Talk:Maimonides Synagogue

20th century expulsions

The paragraph on the expulsion of Jews from Egypt from 1956 on, leading the section on "The synagogue in ruins", seems to me like it could leave the article open to accusations of coatracking. While we do need to mention the Jewish community's departure here, I think this could be kept quite brief, with a link to the relevant part of our History of the Jews in Egypt article. All of the paragraph's content seems to be covered there. --Avenue (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will change it.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It was changed. Any better now?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the length and content seems much more appropriate for this article now. I've revised it a bit further too. -- Avenue (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Avenue. Please do feel free to change contest of the article the way you feel is better.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced claim & irrelevant source

I removed the following:

In August 2009 the head of antiquities unveiled the plans of the restoration and at the same time denied that the restoration was planned to lower Jewish anger over Culture Minister [[Farouk Hosny]]'s remarks, in which he declared "I'd burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt."<ref name=WSJ>{{cite news |title=Being Farouk Hosni |url=http://wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121391561586690093.html |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=20 June 2008 |accessdate=26 September 2009}}</ref>.

The Wall Street Journal editorial is entirely about Farouk Hosni; it makes no mention whatsoever of the Maimonides Synagogue. As such the statement that the head of antiquities denied that the restoration was due to anger about Hosni is unsupported. The statement should be removed until a reliable source supporting it can be found. I see no purpose for the WSJ editorial in the article since it does not mention the synagogue at all. Factomancer (talk) 11:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A supporting source for this was already cited elsewhere in our article; it just was not cited in that passage. I've restored the deleted passage, and cited the supporting source there too. I have kept the WSJ citation, since their piece provides the exact quote, and the other source does not. --Avenue (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvement

Can somebody add an infobox, photos (if there's any free ones) and maybe expand a little about the synagogue itself (History, architecture, etc.) I'd do it myself, by I have little knowledge about it. Yazan (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no free images. I put almost everything I could find on the building itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name of the section

It is not right to call the section present state because it is not the present state. The synagogue was restored. Any suggestion what would be the right name to use?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the division into tradition and more recent events still makes sense. I've changed the section's heading to "Recent history", and added another subsection heading for its decline. --Avenue (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

photos

There are some photos of the dedication ceremony here. I don't know what their policy about sharing pictures is, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, No More Mr Nice Guy. There are quite a few images on the NET. The problem is they have no free license. I might try to contact somebody, and ask, if they could release an image with a free license. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue Weight

I have waited for almost a week a few days before posting this, but it seems the article is not really addressing that. The section about the Inauguration Controversy should be cut down because it's an obvious breach of undue weight. In an article about a synagogue that is more than a 1,000 years old, there's not a word about its history (we don't even know, who built it, or when), or architecture, yet almost half the article is about an event that happened a few weeks ago (and not so very notable event, it's not like it was a diplomatic crisis or anything). Anybody cares to address that? Yazan (talk) 06:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes; it seems like typical recentism to me. I had hoped that the undue weight would be remedied by more being added on the history and architecture, but if that is unlikely to happen, then cutting the inauguration section back would be appropriate. But "almost a week" seems like an overstatement; the article was not even created four days ago, so I think we should probably wait a bit longer before wielding a knife. -- Avenue (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted this now, because work on improving the article seemed to have died down somewhat, and no new information or sources were added, except for the controversy section which seemed to get larger bit by bit. My concern is that the article shouldn't appear on the main page (if approved in DYK), in this shape. Yazan (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I agree the problem does seem to have got worse recently, and a possible DYK posting does make it more urgent to address this. -- Avenue (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This post was started at 7:00 [1] the DYK promotion was stricken out at 7:11 [2] only 11 minutes later! It was a night time, where I live. I was not even given an opportunity to react. To strike out the promotion is much worse than never to do the promotion in the first place. I believe the situation was handled extremely wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Having promoted an article myself, I take responsibility for it being within the rules, I had to scratch my confirmation and ask for a second opinion so that it wouldn't be prematurely promoted while it was in that shape. As I said on my talk page, your assumption of bad faith is beyond my tolerance and I am done with this conversation. Yazan (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I explained my comment. Templating the article and 11 minutes later without giving me the opportunity to respond "scratching your confirmation" is not a very nice way to proceed.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm at fault too, because I shared Yazan's concerns but hadn't said anything. Perhaps more warning would have been nice, but DYK is a fast-moving process, quite different from FPC for instance. "Promotion" seems like the wrong word to use; "approval" would be better. Yazan is not only within his rights to change his mind about approving the article; he should do so if he feels it no longer meets the DYK criteria. Nothing really out of the ordinary has happened here, to my eyes. -- Avenue (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

here we go again--Mbz1 (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The current controversy is one of the notable things about this synagogue.

