This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I was perusing through some of the Judaic pages to do some minor edits, and noticed something that made me do a double take in this article's lead. It states that the wall is known as the al'Buraq wall to Muslims. I do not doubt in any way that is is known by this name by many Muslims, particularly some Palestinian and Jordanian Muslims. However, from everything that I've read, the name is of rather recent provenance, and was never known as such among Muslims until the foundation of modern Israel. If memory serves, it didn't really have any circulation until the last two decades or so. from the obscure claims of Mujir al'Din that the Buraq was left there when Mohammad ascended to paradise, which itself is a legend derived from Sahih al'Bukhari, the provenance of the hadith itself being regarded by some as an addition of a later editor; that's of little relevance here, though. I see this has been mentioned on the talk page already in passing, and I don't advocate any necessity of removing it. However, the attribution itself is sixteenth century, and actual naming of it as the "al'Buraq wall" is incredibly recent. I think we should at the very least clarify this, add another source aside from an obviously politically motivated fatwa for the name, and perhaps move it somewhere besides the lead so we can elaborate on all of this. I just skimmed it, but I'm not even sure the fatwa actually names it as such aside from the title (nevermind, it does). For all I know, it may itself be the origin of the name, with this article helping to disseminate it. Since this, like every Jerusalem-related article, is contentious, I thought it best to get some discussion before I did anything. Kaelus (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its a point of contention. See above, it is discussed both in the "Lead" subsection of the "POV Issues" section and in the "Rashid Khalidi" section.Pyrotec (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Reply to what the King of Saudi Arabia said:
Actually If Jews have no rights, so are Islams. They have no rights either, only christians have rights and holy places in Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.252.6.150 (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Jordanian occupation 1948–1967
I was wondering, from whom did the Jordanian capture the old city of Al-Quds and the wall? and why was the Jordanian rule over it considered occupation, while Israeli rule is considered sovereignty? I don't find this neutral? This should be changed. Yamanam (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The answer is in the article.Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
It is referred to as the Jordanian Occupation, because their annexation of the site was not internationally recognised, hence occupation. And while Israel's presence is also not recognised, (the last UN resolution on the matter calls for Jerusalem to be internationalised), in reality, Israel excercises its sovreignty over the site. As this matter is disputed, I did want to add a section on the current legal status of the wall and suggestions mooted during peace negotiations relating to future ownership of the site, but I could not find any good sources. Chesdovi (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Jordan exercised its sovereignty over the wall for the period they controlled it, i think both should be changed to sovereignty or occupation. The Israeli rule is not internationally recognised either and if I'm not incorrect then the Western wall and old city were part of the West bank. Which is under occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.16.207 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Jerusalem is viewed differently from the West Bank. See Positions on Jerusalem and Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. This subject matter is so extensive and there are so many diverse "postions" on the subject, I am not really qualified to determine the correct descriptions. But for the sake of neutrality, I believe Yamanam does have a valid point. Even though the artricle on Jordan's rule calls it occupation, I suggest changing both to "rule" which would hopefuly solve the problem. Chesdovi (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes i belive that could be an acceptable compromise. i would prefer it if you did it as edits by account members are more respectable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.16.207 (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I will. But why not become an editor yourself? It only takes a second! Chesdovi (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Catholic bishops
I'm not sure, but maybe the article could report about the famous incident that occured in 2007 when 14 bishops were turned away from the wall. It's a fairly high number of bishops, and it informs about Jewish attitudes about people from other religions wanting to visit the wall. [1]ADM (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
There have been many visits to the wall by promenent non-Jewish religious leaders. This has been noted in the article. This specific event is mentioned in the article on Shmuel Rabinowitz. If anything, it informs us about Christian attitudes towards respecting the sensitivities of people from another religion, at their holiest site no less! Chesdovi (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Many non Jewish people have visited the Kotel. Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Will Smith, Enrique Iglesias, Pope John Paul II. Perhaps you should read up about Mecca. The city of Mecca doesn't allow non Muslims to enter their city at all! People of all religions are welcome to visit Jerusalem however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.34.55 (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Origin of "Wailing Wall"
The article says that the name "Wailing Wall" was introduced by the British in 1917. If you go to the advanced search at books.google.com and search for the name "Wailing Wall" prior to 1917 you will find numerous disproofs. For example, The Jewish Advocate for the Young by J.J. Reynolds, published in 1859 has it (p34). Horatius Bonar, "Days and Nights in the East" published in 1866 has "Jewish Wailing-Wall" as a chapter running head (p191). Similarly Memories of Olivet by John Ross Macduff published in 1868 has it. Prior to 1917 there are actually tons of examples. So what can we do to fix our article? Zerotalk 02:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Could this be fixed by saying that "By the mid-19th century, the term Wailing Wall or Jews' Wailing Place, had become common usage in western publications. Reports of 19th century European travellers often referred to the wall as the “wailing place of the Jews”"? Chesdovi (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I was always taught at school that the name of Wailing Wall came about during the years between 1948-1967 when Jews weren't allowed to visit their holy site and many Jews wept because they couldn't pray there hence the name Wailing Wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.34.55 (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Buraq?
