Jump to content

Talk:Western Wall/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Re-sectioning headers

Please can I have feedback regarding this edit. Chesdovi (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive POV push

I just restored the article to its state before a massive POV push. Chesdovi, the consensus was to delete Jewish boycott of the Western Wall, not to merge it into this article. Please don't restore your additions without clear consensus to do so. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Made a minor edit to that paragraph.[1] Debresser (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations to Chesdovi, he got this page on the radar. I guess not one page about Jews can be left alone on Wikipedia. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Your continuous insults towards people who don't hold your opinions should have gotten you topic-banned long ago. Zerotalk 00:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You wouldn't be so generous if you would be dealing with Chesdovi all the time. I am at my wit's end. There's a reason why his article was AFD'ed and this page was protected and his edits were reverted. Certain people have POV and know that and know not to insert their POV and certain people try to insert their POV in every article as a way to push an agenda. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I've had far more disputes with Chesdovi than you have. Zerotalk 00:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

History of the Western Wall?

Do you think we should compress the history section and create History of the Western Wall? Chesdovi (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I think we should do is revert to the edit from early Jan before you put in your boycott edits that you did because you were upset your article got deleted and work from there on the talk page. Then we can discuss. I already posted above some of the lead paragraphs we can delete to shorten that section. You really should discuss your inserts beforehand because 1) they are extreme POV/Fringe and 2) they aren't written very well. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
In an article of 136,079 bytes there is room for "extreme POV/Fringe". As Jewish boycott of the Western Wall was deleted, we need to add all the material that appeared there onto this page. Chesdovi (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not how it works. There is never room for extreme POV. Your edit just proves you are here to be disruptive. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: This is what I'm talking about. Look at the edit history here, look at his contribution history. He is only here to be disruptive. Can't you do something? Don't you see how nobody else wants to deal with this so he's having free reign? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the subject matter to be able to give an informed decision, but I do know that calling other editors "extreme POV/Fringe", saying "you were upset your article got deleted" ("your" article?) and "your edit just proves you are here to be disruptive" is likely to land you another block if you carry on like that. Focus on the article, not who pressed "save page". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Where did I say he's POV/FRINGE? I meant his article that he wrote that went to AFD and was deleted, he had a few articles in similar topic that was solely to push a POV and if you look at Debresser's talk page, Chesdovi admits he's here to do that. And by fringe, I meant fringe views, that are fringe views on the religious spectrum. The way the article is written, he wants to include his deleted article and throw it in here. That is called disruptive. Perhaps you also need to read a bit clearer, I called his edits POV/FRINGE, which they are. Are edits also now not allowed to be criticized? Are you to tell me if you go to the Western Wall and visit the site, if won't be full of Jews praying? That is what he wants to put in the Jewish views section. Even though it's directly contradicted by the article itself. That is called POV pushing because he has anti-Zionist views. Nowhere did I attack him, and I would like you to retract you from claiming that I did. I never said he's POV/FRINGE.Sir Joseph (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not interested in what your opinion of Chesdovi is or vice versa. Please keep it focused on the article. To put a finger in the air guess, given the article is currently 62K of text, I think a History of the Western Wall spinoff article may be worth doing; it's right on the limit of what our article size guidelines recommend. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: 1) My comment here wasn't necessarily about the history, which I don't even think is necessary. Nishidani and myself were already working on ways to shrink down the article. The lead itself can be shrunk down. The nature of this topic doesn't need a history it's not that type of item. But I was talking about his fringe insertions. He believes that if there are 100 people in the world, then the article should give all 100 people equal weight in the article even though 99% of the people believe one way, and only 1% of the people believe otherwise. He wants this article to give the 1% equal or even moreso weight. That is how the article is currently. And then he responds that every article should have POV/FRINGE just because it's large enough. And then you respond that I called him POV/FRINGE, which you still didn't retract, I never called him that, I said the views he's inserting are POV/FRINGE, which they are, and I am still waiting for you to retract your claim that I violated NPA.I think we should revert to the Jan 10 or so stable version and work from there. From the talk page.Sir Joseph (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There's good reason to do a size split. There was good reason to do a size split for a long while. There may be a reason to split other sections as well. What I would suggest here is that Ches goes ahead and creates the split article, if History of the Western wall is an agreeable name. After which, Sir Joseph, you go there and explain which parts you feel are against policy and why.Chesdovi I'd ask for your consideration at this time to not add any further content, as to not add further tedium to this process. Sir Joseph, I'd ask for you consideration at this time to not go striking content before you discuss and come to a consensus. There are RFC's and noticeboards to help you achieve consensus if you two can not agree. After this new article is created and y'all are done of there, come back over here and clean up and compress this article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
1) Firstly, I think we should worry about the extreme POV in the Jewish views section. Reading it now firstly it is just a big mess. It also contradicts the higher up prayer section and it is just again Chesdovi's POV. Just look at the kotelkam.com (I think that's the site) and see all the Jews there, according to Chesdovi and his edits, Jews don't pray there. I would hope you would agree that his most recent edits are POV. 2) I would also ask you to let me know if you think saying that his edits are POV/FRINGE are a violation of NPA. According to Ritchie, up above that may warrant me getting blocked again. He said I called Chesdovi POV/FRINGE, and he never retracted that claim. 3) Once the POV/FRINGE part is cleared up we can work on the history but I think we should fix what is broken before we section stuff off. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, talk about that, then. But, and pardon Ritchie if I misconstrue you, Ritchie is telling you to focus on the content and not the editor that created it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
We're getting sidetracked, but he did say "but I do know that calling other editors "extreme POV/Fringe"" which I did not say. I called is views that he was inserting. And calling someone's views POV/FRINGE is most certainly allowed, especially if they are, and especially if they are proud of their views. And look at his reply that, where he says that because it's a large article it deserves fringe views. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The issues with the article