I do agree more things should be added about its history, but that's no reason to cut out relevant information about the controversy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight is a valid reason for cutting back the excessive parts; see WP:UNDUE. --Avenue (talk) 10:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Currently, the main thing this synagogue is known for in the English speaking world is this controversy. At least that's my impression from searching for information about it. I don't think the UNDUE argument holds here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of coverage because it's a recent event. Like Avenue said both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT apply here. The controversy should and must be mentioned, but it should be cut down to match its overall size towards the "building" itself, which is the subject of this article. There are way too many quotes, way too many details that people could do without. If they are very interested in it, they can follow the sources. Yazan (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think RECENT applies here. This is not a blow-by-blow of unfolding events. It's a summary of events that happened a couple of weeks ago. Doesn't seem like the controversy section is going to grow much from now on. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(indent) Quoting from Recentism:

"Subjects with a long history might be described in purely modern terms, even though they were actually more significant in the past than they would be today. Even when the topics remain significant, articles can cover the subject as if the most recent events were the salient, defining traits. For large-scale topics, such as Slavery, Marriage, or War, the stress might be on simply the last few centuries, though the subject matter of the article might have a history of millennia."

Emphasis is mine. Yazan (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can read, thank you. Like I said earlier, the article seems to be a reasonable reflection of what appears in English language sources.

Also, I think we need a small section on Maimonides in the beginning of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy. I will try to come up with some info about Maimonides himself. I agree about wp:undue, but it was absolutely unintentional. It is was all but impossible to find more info about old days. New section about Maimonides will solve the problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I added more historic info, and removed some info from section: Inauguration controversy, which is the only section of recent events. Now I am removing the tag.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think both the placement of the tag and its later removal were appropriate. We could still use more on the building itself. --Avenue (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Good work, though the Mausoleum bit seems rather superfluous, it isn't related to the Synagogue. I don't think it belongs here. Poliocretes (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The section is related to the synagogue because it is where his body was buried for a week before it was taken to a permanent burial place.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Here's DYK nomination for the article that was promoted before the promotion vote was taken out without notifying me at my talk page about the change made.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see you didn't try to use some political hook like some people like to do. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is coming along nicely. Kudos to all who improved it. Good job! Stellarkid (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see here. It is the very same admin, who killed my Robert Kennedy in Palestine nomination.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Two different synagogues

From the sources, I gather there were at least two different synagogues built here. Nuland mentions an old synagogue, built two centuries before Maimonides' arrival,[3] while several other sources discuss the recent restoration of the 19th-century synagogue.[4][5][6][7] However, our article currently seems to conflate them. I'll try to fix this up later today, unless someone beats me to it. -- Avenue (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed this too, but if you to read the story from New York Times (the last source in your list) you will see this: "One of Cairo’s most historic synagogues and a yeshiva, restored by the Egyptian government, is to be rededicated next week. Known colloquially as "Rav Moshe," the yeshiva was the original study of Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, or Maimonides, the renowned physician, rabbinic scholar and leader of the Egyptian Jewish community in the 12th century. Accessible only by foot along narrow commercial streets, visitors today enter his yeshiva through the foyer of a 19th century synagogue built in his honor." The question is: Why they call 19 century synagogue "One of Cairo’s most historic synagogues"? Maybe we should to assume that yeshiva, which was the "original study" of Maimonides was from the time of Maimonides, but the original synagogue of his time was destroyed, and the new one (19 century) was built at the site, but as I said above I still cannot understand how 19 century synagogue could be called "One of Cairo’s most historic synagogues." Yeshiva is a study hall that is usually adjacent to the synagogue. Please feel free to clarify it because I am not sure what is the best way to proceed here.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that your assumption is correct: that the yeshiva dates back to Maimonides, but the current synagogue was newly built in the 19th century. This interpretation does make that bit from the NYT article, "One of Cairo’s most historic synagogues and a yeshiva", seem a bit odd, but even they are clear that the synagogue dates only to the 19th century. I'm not at all clear about how the tomb and yeshiva relate to each other, though. I'll see if I can find out anything more on that front. --Avenue (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Because as I have explained earlier yeshiva is usually attached to the synagogue, it might be hard to distinguish one from another. If under "tomb" you mean the place Maimonides was buried for the first week after his death, it was not really a tomb, but some place in a wall. I believe it was yeshiva,but it could have been the wall that was adjusted to the synagogue. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found out much else so far. I have now mentioned the 19th century building in the lead section. -- Avenue (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian "expulsion"