While the article explains that the term Wailing Wall derived from a translation of the Arabic el-Mabka, and that the Arabs later came to call the wall al-Buraq, it does not explain what al-Buraq means. Translation, please? LordAmeth (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is an excellently written article overall; towards that, I would suggest refraining from identifying parties as best as possible by religion. That is, there is a distinct difference between stating (factually) that "a Jewish or Muslim contingent did or said X" as opposed to writing "Jews did X or Muslims did Y." It is sadly commonplace to lump people and policy by religion and it needlessly detracts from otherwise clear legal and historical points made throughout the article. Needless to say, these sorts of issues are often discussed poorly and I'm glad to see some serious scholarship on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.2.231.187 (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Removing what is properly sourced is usually not acceptable. It is important to know who claimed what in that report. -- Avi (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, you asked for a source; I brought the best possible one - the original report from the 1930's, of which those sentences are all but a direct quote. Whitewashing is just as severe a POV violation as smearing; we need to be accurate per the sources. -- Avi (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
UK authority: Western Wall not in Israel
Info from this news article should be added to the article: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Resnicoff interfaith service
I am removing the following text. Reason: Too much space given to insignificant occurance. Chesdovi (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Asst. U.S. Sixth Fleet Chaplain Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff leads a highly unusual interfaith service, including men and women. The service was approved by the Israel Ministry of Religious Affairs, in the enclosed area of the Wall now restricted to men.
In September 1983, U. S. Sixth Fleet Chaplain Rabbi Arnold Resnicoff was allowed to hold an unusual interfaith service at the Wall, in the enclosed area to the left of the exposed Wall, now strictly restricted to men. The ten-minute service was attended by men and women in the U.S. Navy, in addition to some family members, and ended with the Priestly Blessing, recited by Resnicoff, who is a Kohen. A Ministry of Affairs representative was present, responding to press queries that the service was authorized as part of a special welcome for the U.S. Sixth Fleet.[1]
--------------NEW COMMENT/RESPONSE: Temporarily replacing this section which was unilaterally deleted, to have the question of deletion discussed on this site by other editors. Chesdovi calls this an "insignificant occurance" -- but it is the only instance to my knowledge when the Israeli Ministry of Religions (misrad hadatot) officially allowed a mixed-sex, mixed-religion official ceremony at the Wall. It hit the papers, including both the Israeli and International versions of the Jerusalem Post (referenced in wikipedia). It was an official action of the Israeli government in honor of the first official visit of the U.S. Navy Sixth Fleet Flagship. FULL DISCLOSURE: ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT THE ONE WHO ADDED THIS SECTION, I WAS INVOLVED IN THIS EVENT, AND AM NOT NEUTRAL. HOWEVER, I AM THEREFORE AWARE OF THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE. I will not be part of the decision, other than this request for a group discussion and decision. I very much think this is a matter to be decided by group consensus, not by one person who unilaterally decides an unusual historical event is "insignificant." NearTheZoo (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Location
For those who do not support showing a map of the West Bank to denote the location of the Western Wall. What do you all support? How is its location within Israel justified? -asad (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It is justified because Israel controls and manages the site, just as the Israeli parliament is considered as being in Israel for the very same reason. We have to present the facts as the are. If and when the wall becomes part of an international zone or part of another sovereign nation, the map will reflect that. The West Bank reflects borders that existed for a period 19 years, and they are currently not defined. Using the WB map would be like using the Hasmonean Kingdom map, using a map based on historic borders, but not a current entity. Meanwhile, the Israeli flag flies above the wall, showing that its in Israel. That Israeli presence is deemed illegitimate by the UN does not negate the reality. If it were 1964, the map of Jordan would be used, not the "West Bank". As Israel now holds the site, why should the map of Israel not feature? Chesdovi (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It's still not part of Israel. Let's not have this conversation on every possible Jerusalem related page. Actually, it should probably get taken up at the I-P Collaboration section, I may do that. But no, it's not part of Israel according to anyone but Israel. If it's going to become another flashpoint we can just remove the map. Sol (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I did completely removed the map previously, until every single one of my edits was undone by a of a sock puppet (of who's name I will not mention). For the record, I am fine