Talk:Rachel's Tomb

Reliability of sources

Given source says: "In March 1997, around 500 Arab students marched on the site hurling firebombs and stones." This is correct report of what the book says regarding March 20. By contrast, Jerusalem Post on March 21 says "several dozen Palestinian youths hurled rocks at soldiers guarding Rachel's Tomb outside Bethlehem. ... In Bethlehem, trouble resumed after nightfall, as four firebombs lit up the new fortress style-wall protecting Rachel's Tomb, but caused no damage." There is quite a difference between 500 and several dozen. Looking at the book, its polemic nature is evident. Zero^talk 01:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Taken out "500" claim. Chesdovi (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed one of the sources, since it has not been accessible for quite some time and is not therefore verifiable as a reliable source. I added a Haaretz source that illustrates the devastating effect that the inclusion of Rachel's Tomb within the Israeli side of the Separation Barrier has had on residents of the northern quarter of the city of Bethlehem. Foresomenteneikona (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Location

Its not in Israel, its in the West bank. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The West Bank is Israeli land that is currently being occupied by Muslim invaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termswagon2 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The location is in the west bank, not Jerusalem. See this source:[1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The tomb, located in Bethlehem, has been "annexed" to Jerusalem by Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever "annexation" Israel does in the west bank has no validity, you know this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Valid or not, its municipal and physical location is in Jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Its an occupation of land in the West bank. You can ad: "Israeli occupied West bank" if you want. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to use that field for its presumed political location rather than its de-facto location, surely "UN Corpus sepataum" is more accurate? Chesdovi (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Its de facto location is that its in the west bank occupied by Israel, it is not in Jerusalem or in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It was in the WB till a few years ago, when it was included behind the wall and is now considered to be part of Jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is located in what the world, almost without exception, considers to be Palestinian territory. It is a minority view it is in Israel and as such is a NPOV violation for us to say, as a fact and with a flag, that it is in Israel. nableezy - 17:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The location field should not show the where the world "considers" it, but the de-facto sovreign nation which holds control over that territory. Chesdovi (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The control is an occupation, its not part of Israel or Jerusalem. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Change the word "consider" with "recognizes". Israel occupies this territory, it is not in Israel and to say that it is in Israel is a NPOV violation as you are saying in the narrative voice something that the overwhelming majority of sources say is not true. nableezy - 17:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If the Israeli flag flies above the tomb, its fair for it to be displayed in the infobox. It is in the WB. It is in J. And in I. Chesdovi (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Israeli flag can not be for this place in the Palestinian territories. Thats not a neutral point of view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just adding to Chesdovi, it is considered "Area C." That means it is under full Israeli security and civilian administration. Pursuant to the Oslo Accords, the PLO recognizes this designation so it is fair to display the Israeli flag.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It being in Area C does not mean it is in Israel. All Area C means is the territory is under Israeli control, it does not mean, and no sources say it means, that the territory is Israeli in any meaning other than Israeli occupied. Neither the PLO nor any other state recognizes that this territory is anything other than Palestinian territory. nableezy - 18:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on including "Israel" as the location because a single state says it is in Israel then you also need to include that it is recognized as being in the Palestinian territories. As the flag of Israel was returned, I have added the Palestinian flag and the fact that it is recognized as being in the Palestinian territories. I would rather not have to have articles like these overly-politicized, but West Bank with no flag was apparently no good enough for some of the people here who felt it important to include the extreme minority position that this is in Israel. nableezy - 18:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not recognised as I or P land. But there are places under full PA control, and they can display the PA flag. Areas under full Israeli control can display the Israel flag. Thats why Joseph's tomb is described as being in the PA (I will add the flag) as is Ancient synagogue (Eshtemoa). Chesdovi (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The West bank is internatioanlly recognized as Palestinian land. We can therefor not have the Israeli flag for any part of this area. The same way we can not have the Palestinian flag for an area in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Is West Jerusalem internatioanlly recognized as Israeli? Chesdovi (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

By most countries, the UK being a notable exception. The edit you just made is garbage and as I still respect you I kindly request you self-revert. The only state in the world that says this is in Israel is Israel. Every other state, the UN, and countless NGOs all say it is in the occupied Palestinian territories. If you want to say that it is "de facto" in Israel you need to also include that it is recognized as within the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a source giving the location as "Bethlehem, Palestinian Authority". Here is a source saying that Rachel's Tomb was to be treated within "Area B" in the Oslo Accords with a special status and that Israel disregarded that agreement and treated it as "Area C", but that it is not even "Area C". Whether or not it is "Area C" is irrelevant anyway; A, B, C, all of the West Bank is occupied Palestinian territory. That Israel has enclosed portions of occupied territory within a wall does not make this place in Israel. That Israel makes up a "Jerusalem envelope" does not mean this place is in Jerusalem. And just because Israel says all of Jerusalem, and apparently its "envelope", is in Israel does not mean it is in Israel. nableezy - 03:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Have the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem been extended to encompass Rachel's Tomb? I mean officially extended. Source? Zero^talk 02:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found that the cabinet approved to annex the tomb to Jerusalem in 2003 Chesdovi (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the answer to my question is "no", in which case the tomb is not even in Israel according to Israel's own reckoning. Its location in the West Bank is clear in a ruling of the High Court of Israel, see [2]. Note that the court applied the law of belligerent occupation and not the domestic law of Israel. In summary, it is not in Israel as an undisputed fact. Zero^talk 07:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Is West Jerusalem internationally recognized as Israeli? No. Is RT internationally recognized as PT? No. Both are located within the CS, a neutral zone. The flag displayed should be the one affiliated to the party which excersises control over the site. Chesdovi (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, your source does not even say it is in Jerusalem. You have repeatedly placed a falsehood in this article, and this time you replaced a solid source with another source that does not even support what you have placed in the article. That was also your 4th revert. Self-revert. nableezy - 13:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your source was not "solid". It was false. You know yourself as attested to in Strickerts book, that the tomb was originally in Area B, and your source places it only in Area "A". Also, that book was from 2002, a year before it was annexed. My source says it was annexed? Obviously to Jerusalem as shown above, (and here again). Chesdovi (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Your source does not say it was annexed, your source does not say it is in Jerusalem, your source does not say it is in Israel. Last chance, self-revert or I'll need to ask for administrative help. nableezy - 15:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

“Which would de facto annex Rachel’s’ tomb into Jerusalem. The cabinet approved the change. What's not clear Nab? Chesdovi (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you really this dense? The book you are citing is saying that Israel's separating this site from the rest of the occupied territories with its wall would "de-facto annex" the site, it does not say that it is in Israel much less that it is in Jerusalem. As you have declined to self-revert I will be going to an admin board. nableezy - 16:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Annex it to what. It has been annexed to Jerusalem. This may not be recognised, but it is reality:

• • Haareatz article cited in my source: “"IDF Plan Puts Rachel's Tomb Inside Jerusalem's New Security Borders," &” Rachel's Tomb to Be Annexed — De Facto ...”
  • "Separately in the West Bank, Palestinian officials said the Israeli Army had distributed notices to families in northern Bethlehem that the land there would be annexed to Jerusalem. There was no immediate response from the Israeli Army.” February 17, 2003 New York Times
  • "Rachel's Tomb was no longer to be considered part of Bethlehem but was being annexed to Jerusalem. The transition was complete from Area A to Area B, and now to Area C”. page 135.
  • "We marched peacefully and sat near Rachel's Tomb [where an Israeli checkpoint is located and which was recently annexed]". [3] Chesdovi (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What is "reality" is that this site is located in occupied Palestinian territory and that you insist on only including extreme minority views on this topic and have no problem removing what is the majority viewpoint. nableezy - 16:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See. I provide the sources you so require. And you just chnage the subject. I think this is the third time you have ignored my sources. Chesdovi (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you, as you apparently do often, misrepresent your own sources. Area C is occupied Palestinian territory, an administrative zone of the West Bank; if your source says it is in Area C it is in the West Bank, not Israel. There are no Israeli checkpoints in Israel. If your source says there is an Israeli checkpoint there it is not in Israel. Even if Israel were to declare this territory annexed that would not make it in Israel. East Jerusalem is not Israel. The Golan is not in Israel. An occupying power cannot annex occupied territory. This is a well-established fact. You have repeatedly misrepresented both the your own sources and the facts in this article. nableezy - 16:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources say it has been annexed. Whether or not this is seen as a legal move by the IC is a not relevant here. The infobox should show where it is located. In 2002 it was in the CS/WB/OPT/Area B, now it is in annexed Israeli WB territory. Whether or not this move is valid is of no concern when it comes to then infobox icon which shows where it is politically and physically located. Not what it’s claimed location is. How can we have the PA flag when it does not exercise control over the location. That is misleading. Leave the political descriptions for the main article. Chesdovi (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel building a wall around this place does not magically mean it is not in the Palestinian territories. We have the Palestinian flag (not a PA flag) for a site in the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 17:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I will delete the location while this is dispute. Clearly there is no consensus establish to change location to say "Bethlehem, West Bank" with Palestinian flag. I disagree to this, it has been annex to Jerusalem by Israel. Several other editor agree here. So I will delete that stuff no until we can reach agreement. LibiBamizrach (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Technical legalities aside, Israel is unquestionably the de facto governing entity over the Tomb. Thus, any information that does not make this clear to the reader does a disservice to the reader. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And does any information that does not make clear that this is located in the occupied Palestinian territory, as it unquestionably is, do a disservice to the reader? nableezy - 20:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

not as much. readers are most likely more interested in who controls the area, then who perhaps should control the area.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said who "should" control the area. The question is "where" is this place. You dont think that is important? Interesting. nableezy - 21:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

where it is depends on what perspective you are using. To the neutral reader its the de facto governing entity that decides where something is, not the de jure governing entity. If a reader is going to Cyprus for vacation, and wants some information about Cyprus, the reader does not care if as much if Turkey is the legal governing entity or Greece (or whoever is fighting with whoever). The reader wants to know who controls the area. The reader wants to know what type of visa is needed, what type of cell phone to get. This depends on the de facto governing entity, not the de jure governing entity. That's how the reader decides "where" something is. This is not to say that we should hide from the reader the issues surrounding the "legality" of the controlling power. However this information should be secondary to the more important information about who controls the area. And to the neutral or uninterested reader, who controls the area defines "where" it is. Messing up the priorities of the readers because of a pov-push is not what we do here. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the location does not depend on "perspective", it depends on sources. Sources say this is located in the Palestinian territories in the occupied West Bank east of the Green Line. None of those things are disputable. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it is an encyclopedia. If we have an ignorant reader it is not our job to allow that reader to maintain their ignorance, what we should do is educate that reader. nableezy - 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What the sources say is an irrelavant straw man argument. Of course there are sources that say "Palestine" is the legal governing entity over the area. Just like there are sources that say Israel is the governing entity of the area. It is not a question of sourcing, but a question of providing the reader with the information the reader wants in a neutral manner. Wikpedia is not a travel guide, but it is also not a legal scholarly text book. Again, the reader's primary interest is who controls the area. That's how the average reader decides "where" it is.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the tried and true tactic of choice for the POV-push. The sources are "irrelevant". I think I found a quote to add to my userpage. I thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for demonstrating just how little you care about the policies of this website. It is refreshing to see a user come out and say he does not care what the sources say, that what matters is what he wants. nableezy - 21:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You're creating a straw man argument and that's unfair. The sources are irrelevant because thats not the locus of the dispute. There is no question what the sources say. Its a question of content and which sourced content should be primary and which sourced content should be secondary. Claiming that i am a "pov-pusher" because i say the sources are "irrelevant" is not reflective of the conversation we are having. Please don't do that. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