Ok, no more side track. What are the issues with the article. Pick one section. Be clear as possible the issue. We can go from there. One thing at a time. Sound good?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Wall&oldid=700174778#Jewish section is heavily biased and POV slanted to a fringe element. That last link was to a prior revert before Chesdovi started to insert his POV and even this one is still slightly POV and it also has Goren's statement which is Goren's POV but is factually incorrect and contradicted by this article itself in the Prayer section up above. Goren says Jews only prayed at the wall for 300 years, yet Jews have been Praying at the wall for thousands of years and it's document as such. Then Chesdovi puts in tons of edits about Jews boycotting the wall, Satmar and others, and while indeed some don't go to the wall, they are the 1% of the 1%. Perhaps a sentence of mention, but as the article reads now, you, as someone who might not be familiar, might think that the majority of Jews follow the fringe opinion. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like you should go to WP:RSN then.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Why? He is merely cherry picking non notable sources that he can find. Clearly Jews have been praying at the wall for thousands of years. As for his other edits to the Jewish section, those are certainly undue and should not be allowed either. Look at how it is written now. That is why I want it reverted to the way it was then, even though it is still heavily slanted. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
So then of course you have a source that shows that they have been praying there for more than 300 years? Multiple sources rather?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Western_Wall#Prayer_at_the_Wall Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Goren's statement which is Goren's POV but is factually incorrect and contradicted by this article itself in the Prayer section up above. Goren says Jews only prayed at the wall for 300 years, yet Jews have been Praying at the wall for thousands of years and it's document as such.

You say Chesdovi is using poor sources to push a POV, and asserting Shlomo Goren, a rabbi of great prestige whose name is incised to the right on the walkway up into the Western Wall plaza, got it all wrong. We're not supposed to bring preconceived personal views in to articles, as you are doing. By the way, I see one can't correct things there, except by a request to an admin. On this particular matter, the source should be cited not as http etc +p.300 but as follows:

Amnon Ramon,'Delicate balances at the Temple Mount, 1967-1999,' in Marshall J. Berger, Ora Ahimeir (eds.,) Jerusalem: A City and Its Future, Syracuse University Press, 2002 pp.296-332 p.300.

It would not be controversial to replace the faulty snippet with this correct citational form, so could an admin please do so? Nishidani (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikiedpia is not a source, but I dug thru and found one. Shlomo Goren seems rather prominent a person. This does not actually contradict the prior. It's not written in wikipedia voice as the others are. Why should it be excluded?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say Goren wasn't a great scholar, but in this case he's obviously incorrect as Jews have obviously been praying there for more than 300 years. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But this section is on Jewish views. This is Goren's view and he's a rather prominent Jew. The article is not saying his view is correct just mentioning his view.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Shlomo Goren played a key role in discussion of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall post 1967, and his view is certainly relevant. There is no doubt about that. The whole problem, one I think Chesdovi's suggestions are trying to readjust, is that there is a generic narrative in Jewish-Israeli identity politics about the Wall which glosses over the very many complexities of both historical literature on the wall, and rabbinical disputes about it over the centuries. Sir Joseph is comfortable with the former, and discomforted by the reminder that things are not so simple. On Wikipedia, we just try to get in all relevant angles calibrated by WP:Due.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, are you saying before the article painted a picture of Jewish unity but that's not the actual case? These changes attempt to at least address the disunity in the bounds of WP:UNDUE?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

All I said was that Goren might be extremely scholarly, and it's very ironic that Chesdovi uses him as a source since Chesdovi wouldn't eat his food or trust any of his halachic rulings or consider his conversions, etc., but that in this case he is either being misquoted or incorrect. Jews have been praying at the Western Wall for more than 300 years. That is a factual statement. Do you agree? Furthermore, putting in extreme Satmar and NK views doesn't help the article one bit.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You are basically question the source then, which is "Jerusalem: A City and Its Future". So again WP:RSN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jerusalem:_A_City_and_Its_Future_Western_Wall.23Jewish Sir Joseph (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken it has been removed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It's still there. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
To address one of the points of contention here, I see nothing wrong with "captured" OR "recaptured" as it indeed WAS the result of a war. However, if there are people who feel this wording lends itself to one belligerent being somehow an aggressor or unjustified, maybe the wording can read "came under Israeli control". Just a neutral observer here.Trinacrialucente (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's basically what it says now in fancier words, "when Israel established sovereignty" Sir Joseph (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I was under the impression the point of contention was under the "Views" section stating "They consider the capture of the wall by Israel in 1967". but if no one objects to that wording then no reason to edit.Trinacrialucente (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the word sovereignty is too POV for some people. They need to make sure every article on Wikipedia has a bias, so look out for an edit war. Once people see an article with Jews, they make sure to show up.Sir Joseph (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The word "sovereignty" is absolutely not a neutral term. There are several meanings of the word in international law but in most interpretations saying that Israel has sovereignty there implies that the place is part of the state of Israel. It is not just a way of stating that Israel exercises control there. "Has sovereignty" contradicts "occupies". So we can't use it in Wikipedia's voice. Zerotalk 23:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There is no real evidence that the Western Wall was a special place for Jewish prayer before the Middle Ages. No actual mention of it occurs before Benjamin of Tudela, and even that is uncertain because he associates the "west wall" with the Gate of Mercy which is in the EAST wall. Zerotalk 00:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Goren

See Western_Wall#Jewish. Sir Joseph notes a problem here, I think in that this contradicts other sources that establish prayer long before that. Though reviewing the source and the article I don't see this issue. I do see another issue. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, The comments by Goren lack any real context while the source for them is alot richer with context. It seems to document a minor POV by Goren and some Rabbi's who followed him. This could certainly be expanded if anyone has the gumption.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sovereignty