with having a map, so long as it is accurate. -asad (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The recycling of these old, worn out arguments is becoming quite exhausting. This can all end very quickly. Here's how: Chesdovi, please provide a source, other than Israeli, that states that the Western Wall is in Israel? Better yet, please provide a reliable map which shows the coordinates of the Western Wall to be in Israel. Other than that, to clarify something you misstated earlier, the Israeli Parilment rests in West Jerusalem, under full and internationally recognized, sovereign, Israeli territory. The Western Wall rests in Occupied Palestinian Territory, so says the entire world. -asad (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, first just to be clear, are you saying that EJ is Pleastinian while WJ is not Israeli or Palestinian, ie. WJ is no mans land? Chesdovi (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't care if it is called tim-buck-two, if it resides west of the 1949/1967 "green" line, the world recognizes it to be Israel. East Jerusalem and the Western Wall rests within Occupied Palestinian Territory. -asad (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The Western Walls location is in the West Bank/Palestinian territories, this is the view of the entire world, we must follow Wikipedia policy npov and follow the world view which says that its located in WB/PT. To claim its in Israel with an Israel map is a violation of npov and factually incorrect.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Asad, I seemed to have misunderstood you before. Anyway, here is the non-israeli source you requested [3]. Chesdovi (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding me. Please don't tell me that is the best source you can up with, an encyclopedia "Ganges to Graceland". We should all disregard the U.N., the U.N. Security Council, the CIA World Factbook, the European Union, the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights watch, B'Tselem, etc. Ganges to Graceland covers it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Nab was happy to use this source to "prove" Rachels Tomb was located in PA. Chesdovi (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is this article about Rachael's tomb or the Western Wall? And am I Asad or Nableezy? It seems like your dodging the fact that every major source in international law and academia regards East Jerusalem to be in occupied territory. So we have two options now, going with what Israel and "Ganges to Graceland" says, or, again, the entire world. -asad (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
"Ganges to Graceland" does cover quite alot of the globe. Also, the UNSC has never said the Western Wall is in OPT. Neither have the others AFAIK. The last I heard is that the entire world wants to share Jerusalem and make it an international city. Chesdovi (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
This argument is becoming incredibly asinine. Do you want to argue about whether or not the Western Wall is in East Jerusalem? I thought must would understand, when I named all these organizations, they didn't specifically say the "Western Wall", they spoke about East Jerusalem or occupied territory. Logically, this leads me to believe that you don't see the Western Wall to be in East Jerusalem. You should have just said that from the start. -asad (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
SD, i would not go as far as saying the WW is in the WB. Its in EJ. It is another question whether OEJ in in the WB or not. Chesdovi (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
SD, you made such a nice map for the Golan Heights (POV as it may be), would you be able to make one we can use for Jerusalem loctions everyone is happy with? Chesdovi (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The map I created is following the entire worldview, there is nothing "pov" about it. I dont have to create a new map for this article as there is already one perfectly fit for it named the Palestinian territories location map: [4]. The entire world view is that its part of the Palestinian Territories:[5]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't presume to speak for the entire world, but it seems to me this debate is unlikely to end anytime soon. There is a way to bypass the entire issue. Since the Western Wall is located in the Old City, which is stated in the lead, would it not make sense to adopt the map used in that article's infobox (File:Map of Jerusalem - the old city - EN.png|250px)? No country names to argue over, and the Wall is already marked on it. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
What exactly is your objection to using the map SD just provided? Does it not show East Jerusalem? Hell, it evens makes East Jerusalem's color appear not to be that of the West Bank or Israel. Why is that not satisfying? -asad (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't care for my suggestion. WP should miss no opportunity to be apolitical. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If you wanted to be apolitical, you wouldn't simply have no reservations using a broad, well geographically defined map that is accurate and that the entire world accepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asad112 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank according to:
Finding definitive statements that it's not part of Israel is like shooting fish in a barrel (have Haaretzreporting it as the opinion of the international community, to start with).