That approaches being a lie. Pointing to what the sources say is the location of this site in a dispute on what the location of this site is cannot be called a straw man. Of course the sources are relevant, they are the only thing that matters. The dispute here is what is the location of this site. If the sources say it is in occupied Palestinian territory in Bethlehem in the West Bank that is what matters. nableezy - 21:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

the straw man is your claim that i think is sources are irrelevant when they do not conform with my POV. thats the lie. as any objective reader will see from the conversation above, how you made me repeat the same thing over and over, is that the issue is not sourcing but what type of sourced content should be primary and what type of sourced content should be secondary. It is my position that the reader defines location and "where" by the governing entity, not any other entity. The fact that Israel controls the area is sourced just like its sourced somewhere that "Palestine" is its legal entity. You can disagree with my position and call is idiocy if you like, but please cease implying that i dont care about sourcing. Just stop with the games. Please.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I didnt make that argument, so apparently it is not a straw man. Your "position" on where something is ignores what the sources say where that thing is. You are the one that said "What the sources say is an irrelavant straw man argument (sic)". Complaining that I said you said the sources are irrelevant is asinine. nableezy - 22:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm done here. I made my point. Let the reader decide which one of us is guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and straw man arguments and which one of is trying to have a good faith discussion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it to nableezy's version. There's no reason that this would be considered as part of Israel. It even lacks the (quasi-) annexation of EJ and GH. The de facto ruler does not decide a place's location. If you want to put in "Controlled by Israel" below the location in the info box I think that makes sense but putting the location as in Israel is ridiculous. Until Israel legally annexes it, Rachel's Tomb isn't in Israel. (please direct all accusations of sockpuppetry/Anti-Semitism/vampirism to my talk page) Sol (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sol Goldstone, it doesn't matter if Israel declares an "annexation", because whatever "annexation" Israel does has no valid or legal effect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean a declared annexation that violates the GC/Vienna Convention/Code of Hammurabi that no one accepts, a la Golan Heights, but a legitimate and valid annexation resulting from final status negotiations. Sol (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to refer everyone back to the Israeli court case posted by Zero [4] which nicely answers the main question. Sol (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There has never been any agreement to use the Israeli map for this place in the West bank, and there has never been any agreement to say that Israel owns the territory, therefor the infobox should be removed until consensus can be established. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Now this infobox has a new field "management" that can be used to present the fact that the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs runs the site. That leaves the "location" field, which is "Bethlehem municipality, West Bank" according to everyone including the High Court of Israel. There could be two flags or there could be none; I prefer none so that the box is a-political. Zero^talk 21:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert flag icon? What's the harm? Unless there's some other nefarious purpose behind its removal.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I stated the purpose. Do you object to the Palestinian flag icon appearing beside the location? Zero^talk 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I would object because 1)Palestine is not recognized as a state. 2)Palestine has no defined borders. 3)The area in question is not under PA control. 4)Under Oslo, the parties mutually agreed that the area would be under exclusive Israeli control 5)Historically, the tomb has always been a place of Jewish worship.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, you'll notice that I didn't touch the location part of your edit despit my objection to it. I'm trying to work with you. Will you please try to work with me?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: MOS:FLAG could be helpful. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No flag with the inclusion of the location and management info sounds reasonable. Sol (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Location has been the subject of bitter dispute as you are aware. I have no interest in fighting on this issue and have given in, white flag if you may. However, I'm asking you to work with me on a minor point. I've given in to you. Can't you reciprocate? Or is "no prisoner" mentality.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought we are doing. You were objecting to the Palestinian flag and I was suggesting a compromise. It's a compromise that gives too much ground to spurious arguments but it's a compromise. Sol (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

JG, regarding your five points: (1) Israel has never asserted sovereignty at this place; (2) Much of Israel's borders are also undefined; (3) True, which is why I put in the "management" field; (4) Under Oslo there was an agreement for Israeli control of the tomb itself, not Israeli sovereignty. The maps show it in Area A. ; (5) It was also a place sacred to Muslims. Zero^talk 01:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the UNESCO executive board adopted five rulings just over a week ago.[5] Amongst them was the following:

• The Palestinian sites of al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs in al-Khalil/Hebron and the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem: the Board voted 44 to one (12 abstentions) to reaffirm that the two sites are an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories and that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law, the UNESCO Conventions and the United Nations and Security Council resolutions.

- G E Enn (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC) In Moslem Eyes there are NO Jewish holy sites any where in the Holy Land once known as Judea and Israel. Everything is Moslem. Thats nice in the Moslem world of make believe there are no Jewish Holy Sites (Judaism was around thousands of years before Mohammed was born) Of course the burial places of the Jewish forefathers and matriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and RACHEL are Jewish holy sites. ANd frankly there is nothing a non-Jew can do to change that. Israel is in charge of these sites as if Israel was not the Arabs would destroy the sites and paint them green as they have done to Joseph's Tomb just a few years ago in Nablus. Benshlomo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

84.228.15.167, this is an area in the Palestinian territories, you did not explain why you replaced the map of the Palestinian territories which it is part of, with an unaffiliated map which it is not part of. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to remove the map altogether if it is causing disagreement and confusion?Cptnono (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque

Do we have any source before 1996 about this name? The sources I read think not and even have the Arabs referring to this as Rachel's Tomb. --Shuki (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I checked and can not find a single source that uses this name prior to 1996--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The older sources I've dug up either leave it unnamed or call it some vartiona on "al-Ibrahmimi Mosque". Any Muslim historical scholars in the house? Sol (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sol, the name al-Ibrahmimi Mosque refers to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron not Rachel's tomb.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy God, I'm dumb as a rock. . . .let's not tell anyone about this. I got confused with another Arabic-y named mosque I'd found. I'll dig up the other name. Sol (talk) 02:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah Sol, I think you're pretty smart. We all have these senior moments ;)--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You take that back right now, JG! How are we supposed to edit war with all of this good-will and kindness?! :P (Thanks) I have no idea what I was on about, chasing down a lead about Rachel's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarch's being related in some Muslim school of thought. Either way, can't find the name any earlier! Sol (talk) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The place has been called the tomb of Rachel by Muslims for many centuries and is still called that by Muslims today. I don't know of any Islamic authority who denies the connection to Rachel, which is not surprising since Muslims revere Rachel very much. There has been a Muslim graveyard there since the 15th century and it became a popular "weli" (place for Muslim funerals). Later there was a mihrab for praying; it still exists but is plastered over. Whether it was an actual mosque is less certain and it is possible that was a recent political invention. Similarly the name "Bilal ibn Rabah" might be a new association. I've asked an expert and he didn't know when it first appeared. It is an error to say that anyone tried to "rename" the place as Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque, as nobody denies the Rachel connection. A more correct description is that it is now claimed that the part of the structure used for Islamic ceremonies (which existed as a historical fact) was in fact a mosque dedicated to Bilal ibn Rabah (which is historically doubtful). The Palestinian News Agency starting about 1997 used expressions like ""Rachel's Tomb inside Bilal bin Rabah Mosque", "Rachel's Tomb and Bilal bin Rabah Mosque" and "Rachel's Tomb near Bilal bin Rabah Mosque", showing that they were not competing names but rather separate functions. Bethlehem University just published a book called Rachel's Tomb, showing that there isn't any denial of the Rachel connection from Christian Palestinians either. Zero^talk 05:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be helpful. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable advocacy website. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there are some good RS listed as references there, which I thought would be useful. Also, I think Shragai could be considered an expert on this subject.

But thank you for dismissing the whole thing out of hand. At this point I expect no less. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a better source (same author). I eagerly await to hear some excuses as to why this can't be used. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I recently spent four weeks in Bethlehem. I walked by Rachel's Tomb every day. Every single Palestinian I talked to (every single Christian and Muslim I met) referred to the site as Rachel's Tomb. I did not once here it referred to by another name. I am not claiming that my experience can be cited as reliable evidence. But I am deeply skeptical of claims that there is a widespread opinion among Palestinians that this site is not sacred to Jews. If necessary, I will consider finding the sources that will justify the removal of such silliness from this article. ----foresomenteneikona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foresomenteneikona (talk • contribs) 12:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been restored by NMMNG. Including the JCPA is fine, including it as a source for facts is not. The JCPA is a partisan think tank, it is not a reliable source for opinions. What is sourced to them should be attributed in-text. nableezy - 12:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Bilal ibn Rabah" connection is a tradition of one of the local tribes. I'll add a source when I get back to the book (which is on the opposite side of the planet at the moment). There are two issues here: (1) whether Muslims deny a Rachel connection (answer: definitely not, except maybe a few modern political radicals), (2) whether it was ever strictly a mosque (answer: probably not, but its sanctity to Muslims is ancient and continues). Zero^talk 13:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all Shragai is a long time journalist who has written a book about Rachel's tomb. Second, if you don't like JCPA as a source I've provided a link to the same information published in the Jerusalem Post.

As for the issues, a central one is whether this place is called "Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque" and if yes since when. If there's a "tradition" about a "connection" to Bilal ibn Rabah that's one thing. UNESCO saying this is an official name requires more information. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I actually did look at the JPost source. I was very interested in the italicized text at the end of the story. nableezy - 15:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Do elaborate. I don't believe this is marked as an opinion piece, so which policy would you say doesn't allow us to use it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Function as a mosque

That the tomb has been used by Muslims for prayer cannot be denied. It must be noted however that the site lacks the usual trappings of a typical mosque: a minaret, minbar. The mihrab, installed by a Jew, dates from 1841. If mere prayer at a site confers upon a space the definition of a "house of worship", then the site has also functioned as a church and synagogue. The site is ignored in early Muslim pilgrim accounts. Early Jewish accounts do not call the site a mosque, yet do call the Tomb of Nathan a mosque. It would seem the earliest source calling the place a "mosque" is from Russian deacon Zosimos in 1421, but on what was this based? From seeing a passing Muslim performing salat at the site? No minarets were added as they were at the Machpela Cave, David’s Tomb, etc. Some sources indicate that Montefiore built the 1841 vestibule solely for Muslim use, according to one "to conciliate Moslem susceptibility." But it is more probable that the vestible was for shelter and a niche was added for Mulsim who wished to pray therein. It would further seem from its remote location adjacent to a cemetery, that it chiefly served as a place for pre-burial rites and funeral chapel, rather than a purpose built house of worship. This is also attested to the inscrptions on the gates which refer to the cemetery. Veneration and worship at the site was offered by members of all faiths and I cannot find evidence that shows the tomb served as a "mosque" more than it did as a place of worship for other religions.

