|Western Wall has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
Photos of the Wall and gender discrimination
I notice that the many photographs of the Wall do not include any with women's faces. This is an example of discrimination. While ultra-Orthodox Judaism prohibits women's faces from being shown in publicized photographs, that is not true for Reform and Conservative Judaism, nor for most other religions. Wikipedia should not bend to the wishes of one branch of a religion, namely Orthodox Judaism, in the matter of what photographs to be published. I am putting back the photo of Anat Hoffman as she is being arrested. Photos of her arrest have been widely publicized and it matches the text that notes members of the Women of the Wall have been arrested for praying in their fashion.VanEman (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? Going down the article there are many photos/pictures/paintings with women. In addition, this is not a news article, this is an encyclopedia article. The pictures and edits you are adding are disruptive to the flow to the article and appear to be pushing a NPOV. And "pray tell" what does a picture of the entrance to the wall have to do with prayer notes? Sir Joseph (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- VanEman, do not repeat edit that were reverted, until you establish that they have consensus. You are a know edit warrior, and if this happens one more time, there will be ample reason to have you blocked and/or topic banned.
- I see quite a few pictures with women. If you don't see them, that is your problem, and yours only. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I never said there were no pictures of women. Please look at my first sentence. It says there are no pictures of "women's faces." Faces. You seem to have a problem reading. It is your problem, and yours only. VanEman (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who's read about Hillary Clinton's e-mail server has gotten to see how upset she was that Orthodox newspapers deleted her face from photos accessed from the U.S. federal government. The feds let you use any photo they give out for free, but you are not allowed to photoshop them. The same problem happens in Israel. Here are some references:
1. NY Post: "Orthodox publications won't Show Hillary Clinton's photo, Oct 1, 2015: http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/orthodox-publications-wont-show-hillary-clintons-photo/
2. Daily Mail: January 13, 2015: Orthodox Israeli newspaper airbrushes female world leaders out of #JeSuisCharlie march photographs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908579/Orthodox-Israeli-newspaper-airbrushes-female-world-leaders-JeSuisCharlie-march-photographs.html
3. Times of Israel, June 4, 2015 They Would Have Blurred Golda Meir's Face Too: http://www.timesofisrael.com/they-would-have-blurred-golda-meirs-face-too/
This last article points out that this practice of censoring publication of women's faces in photos been going on for decades. We should prohibit that practice at Wikipedia. VanEman (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whatever some people do, and some people do the most amazing things, this is not part of Jewish law, and in any case it is not being practiced on Wikipedia. Anything else? Debresser (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Debresser (talk) Yes, there's more. I respect the right of a publication to publish photographs of men only. And I respect the choice of people who buy those publications knowing that they discriminate in that way. I don't respect the right of people to "photoshop" women or anyone else out of history, and I don't want Wikipedia to be complicit with that discrimination just because we as editors aren't conscious of it. We can all make a better effort to make sure that the photos we use on Wikipedia reflect a global and inclusive mindset. VanEman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Lack of info in article on what if any evidence proves that the "western Wall" is indeed a remaining part Second Temple.
The whole article seems to except the idea that the Western Wall is indeed originally part of the Second Temple without citing any archeological research that backs this up. The intro states "The wall was originally erected as part of the expansion of the Second Jewish Temple by Herod the Great" but no where in the article is any mention of any sources that support this statement with archeological evidence. Surely there has been at least some archeological research that supports the claim, right? There really needs to be a section in the article that delves into archeological research as to the true origin of the Western Wall. While it may be just excepted by many as true, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to just accept this "fact" at face value. We need to include reliable sources that back up the commonly accepted claim of the origin of the Western Wall. There also appears to be a non-fringe minority view with the archeological community that argues an alternative views as to the true origin of the wall in question. See this source, for example: http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2013/article/wailing-at-the-wrong-wall --2601:644:400:8D:DC45:7581:2B62:5030 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- First, I think you mean "accept", not "except". Second, please read WP:LEADCITE. The lead section, or opening section, of the article is supposed to summarize material that appears elsewhere in the article. Consequently, it is usually unnecessary for the lead to include footnotes because they are included in the body of the article.
- For example, the section "Construction 19 BCE" has four footnotes (two of which are informative, rather than providing sources). The others link to articles published by MSNBC and the Israel Antiquities Authority. So it is not true that "the whole article seems to [accept] the idea that the Western Wall is indeed originally part of the Second Temple without citing any archeological research that backs this up."
- As far as the Popular Archaeology article to which you link, I am not an archaeologist, but as far as I know the view it expresses is considered a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, and we are not required to give "equal time" to fringe theories. Popular Archaeology seems to acknowledge this as well: "To be sure, Sams and Martin's proposals have drawn criticism from other scholars, particularly those who subscribe to the mainstream view." — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Kotel or HaKotel?
Why is the transliterated name of הַכֹּתֶל being written as "kotel" and not "hakotel"? I have never heard the Western Wall referred to by English or Hebrew speakers, or speakers of both, without using the definite article. After all, "הַכֹּתֶל" is HaKoTeL. Any problem with changing the references of the introduction and infobox to "hakotel"? Even "Ha-Kotel" would make more sense than just "Kotel". Jyg (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- The bolded text in the first sentence is supposed to list the main English names, one of which is "the Kotel" (English article with borrowed Hebrew word). I believe that is much more common than "ha-Kotel" in English writing so it would be a mistake to change it. The Hebrew article "ha" is already used in the transliterated Hebrew. Zerotalk 23:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Concur with Zero. In English it is called "the Kotel", in Hebrew "HaKotel". Debresser (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)