Im sorry to say Sir Joseph, but East Jerusalem, including the Western Wall, is not sovereign Israeli territory, it is widely regarded as occupied Palestinian territory. Israel did not "gain sovereignty" over the territory, they captured and continue to control it. nableezy - 16:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Professor Nishidani can opine but there is a difference between saying saying it is sovereign Israeli territory (which the article does not say) and saying that that Israel exercises sovereignty over the site which it does. Israel does indeed exercise control/sovereignty. And saying it captured is POV because I can say it regained control or recaptured. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't opine, unless that 'o' there is erased and I am left pining for the loss of a command of the precise meaning of words. There's no discussion to be had on this. Israel doesn't technically have sovereignty even in West Jerusalem, which it has held since 1948. A fortiori it has no sovereignty over the rest of Jerusalem to the east since 1967.Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Sovereignty is legal title to the territory, and Israel does not posses that. And as far as the foolish regained or recaptured, when exactly prior to 1967 did Israel control East Jerusalem? You understand the re in regain or recaptured right? nableezy - 17:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
At the very least Israel has coercive sovereignty over East Jerusalem. Control is more neutral.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
A paper I have on my computer starts "In the study of International Relations few terms cause more confusion than sovereignty." then proceeds to prove that thesis over and over. Anyway we had best avoid it. Zerotalk 01:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Boycott

There must be tens of thousands of religious Jews who avoid the Wall for theological and ideological reasons. I can not accept that their view can simply be summed up in one or two sentences. I asked a Bobov Hasid the other day if he knew anyone who didn't go to the wall and he said he knew of many who do not visit the wall (to protest is control by the Israeli state.) Since the page dedicated to this widespread reality has been bizarrely deleted I am in a quandary about how to include this information on Wikipedia. I would note that many more Jews purposely avoid the wall than the number of women who visit it each month demanding space to worship. Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You may be misreading what was said above (aside from the fact that guesses from personal experience can't inform an edit, but only set one searching for scholarly sources that corroborate the idea, as you probably know). The point made above was that one can probably work up a fair-sized paragraph detailing the dissent, citing, each with a few lines, the perspectives of Shlomo Goren, Teitelbaum and Leibowitz, and any other major figures. Indications on how to do this were given, If you like, we could do it on a work page together, with the text and sources you have. I'll compress it the way I suggest is workable, for community evaluation, with you looking correctively over my shoulder.
What has escaped attention is the general issue raised by the invalidation of the 3 quotes used to attest a millenarian reverence for the site as an area of Jewish prayer. We are told this is the normative 'Jewish view'. If so, that needs to be documented, with the relevant historical literature supporting it, otherwise it is just a meme, and should not inflect the overall article.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Unity vs. Disunity

Can we please add how at first the wall was generally seen as a unifying factor, but was subsequently also seen as courting disunity. The latest quote I have is from R. Shmuel Rabinowitz: "Ever since the fringe yet noisy group Women of the Wall started its media activity, the wall has been changed from a unifying place to one of unending incessant disputes." Chesdovi (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeshayahu Leibowitz

I originally added material from Yeshayahu Leibowitz in May 2013. It was removed by an IP over a year later in July 2014. Lucas Thoms brought up the issue at talk (Disputed section). Nobody responded until I agreed to re-add it in Feb 2016. For two and a half years there was no opposition registered for this section to be re-added until Sir Joseph raised an objection and it was removed by MShabazz. I am of the opinion that this material should be reinserted. Views? Chesdovi (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That view is well-known, Leibowitz had (and to my mind still has) great moral stature, and it should never have been removed. The only objection is WP:Undue. I think his several remarks should be boiled down to 2 sentences, with all the notes retained, and kept in a section regarding dissent from the popular image of the Wall.That section should probably have a generic statement of the kind: 'A number of prominent rabbis have contested the wall's importance to Judaism,' followed by the names, and a 1/2 line summary of each respective view, with an additional point clarifying the Satmar rebbe Teitelbaum's and his followers, dissent, since that is not individual, but bans all of his community from the wall. This erased section is very important also for showing how distinct communities all orthodox and ultra-orthodox can arrive at radically different views, ranging from anti-Zionist (Teitelbaum) to Zionist (Leibowitz) to militant Zionist (Shlomo Goren). The vice of these articles is the way they are edited to push or put over some pseudo-unanimity image of seamless collective identity an outlook which underplays the vibrantly controversialist nature of the Judaic traditions.Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Nishidani. I think a brief summary of Jewish views outside the mainstream is appropriate, even necessary. But please keep in mind WP:UNDUE: we shouldn't give minority viewpoints the same weight as majority viewpoints.
And to set the record straight, I didn't remove a single paragraph about Leibowitz's views, as Chesdovi wrote. I removed three paragraphs and restored two when I reverted to the version of the article as it stood before the edit warring started. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
mobile edit, I never said it didn't belong just that a 2% viewpoint should not get the 100% coverage. You wrote the paragraph and it looked like they mainstream viewpoint. He's a thinker, not a rabbi. As for satmsr it should be mentioned but remember that's fringe. 99% don't hold of his views and the article section should reflect common views.Sir Joseph (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
What was in dispute was an historical problem. How old is the custom? The 3 sources used to assert it is ancient are, as shown, deeply vitiated. Therefore (a) that section needs rewriting (b) WP:Undue applies, but it cannot be used to dismiss authoritative views of deeply learned scholars as 'fringe'. Until strong sources by specialists are forthcoming attesting to, and documenting, the idea that the WW was a site over millennia for Jewish prayer, that idea also is as 'fringe' as any other.
All scholarship, all secure or deep knowledge is 'fringe' compared to the general community's opinions or a commonplace meme in popular literature.(were mainstream public opinion relevant it would mean 'Satan' exists, Abraham was an historical character, Eve ate an apple, Christ was a 'Christian', lightening doesn't strike the same place twice, people make rational choices when buying stuff. This is resolved is by using a high bar for sourcing. On this question, not primary sources, but reliable secondary sources referring what specialists knowledgeable about these intricacies argue are all that count.Nishidani (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
just remember that he's one view, and one view who chesdovi picked because it fit with his pov. He would not pick him for other stuff. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Leibowitz was "picked" by myself since his view has received widespread coverage in sources relating to the wall. Before you accuse me of cherry picking and of "delegitimising Israel" I suggest you check who it was who added over half of the material which appears on this page, well written or otherwise. After reading up Ben-Dov and Noy on the Jewish association with the WW, I now concur with Nish that there is hardly any evidence which points to Jewish prayer by the Western Wall until relatively recent times. I was very surprised that the Jewish Encyclopaedia of 1906 does not feature an entry on Judaism's supposedly holiest site. I looked under Wester Wall - nothing. Neither was there anything under Wailing Wall. "WALL" mentions zilch. Nothing under TEMPLE either. Eventually a couple of lines turn up under PILGRIMAGE. It appears that the Western Wall 100 years ago was 99.9% insignificant to the Jewish nation. Is this demonstrated in this article? I will also add that in 1906 Palestinian Jews were not to be found at the wall three times a day for prayer, but once a week for the Friday night service. So mush for Sir Joseph's insistence that the wall has been in constant Jewish use since the year dot. Chesdovi (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
bullcrap, maybe, and I'm certainly not saying you're correct, the fact that Jews were not at the wall 100 years ago was because they weren't allowed to be there. Why are you revising history? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