• A league further on we entered the plain of Rama, where you meet with Rachel's tomb. It is a square edifice, surmounted with a small dome. It enjoys privileges of a mosque, for the Turks, as well as the Arabs, honor the families of the patriarchs. (Monthly magazine and British register, 1796)
• Next cam Rachel's tomb, a modern mosque. (Sinai and Palestine: In Connection with Their History, 1856)
• Finally, in 1841, Montefiore, the English millionaire, obtained for the Jews the key of the Qoubbet Rahil, and added a mean, square vestibule with a mihrab, which since then has served as a place of prayer for the Mussulmans. (Guide to the Holy Land, 1923)
• It consists of an oblong building with an arched entrance on the N., and divided into two rooms, the E. being a vestibule and place of Mohammedan worship, containing a prayer-niche or "mihrab" indicating the direction of Mecca, and the W. chamber connected with the other by a door. (American colony guide-book to Jerusalem and environs, 1925)
• A difference arose between Moslem and Jewish authorities in regard to the placing of benches for aged pilgrims and children by the Jewish beadle in the antechamber to Rachel’s Tomb, and the proposal of the Moslems to effect certain alterations to the ante-chamber. The shrine was restored some 90 years ago by Sir Moses Montefiore, and the Jews have held the keys during that period. It is stated that the ante-chamber was built at the same time as a special place of prayer for Moslems. It was ruled in 1921 that repairs should be undertaken by Government for the time being, Jewish rights to the shrine and Moslem rights to the ante-chamber being recognized. Applying this ruling to the existing dispute, the Government caused the Jews to cease from whitewashing the antechamber and placing benches in it and the Moslems to respect the Jewish right of passage through it to the shrine, and to refrain from any altering or repairing of their portion of the building. (Colonial, 1935)
• In 1841 the English Jewish pilgrim Sir Moses Montefiore bought the site, made repairs, and added a vestibule, which included a prayer niche, a mihrab, facing Mecca for Muslim use. (Pilgrimage: from the Ganges to Graceland : an encyclopedia, 1965)
• Sir Moses Montefiore secured the key of the Tomb for the use of the Jews and added a square vestibule with a mihrab, or praying place, for Moslems. (Guide to the West Bank of Jordan, 1965)
• The tomb was included among the Tombs of the Prophets and identified with a signboard. Sir Moses Montefiore, at the time of its restoration especially assigned the antechamber to the Muslims for prayer. Both Jews and Muslims continued to pray there, happily together. In 1912, the Ottoman government allowed the Jews to repair the tomb. After the establishment of the mandatory government, the Jews whitewashed the whole shrine, but when in 1921 the chief rabbinate applied for permission to carry out further repairs, certain Muslims protested. The mandatory government decided to carry out the repairs itself, but was prevented by a Jewish protest. In 1925, however, the government went ahead with essential repairs to the exterior, but the Jews still witheld the keys to the interior. From 1948 the tomb was within Jordanian territory and Jewish access was impracticable. (Holy places: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim monuments in the Holy Land, 1969)
• The tomb you now see was walled up until 1841, when Sir Moses Montefiore secured permission from the Turkish authorities for Jews to pray here. He also built a small vestibule for Moslems. (Bazak Israel guide, 1971)
• ln 1788 the arches were blocked to form a closed chamber, then in 1841 Sir Moses Montefiore repaired the building and added a vestibule with a mihrab, or south-pointing prayer niche, for Moslem worship. (This is Israel: pictorial guide & souvenir, 1993)
• In 1841 the tomb was acquired by Sir Moses Montefiore, who added a vaulted vestibule on the east for the Muslims to pray in. ( The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1998)
• It consists of an open antechamber and a two-roomed shrine under a cupola containing a sarcophagus. The building lies within a Moslem cemetery, for which it serves as a place of prayer. (Documents on Jerusalem, 2007)
• "The actual renovations centred on the completion of a vestibule adjacent to the tomb itself. This second room was now enclosed with an open, arched entranceway. A mihrab was added in the south wall for Muslim who wished to pray.
• Formerly a stone pyramid covered the tomb, but the site was purchased in 1841 by Sir Moses Montefiore who had it restored and decorated with a cupola and a vestibule.
• When Dr Robinson passed, this sepulcher of Rachel was fast falling into decay. Its restoration, I was informed, was the work of Sir Moses Montefiore on his first visit to Palestine. The building consists of two apartments, viz. an ante-chamber without a door; and an inner one containing the sepulcher, secured by an iron door, which, on this and many subsequent visits, I always found locked.
• In 1841, Sir M. Montefiore purchased the grounds and monument for the Jewish community, added an adjoining prayer vestibule, and reconditioned the entire structure with its white dome and quiet reception or prayer room. (The Holy Land, 1977)

Interesting stuff but I'm not sure what you are proposing. Sol (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

19th-century accounts

On our way we met with companies of poor Jews, who having poured out their hearts in prayer at Rachel’s Tomb, in behalf of their suffering brethren in secular countries… They looked the picture of misery, which considerably damped my buoyant feelings at the time. (Moses Margoliouth, 1850)

On the way to the right, we branch off to the road to visit the Tomb of Rachel, a round, solid building of stone, surrounded by substantial stone-domed square case; the interior passage between the Tomb and the case is just wide enough to allow one to pass another; one lamp only relives the darkness; many Jews were there praying, standing up – this is their posture for prayer. (William Wyndham Malet, 1867)

Flag

The Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs is a ministry, not a location, so a flag is inappropriate.

The West bank on the other hand is a location, part of the Palestinian territories, so I suggest we ad the Palestinian flag after "West bank" in the infobox.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" is part of MOS:FLAG. I think deemphasizing nationality is just as wrong. Don;t poke buttons if we don't have to. The flags are not really needed and although nationalism might be fun, it really doesn't assist the reader hin this instance. And I just found this one "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". "they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." on top of POV. So should I start a centralized discussion for the whole topic area or can I stop this undue prominence issue that has been causing drama in multiple articles?Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The tomb is in Jerusalem

The infobox currently states: "Location Bethlehem municipality, West Bank." This is false. The tomb is in Jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The tomb is in the West Bank, Bethlehem, see this reliable BBC source [6]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That 23 February 2010 report saying the tomb is "in Bethlehem" is factually incorrect. All areas behind the wall in the vicinity of Jerusalem are now considered part of Jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for what you are saying? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have found one you might accept. Asad provided me with it: pg. 20 If I am correct, the map shows areas north of the barrier as being in Jerusalem. Chesdovi (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that page saying that Rachels Tomb is in Israel and not the West bank, what page? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't provide that source and I have not even personally reviewed it. Here is another source showing its location to be within Bethlehem. (notice the white color is Israel's annexed territory). Irregardless, its locations is in the West Bank, not Jerusalem, as its annexation of Jerusalem is illegal and was universally condemned by even its steadfast allies. -asad (talk) 16:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You said before not to use an Israeli source? Anyway, the lead made it clear that it was part of the west bank. Israel has not offically annexed it, and the lead did not claim that. Rather my new wording made it clear that that wall has made it a de-facto reality, viz. it is now annexed to Jerusalem and cut off from Bethlehem by a physical barrier. Your map does not show it within Bethlehem, and my rewording did not claim it wasn't "part of" Bethlehem. Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually in reality, me being able to use an Israeli source to prove this point is all that much damning to your case. What you may view as a de facto permanent annexation by the wall, others view as temporary apartheid. My map clearly shows it is not in the white Israeli "annexed" Jerusalem which is what this whole fuss is about in the first place. -asad (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have already stated that the tomb was not offically annexed, and lies 460m past the municipal line. The "de-facto annexation" is just that, whether it is permenant or temporary, that is the case as it stands today. As the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs stated in 2005: the "army has prepared a plan - approved by PM Sharon and WJM mayor Olmert - for the de facto annexation of Rachel's Tomb to Jerusalem, in the context of the 'Jerusalem Security Envelope' plan, which involves the constructing of a security barrier..." With the barrier now constrcuted, the tomb has "effectivly" been annexed. RACHEL'S tomb In a desolate corridor created by Israel's security wall, near the main checkpoint into town, ... and the security wall, effectively annexing this area to Israeli Jerusalem.

...Right, but the world doesn't recognize the "de facto" annexation. I believe that is a vital point. What about that do you not get? -asad (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The lead sums up the facts; viewpoints and stances of envious and disgruntled parties can be discussed at length in the body. I am happy this has been cleared up. Chesdovi (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No matter what it says here or anywhere, Rachel's Tomb is in Jerusalem. When you go there, it is obvious. You want a great source, go visit it for yourself. Take a photo, video, or draw a picture. What is the official address? Jerusalem. Who controls the area? Jerusalem. How do you get there? Jerusalem. Where is it on my Garmin GPS? Jerusalem (I guess Garmin is part of the Zionist conspiracy) I know some might not like this, think this unfair, feel it is disputed, etc. But in actuality and reality Rachel's Tomb is in Jerusalem. It might make you feel good to say otherwise, but you are simply fooling yourself. Get over it.