Mbz reverted my change to this section with the edit summary The info confirmed by RS and is mentioned in the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Egypt#1948. First of all, wikipedia is not a reliable source. Secondly, this claim does not conform with my own sources, which don't mention a Jewish expulsion from Egypt in '56. Can you please quote me from the source in question regarding this claim? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I provided the reference for my claim in the article itself, and I could provide few more. So far you did not provide any source to deny my source. I hope you'd agree that your claim "my own sources" without any links cannot be considered a RS?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are few more RS [8];[9];page 174;page 116 and so on and so on.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou. Your first two sources are not reliable, but the second two look okay. The second puts the number of expulsions at 4,000. The article states that 20,000 were expelled. So that's one thing that needs to be fixed. Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What about my first source, the one that is in the article now? What about the source you likeed that says that in 1957 many Jews were deprived citizenship? Maybe you would like me to include that some Jews were killed in the riots, and that in 1960 almost all Jewish schools were closed and Jewish hospitals were confiscated?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be about the Maimonides Synagogue. It's not about the history of Jewish persecution in the Arab world. The information added to the article needs to be relevant to the topic, not a WP:COATRACK for something else. It's also important that information which is included be included in a balanced way, which is not the case right now. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I had to show how come that the synagogue was in ruins. It is relevant info, and takes a very, very small part of the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay, some of the information may be relevant. But it's important not to overdo it. Also, as I said, the information has to be balanced and not just presented from one party's POV. Gatoclass (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What would be your suggestions about " balancing" info in this particular case? I mean it is history. It happened the way it did. Do you believe the history could and/or should be balanced? In any case I am ready to hear your suggestions, please.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the thing that puts the disuse and decay of the synagogue in context best is not the number who were "expelled" versus those who left at least semi-voluntarily. It is simply the fact that the Jewish population here dropped dramatically in the 20th century. We should cover this clearly first, including numbers. Ideally we would also include a brief, neutral summary of the reasons they left, but from the above discussion this may not be easy, and perhaps we should draft it here on the talk page first. -- Avenue (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any feedback, I've gone ahead with my proposal. In lieu of a summary, I have simply given a link to the relevant article for now. -Avenue (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup in progress

Since there has been a move to promote this article at DYK, I am obliged to try and fix the outstanding issues myself. I have therefore placed a POV tag on the article until the issues are resolved. I think this article can still be promoted at DYK after a cleanup, but it will take a little time, so please exercise a little patience. Gatoclass (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've made a few minor tweaks to the article to satisfy my concerns. If there are no further concerns, I think this article can now be promoted. Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nationality of Egyptian Jews

Gatoclass reverted my recent addition of some sourced context about the nationality of Egyptian Jews in the mid 20th century, with an edit summary saying "this gives a misleading impression that Jews were deprived of citizenship, when AFAIK they were mostly fairly recent immigrants". The source I supplied explains (on page 39) that the Arabic-speaking Karaite Jewish community had been present in Egypt for over 1000 years, and that while many other Jewish residents had a shorter Egyptian heritage, the 1961 Israeli census counted over 35,000 Jews who had been born in Egypt or Sudan (on page 208). A 1956 presidential decree tightening nationality laws deprived Zionists of the right to Egyptian citizenship (page 87). For these reasons, I think the rationale given in Gatoclass's edit summary is not supported by the facts. --Avenue (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Google Books link that I hope helps confirm my reporting of the source.[10] --Avenue (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I thought it better to keep things simple, as the issue to which you refer is very complicated and can hardly adequately be addressed in a word or two. Having said that, there may be a case for rephrasing. I'll try to do a little more reading up on the topic and make a proposal later. I haven't time to do any more editing right now so I'll have to come back to this a bit later. Gatoclass (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree it's best to keep things simple, especially for a paragraph like that which is not directly on the main topic. My addition was intended to address what I saw as an omission in the following sentence you added: "Several thousand foreign Jewish nationals were expelled from the country following the 1956 war and thousands more fled the hostile social and economic conditions." To me, this carries the implication that only foreign nationals left, which I gather is not true. Even if the statement was restricted to expulsions, and even if only foreign nationals were expelled, it seems misleading to say this without further clarification. Would it better to avoid getting into the details about citizenship and rephrase the sentence to say: "Several thousand Jewish residents were expelled from the country following the 1956 war and thousands more fled the hostile social and economic conditions"? -- Avenue (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I just decided the same thing and made an edit almost identical to your suggestion :) So hopefully we can agree that the article is ready for promotion now. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. Thanks for this, and your other improvements. --Avenue (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou too for your assistance :) We'll give it 24 hours, to be sure that there are no more concerns, if not I'll verify it for promotion at DYK. Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maimonides Synagogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717004152/http://www.hsje.org/The%20end%20of%20the%20Exodus%20from%20Egypt.pdf to http://www.hsje.org/The%20end%20of%20the%20Exodus%20from%20Egypt.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011095938/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/962/eg3.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/962/eg3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maimonides Synagogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120223728/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/v-exhibitions/rambam/eng/life.html to http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/v-exhibitions/rambam/eng/life.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)