For the record, I don't care what map we use as long as it doesn't conform with the extreme minority view that East Jerusalem is in Israel. Old City is fine by me, I'm just a little weary of this conversation taking place everywhere. Sol (talk) 06:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
No map at all then? This issue is causing to much drama on to many articles. If there is any chance that it is also confussing the reader then simply remove it.Cptnono (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Instead of not using a map at all, or using such a tiny map that is geographically unrecognizable to the majority of people, why not use the map SD provided? No one has provided a legitimate, factual, counterpoint. I don't buy the "my way or the highway" bit. -asad (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The wall was in East Jerusalem from between 5:00pm on May 28, 1948 until 10:00am on June 7, 1967. Since then it has been in eastern Jerusalem, and managed as part of Israel. Why should Jerusalem be viewed as being part of the West Bank anymore than being part of the Corpus separatum which is still prescribed by the IC? The West Bank implies an area that belongs to an Arab party, but Jerusalem's status is yet to be determined and is not the legal teritory of either Israel, Jordan or the PA. Chesdovi (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says its not in EJ? This worldview source from after 1967 says that EJ is part of the PT:[6]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Ad nauseum: East Jerusalem part of Occupied Palestinian Territory, per international law, per near worldwide recogniztion of such facto per all the above reasons stated that you continue to ignore. Ad Nauseum. East Jerusalem is not yet to be determined, it is currently occupied Palestinian Territory. Legally (by near unanimous consent) it is occupied Palestinian territory, therefore, the suitable map would be the one SD provided. This is not the Israeli MFA Web site. I have no problem debating you, but you have absolutely failed every time you try to refute the FACT that this is occupied Palestinian Territory. And your constant recycling and word mingling is getting extremely old, Chesdovi. -asad (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Is "East Jerusalem part of Occupied Palestinian Territory"? That point needs to be addressed here. Positions on Jerusalem would have it that its actually part of the CS plan, (like Rachel's Tomb for that matter.) Chesdovi (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
We have worldview source saying EJ is PT, we have no source contradicting this. Based on this, we have no other option but to correct the map to the Palestinian territories. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not convinced. Chesdovi (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Chesdovi, you are right now basically just saying: "no", I have provided a world view source saying its part of the PT, you have not provided a worldview source saying its not.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying there are not sources that say it is simply "Jerusalem"? This article isn't about international law arguments and "world view" still has a significant minority view as opposed to a fringe view. This argument is lame. It is in Jeruselem according to sources, right?Cptnono (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
According to worldview sources its in the part of Jerusalem that is part of the Palestinian territories (East Jerusalem).--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
And that's your prerogative, but unfortunately for your position, have you provided zero sources, other than weak evidence that is been shot down by official damning proof. I say we move forward with this if your final comment on the matter is that you are not convinced, otherwise, please provide a LEGITIMATE source. -asad (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Asad claims that "the Israeli Parliament rests in West Jerusalem, under full and internationally recognized, sovereign, Israeli territory." That is not 100% true. Also, that "East Jerusalem part of Occupied Palestinian Territory, per international law," and that "East Jerusalem is not yet determined, it is currently occupied Palestinian Territory. Legally (by near unanimous consent) it is occupied Palestinian territory." The real view of the IC is that EJ forms part of the CS, and while most consider it "occupied territory" and propose it be ceded to Palestine, it is not "Palestinian territory" any more than WJ is part of “Israeli territory”. EJ may be OT, but it is currently administered by Israel. Before Israel's control, the city was shown on maps as forming part of Jordan, but even then it was not recognised as "Jordanian territory". The UN has never granted Israel WJ and neither has it granted EJ to "Palestine". Now I may be wrong, but the term OPT may not actually denote Palestine as in belonging to the PA, rather it quite innocently means territories occupied by Israel in historic Palestine, but given that the term PT connotes an association the PA, it cannot be used to define parts of Jerusalem which would give the impression that it forms part of land internationally recognised as legally belonging to the PA. Chesdovi (talk) 11:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a source for what you just said? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you aware of of the different legal implications between a General Assembly suggestion and a Security Council resolution? Because if you were, you would understand that corpus separatum has no legal backbone and saying the UN considers that to be the borders of Jerusalem is just as valid as saying the UN considers the partition plan borders to be the borders of Israel. -asad (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the only border Israel yet has to determine is its one with the West Bank. The UN have demarcated its border with Lebanon and Syria. When peace was made with Egypt and Jordan, the final border between each of the countries were set. The '48 ceasefire line is not the international border, as 242 makes clear. It is clear that the IC consider the status of Jerusalem as CS. It is not Israeli territory, nor Palestinian territory. EJ may be called "Arab", but thats because its descibing what the area is in reality, just like the map should show whose control it is under in reality. Most Arab countries do not recognise Israeli presence in WJ, let alone in Israel itself. They also reject the CS plan. So we cannot say "West Jerusalem, under full and internationally recognized, sovereign, Israeli territory. Chesdovi (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Once again, ad nauseam. I never claimed it was a border in the sense of demarcating to sovereign states. The 1949 armistice line only serves a purpose to demarcate the land Israel captured illegally in 1967. For that purpose, the border is pretty clearly defined. And it just so happens, in the Jerusalem area, one of the most western edges is right on the outside of the walls of the Old City (which contains the Western Wall). We have provided source after source of showing that East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory, the only thing you have provided are snippets from books that source 30-year-old committee meetings which more than likely are completed unverifiable on the internet. Please provide a source, not a book with footnotes as the source, the source SOURCED in the footnotes. -asad (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The land was caputed legally. The question of illegality would refer to the settling of civilains there, etc. Occupation is a legal function provided for in IL. It was Jordan who illegaly attacked. If you don't want to go 30 years back, (the UN position still stands, as does Res. 242), we can always use current US policy which views EJ as separate from the WB. Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Not aware of the bombing of Egyptian Airfields?? Anyways that is a different discussion, what amazes me, is that when directly asked to provide sources you never do. Could you provide a source that shows it still stands? Because I have already provided sources showing that East Jerusalem is lumped with in with the West Bank which is considered OPT. -asad (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So the centralized discussion failed but it still seems like a problem having this image on this article. File:Israel location map.svg can be used with the bottom not saying "Israel" but instead "Jerusalem" which appears correct regardless of the city's status in the eyes of the intl community. Highlighting "Palestinian Territories" seems inappropriate since "Israel" is also a possible location. Furthermore, it is not like the Gaza Strip is united with the other areas so why is it highlighted? The image I suggest is clear enough (there are disputed territories seen by the highlighting) but there is no confusion as to a lesser accepted and confusingly designated entity being the focus. Other solutions include: No map at all since it only serves to emphisise a particular viewpoint (why we don't use flags), a map of the city, or a map with all areas highlighted but boundaries clearly defined. No one has presented a map of the city with a marker or a map of the region with a marker but without highlights so those seem like solutions that should not be considered unless someone plans on creating them. Cptnono (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
These books in no way outweigh the worldview sources already provided previously in this discussion, nor do they come from a body which has a legal voice. Finally, not a single one has footnotes or sources. I'm reverting back. -asad (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Do not edit war. Use a alternate suggestion or open an RfC. Consensus is not firmed up so reverting will likely lead to trouble.Cptnono (talk) 08:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying the discussion is closed, I am reverting it back to a version which worldview sources agree upon. Though it is funny after my comment, you inferred that I would be "edit warring" if I reverted back because there was no "consensus", but you made no such comment after Jiujutsuguy's comment and subsequent revert. That doesn't say a lot about your credibility and ability to act neutrally. -asad (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The site is not anymore in the Palestinian territories as it is in Israel. The status of Jerusalem is undefined. The US for sure does not view Jerusalem as forming part of the Palestinian territories, like it does not view any part of Jerusalem as part of Israel. The reason why we have the Israel map is because Israel controls the area. We have the PA map for Joseph’s tomb. And the Gaza map for Gaza Synagogue. We have the Israel map for Cave of the Patriarch’s and Western Wall and Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi (talk) 12:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read all the above provided sources showing that the IC views East Jerusalem as part of Occupied Palestinian Territory. And by your argument, we should have replaced the maps of Iraq and Afghanistan with that of a United States map when the US was occupying and controlling those countries. -asad (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The US does not claim those lands. There is dispute about Jerusalem. Some sources will say it is PT, other will say neither PT or IT, like the CIA handbook. Between 48-67, there was even a dispute with regard to EJ being viewed as part of Jordan or not. So what makes you so sure it truly is part of PT now? The whole of the WB remain undefined. It was never part of a Palestinian run entity in the past. And some parts are still not run under a Palestinian entity. We cannot have the PA flag or map showing PT. I will add that during 48-67, EJ was shown as part of Jordan, it being under J control. Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Your editing techniques are truly exhausting. Please read the sources I have provided early in this section. -asad (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Asad, the location (israel vs. OPT) is a matter of dispute, and there does not seem to be consensus for your position, esp.when your biggest supporter so far has turned out to be a sockpupeting hacker who was just banned. So instead of edit warring in the article, please discuss here to get to a consensus version. If I may toss my 2 cents here, I don't think you are going to get a lot of sympathy for the POV that the wall, which under every realitic scenario will remain in Israeli hands, should be presented in a map that says it is Palestinian. Rym torch (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Dr.Blofeld created this map: [9]. I hope this is acceptable for everyone. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
looks good to me. Rym torch (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
WOw. I suggested that months ago. I completely agree that is the best option.Cptnono (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
The Temple Mount, not merely the Western Wall, is holy to Jews too, not just Muslims as the icons imply. -- Avi (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the map is denoting holy sites rather areas were the faiths pray. If the map was to insert symbols for holy sites, the western wall should also have a crescent symbol, as it is holy to Muslims as well. -asad (talk) 21:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, then I misunderstood; that makes more sense. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
POV video?
I a concerned about the removal of a video showing praying at the site. We have a whole subsection o prayer at the wall so I don;t se ow it can be POV. The video is appropriately licensed. I was incorrect when I said the video did not say it is in Israel. It shows at the bottom for a matter of seconds. And some people do consider it in Israel. That is also discussed in the sources. This video offers media that is a benefit to the reader.[10]
I don't think anywhere in WP policy does it say that videos are not held to the same standards as the rest of the content on WP. If we wouldn't write Jerusalem, Israel in an article or a map, why would we write it on a video? What makes the video so special?