You can say what you want, but I actually go and visit it in Jerusalem. I actually go and pray there in Jerusalem. No one who goes there thinks it is anywhere except Jerusalem. Hello world, go visit Rachel's Tomb in Jerusalem. --אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't get to it from Bethlehem, right? Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will restate what I just wrote, and add on something that I thought was benignly obvious and wasn't needed (boy, was I wrong): the world doesn't recognize the "de facto" annexation. I believe that is a vital point. What about that do you not get? So, regardless if it is defacto annexed Jerusalem or annexed Jerusalem, the annexation is illegal and not recognized by anyone. If the annexation is illegal then land "annexed" by the annexing body is therefore null and void which would mean the unrecognized muncipal borders of are illegitimate and irrelevant. Further more, beyond the illegal annexation, there is an illegal occupation taking place. And under the borders of the occupied land, Rachael's tomb is not even close to Jerusalem. So if it's location is not in Jerusalem, then writing a lead which says it is in Jerusalem, be it de facto and unofficially, is POV. Not to mention the universal consensus of the location (in the West Bank) is flagrant POV. -asad (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that recognition and reality should be addressed in the article. I very keen to undersatnd why you are not taking up the point that currently you have no problem whatsoever about the lead containing "was annexed to Jordan", also an illegitimate and illegal move. Explanation? Chesdovi (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding "annexed and occupied by Jordan..." -asad (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ass-ad, I guess you don't live in the area since you think it is "nowhere near". By the way, you must think my Garmin GPS is illegal. Also you should know that Christians don't celebrate Jesus's birth in Bethlehem. That too was illegal, they think. A Jewish family giving birth in the West Bank. Jesus's family were Jewish settlers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אֶפְרָתָה (talk • contribs) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus may have been born an illegal settler in the West Bank, but he did live as a Jew in Nazerath within the '67 borders; and since he is buried in the international zone of East Jerusalem, he had the best of all worlds! Chesdovi (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, the text before was much better then your edit, it describes the present situation, what its part of, you removed that its part of the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli enclave"

What source says: "it was agreed that the tomb would serve as an Israeli enclave" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

How is the removal that its located in Bethlehem in the West bank a "better lead" ? How is the BBC a "primary source? how is the replacement of occupied Palestinian territories, to only "occupied territories" "tighter and better wording" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it that an editor justified removing the part about Palestinians not having access to the site, but justified leaving the part about Israeli's having access to the site? If it isn't blatant POV, it is beyond me. -asad (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the purpose of his edit was to revert back to Chesdovis edit; [7], he has not explained it.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Chesdovi did a remarkable job of rewriting the lede as to smooth out the contentious subjects. We don't have to smack the reader in the face if not necessary. The cites UNESCO were problematic because it is not secondary and should not really belong on the lede per WP:LEAD. Most importantly, the cites were misleading. Can't cite to one UNESCO document for the proposition that Israel's actions "have been criticized by international bodies."--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You essentially said you removed certain material in the lead because it was "cited" and they were "primary sources". So if that were truly the case and that was truly the reason why you removed it, then you would logically saw it better to keep the material and add the sources later on the the article, right And BTW, on WP: LEAD it says determining the citations in the lead is something to be reached by consensus, something you DIDN'T do. And note, the second citation was only intended to cite its location in Palestinian Territory. -asad (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How is it a remarkable job to remove that its located in the west bank? How is it a remarkable job to ad that "it was agreed that the tomb would serve as an Israeli enclave" without any source to confirm this? How is it a remarkable job to replace OPT with OT that includes Golan? How is BBC not secondary? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you respond Brewcrewer? As it appears now, it should be reverted back. -asad (talk) 16:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Where in WP:Lead does it say that primary sources cant be used? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"The United Nations decided in 1947 that the site should lie within an international zone."

What source says this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Deterioration in the security situation"

I would really love to to delete that part from the lead. It is no where close to becoming POV to say that the West Bank barrier serves as a "security" purpose. That is just as fair as me add that the wall was built to steal land from the Palestinians. None of those would have a place. I say we just remove it. -asad (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess there are no objections to removing it. -asad (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The fortification of the tomb 10 years before the wall was no doubt due to the constant PA attaks against Israeli soldiers stationed there. Chesdovi (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That is one opinion. But I know you know that I can find an equal amount of opinions that say it is a land grab. -asad (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I can find quite a few people who would claim the earth is flat. TFighterPilot (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There may be material about the wall constituting a land grab, but I am not sure the encapsulation of the tomb was described as such. Chesdovi (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps when the world court and all international and human right bodies join the Flat Earth Society, then your trivial comparison might have a backbone. It seems as if you all would like to believe that Rachel's Tomb is located outside of the 1967 border. Just in case you forgot, it is actually located inside the said border. Therefore, when you build a wall around something that is not yours, most people come to the conclusion that is is land grab. Otherwise they would build it on the internationally recognized border, right? -asad (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There is the wall and there is the tomb housing, built 10 year earlier. It seems you are not familiar with the site. Try reading the whole article. Chesdovi (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, not only have I read the article, I've been to the site. If the occupying force builds a wall, even 1x1 meters, it is still considered a land grab by many people, as they don't have the right to wall anything which does not belong to them. Therefore, rather to say speak about the so called "security" situation, or the so called "apartheid" it is better to leave it as the situation stands. -asad (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The occupying power is actually obliged to safeguard historical monuments. The tomb was not turned into a civilian settlement. The Oslo accords gave Israel a joint right to military presence therein. Had the fortification not been built, the tomb would have been destroyed by arson attacks, as we saw with Joseph's tomb. The result may have been consolidation of the site as an Israeli enclave, but the cause was the attacks against it, (since Israeli soldiers were stationed there.) The site had been held by Israel for 30 years before it was fortified as a military post. And that was certainly due to the deterioration of the security situation. Chesdovi (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

That is one opinion, the other is that local residents are trying to prevent the occupying power from stealing its land and appropriating their holy sites. Thusly, not taking your side, or the side I just presented, the statement is fine as it is. -asad (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The Israelis acted under their responsibilties as an occupying power to safeguard endanged cultural sites. They did not build a fortification around Manger Square, or the cave of the patriarchs and around other Jewsih claimed sites. The only reason the site was fortified was to guard it from desecration as it was under constant attack. The appropriation you refer to was merely the effect, which is also mention in the lead. Chesdovi (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Again. Since you obviously have no intention to compromise, please provide a world view source backing up your claim that the tomb was enclosed due to the security situation. -asad (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

World view? What, like a UN resolution? Stickert says so. Chesdovi (talk)

Your presumed sarcasm aside, the request still stands. -asad (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"POV"

Could somebody explain how including that UNESCO saying this is in the oPt is "POV"? nableezy - 20:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume the 'POV' comment you're referring to was mine? If so I think you've misread! I said the ARTICLE had POV issues. What I changed due to a POV issue was the line "the organization is biased and motivated solely by political considerations", which I thought was entirely unrepresentative of even the position of the media. Below is the reply I'd written to the guy who undid the revision:-

Regarding the second paragraph, I've made two changes - firstly changing the phrase "together with other Israeli actions", to "officially listing it as Israeli Heritage site". It's more specific, and reflects the sources. The second change is to change the line "UNESCO's criticisms have given rise to charges in Israeli media that the organization is biased and motivated solely by political considerations". There are several issues with this: the media was far from united - some organisations agreed with them, and others suggested they'd made an honest mistake; the criticism element has pretty clear POV issues, and the active element of the sentence is UNESCO. The phrase "leading to debate and criticism from within Israel" perfectly reasonably covers the same area in a more neutral tone. There is no issue whatsoever around sources or references - all were left in. If somebody has a more accurate or neutral version of the second sentence in particular, it should really be dealt with through the Discussion. Marty jar (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

My removal on 14/11/11 was of two sentences which had POV issues. Rather than saying that the Palestinians applied for something, and the Supreme court rejected it, the previous entry had used a strangely convoluted form to give a clearly partisan representation of the situation. I’ve returned it to being factual. The second was another section implying that it was purely a Jewish site, and is now purely a muslim site, which is again not in keeping with the rest of the article, or the sources. Marty jar (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

recent reverts

A collection of users and IPs have been repeatedly inserting that this place is located south of "Jerusalem, Israel". The portion of Jerusalem that Bethlehem is "just south of" is in fact East Jerusalem, which, despite the imaginations of some nationalists, is decidedly not in in Israel. Additionally, the users and IP have repeatedly inserted a nonsensical collection of words in place of an English sentence, making the second paragraph of an encyclopedia article say In 2000, Many Muslims began calling venerate the site as Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque. Do I really need to explain why this is a poor edit? nableezy - 15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am using a public library and from what I seen my IP have been the same. Also some people seem to confuse political issues and natural view point, East Jerusalem may in fact end up in PA control but at the moment it's under Israel control and considering that the whole article lead focused on location rather than the tomb itself, I think it's appropriate to mention them both. as for the later part you are correct, I have fixed it to avoid the misleading impression the sentence convays with out it.--128.139.251.57 (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Under Israeli control, that control being occupation, is not the same as being in Israel. nableezy - 16:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead should say they started calling it Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque in 1996, per our sources. Feel free to word it to your liking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you want to put in the lead, go ahead. Somebody who cares can discuss when who called this what. My problem was with the non-sentence that had been in there. I hope you will at least agree with me that, at a minimum, an actual English sentence be used instead of the mangled nonsense that had earlier been inserted. nableezy - 00:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, having a grammatically correct sentence is preferable. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There is one source that mention it in 1996 but it wasnt widely accepted until the events of second intifada in 2000, since then it entered in the national Palestinian discourse as symbol. other than that we have handful of official Palestinian sources before 2000 calling it nothing but Rachel's Tomb.

POV source

This seems like a POV source. It should be included for the sake of including the Israeli/Jewish POV, but it shouldn't be treated as fact, and most certainly should not be used to present the Palestinian POV.VR _talk 01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is not a reliable source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that biased and unreliable? It appears to be objective and accurate. On the other hand, reference #48, http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-slams-israel-over-designating-heritage-sites-1.263737, does not seem reliable. Haaretz is a highly biased news site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirkand555 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking around the site we can see many articles dedicated to defending Israel, and many anti-Hezbollah, anti-Iran, anti-Palestinian articles. The center is also run by Dore Gold who is the former Israeli ambassador to the UN, so its position is clear. The articles can only be used as a source for the personal opinions of the authors. Not as facts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What you have described sounds like a neutral site, since all of those views are normal and mainstream. Furthermore, how does this even affect facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirkand555 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

JCPA is an advocacy group, and their comments can be included if attributed, but not when they conflict with actual third-party secondary reliable sources like The Guardian. nableezy - 15:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Guardian vs. JCPA belies the crux of the matter. The Guardian piece was written by a generally unnotable newspaper reporter and the JCPA was written by a noted Middle East columnist, author of several books on the Middle East, who was a staff writer for the Haaretz for over twenty years. More importantly, the Guardian and JCPA do not contradict each other in any way. Thus it is incorrect to remove the JCPA-sourced vital inforomation "in exchange" for the Guardian article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you well know that the "notability" of a reporter is irrelevant to the question of its reliability. Though I would be very interested in knowing if you would accept without any attribution material from this or this "noted Middle East columnist[s], author[s] of several books on the Middle East, who [were] staff writer[s] for several newspapers". nableezy - 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, one of the authors your mentioned is mocked for his reliability, so no. But regarding this article, I never stated that Shragai's statements should be unattributed. So if we can restore the material with the attribution I think we can all go along our merry way.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Brewcrewer: having the material with attribution is a good idea. But we still have to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. That means Shragai's statements can be quoted in small amounts. It also means that any opinion Shragai alone holds should not be in the lead.VR _talk 08:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see, because unreliable partisans "mock" a "noted reporter" who is an "author of several books on the Middle East" and a correspondent at multiple newspapers he is not "reliable". I understand now. Thanks. nableezy - 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So the red herring about Fisk aside, do we agree that the content should be restored with attribution?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