WOW - extreme POV/fringe?

The zionist pro-Israel rabbi of the Wall refers to WOW as "fringe." Are they? Or is that his own POV? They have their own page but take up an awful lot of space here with no less than 8 explicit mentions - not bad for a group of 30 women. What does Sir Joseph have to say about this and the fact he seems to have glossed over this blatant UNDUE violation in his crusade to censor any anti-Wall/anti-Zionist sentiment? Chesdovi (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This sounds more like a forum post than anything else, not really much in the way of context. However it might be worth mentioning fringe per Wikipedia use (WP:FRINGE) doesn't seem a relevant policy in the arena of religion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Western Wall vs. western wall

The article states: "Jewish sources, including the Zohar, write that the Divine Presence rests upon the Western Wall.[117] The Midrash quotes a 4th-century scholar: “Rav Acha said that the Divine Presence has never moved away from the Western Wall”.[118]" It needs to be made clear that there is debate as to whether this "wall" is today's Western Wall or whether it was the western wall of the Temple which has since been destroyed, the latter view being the conclusion of most scholars. Chesdovi (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Chesdovi (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You will get a source conflict on that, I think but that the eastern Sha'ar HaRachamim Gate of Mercy was associated in sources with the Shekinah is shown by one of its alternative names, the Gate of the Shekinah.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This addition of capital letters WW where the original texts don't have them is unfortunately common. I think the best we can do is quote scholars who note the difficulty. Zerotalk 23:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually that Zohar reference is cited only to the Zohar itself, so the interpretation is a clear case of OR. There are other similar NO-NOs around there too. Zerotalk 23:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
See below where Ben-Dov posits that these quotes were intended for the temple wall itself, not the outer buttress wall. Only much later did the Divine Presence presumably shift to the outer wall. How convenient! Chesdovi (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
It is a pretty common phenomenon for traditions to move around like that. The idea that traditions about the west wall of the temple itself can turn into traditions about the Western Wall is also supported by the article on the Western Wall by Yoel Peres in this book (my emphasis):
"The Western Wall is mentioned several times in the Midrash (Shemot [Exodus] Rabba 2:2; Bamidbar [Numbers] Rabba 11:2; Shir Ha’Shirim Rabba 2:4; Eicha Rabba 1:3; Midr. Kohelet Zuta 7:8; Tanh³uma, Shemot 10, and more). All these refer to the western wall of the temple and not to the present Western Wall. According to these midrashic sayings, God promised that the Western Wall would never be destroyed and the Shekhinah (The Divine Presence of God) never moved from the western wall of the temple. According to the Zohar, the word kotel (wall) is made up of two parts: ko, which has the numerical value of God’s name, and tel, meaning “mount,” which refers to the temple, that is, the Western Wall (Zohar, Vol. II [Shmot]; Mishpatim 116:1). These sayings were the basis for the sanctification of the Western Wall as a holy place." Zerotalk 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Source material (courtesy of the Israel Ministry of Defense)

Source material from: Ben Dov, Meir; Naor, Mordechai; Aner, Ze'ev (1983). The Western Wall. Israel: Ministry of Defence Publishing House.