Yes, it is a good and interesting video that, but it should be edited and held to the same standard as any other bit of content is on WP. No reason to settle for less. -asad (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the claims that the wall is in Israel needs to be removed from the video. Also, I think the enitre section under Media, should be removed under WP:Galleries. There are numerous images already throughout the article, and the images in this section do not add anything new to the article. The appropriate place for mass images would be the commons where there are 181 images of the wall already. Passionless-Talk 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Wailing wall location map
The wailing wall location map (second figure in the article) doesn't indicate the wailing wall location in any way I can see. If I just missed it I'm sorry - but if I did miss it, maybe it is because the location is not shown obviously enough. After all, the purpose of the second figure is to show the location of the Wailing Wall, not to just show a map of Jerusalem. How about a nice arrow, or maybe increase the line weight of the Wailing Wall's lines, to make it more obvious. Something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.237.168.167 (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Two important images nominated for deletion! Please help
Why does the name in Arabic appear in the opening section while it's clear that the western wall is Jewish site?--Gilisa (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Because the site has significance in Islam. -asad (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Because Arabic is an offical language of Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Dates
The dates are given in BCE & CE, not because it is a "Jewish" site but because this type of dating was first used in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Wall&diff=prev&oldid=4678536. It is therefore the "prevailing style" unless someone has since discussed changing it and received a consensus to do so. Student7 (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Compare the medieval section with
'Its importance to Judaism is less ancient than is commonly thought. We know, 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. F.E. Peters, in his comprehensive collection of travellers' and pilgrims' documents on Jerusalem, observes that it was only from the early sixteenth century that Jewish visitors described te Western Wall and connected it with the earlier tradition of the 'Presence of God'. Even the 'official' history of the wall by Ben-Dov ety al.openly states that for hundreds of years there has been no mention at all of the wall in the written sources.' Simone Ricca, Reinventing Jerusalem: Israel's Reconstruction of the Jewish Quarter after 1967,I.B.Tauris, 2007 pp.39-40
Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 07:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
In which section of the article to make?
An 800 year old wall holding back part of the hill jutting out from the Western Wall leading up to the Mughrabim Gate partially collapses. Authorities believe a recent earthquake may be responsible[2][3]. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The "Recent events" section of the Temple Mount article would appear to be a more appropriate location. Because the collapse took place in 2004, the item should be stated in the past tense ("collapsed", "believed", "may have been"). Hertz1888 (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
The Scroll of Ahimaaz (1050), also refers to the Western Wall as a Jewish place of prayer.[19]
N 19.Die Rolle des Ahimaz nennt im 11Jh. westlich des Tempelplatzes eine Synagoge. (Ihre heutige hohe Bedeutung erhielt die Klagemauer jedoch erst seit etwa 1520.)
Please construe the German source correctly, and reformulate your edit so that text and source correspond. If you don't know what a source says, refrain from using it (Ostensibly it looks like supporting the next sentence, which is sourced to Martin Gilbert. However the German text does not say 'Shortly before the Crusader period a synagogue stood at the site.')Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Before I removed this reference a short while ago, I looked at three different translations of Ahimaaz (though one of them, in German, I didn't understand too well). I think it is just an allusion to the Talmudic stories about prayer at the western wall of the temple itself, but that's only my opinion so ignore it. The English translation of Harari says "oil for the inner temple of the sanctuary at the western wall" and there is debate about what it means. One author (Dinur) claimed it proves there was a synagogue on the mount itself. Others (Gil, Peters) propose that there was a synagogue in the vicinity of the Western Wall and suggest (without offering real evidence) that it was inside the wall at the Priest's Gate. The Priest's Gate is now known as Barclay's Gate, whose lintel is visible at the south end of the women's section at the Western Wall. It has been sealed for about 1000 years, but there is a space inside accessible from the top of the mount which for at least 150 years has been called the Mosque of el Buraq. I don't mind Ahimaaz being present, so long as it is presented as a "maybe". It is at most a "maybe". Zerotalk 13:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
If my memory serves me correct, some early Jewish scholars did view the wall as being part of the Temple itself. Anyway, it seems that all translations cited above agree that there was a synagogue in the vicnity, whether it was at the foot of the wall as we know it nowadays or not, does not really matter here. The fact is, Ahimaz mentions there was a place designated for Jewish prayer specifically on the western side of Temple ruins. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
We can report what scholars write about, including all opinions. Zerotalk
Incidentally, this 1930 source cannot be used except for the opinion of the Jewish Agency. It is a polemical document produced in the heat of the battle and should not be quoted in neutral voice any more than we would so quote the Arab Higher Committee submission produced at the same time. It is very biased and full of deception (witness the list of sources that don't mention the Buraq story but omitting others, even different issues of the same periodical, that do). Zerotalk 14:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
But surely we do not discount everything contained in this source? We use it with care, and I think it is safe to cite Cyrus Adler on this point, that the scroll is "definite evidence of worship" at the site. Chesdovi (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
It is precisely the sort of source we shouldn't touch with a 40-ft pole, as my father used to say. That doesn't stop us from citing other sources for the same claims, provided they are good sources. Zerotalk 16:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"woman was buried under the houses"?