In the previous discussion I posted a link to the Jerusalem Post with the same material. JP is a reliable source and Shragai has quite a bit of expertise on the matter. Plus the Guardian doesn't contradict what Shragai says. I'm going to add the JP source tomorrow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that know. By all means do that. I made an edit, self-reverted because as I again forgot about a restriction, that I think deals with this how it should be dealt with. I dont know why the history of what Muslims call it should be in the lead, but it should be sufficiently explained in the body. Right now there is a bunch of garbled English in the lead, and no explanation in the body. nableezy - 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You really don't understand why a UNESCO world heritage site using a 15 year old name should be in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I dont, and I dont know why there is only this one person writing that this name has only been used since 1996. nableezy - 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I believe Zero searched but couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with the mosque. Why only one person is writing about it is a very good question, but doesn't really change anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it does change whether or not it should be even mentioned in the lead. nableezy - 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please elaborate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the piped link makes the argument pretty clear, but sure. This is an exceptional claim, that the Palestinian leadership suddenly decided to change the name of the place for political reasons. If it were true I would expect that there would be several sources attesting to it. It may well be true, I dont know, but including it in the lead gives undue weight to the claims of a single reporter, a rather partisan one at that. nableezy - 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No More: please find either a neutral source, or a Palestinian source for any claims regarding Palestinian or Muslim views. It is rather ridiculous for you to rely on anti Palestinian sources to present views of Muslims/Palestinians. It is like going to anti-Zionist sources to learn about Judaism. If it is a major Israeli view to deny the Muslim connection to Rachel's Tomb, then we can mention that lower in the article as an Israeli view.VR _talk 08:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is mentioned in multiple sources that Rachel's tomb has included a mosque (a Muslim place for prayer) for hundreds of years. What is the point of contention is whether this mosque has been called after Bilal ibn Rabah or some other name (such as Qubet Rihal).VR _talk 09:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nableezy, it might be considered UNDUE if you had a bunch of sources saying it has always been called something, but that is not the case here.

@VR, the idea I need to find a "Palestinian source" for this is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I am saying that placing such an emphasis on something that has been reported by a single person, a reliably partisan reporter at that, for a WP:REDFLAG claim is the problem. nableezy - 15:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One sentence in the lead is "such emphasis"? considering we have exactly zero sources that contradict the claim, it is not due weight or a REDFLAG. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a redflag claim on the basis of it being an extraordinary claim that has been made by a single reporter. Who else makes this claim besides Shragai? And yes, a single sentence in the lead for something that only one person claims is too much weight. WP:LEAD establishes that notable criticisms or controversies should be included, and if all that exists on this supposed controversy is a single partisan reporter then it is not a notable criticism or controversy. Included in the body sure, but the lead requires more than a single writer's claim for inclusion. nableezy - 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You not liking something doesn't make it a REDFLAG. If for example someone could come up with a source equating "Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque" with "Rachel's Tomb" from before 1996 (we're not talking 13th century here, that's a mere 15 years ago), then we wouldn't have an issue here. I'm sure you can google for yourself to see that this is not the only such "criticism", but I will note for future reference that you think the fact someone is "partisan" is a reason not to include them in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a rather gross distortion of what I have written. That something is backed only by a lone partisan reporter is why it should not be in the article. In a review of Shragai's book The Story of Rachel's Tomb, Joshua Schwartz of Bar-Illan writes the following: The political leanings of the author are clear as well as his political and religious message. None of this would have suffered if the author had made a greater attempt at producing scholarship (and not just selling books). and later Is The Story of Rachel’s Tomb scholarship? By no means. The review is in Jewish Quarterly Review, 97 (3), University of Pennsylvania Press, Summer 2007 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). The claim that Palestinian officials all of a sudden decided to change a centuries old name on a political whim is in fact an exceptional claim, a claim made by only one person, a person with a reliably predictable political slant. It is not a "notable controversy" and as such does not belong in the lead. Also, this "Story of a martyr" dated as being from 1987 uses the Arabic for Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah (مسجد بلال بن رباح) nableezy - 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the issue. Shragai is not saying that "Palestinian officials all of a sudden decided to change a centuries old name on a political whim". He is saying that associating the tomb itself with Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque is recent. I like your saraya.ps source. Could you tell us who runs that site for those editors who don't know Arabic? I have to assume that's the best source you could find. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you are misunderstanding the issue. It is Shragai and Shragai alone that is making the claim that associating the tomb itself with Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque is recent. I am glad you like the source. But I do question the good faith of a user that asks for a source using that term prior to 95 and then says the one brought isnt good enough. Searching in Arabic is much more difficult than English or even Hebrew, but you already knew that, which is why you keep asking for a source prior 95. But once such a source is brought, you persist in your insistence that this lone partisan's WP:REDFLAG claim should be included in the lead of the article. Charming. nableezy - 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was expecting something that equates Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque with Rachel's Tomb from, say, a newspaper or something, not just mention of Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque (is that source even talking about Rachel's Tomb?) on the website (which probably didn't even exist in 1987) of the armed wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I'll ignore your silly accusations, and pretend we don't know what you'd say if someone used a similar source from the opposite side for, well, anything whatsoever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Your last sentence assumes that I would attempt to include such a claim on the basis of a single reporter, a reported well known for their partisanship and not much else. Needless to say, that is a baseless assumption. My comments about WP:REDFLAG remain with no refutation, this remains an extraordinary claim made without an extraordinary source. nableezy - 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@No more: please don't distort my words. I said "a neutral source, or a Palestinian source for any claims regarding Palestinian or Muslim views." You can find a neutral and reliable source, such as academic sources. You could also quote a high-ranking Muslim cleric or Palestinian official, and that would constitute "the Palestinian view". What you may not do is quote anti-Palestinian Israelis and then put words into the mouths of the Palestinians.VR _talk 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source per wikipedia policy. Nobody is putting words into the mouths of Palestinians. We are trying to get the encyclopdia to report on a certain fact (one that nobody has yet been able to refute by the way) in a neutral tone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is your irrefutable fact? We have sources referring to the tomb as a mosque dating back to the 1800s. We also have sources that refer to it as some variant of "Bilal ibn Rabah mosque" dating to the 1990s.

I'm not sure if editorials in the Post (or any newspaper) are reliable sources to be used without attribution.VR _talk 22:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@NMMNG. Are you of the opinion that Shragai's statement should be included without attribution? I'm not, despite the fact that its basically an uncontradicted statement by a very reliable source. However this counterclaim that it should be attributed was used against me.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind it being attributed. Will that satisfy those who want to pretend that the place has always been called Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque? Notice how many times this article mentions "Qubbat Rakhil", a name you can find in dozens of sources going back centuries, compared to "Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque", which editors here are having problems finding a mention of older than 15 years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be fine in the body (like the edit I made), attribution does not solve the problem of placing such undue weight on a sole reporter's extraordinary claim in the lead of the article. And lets not forget, a source dated 1987 has been brought here, which, for the less mathematically proficient among us, is more than 15 years old. nableezy - 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You have not answered the question if that source is saying the tomb is part of the mosque or just mentioning the mosque. And let's not forget that site didn't exist in 1987.

And you can keep saying it's an "extraordinary claim", but so far it has not been contradicted by a single source, including, as far as we know, that of the armed wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which you brought here.

Here's Haaretz reporting on the issue. Waiting to hear why it's still not a notable controversy.

By the way, here is a Palestinian that seems to make a distinction between Rachel's Tomb "known as Qubbet Rahiil in Arabic" and the "Muslim graveyard where in the “Bilal-Ibn-Rabah Mosque” Islamic rites and prayers for the deceased were performed." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What site didnt exist in 1987? The website? So what? As far as the Haaretz report (its actually the AP), let's look at what they actually say:

Israelis charged that Rachel's Tomb was traditionally referred to also by Muslims as such in Arabic, as "Qubat Rachel," although the structure also traditionally included a Muslim prayer house adjacent to a Muslim cemetery.

They charge that the name "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque" only came into use following Arab-Israeli riots in 1996 and was coined by Palestinians for political reasons.

Note how it is an Israeli claim that the name only came into use in 1996? nableezy - 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Right. So it's not just "one partisan reporter" anymore, now is it?

Could you answer the question about how the PIJ site uses "Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque" in relation to Rachel's Tomb? Is it saying the two are the same or not? I've asked this several times already but you keep ignoring it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a source using the name, thats all I provided. And yes, it is no longer a single partisan reporter making the claim, but it is worded as a claim, made only by Israelis, in the AP report. If you want to include that Israelis claim that the name was invented in 1996 for political purposes then by all means. I still dont see why that should be in the lead, a few news reports on a UNESCO statement isnt exactly indicative of any notability. nableezy - 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I asked for a source using the name in reference to Rachel's Tomb. I see why you didn't answer the question earlier, and that your claim above that a source was provided is dishonest. Unfortunately that was to be expected.

So no editor has been able to find a source (even one from Islamic Jihad) that shows usage prior to 1996 of "Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque" in reference to Rachel's Tomb. Or in other words, a "REDFLAG" claim that should be quite easy to refute were it incorrect, has yet to be refuted. Again, I'm not surprised. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What nonsense, dishonesty while claiming others are dishonest. What you asked for, and being dishonest about you making a request that is still on this page is quite shameless, is Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I brought a mention of it from before 1996, and now you are claiming I am dishonest? Charming. Why would an Arab source make mention of Rachel's Tomb if the name they are using is Bilal ibn-Rabah Mosque? Your request [the one now, not the one you made earlier which you dishonestly misrepresent now] is unintelligible. And you once again ignore the fact that AP calls this argument a claim made by Israelis, not a fact as you have repeatedly, and dishonestly, pushed into the lead. nableezy - 23:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your selective quoting doesn't make you look less dishonest. Here's the diff. Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I believe Zero searched but couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with the mosque. I did not ask for just any source talking about a mosque with that name, as is pretty obvious to anyone who can read English. So I suggest you quit lying about what I said. The fact you didn't answer the first 3 times I asked you exactly what your source says also doesn't exactly make you look especially honest about what you thought I was asking for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean my accurately quoting you doesnt make me appear less dishonest? Obviously, because there was no dishonesty, except of course on your part. You asked for a source using the name prior to 1996, I gave you such a source. My quote of you is not a lie, and the very fact that you claim my accurately quoting you is lying shows just how willing you are to distort even your own words. I, up until now, never thought so little of you that I would have expected such base dishonesty. Others sure, but until now I had not seen you purposely lie about the record. I guess that settles at least one question. nableezy - 00:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mean your deliberately omitting the second sentence which shows exactly what I was talking about is very dishonest. It's called selective quoting. The record is indeed there. I provided a diff that shows the full context, making your dishonesty very clear. Here is another diff from right before you posted your source. Good luck trying to misrepresent what I was asking for based on that one. Your not answering repeated requests to clarify what your source says is also quite telling.