"In Talmudic midrashic literature, the Western Wall is hardly given the attention commensurate with its importance as the first of Judaism’s sacred sites. It is true that there are some references here and there in early rabbinic sources to the Western Gate, the Divine Presence in the West, to the heavenly decree that it (the Western Gate) would never be destroyed. To these can be added Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai’s request to Vespasian to spare the Western Gate which leads to Lydda, and Rav Aha’s interpretation of the verse “Behold, he stands behind our wall” (Song of Songs 2:9) as referring to the Divine Presence which never leaves the Western Wall as well as a few other references. But even if these sources refer to the Western Wall as we know it (which is extremely unlikely, see Chapter 1), the paucity of rabbinic material is remarkable when one considers the later importance of the Wall. Furthermore, the later sources which usually reflect the early homilies and interpretations completely ignore the Wall even if the context is such that a connection would seem obvious (cf. Rashi, Ibn Ezra and others to Song of Songs 2:9) Jewish pilgrims to the Holy Land in the Middle Ages left no stone unturned in their search for holy places at which to prostrate themselves and described them in detail glorifying their sanctity. Yet, the Western Wall is not mentioned. Our earliest pictorial representation of the Wall is from 1743, and in the many etchings of Jerusalem before that date, it does not appear at all. In them, it is the Dome of the Rock which serves as a symbol of the Temple! The only possible explanation for this enigma is that for many centuries the Western Wall was not known. And indeed, according to folk tradition, which certainly has a kernel of historic truth, the Wall was discovered only at the end of the Middle Ages." Folk Tales About the Western Wall, Prof. Dov Noy. p.107-8
"For the long years of the Roman and Byzantine occupation it was, with the exception of two short episodes in the times of Julian and Chosroes, the eastern wall which was the focus of the Jews’ attention when they came to look at the ruins of the Temple, for it is that wall which is visible from the Mount of Olives. The gate in the eastern wall had been used by the priests on ceremonial occasions and this added to its importance."
"From the great amount of evidence from the Arab period before the Crusader conquest, the following picture emerges. The Jews who lived in Jerusalem and those who came to visit it and the Temple Mount, used to pray at the eastern wall and western wall and at the gates to the Mount, particularly at the Hulda Gates at which site the Moslems had built two new gates. Curiously enough, although the Jews now had access to the Temple Mount walls and even to visit the Temple Mount itself which some Jews did visit, they still continued the tradition which had developed in Byzantine times of going up to the Mount of Olives. It seems that although the reason for this custom no longer existed, the Jews saw it as a time-honored custom and continued to respect it. In none of the sources we have is there any hint of the western wall as having any special sanctity."
"This period lasted from the Crusader conquest in 1099 until Jerusalem was taken by the Ottoman sultans in 1516. Together with the acknowledged sites such as the Gates of Mercy in the eastern wall, the Hulda Gates and the Temple Mount, we come across, for the first time, mentions of the Temple Mount’s western wall as an important sacred site. It would seem that the Western Wall’s location inside the city and its easy accessibility from the Jewish quarter, transformed it into a favoured place of prayer. At the beginning of this period the Western Wall is appended to the holy itinerary as another sacred place but towards its end, at the closed of the 15th century, he Western Wall already appears in the reports by itself. Travellers and visitors describe it as a place of prayer and go into detail as to its size and the dimensions of its stones. The impression gained from the sources is one of slow development. At first the Western Wall is appended to the accepted list of holy places and, with time, the new tradition takes a hold in the folk-consciousness. It is during this period that the traditions about the Divine Presence never leaving the western wall begins to attach themselves to this Western Wall, the western buttress wall of the Temple Mount instead of the western wall of the Temple itself for which they were originally intended. In order to magnify the Western Wall’s importance, the new traditions ascribe to it special sanctity from the time of the destruction. These traditions about the Western Wall are, therefore, approximately 800 years old at the most, and they are the first Jewish traditions addressing to this area of the Temple Mount." From the Temple to the Western Wall Meir Ben-Dov, p. 31-33 --Chesdovi (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Chesdovi. Rather than opening so many sections here, and cramming in a lot of interesting material for discussion, wouldn't it be the sensible procedure to write an article inclusive of all this material you, and in response,others have gathered, and then request input before shifting it into Wikipedia proper?Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This book can be read here. Since it is highly cited in scholarly works, I believe that it passes WP:RS comfortably. It can be cited in the article with the usual due care. Zerotalk 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Amazing to have found this digital resource. Thanks Zero. Chesdovi (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A B Yehoshua

Besides from Oz, ABY: "He has announced his distaste for Jerusalem and his contempt for the WW as a Jewish symbol ("It broadcasts absurdity and frustration"). Chesdovi (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to find every anti-zionist viewpoint? ABY is not a halachic viewpoint, and it certainly carries no weight for a WW article. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
ABY's view of the wall probably resonates with many secular israelis, as the Haaretz articles in Archive reveal. All views must be included Chesdovi (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"All views must be included"? According to whom? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT:
"Neutrality requires that each page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article (i.e. Jewish boycott of the Western Wall) about those specific views. (As a further example, the article on the Western Wall does not directly mention modern support for the Wall being located in Nablus, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.) …. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space…. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth) or Jewish boycott of the Western Wall…. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article (….which was deleted, then again, who is to say that negative Jewish opinions on the wall constitute an "extremely small" viewpoint?)
The impression given by this page is that the vast majority of Jews view the wall with a unbridled adulation and reverence. Considering that most the world’s Jews are secular non-believers and have no affinity to the ritual associated with the Temple site, this page needs serious attention. Most Israelis view the wall as a site of historical/national importance and do not view it in religious terms, yet the page is devoted to the Wall’s religious significance. Many Jews apparently view the wall as a laughable pile of stones with some even calling for it to be torn down, why should these views not be included and given due prominence? Chesdovi (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:TLDR, but I'm glad you agree there's no requirement to include "all views", which is what you wrote. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Just because you have an extreme hate for Israel and are willing to have the Western Wall torn down, that doesn't mean secular Jews are apparently willing to have it torn down, as you write. Indeed, if you go to the wall, you will see tons of secular Jews praying, meditating, standing in silence, in front of the wall. They don't care of the opinion of the Satmar Rebbe, they know that the Wall is a holy place to pray, regardless of what some guy who has no gratitude to Zionists who saved him from the Nazis say. This picture of people at the kotel during birkas kohanim certainly looks like more people waiting for kugel from the rebbe. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HNpWCZtykgk/TbCNBYblSDI/AAAAAAAAAaw/gxZS3CEB3mI/s1600/kotel_bk.jpg Sir Joseph (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"The 200,000-square-foot Western Wall Plaza (increased from the original 1,000 square feet), is out of character and scale with everything else in the old city; it diminishes the impact of the Wall, and it remains a yawning vacancy on all but a few days of the year." [2]. Chesdovi (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It would seem that this individual is prominent and would be a prominent adherent of this position if it is a significant minority POV. The question would be if it is a significant minority POV. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

What do Secular Humanist Jews have to do with the Wall?
Humanistic Judaism has a different perspective on the Western Wall. Atheistic in essence, it does not accept the claim that there is inherent holiness, or something metaphysical, in the stones themselves or on the Temple Mount. Moreover, the Western Wall is not a relic of the Temple; it is only a supporting side wall to the renovations made by King Herod to the Second Temple. They originally did not serve as a prayer spot and near the wall there were streets and shops and commerce, just regular human living without any sacredness attached. The first evidence that the wall became a known prayer site began only in the 15th century. The absurd article appearing on signs leading to the Western Wall says that "The Shekhinah (God's presence in the world) never leaves the Western Wall of the Temple," is found in ancient writings, but refers to the wall of the Temple, not to Herod's support wall.For Humanistic Jews, the Kotel (a Hebrew name for the Western Wall) serves as a historic monument and a central symbol to the Jewish culture. - Nardy Grun
Israeli Jewish liberals have no regard to the Western Wall: Haaretz Editor-in-Chief
Aluf Benn, Editor-in-Chief of Israel Haaretz daily newspaper, recently (September 8) took part in 2015 Shira Herzog Symposium in Toronto, organized by the New Israel Fund of Canada. During the panel that included also Jonathan Kay, Editor of The Walrus magazine and a former Editor-in-Chief of The National Post and Ronit Heyd, Executive Director of Shatil, Aluf Benn said that the Israeli Jewish liberals belittle the religious significance of the Western Wall to the Jewish people and prefer Tel Aviv over Jerusalem.
Most Jews view the wall as a nice tourist spot, though I am not sure how many view it in a negative light. Chesdovi (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
If we are to conclude that this is a significant minority POV it would seem to me that there would be a number of sources from separate people that espouse this POV. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources seem to reveal that the religious view it with spiritual significance, while the secular view it with national importance, both sectors viewing it positively:

The discord among the sects is merciless and uncompromising. The most zealous refuse to worship at the Western Wall, as this may imply recognition of the chief rabbinate of the secular state, which, since 1967, has been in charge of services there. For most other Jews, secular and observant, the Western Wall is the major site of religious and historic veneration in Jerusalem, a place of pilgrimage and worship. In the civil religion of the modern Israeli state, the Western Wall area has been accorded a unique place.<.ref name="Elon1995">{{cite book|last=Elon|first=Amos|authorlink=Amos Elon|title=Jerusalem, Battlegrounds of Memory|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ez1aAAAAYAAJ%7Cyear=1995%7Cpublisher=Kodansha International|isbn=978-1-56836-099-7|page=194<./ref>
The Wailing Wall area was set apart only during the reign of Sulayman the Magnificent in the sixteenth century. It used to be a small stone-paved courtyard (of about 120 square metres) in front of the wall and enclaved within the fourteenth-century Muslim Moroccan quarter. Indeed, its importance to Judaism is less ancient than is commonly thought. We know, for for instance, from ancient Jewish pilgrims and travellers, that in 1481 the Mount of Olives (outside the Old City) and not the Wailing Wall was the place dedicated to the annual commemoration of the destruction of the Temple. FE Peters, in his comprehensive collection of travellers' and pilgrims' documents on Jerusalem, observes that it was only in the early sixteenth century the Jewish visitors described the Western Wall and connected it with the earlier tradition of the "Presence of God". Even the "official" history of the wall by Ben-Dov et al. openly states that for hundreds of years there has been no mention at tall of the wall in the written sources. By the second half of the nineteenth century, however, the Wailing Wall's importance to both the local Jewish community and the entire Jewish Diaspora was beyond question. However, it had an exclusively religious significance and leading Zionist personalities like Ahad Ha'am even considered the traditional image of Jews praying at the Wailing Wall a disturbing sight. [compare Herzl - Chesdovi] The Zionist movement had used the well-known and evocative image of Jews praying at the wall since its inception.... At the beginning of the 20th century, what used to be a purely religious site was transformed into the central issue in the ongoing conflict and both orthodox and secular Zionists began to celebrate the wall. During the period of the British Mandate, it gained increasing importance and became not only the traditional site of religious devotion but also acquired a distinguished place in the national political struggle.... A demonstration at the wall by militant Zionist groups triggered rioting that resulted in the deaths of 133 Jews and 116 Arabs... After 1967, the state of Israel wanted to present an image of Jerusalem that fitted its political aspirations and vision if history. Thereby, principles such as the "unity of the Jewish People" and its "realization in the Jewish State" could be boosted by an engineered used of the Wailing Wall symbol. A large propaganda effort was made to celebrate the wall and to stress its importance to Judaism: a number of pseudo-scientific books on the Jewish Quarter and the wall were published, while new "traditions" were developed and new meanings attributed to the wall... The Western Wall offered Israel an amazing opportunity to strengthen its link with the Jewish Diaspora and to forge a unity between all the different components of its society. It was possible to present it as a site to attract Israeli and Diaspora Jews, secular and religious, Ashkennazi and Sephardi, soldiers and Hasidim alike. In order to become the universal and eternal symbol of Judaism, however, alternative Jewish traditions and critical voices expressing perplexity about the "worship of stone" or the gendered partition at the wall had to be silenced. [as we see is happening here with some editors.. - Chesdovi] Yeshayahou Leibowitz [yet another source citing him - Chesdovi] sharply criticized the new attitude towards the wall and the State of Israel's use of it as a symbol: "Twenty years ago, neither those who practise the mitzvot nor, obviously, those who do not, paid any attention to or thought about the Western Wall. Why, after 2,000 years of Jewish life, on the seventh day after the Six-Day War, should a new Judaism suddenly appear with the Western Wall? Leibowitz sees the elevated status of the Wailing Wall in post-1967 Jerusalem essentially as a provocation against the Arabs, for the wall per se has no religious meaning - a statement also endorsed by the Reform Judaism movement, which refuses to attach any religious significance to the wall. To become universal and accepted by all, the symbolism of the wall had simply to be modified slightly. [...] This strategy, developed since the 1920s, has been highly successful and after the Six-Day War the Western Wall undoubtedly became the central altar of the Israel state. Religious and non-religious Israeli attach extraordinary importance to the wall, which represents for them both a sanctuary and a monument. This carefully planned double dimension is physically represented in the plaza.... <./ref name="Ricca2007">Ricca, Simone (15 June 2007). "Planning, Nationalism, Heritage". Reinventing Jerusalem: Israel's Reconstruction of the Jewish Quarter After 1967. I.B.Tauris. pp. 39–42. ISBN 978-1-84511-387-2.<.ref>

