepulchre and other Christian shrines? Nada. Don't come with political declarations of Arab Christian denominational leaders with tactical interests, but show me Status Quo or other legal proof. The peace treaty of 94 only mentions Muslim shrines.

Hasbara is junk, but this is idiotic junk. Low-IQ propaganda. Shameful to Wikipedia. Arminden (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)