The question of your dishonesty was settled long ago. I could not possibly care less what you think about me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your entire comment says Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I believe Zero searched but couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with the mosque. You say that it would be trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. You then said that Zero couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with a mosque. The equating of Rachel's Tomb with a mosque is not the same thing as find[ing] a mention from before 1996. Your not saying what you now wish you said is not cause for continuing with such rank dishonesty here. And no matter, look below. There are indeed sources equating Rachel's Tomb with a mosque from well before 1996, making your newly requested cause for continuing with this act as baseless as your original cause. There is nothing more than an Israeli claim that the PA invented this name in 1996 as a political stunt. I realize that you and others you pal around with would very much like that Israeli claims be accepted as though they resemble fact, but this encyclopedia is not, at least not yet, a publication of the MFA. Until such time that it is, your dishonesty will not accomplish your goal. The record is here, and anybody can judge whose dishonesty is an established fact. Im glad you could not care less what I think, it gives me great comfort. I wonder if you do care to be so shameless that you repeatedly lie about the words that appear on this very page. But maybe thats just me. Now that there are sources that say that Rachel's Tomb has been called a mosque, going back a hundred years, is there any reason why we should continue with this "discussion" on whether an Israeli claim should be included in the lead, and whether it should be presented as anything other than such a claim? But, just in case those two arent enough for you, if you would like more sources on Rachel's Tomb being a mosque from before the last 15 years, then here you go. nableezy - 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The second diff I posted above shows I was quite clear about what I was asking for before you provided your source, and I asked for clarification of your source right after you posted it, a request which you ignored. So feel free to keep lying about what happened, the record is there for all to see. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source from 1876, that calls Rachel's tomb a "little mosque". Here's another source that says a mosque lies on the spot of Rachel's tomb - dated to 1878. Clearly, Shragai's assertion that "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" is wrong. VR _talk 00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

good source for future reference

• Rachel weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb Tiamut^talk 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this source is appropriate. Basically, I was thinking of inserting the following passage as an rquote (to balance out the rquotes highlighting Jewish veneration):

“ Rachel's tomb...is a little mosque of the roadside, and is regarded with great sanctity by the Moslems ” — Henry Bascom Ridgaway (1876)

VR _talk 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I searched the quote here:[8] and found it but I couldn't see who said it as I cant see the page, are you sure it was Henry Bascom Ridgaway in 1876? It should be added to the article, I have seen Chesdovi cheery picking certain materials and highlighting them into articles while ignoring other things, he added both highlighted quotes that are currently in the article, this will help create a better balance. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Its page 206 of the source you're searching.VR _talk 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. There are loads of other travelogues from western visitors to Palestine in the 18th and 19th centuries that say the same thing. Another good source to expand and fact chck his article against is:

Contested Mediterranean Spaces: Ethnographic Essays in Honour of Charles Tilly By Maria Kousis, Tom Selwyn, David Clark

These sources and ones like this and this are preferable to news reports. Tiamut^talk 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention also that Pringle, ho is used as a sourcein the rticle has lots more information about the site that we havenot includedhere yet. Whoever has time to minethese things is ncouraged to o so. Tiamut^talk 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Vermeulen's book doesn't reveal much to me on google books. If you have any text or scanned copies of it, could you send it to my email? VR _talk 22:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which Area?

Currently the article says the tomb was under Area C of the Oslo Accords. Shragai doesn't seem to say anything. Michael Dumper, professor at University of Exeter, states that the tomb is in Area B, not in area C.

Thoughts?VR _talk 09:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Montefiore build a mosque at Rachel's Tomb?

"The domed chamber of the tomb was built by the Ottoman authorities.[3] A second room, an antechamber serving as a mosque, was built by Montefiore in 1841."

The pre-Montefiore structure was indeed erected by the local Ottoman Pasha in 1615, who no doubt built upon an earlier monument at the site. But the renovations made by Montefiore in 1842 entailed a complete overhaul of the crumbling structure. It is not correct to say the existing domed section was of sole Ottoman origin. Montefiore should also be credited with this. As Strickert says, "the cupola however had already been a well recognised feature of the tomb & likley underwent repair work." It is also absurd to suggest that it was Montefiore who constructed the antechamber for exclusive Muslim use. Unless there exists a firman that makes this a condition of his extension, Montefiore did not build a mosque for the Muslims at Judaism 3rd holiest site! Chesdovi (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Chesdovi, check out the sources I linked to above. Montefiore did indeed build a mosque at the site or at least a minbar and place for Muslims to pray in a building adjacent to the tomb. The site was used as a Muslim cemetery for centuries, up into the 20 th century. Tiamut^talk 22:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be right (or wrong) Chesdovi, but I wasn't around when all this happened. I only go by the reliable sources. They say that Montefiore built a mosque complete with a Mihrab.

But why is so hard to believe Muslims and Jews co-existing? If the (Muslim) Ottomans can build a shrine for a Jewish matriarch, and give Jews exclusive rights over a place Muslims also find holy, then a Jewish pilgrim can build a mosque for Muslims adjacent to (not on top of) Judaism's 3rd holiest site.VR _talk 22:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that Montefiore renovated the existing structure. So how about this:

The present structure, consists of two chambers. The domed chamber of the tomb was built by the Ottoman authorities in 1615[need a source for the date]. In 1841, Montefiore renovated the tomb and added to it an antechamber with a mihrab to serve as a mosque.

VR _talk 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I accept many sources indeed ascribe the addition of the vestibule, sans mineret, as being especially for Muslim prayer, (I listed a few of these above a while back.) But I wonder where this idea comes from, that a religious Jew, intent on purchasing land and financing building projects for Jewish Palestinians, built a mosque for the Muslim's of Bethlehem at an important Jewish holy site. I find it rather odd. It is incredible to think that this "mosque" was provided intentionally by a benefactor of, what seems to have been, only Jewish causes in Palestine. Rational needs to be provided for this presumption which has gained wide acceptance as fact, but without explanation. Chesdovi (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think Muslim Ottoman authorities renovated sites of Jewish worship in Palestine, including the Western Wall? Why do you think the Muslim Ottomans gave Jews the exclusive use of the site, despite Rachel's holiness in Islam?

More importantly, why is it so hard to believe that Muslims and Jews are capable of altruism?VR _talk 05:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Altruism by Ottoman Pashas? You are too generous. Why do I think Muslim Ottoman authorities renovated the Western Wall? Because is it Hait el-Barak of course. Why did the Muslim Ottomans supposedly give Jews the exclusive use of the site? Probably upon payment of a heavy bribe or upon persuasion of an influential Jewish adviser or to gain influence with a prestigious foreigner. Jews and Muslims can care about each other, but you obviously have no idea of friction caused by holy sites in this part of the world. Priests brawl at Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity. Chesdovi (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Chesdovi. You might find things 'odd' as I do with most articles here, but it is unwise to allow your personal suspicions about sources containing information you dislike get in the way of respecting their authority in wiki terms. Yours remarks about Suleiman the Magnificent's restoration of the WW above are, frankly, ignorant, malicious and stupid. Just keep to sources. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware Suleiman the Magnificent renovated the Western Wall. Are you referring to his “uncovering” of it? Since when does one give credibility to such tales of Jewish folklore? Last time I checked it was Montefiore who added the last layers of bricks to the Wall. And I can tell you that it was for the Jewish veneration of the site, not to assist the Muslims in reinforcing Al Aqsa. You are fully aware of the refusal of Muslim recognition of Jewish rights to the Wall throughout the ages. The "altruistic" Ottomans would not allow the Jews to pave the area in 1840 at their own expense. They were even cautioned against "raising their voices" there - indeed, their synagogue was shut down in 1589 for that very reason. Any actions at the Wall made by Muslims were no doubt for their own veneration of the spot - were there any? The only instance we have of Muslim benevolence at the Wall was indeed by Suleiman the Magnificent: Aparantly his Jewish subjects were experiencing probelms at the site so he said they were officially allowed to pray there. What a nice person. Why he did, we do not know. It was definitely not of his own volition. Did he have an ulterior motive? We don't know. Oh, and he also built an "oratory" for them there. How kind, but what are the details surrounding this 1500s event? I would advise not to take it at face value. Explanations and rational for such events would be nice. There may be sources saying "Montefiore built a mosque at Rachel's tomb", but it is okay for me to question this assertion, just as you have in the past questioned Jewish attachment to the Westen Wall. It is also okay for me to suggest on talk that Muslim rulers may have been swayed by the occasional bribe here and there or done things only to improve their international standing, local relationships or personal prestige. It is not at all malicious to do so! This is the situation around the world nowadays, how much more so in history. Chesdovi (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, son, if you weren't aware either, you don't read much history or you are unfamiliar with the meaning of 'renovation' in English. If you think Arabs/Moslems are people who, unlike the belligerent occupants in Palestine, cannot ever be read as acting now or in the past in good faith, or from ideals, I suggest you desist from writing articles, since such a premise is alien to WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, anyone who has read much history of the treatment of Jews and their holy places by Arabs/Muslims knows that that good faith rarely had anything to do with it and the main ideal present was that Jews were to be treated as an inferior class that must be reminded of its subjugation as often as possible. But I think it's very likely you knew that already. Son. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you call the alleged sprinkling of rosewater on a wall "renovation", so be it. Do bear in mind that Suleiman the Magnificent was engaged in a massive regeneration project in Jerusalem, overhauling the entire outer walls of the city, also making renovations to the Haram itself. That some earth was moved away from a major retaining wall in the process can easily be seen by Jews as a favour to them alone - enough for them to make up stories about how the Sultan himself returned the wall to them. Are there any non-Jewish sources which refer to this event as being done specifically for the Jews? I can actually entertain the fact Suleiman cleansed and gave the Jews permission to pray at the wall and his building of an “oratory” for them there without any ulterior motives. It is easy for a powerful foreign ruler to make such a tiny gesture of good will for the towns 1,363 abiding Jewish citizens. In fact, this firman greatly bolsters the claim that by the 1500s the wall, apparently hidden under layers of muck, was still regarded as a major significant Jewish site. But for a private self-made Jewish philanthropist to part with his money to build mosques over Palestine? Remember, this thread is about my sensing that a Jewish Englishman was only concerned for the rights of his Jewish brethren, and did not give a hoot of the needs of Bethlehem Muslims. If the cemetery was so important for the Muslims, they would have built a prayer room there themselves, not allowed a Jew to do it for them. Why would have Montefiore wanted to sow discord by giving rights to Muslims at Jewish site – was he unaware it was bound to cause friction? Did he not think of build a synagogue? What is the meaning of this plaque at the site. Is there no Arabic sign informing the Muslim faithful of Montefiore bequeath to them? Chesdovi (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. I wrote of restoration, you read that as renovation, and in both cases show you do not understand what these words mean in English. The rest is just an attempt to blob your personal views, as NMMGG's lachrymose meme is just a tirade to cover the fact that what he complains of as the Arab treatment of Jews is exactly what Palestinians complain of in the way they are treated by Israelis. I do appreciate the confessional mode in literature, but the personal resentments or WP:OR violations flagrantly brandished here do not inspire confidence in your abilities to write a neutral article, as opposed to a screed that trumpets the Zionist myths of reclaiming an abused patrimony from these wretched interlopers. You must not let your suspicions in any way undermine the authority of RS.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My "lachrymose meme" is well documented historical fact, as I'm sure you're aware. For most of the past 1400 years, in most of the Muslim world, Jews would have been absolutely ecstatic if they were treated as Israel treats the Palestinians today. I eagerly await your long winded reply which will ignore the essence of what I just said but will instead focus on pointing out any grammar or spelling mistakes I might have made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No. As any Jewish historian will tell you, the great millenial tragedies of diaspora Jewry were concentrated in Christian lands, and not characteristic of life under Islam. One can't say that of course. Evangelicals would be offended and their help is indispensable.Nishidani (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No? I wish I could say I'm surprised you said that. That Jews were treated worse by Christians doesn't mean they were treated well by Muslims. Have you read Bernard Lewis? The situation of Jews living under Islamic rulers was never as bad as in Christendom at its worst, nor ever as good as in Christendom at its best. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