The article says "One old woman was buried under the houses as the bulldozer razed the area". The Hebrew Wikipedia ( https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/שכונת_המוגרבים#.D7.AA.D7.97.D7.AA_.D7.A9.D7.9C.D7.98.D7.95.D7.9F_.D7.99.D7.A9.D7.A8.D7.90.D7.9C ) has a different version: a woman without signs of injuries ("ללא סימני פגיעה") was found dying and efforts to help her were to no avail. Clearly there's a contradiction between the versions. If she was "buried under the houses" there ought to have been some marks upon her. Perhaps she died of heart attack (or of old age)? Four (!) references are provided as, I suppose, a proof for the English version, but clicking them I found no proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.76.194 (talk • contribs)
Someone who is crushed might not have obvious external injuries. Here is the description by Tom Segev in 1967 (pp. 400–401):
Some refused to leave their homes. The bulldozers approached and the weeping residents departed only after the walls of their houses began to come down. Floodlights lit up the darkened area. One elderly woman was found beneath the ruins of a wall. She was unconscious and clearly dying, although there were no external signs of injury. She was taken out of the rubble in her bed and efforts were made to help her, beneath the floodlights, among the clouds of dust raised by the bulldozers. By the time medical help arrived, the woman had died.
A more detailed description of the destruction of the Mughrabi quarter is in Gorenberg, Accidental Empire. He identifies the source of several versions. About the woman who died he says only:
A semiconscious old woman, Hajja Rasmia Tabaki, was pulled from one half-destroyed house and died in the course of the night.
I did not found this claim anywhere. Extraordinary claims needs multiple sources. The woman who died was obviously not the victim of "bulldozing"--Tritomex (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Also the claim that the Mughrabi quarter was 800-year old needs sourcing!--Tritomex (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Please if anyone can check this (bulldozing of old woman claim) as the sources provided eighter do not support this claim or are not reliable.--Tritomex (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Both the sources I just gave are reliable sources. And there is nothing in the least extraordinary about it. Actually it is a very well known story. Zerotalk 15:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep. There's no problem there. As for the 800 years, that's a round figure, and like all round figures, a touch rubbery if you hairsplit. Founded in 1197 it was demolished in 1967, i.e. it was 770 years old, thirty years short 800. The convention is to round off to the nearest century, but if the three extra decades worries the life out of you, you're welcome to adjust to almost/roughly 800 yr old. By the way Rashid Khalidi says the number of Muslim residents evicted was approximately 1,000 (Palestinian Identity: Construction of Modern National Consciousness 2010 p.17)Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Re Zero's self-revert
I think the text Z04 thought suspect is so.
"Most Jews, religious and secular, consider the wall to be important to Judaism since it was originally built to hold the Second Temple." —
Compare:-
(a) A site that had never been considered to possess extra holiness and that had been used for centuries in Byzantine and early Muslim Jerusalem as the municipal dump was transformed into a landfillof political, financial, nationalist and religious passions. … Those who consider themselves “normal” Israelis long ago convinced themselves that the Wall has no meaning to them. Enlightened parts of society treat it as a laughable load of stones. Anshel Pfeffer At the Western Wall, the sacred stones might become the stepping stone for Third Temple dreams at Haaretz 15 May, 2013
(b)'The first testimony to the transformation of the Western Wall into a sacred site for worship comes only from the 16th century. “It is known that in the past sanctity was not attributed to the Wall, and the [early] written sources and writings left by Jewish visitors in the Middle Ages testify that the Western Wall was no more important than the other walls of the Temple Mount,” according to Dr. Gabriel Barkay, a professor of archaeology at Bar-Ilan University, in an article in the journal Ariel in July 2007. The Wall, he wrote, became a holy site only in the early modern period. “From the start of the sanctification of the Western Wall, in the 16th century, the traditions in the texts of the Sages were transferred from the western wall of the Temple to the western wall of the Temple Mount,” . . . In the 20th century a tradition began to take root, whereby the Western Wall was said to be the spot where the Prophet Mohammed tied his flying horse Al-Buraq after the journey from Mecca to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Because of this, the 1928-1929 disturbances are called the “Al-Buraq Revolution” by Arabs. Historians have found that this version of the story of the winged horse developed only after the Jews began to attribute importance to the site, and that it was politically motivated.' Ofer Aderet Prayers, notes and controversy: How a wall became the Western wall at Haaretz, May 14, 2013