The sources also include references to those who either boycott it or minimise its religious Jewish significance. Then there are those prominent singular opinions who prefer that it be "torn down" (Bleiweiss, Robert. "Tear Down the Western Wall". Jewish Spectator, 1997. p.3: "There is no quick or easily acceptable way to change this sorry situation, so the blighted thing probably ought to be torn down before its continued presence leads to the irreparable splitting of the Jews and perhaps even civil war and the end of the state of Israel") or "blown up" (Amos Oz: "The mother burst into sobs and said, "The whole of the Wailing Wall isn't worth Micha's little finger as far as I'm concerned . . . " If you tell me that we fought for our existence, then I'd say it was worth Micha Hyman's little finger. But if you tell me that it was the Wall we fought for, then it wasn't worth his little finger. You can kill me for it—and I do have a feeling for those stones, but they're only stones. And Micha was a person. A man. If dynamiting the Wailing Wall today would bring Micha back to life, then I'd say, “Blow it up!" That's how I feel about it.") -- Chesdovi (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

J D Soloveitchik

JDS was the leader of modern Orthodox N. American Jewry. He was opposed to the "exaggerated attachment" to the Wall. Are we to include his view also as "fringe" as opposed to the "mainstream 99%" Jewish view? Where is Sir Joseph's source for the 99% Jewish view on the Wall? Chesdovi (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Though it seems his most of his disciples did nor concur with him on his "moderate" views viz-a-viz the I/A conflict:
"Although on record as stating that he would surrender even the Western Wall to save a single Jewish life, he has lately taken no public stand on peace and the territories. Remarkably, the known moderate attitudes of this acknowledged leader of modern Orthodoxy in America are not shared by most of his disciples, now comprising the principal personalities of the modern Orthodox rabbinate in America." (Tradition, 1985)
But does that apply to the surrender of the wall too? Chesdovi (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
What does that have to do with prayer at the wall or Jewish significance at the wall? It just means that Jews place a high value on the value of life. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ottoman permission

I am changing the entire section just to... what? Chesdovi (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You are removing valid bits, and trimming for what? What is wrong with the section? As pointed out earlier, in order to avoid edit warring, you should post your suggested edits here and wait for consensus. You have a reputation as a POV pusher, we don't need that. Just post here and wait. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
For over a year Leibowitz appears, and then you and Malik remove it after I re-add it after a 2 year hiatus and I'm the POV pusher? Chesdovi (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
As was pointed out to you lots of times, having a mention in the article is OK, having the article read like your POV is not OK. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The section was tagged with {{construction}}; if it needed neutralising, you should have edited the page, not removed material. Oh, you were blocked for POV pushing... Chesdovi (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
When was I blocked for POV pushing? You need to watch yourself. I will report you if you tag a major edit as a minor edit again. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
On Feb 10th. And the minor edit you insist on calling major, was indeed minor. Original text:
At some time in the 19th century, the Arabs began referring to the wall as the al-Buraq Wall. This was based on the tradition that inside the wall was the place where Muhammad tethered his miraculous winged steed, al-Buraq.[citation needed] The tradition on which this is based only states that the Prophet, or the angel Jibra'il (Gabriel), tethered the steed at the gate of the mosque, meaning: at the gate of the Temple Mount.[9] The location of the entry gate identified as the one used by Muhammad varied throughout the centuries, from the eastern and southern walls, to the southwest corner, and finally at the western wall, and specifically at Barclay's Gate immediately adjacent to the "Wailing Place" of the Jews.[9] In Arabic Barclay's Gate is called the Prophet's Gate, Bab an-Nabi, but so is the southern Triple Gate, while the eastern gate located near the Golden Gate was even called Bab al-Buraq, the Gate of al-Buraq (with a second name, Bab al-Jana'iz, meaning Gate of the Funerals).[10]

Changed to:

At some time in the 19th century, the Arabs began referring to the wall as the al-Buraq Wall. This was based on the tradition that inside the wall was the place where Muhammad tethered his miraculous winged steed, al-Buraq.[citation needed] The tradition on which this is based only states that the Prophet, or the angel Jibra'il (Gabriel), tethered the steed at the gate of the mosque, meaning: at the gate of the Temple Mount.[9] The location of the entry gate identified as the one used by Muhammad varied throughout the centuries, from the eastern and southern walls, to the southwest corner, and finally at the western wall, and specifically at Barclay's Gate immediately adjacent to the "Wailing Place" of the Jews.[10] Israeli archaeologist Meir Ben-Dov concluded that the Muslim association with Western Wall began in the late nineteenth century in response to renewed Jewish identification with the site.[11] In Arabic, Barclay's Gate is called the Prophet's Gate (Bab an-Nabi), but so is the southern Triple Gate, while the eastern gate located near the Golden Gate was called among other names Bab al-Buraq (Gate of al-Buraq.[12]
Content "added" actually already appeared in the footnote: "Israeli archaeologist Meir Ben-Dov concluded that the Muslim association with Western Wall began in the late nineteenth century in response to renewed Jewish identification with the site." -- Chesdovi (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You also need to stop marking edits as minor if they're not just minor edits, your edits are not just minor fixes, you are removing information, and moving things around and adding things, that is not a minor edit and you can be warned for that. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I thought I was just adding new refs, and had forgotten other changes I had prepared. Chesdovi (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
(See above, showing that it was indeed a minor edit.) Chesdovi (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It read previously:

In 1517, the Turkish Ottoman Empire under Selim I conquered Jerusalem from the Mamluks who had held it since 1250. The Ottomans had a benevolent attitude towards the Jews, having welcomed thousands of Jewish refugees who had recently been expelled from Spain by the Alhambra Decree of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile in 1492. Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent ordered the construction of an imposing fortress-wall to be built around the entire city, which still stands today. Various accounts relate Suleiman's quest to locate the Temple site and his request to have the area "swept and sprinkled, and the Western Wall washed with rosewater" upon its discovery.[44] In the second half of the 16th century, the Jews were given the right to worship at the Western Wall and the Ottoman court architect Mimar Sinan built an oratory for the Jews there.[45][46] In 1625 arranged prayers at the Wall are mentioned for the first time and in 1699 scrolls of the Law were brought to the Wall in times of calamity.[47]

I suggest removing text not directly applicable to the wall, i.e. The Alhambra decree and the old city wall building:

In 1517, the Turkish Ottomans conquered Jerusalem from the Mamluks who had held it since 1250 and various folktales relate Suleiman's quest to locate the Temple site and his order to have the area "swept and sprinkled, and the Western Wall washed with rosewater" upon its discovery.[41] According to some scholars, it was in the late 16th century, when the Western Wall was revealed, that it became a permanent place for Jewish prayer. At the time, Jews received official permission to worship at the site and Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan built an oratory for them there.[42][43] In 1625 arranged prayers at the Wall are mentioned for the first time.[44] --

I also added that some scholars think it was at this juncture that the wall became a place for prayer. Chesdovi (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Non-Orthodox

As a huge chunk of diaspora Jewry are affiliated to Reform, can we add "Reform Jews do not attach any religious significance to the wall"... (I wonder what the conservative stance is?) Chesdovi (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Then why do they pray there and have a section at the wall where they just won a court ruling allowing non Orthodox prayer at the wall? Sir Joseph (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
What do reliable sources say about Reform and Conservative Jews vis-à-vis the Wall? I don't believe sources say they don't attach any religious significance to it. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Ricca above states: "the wall per se has no religious meaning - a statement also endorsed by the Reform Judaism movement, which refuses to attach any religious significance to the wall." But it looks as if some do:
"The author bases his statements on an article by Reform Rabbi Yehoram Mazor, which appeared in the journal of the Movement for Progressive Judaism in July 2009. Mazor wrote that the Western Wall is merely “a retaining wall built by Herod when he expanded the Second Temple and the Temple Mount,” and that “[i]t has no sanctity at all.” […] Mazor’s main argument in the article was that “Reform theology opposes the rebuilding of the Temple” and thus that Reform Jews have on ideological-religious need to enter the Temple Mount area and to pray there, much less to pray near the wall that encircles the Temple Mount like a fence. ‘Abd al-Karim, in using Mazor’s article to support his assertions, ignores the fact that Mazor’s opinions represent a deviation from the mainstream Reform platform." [3] He then goes on to give a alternative view.
Maybe this can be explained with the words of Eugene Borowitz: This much might have been expected, but almost no one was prepared for the effect of the capture of Jerusalem and the return to the Western Wall. Reform Jews had for more than a century stopped praying for the restoration of the Temple and its sacrifices; they do not consider places holy, and the Wall is hardly an object to appeal to a group that had for years emphasized modern esthetic values. Yet those stones quickly brought Reform Jews, as it did all Jews, a mystic message of the unity of the Jewish people, of its unbroken historic continuity… [4]. -- Chesdovi (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A reform guy here sums it up quite well:

Finally, Reform Jews can pray at the Western Wall. But why should we want to?
"..Simultaneously, secular Israelis are more inclined to dismiss Orthodoxy’s arrogant fierce opposition as irrelevant to their daily lives. To them, the Western Wall is essentially a tourist attraction in which they have little interest. Still, let’s pause to consider what has been gained. The Western Wall is not as sacred as many pretend. It is not the remnant of Solomon’s Temple. Rather it is the last standing remnant of the Second Temple... The right to pray in one’s own manner at the Western Wall is an important achievement in the struggle for equality in Israel. However, it is not of actual religious significance to the overwhelming majority of Jews worldwide. Far from it. If, God forbid, there would be a restoration of the ancient sacrificial practices, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Jews everywhere would be appalled. So, as progressive Jews now exercise our right to worship at the Wall in our own way, let us do so as a demonstration of our continuing demand for equality, nothing more. The Wall symbolizes our history too, our celebration of the establishment of the State of Israel that is of tremendous importance to Jews everywhere. The Western Wall is an ancient monument the emotional and historical impact of which cannot be measured. But it most definitely is not a symbol of a Judaism we would ever wish to see restored. -- Chesdovi (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
If you google "reform jews western wall" the links are all about hailing the recent Supreme Court ruling that granted them a prayer space at the Wall, so I would presume that means reform Jews pray at the wall since they pray at the wall, since if they don't pray at the wall, they wouldn't need to pray at the wall, kind of obvious chesdovi. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Not being Reform myself I wouldn't know, but I think the Western Wall is a symbol for all Jews, regardless of denomination or lack thereof. All Jews come to pray there, and non-Jews as well. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Name of the wall

As per common name usage Buraq wall should not be listed under alternate names, it is not an alternate name, it is just your POV to make the wall an anti-Zionist wall. It should certainly not be in the infobox. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

AbuMohammad84 added that, presumably because that's what Muslims call it and this is not Zionistpedia. Chesdovi (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
it perhaps could be in the article, but an alternate name in the info box is apov putting the names on equal footing, which it isn't. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Equal footing? Remember Jewish views represent 0.002% of world opinion. Billions more Muslims refer to it as Buraq Wall. In fact I think we should rename the page to Buraq Wall. Chesdovi (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again for proving that you are here solely to push an anti-Zionist POV. Wikipedia policy dictates that we are to use common usage terms. Using alternate names in infoboxes is solely meant for common alternate usages. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
No, thank you again for proving you are only here to shove your pro-Zionist POV down our throats. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] Chesdovi (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
do you even read your link or do you just post any anti Zionist claim?Sir Joseph (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, I wonder why you never seem to realise just how bizarre it looks when you accuse other people of having a strong pov. Do you really live in a bubble where viewpoints like yours are considered neutral? Zerotalk 13:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
like I said, the name could be in the article but it should not be in the infobox. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Zero Let's be honest, Chesdovi is as anti-"Israel" and pro-"Palestine" as they come, really disgusting, while Sir Joseph may have a POV, but it isn't usually triggered unless faced with an opposing POV and he usually makes neutral edits.
Everyone can see Chesdovi's bias. Compared to someone who thinks that every mention of the word "Palestine" delegitimises Israel, it is rather mild. Zerotalk 07:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
However that may be, I don't think the name Al-Buraq has a place on the English Wikipedia. That notwithstanding, I don't mind having it in the lead, but from the infobox it should be removed, or at least "Kotel" added. I have boldy done the latter, add "Kotel". Debresser (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kotel is fine as it is used often in English. So is Buraq Wall. Zerotalk 07:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Wall/Archive_3&oldid=1079494552"