But never deny someone the opportunity to learn. If you want a short list of the devastation and abuse of historic mosques by Israel since 1948, read Meron Benvenisti's account in his Sacred Landscape(2002), or more recently Rochelle Davis's Palestinian Village Histories (2010). Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you keep on bringing the I/P issue into this, but the unfortunate loss of historic mosques at the hand of Israel is nothing compared to the clossal Jewish loss of the Temple Mount to foreign monuments of Muslim conquerors from Arabia and Egypt. Just a reminder: Jews banned from Hebron shrine for 700 years, from Temple Mount for 1,000 years under Muslim religious decree. Were Jews a security threat? Anyway, no need to comment next time when you feel Muslim character traits are under attack, especially here, when I am proposing the same self-centred mindset occurring in a Jew. Chesdovi (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Again you are bringing your POV into this, talking wildly of 'colossal Jewish loss' at Arab hands. It only translates as 'Sure, we're wiping the Arab presence off the map of Palestine and Israel, but they were asking for it, after depriving us, with the colossal losses we suffered from Arabs over the millenia.' 'the Jews were banned from Hebron for 700 hundred years' (read Hebron), etc. I don't read this lowbrow rubbish in Jewish historians, and I don't want to read it here. Blogs are full of it. Frankly all this nonsense is not helping editing here- Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting pretty far away from the purpose of the talk page. Can everybody please focus on the sources and the article? I dont think discussing Jewish or Palestinian losses at the hands of the other has much to do with what this talk page is meant for. nableezy - 23:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, all of the above is against page policy, and I apologize for my remarks, which however were directed at those who keep intruding personal or ethnic POV remarks into arguments about sources.Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits that don't correspond to sources

Chesdovi, please follow the sources. Regarding this edit:

• plenty of sources say he built the mosque. So why did you insert "allowed"?
  • What type of sources are they? If they are books written by credible authors, I have raised an issue here about this anomaly and want to know upon what these authors make such a claim. These authors also "were not there at the time" and it is wrong to blindly insert such a wild assertion without any explanation as to why this may have occurred or concrete evidence affirming this fact. The British Government periodical stated: "It is stated that the ante-chamber was built at the same time as a special place of prayer for Moslems." There is no written confirmation of this point, and it is just as likely that Muslims commandeered the antechamber at some later stage, using it for their own purposes, not as planned by its Jewish builder. Jewish stories actually tell of how it was the Jews who had asked Montefiore to build the extension to allow for more room for pilgrims, Jewish pilgrims, that is. It is also totally inappropriate to assert and emphasise that the Muslim usage was as a mosque. It was to them foremost a shrine and secondly a funeral parlor. And for all intense and purposes, the site could also be classified as a synagogue and church. I mean, what makes it a mosque? – that Muslims prayed there? It lacks all the trappings of a purpose built mosque – the mihrab could have easily been added at some later point. As far as I can see, when George Frederick Owen states that "Montefiore purchased the grounds and monument for the Jewish community, added an adjoining prayer vestibule," he does not mention anything about Muslims. It seems from this source the prayer room was added for the Jewish community, a much more acceptable assumption. Chesdovi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Page 280 of this book: "All sources agree that Montefiore built the Muslim prayer room in the mid nineteenth century."VR _talk 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree too. But if he built it for them is in question. Chesdovi (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
        • This book, p.177: "Montefiore, who added a vaulted vestibule on the east for the Muslims to pray in".VR _talk 20:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, you inserted the word "yet" (in the top paragraph) to make an argument that the source does not make. Finally, why is it that "only Muslims were allowed to visit the tomb" is treated as fact, but "gave the Jews exclusive ownership of the site" is preceded by "reports indicate"? The source cited makes no such distinction. Both facts appear equally unconditional.
  • I added:

"Muslims, Christians and Jews all venerate Rachel as the wife of a patriarch, yet until the beginning of the 17th-century, only Muslims were allowed to visit the tomb. Records indicate however, that in 1615, Muhammad, Pasha of Jerusalem, repaired the structure and gave the Jews exclusive ownership of the site"

"Yet" is simply added to show that although all religions had just claims to the site, non-Muslim were nevertheless not allowed. I don’t see what new argument I am making here: the source says “non-Muslims were not allowed to visit”. I added “reports indicate” to the later part of the paragraph, because it is unusual for rights to be passed to the Jews in such circumstances, while it is very probable that at times under Muslim rule, only Muslims were allowed. (Why indeed was Montefiore compelled to purchase the site “for the Jews” if they already had equal access at rights there in the first place?) To provide explanation for why nowadays Muslims are prohibited from the site by the Israeli government is easy to do, so it can be stated without the need to provide embellishments such as “it seems”, or “accounts indicate”. This is common in historical works, for when dealing with history, it is much harder to assert things with accuracy. What I have attempted here is to address the context vacuum missing in the cited source. Chesdovi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unusual in your view, not in the source's view. Again, I don't accept your analysis. If a reliable source makes the same analysis feel free to quote it.VR _talk 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed to [9]. Chesdovi (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. But some questions just don't have an answer in reliable sources. How long should we wait for an answer?VR _talk 20:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit,

• which source says "the marauding Arab e-Ta'amreh tribe"? Seriously, find me the source that calls Arabs marauding.
  • I did not call Arabs marauding, I refered to the Ta'amra tribe as such. This adjective was used by Finn to describe the lawless tribes of the Judean Hills in his time: "We came into contact in this way with the small tribes between Jerusalem and the Jordan; with the semi-wild Ta'amra between Bethlehem and the Dead Sea as far as Engeddi", Stirring times, Volume 2, pg. 187. Elsewhere he states: "But this year had seen far less of the wild tribes near Jerusalem than the year before, when they had been called in to join the factions of Abu Gosh and Othman el Lehham, and when their marauding expeditions threatened to become a very serious evil." Chesdovi (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Except that source isn't talking about marauding the Rachel's tomb. The context seems to be inter-tribal warfare. Also, Finn seems like an unreliable and very biased source as he calls the tribe's activities "evil" (and then refers to biblical prophecies).VR _talk 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It is used here as a generalisation of the nature of the tribe. The word does not need to be sourced in connection with the site. The Shaik Hamdan extorting money episode can be classed as marauding anyway. And Finn literary style is common of the time, and he should be reliable, bearing in mind his position of authority. I don't mind attribution. Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Great.VR _talk 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• you wrote "prevent them from damaging the tomb". Yet the sources say "to prevent damage to the tomb", never indicating that the tribe is the one that was damaging the tomb. Did you make this up?
  • It is valid point raised that it is not clear from the given source that the tribe was paid to prevent themselves from damaging the holy shrine as opposed to them paid to guard it. Again, this occurrence of lawless Arabs extracting protection money is sourced to Finn who notes that the Ta'amra tribe required an annual fee of £50 "for not injuring the Sepulchre of Rachel." (Finn, vol. 1, 119) It was quite common for Arab bandits to demand money from Jews in return for safe passage or to hold Jewish shrines to ransom. Jews had to pay up even to assert their rights at such places as the Western Wall. Entry from Finn’s diary, January 19, 1855: "We also required the apprehension & imprisonment of Shaik Hamdan of the Taamri for extorting money with his sword drawn, from Jews at Rachel’s sepulcher yesterday." Chesdovi (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Again Finn doesn't come across as a reliable source. But, I would like to hear other editor's views on this. A potential compromise could be including him but with attribution.VR _talk 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• you wrote "Yet in 1843, there were still reports of Muslim dominance at the site." The source says no such thing. That is your own original research.

VR _talk 05:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• • If Jews are not allowed to step inside a shrine by Muslim, then Muslims dominate the site. Jewish access should have been guaranteed after the rights and land was purchased for them. Chesdovi (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That Jewish access should have been guaranteed" is your own original research, unsupported by the source. Let's stick to the sources. Leave your own analysis out.VR _talk 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
      • It is not my OR that Jewish rights were guaranteed at the site. Montefoire purchased the site for the Jews. It was their property. Access for them should have been a given. A report from 1843 says they were barred from their own property. Does this need a reword? Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
        • The report does not appear to say that ("barred from their own property"). Perhaps you should quote which part you believe says that.VR _talk 20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits that don't correspond to sources (ii)

This edit:

"He built an adjacent vaulted reception vestibule on the east for Muslim prayer use, possibly as an act of conciliation"

does not match the source:

"and to conciliate Moslem susceptibility, added a square vestibule with a mihrab".

Why was "possibly" added? Chesdovi (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL.

Chesdovi, you added the word possibly in this edit. I merely retained the word that you had added.

But I agree with the "possibly" because the source in question, George Napier Whittingham's book published by Dutton, doesn't appear to be a scholarly source. The scholarly sources make no mention of "to conciliate Moslem susceptibility".VR _talk 23:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Which part of: "The dome of the tomb resembles a Moslem wely, and the tomb itself has been an object of veneration to the Jews for over three thousand years. The Crusaders erected over this monument a little building some twenty-four feet square, formed by four columns bound each to each by pointed arches twelve feet wide and twenty feet high, the whole crowned by a cupola. The Mohammedans in the sixteenth century destroyed a portion of this building, and, instead of a pyramid, built a stone cenotaph. In 1841 Montefiore obtained for the Jews the key of the Tomb, and to conciliate Moslem susceptibility, added a square vestibule with a mihrab as a place of prayer or Moslems" do you find unreliable? Anyway, I have found another source which states that in order to "keep the peace" with the Muslims, he saw to it that a mihrab was fixed in the antechamber :

כדי לשמור על דו־קיום בשלום עם המוסלמים דאג מונטיפיורי להתקין ׳מחרב׳ (גומחת תפילה מוסלמית) בפרוזדור הקבר״

Source: Perakim be-toldot ha-yishuv ha-yehudi bi-Yerushalayim, Yehudah Ben-Porat; Ben Zion Yehoshua; Aharon Ḳedar. Publisher: Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1973-1976. pg. 310. The sources which state "he also built a mosque for the Muslims" refer to it being used for prayer at the time of Muslim burial, so it was not used as a mosque in the conventional sense. I doubt jama'ah (communal prayer) ever took place there on a regular basis and I have not come across any sources which actually mention regular Muslim prayer services taking place there. On the other hand, Jews did occasionally use the site as a synagogue. It was most certainly not Montefiore's original intent to provide an extra mosque in Palestine for the Arabs. That will be made clear here. Chesdovi (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How are either of the sources reliable? You need to show if the publishing houses are reputable (academic/scholarly) or if the authors are professors or lecturers.

I don't understand your argument: the sources do say it was used for Muslim prayer. I never said jama'ah took place there (though it probably did). Salat is the Islamic term for all prayer (Salat al-Janazah is the prayer at the time of burial).VR _talk 05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources also say it was used to Jewish and Chrisitan prayer, and may other things besides. Were all visitors to shrine asked to removed there shoes before entering? No. Therefore this was not a mosque. Chesdovi (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the shoes argument holds much weight. Please find source saying it wasn't a mosque.VR _talk 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Documents on Jerusalem: Volume 4; Volume 4 published by PASSIA does not, as far as I can tell, refer to the tomb as a mosque. The ante-chamber merely served as a place for Muslims to pray in, as no doubt other faiths did: “It consists of an open antechamber and a two-roomed shrine under a cupola containing a sarcophagus. The building lies within a Moslem cemetery, for which it serves as a place of prayer.” The source does not state: “It consists of a mosque….” It was primarily a reception area for the pilgrims to the tomb and a useful location for burial rights for those interred outside. Any text in this article will make it clear that the additional room was not interned by Montefiore to be used as a mosque by Muslims, just as he would not have built an extra room next to David’s tomb to be used as a church by christians. If on the other hand, it can be proven that it was his intent, rational will be provided, because there is no precedent for such projects initiated by him to provide houses of worship for members of other faiths in the country at the time. It could also be that Montefoire paid for restoration of the tomb enclourse only, and at the same time, the Ottomans added the vestibule intened for Muslim use. We don't know the detais, and no RS can claim to do so, because documentation from the time has been lost. No RS can claim that it was built as a mosque with certainty. I have written to the author of one such source who sattes it was built "for the Muslims to pray in" and we shall wait to see what he says. Chesdovi (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you ask the author to publish their response to you on some website, so that everyone can see it?VR _talk 03:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Problematic sourcing

Unfortunately, I've been short on time and thus haven't been paying much attention to this article but can anyone please explain why this source was expunged from the article? Also, a source that states that Israelis "did not visit" the tomb (as if it was some voluntary, self-imposed restriction) for the 19 years that it was under Jordanian occupation is obviously a problematic source. Israelis were forbidden by Jordanian authorities to visit the site in violation of the armistice agreement. In fact, no Israeli was permitted to visit any holy site under Jordanian military occupation. The author makes it seem as though the lack of visitation was voluntary. There is obviously a POV problem with this source and its use (in the lede no less) is extremely problematic. This POV push is compounded by the removal of Nadav Shragai as a source. There exits now a serious imbalance with this article that needs remedial action to restore a modicum neutrality. Does anyone have thoughts on this matter?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

'To be sure, the Jordanians would point out that Jews were not excluded from Rachel's tomb for the period from 1949 to 1967. However, the border between Israel remained impassable, and for all practical reasons, Jews felt excluded.' Strickert, Rachel weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb, p.132

There are serious imbalances elsewhere. The Bible has two burial sites for Rachel, yet our article prioritizes the Bethlehem one, and relegates mention of the equally valid alternative (perhaps older) to a second tier, and afternote, and this reflects contemporary politics, rather than what archeological and biblical textual scholarship say. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As usual, you cherry pick the opinion of one author that supports your political position. Here's another opinion on whether the Jordanians allowed Jews (not just Israelis) to visit their holy places which were under Jordanian control. There are of course more such sources. That Jordan didn't allow Jews to visit is a matter of historical record, Strickert's opinion on how the Jordanians would excuse it notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this article [10] wouldn't be regarded as a RS as it contains an inaccuracy "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" this is the title of it, and its inaccurate as source above shows that long before 1996 it was called a mosque. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree. There are sources dating back to the 1800s on google books that call the tomb a mosque.VR _talk 00:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Englishmen may have observed the building as a Muslim wely or used the more common "mosque", but did the local Arabs refer to it as such? Historically it seems they called it Qubat Rahil, not Masjid Rahil. Only recently did they start calling it Masjid Bilal. In fact, does "Bilal" appear in any 1800s sources? Chesdovi (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is one that comes close. It doesnt specify Bilal, but it says the following:

The description given by Dr. Robinson (i. 218) may serve as representative of many other accounts, all agreeing with each other, which may be read in almost every book of eastern travel. It is "merely an ordinary Muslim Wely, or tomb of a holy person, a small square building of stone with a dome, and within it a tomb in the ordinary Mohemmedan form, the whole plastered over with mortar.

nableezy - 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct, it looked like an "ordinary Muslim Wely" because it was built by Muslims in the Muslim style. Was it described as "a venerated mosque which hither gather the Mohemmedans for prayer"? Nope. Wely means a shrine, and a shrine is not synonymous with mosque. Chesdovi (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Chesdovi, I was only responding to the assertion that "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" made by Shragai. I did not find the word Bilal appearing in the 1800s sources.VR _talk 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not see Shragai actually state this. He says: "Rachel's Tomb never served as a mosque for the Muslims. The Muslim connection to the site derives from its relation to Rachel and has no connection to Bilal ibn Rabah, Muhammad’s first muezzin." Isn't it newspaper editors who make up sensational article headlines like "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque"? In a similar article written by him, it looks like he entitled it: "Rachel's Tomb, a Jewish Holy Place, Was Never a Mosque," not that it was never called one. There is a difference. He knew very well about the mihrab, and the existence of one obviously does not make a room a "mosque," or does it? Pilgrims may have identified is as looking like an one, but was it ever used as one in the conventional sense? Strickert says it was used by the locals as a place for prayers in connection with [infrequent] burials in the adjacent cemetery. If so, that needs to be made clear – this was not considered a Muslim holy place by dint of the Montefiore “mosque” – it was a funeral parlour – and that’s as far as it goes. If they needed a niche to remind them which direction Mecca is in, all well and good. I doubt very much that the Muslims ventured out to the isolated spot 5 times a day for communal prayer. There is no minaret, no muezzin, no dome. It is just a room with a prayer niche, inaccurately called a mosque instead of a wely. I have seem other early accounts in relation to Joseph’s tomb, and if the name Bilal ibn Rabah would have been current, it most certainly would have been recorded somewhere, as are the other Muslim buildings which are named in the vicinity of the Nablus shrine. Western visitors would not have missed the opportunity to infuse their account with stories of the first Muhammed’s muezzin being buried there. Shragai is claiming that the supposed historic connection with Bilal is in fact recent And I agree. Chesdovi (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent analysis Chesdovi. Shragai is a noted author and journalist who has done extensive research on the issue. His views on the subject, which have been published by reliable and verifiable sources, should most certainly be noted in the article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, Edward Robinson (scholar) would recognize a mosque if he saw one and he specifically says it's a shrine, not a mosque. On the other hand, a mid 19th century Christian traveler calling a structure he was not even allowed to enter a "mosque" is not really strong evidence it was one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And let’s remember that non-Muslims are generally allowed into normal mosques. It is only at extra holy shrines that Islam places restriction of entry on non-believers. I am interested to know if it was for this reason, the sacredness attached to the Kubbat Rahil shrine in Islam, which caused Jews and other non-Muslims to be shut out during various periods. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Shragai says the tomb "was Never a Mosque". Reliable source says "Rachel's tomb is of Ottoman origin, having been used throughout most of its history as a mosque." (p.278)

I think its time you guys realized that just because something is a mosque, doesn't mean its not Jewish holy site. For example, Al-Aqsa is a mosque, but it is also the holiest site in Judaism. No one should deny either fact. Muslims and Jews have overlapping claims.

And if you are blaming "newspaper editors" for blatantly inaccurate claims, then that would imply that not much fact-checking has been done for that particular article (which in turn lowers the reliability of the source).VR _talk 04:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

VR. Don't see what the problem is. We have two opposing views with two scholarly sources providing different opinions so we include them both.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to include a view when its proven to be inaccurate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh great VR, let's rely on what Sansour Dabdoub heard from eldery residents of Bethlehem. If that is your yardstick for what constitutes a reliable source, Shragi is as reliable as any. Chesdovi (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is more accurate. What Netanyahu said may be wrong, but he said it, and we gotta include bibi's views just like we included Erdogan's views. Is that good enough for you guys?VR _talk 03:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No minaret?

From all the mosques listed on the newly added template, it seems only the Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque has no minaret. How odd. In many sources the "mosque" is called a "vestibule", "ante-chamber" etc. Why use these terms if it was simply a mosque? People can pray anywhere, that they did in this reception area does not make it a mosque, just as Jews praying there did not turn it into a synagogue. If now the site has the trappings of a synagogue and is used frequently for communal prayer, it becomes a synagogue. There is no evidence that in the late 1800s the side-room ever had anything but a prayer niche. There was no minbar, minaret, prayer mats, imam, congregation. Yet you want me to accept this building was built as a mosque? Pull the other one. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you want to consider WP:TRUTH which says that truth matters less than verifiability. However, many prominent mosques haven't had minarets until centuries later.VR _talk 03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of this article is now almost entirely about the I-P conflict. That is embarrassing for this project. There is substantial detail in the body. It should be paraphrased while the excess fighting between the two sides should be substantially reduced. Editors will not like my version of it so I am asking for someone else to put in the effort.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note: A whole lot of history while actual architecture takes too much of a back seat. Bordering on giving too much emphasis on recent (Internet age) history in the body.Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Good tag Cptnono. I'll try to work up something when I have the time, unless someone beats me to it. I think the recent exclusion of some sources in the lead is detrimental to the article as a whole.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Would like some discussion in the article as to what "Rachel's tomb" may really be

The article does say that the first mention of "Rachel's tomb" was in the 4th century AD but I was curious to know what if anything is known or thought about how this structure originated. Have there ever been any archaeological studies done? Are there any theories as to why this building was originally erected? As there is general consensus among modern Biblical scholars that the Biblical stories of the Patriarchs including Jacob do not reflect actual people who really lived, Jacob's wife did not exist either, therefore she did not need a tomb, therefore it cannot actually be Rachel's tomb. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible I came to this article hoping to find out what is thought as to what this building really may have started as and was disappointed to find no discussion of this. I do feel that there really ought to be at least a single sentence in the article saying that it is a general consensus of Biblical scholars that no such person as Rachel ever existed and therefore this cannot actually be her tomb. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)