The romance in both sources and our article illustrate blindness to the way 'traditions' are invented, consolidated, finessed for 'everyone' who is loaded with an ethnic or national identity. Now, let's see which editor ignores most of these articles' indications but jumps in to insert just the stuff about the al-Buraq legend's function! Nishidani (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Btw, I'm collecting stuff on al-Buraq. Only the very best, of course. What is in this article is self-contradictory, and basically useless. Not as bad as Al-Buraq mosque though, which is simply wrong (see my comment in the talk page there). Alas, Aderet is wrong about it too; the tradition is provably much older. So much to do... Meanwhile, can we find Barkay's article? See here about Ariel. Zerotalk 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course Aderet is wrong or certainly, as is often predictable, phrasing things in a highly partisan manner which, if you are not a careless reader, will mislead. See, if you haven't read it already, The ladder of ascension in Alexander Altmann, Von der mittelalterlichen zur modernen Aufklärung: Studien zur jūdischen Geistesgeschichte, Mohr Siebeck,1987 pp.30-58 esp.p.57. By the way, every scrap of historical notice about praying at the wall is registered. No mention is made of the number of Jewish travellers who ignored it.Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I see this secular scepticism (and even in religious quarters, Leibowitz etc) about the holiness for Jews (indiscriminately bundled together) of the place, is neatly described by Uri Avnery today Women of the Wall at Counterpunch 17-19, May 2013. He was there the day the Mughrabi Quarter was torn down. 'Diskotel' is brilliant.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I await a similar article by Uri about Jews not being able to pray atop the mount itself. He also seems he thinks the Mughrabi neighbourhood was but a century-old. Seems he's disturbed more by the manner the quarter was brought down, rather than the destruction of antiquities. Chesdovi (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A mistake in the text?
It says "In 1877 the Mufti of Jerusalem considered a Jewish offer to buy the Moroccan Quarter, but a dispute within the Jewish community prevented the agreement from going ahead.[27] In 1887 a promising attempt was made by Baron Rothschild who conceived a plan to purchase and demolish the Moroccan Quarter ... Other reports place the scheme's failure on Jewish infighting as to whether the plan would foster a detrimental Arab reaction". The description of these two events is almost identical. The only source given for the 1877 event is the very weak popular atlas of Gilbert. It seems to me that the "1877" in Gilbert is just a typo for "1887" and there was only one event. Gilbert does not mention two events, and it is strange that he would mention only an obscure event in 1877 rather than the well known event of 1887. Neither of the two sources given for the 1887 event mentions an earlier event. I propose to remove the 1877 event, but I'll wait a while in case someone can find a source indicating that there were two separate events. Zerotalk 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The date of Moroccan quarter
The claim that Moroccan quarter was built before 770 years (even before most of current Old City ) is unsourced. If Zeero000 has source I would kindly ask him to provide links and DIRECT quotes because in the current sources, such claim do not exist.--Tritomex (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The establishment of the Moroccan quarter in the 12th century, and the confirmation of the endowment in the 13th and 16th centuries, is documented in the book that I cited, which translates the original Arabic sources. Nobody is saying that every building dated from that time (though a few did). You can find the book and check; I don't know of an online edition and have no obligation to provide one. F.E. Peters is a famous scholar and anyway this information is not controversial. Zerotalk 00:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't have obligation to provide online edition, that is true. However I think you should give us the page and quote from Peters book regarding the date of Moroccan quarter. That is how other facts are sourced in the article. The 770 years is controversial as according to Sara Irving, Palestine book, the Moroccan quarter was established in 15th century. This means that the quarter was at least 150 years younger than claimed. According to another source I have found which I do not consider WP:RS, most of the buildings in Moroccan quarter were built in late 19th century. The reason why I thing that the 770 years claim is impossible lies in the fact that the quartet was built gradually, without any precise year of its establishment.--Tritomex (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Um, every part of every historic city in the world from Tibet to Timbuktu was 'built up gradually' from the year dot. You might recall 'Rome wasn't built in a day', but it was founded mythically in a certain year when a few thatched hut were raised on the Palatine hill. If you can find a source saying that 'the foundational date is controversial' by all means notify the page.Nishidani (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
One of Peters' sources is the book of Mujir ad-Din, who is responsible for a lot of what is known about post-Crusader Jerusalem. You can read some of what he wrote on pages 162–163 of Sauvaire's translation. Mujir ad-Din gives 1193 as the year of endowment. You can read about the Madraseh Afdaliyeh's destruction in 1967 here. Another source is the 1595 re-confirmation of the endowment of the quarter, listing the boundaries and recounting the history. This document still exists and Peters has a whole page of translation from it. There's a book of Tibawi that reproduces the Arabic text. Zerotalk 00:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Explain dubious tag
"Article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement provided for Israeli Jewish access to the Western Wall." — This is commonly stated but false. The Armistice agreement only provides for the establishment of a committee for negotiating such access. [11]. Actually quite a lot of this article has similar lack of precision. Zerotalk 17:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Misleading info about Satmar view
The article states:
"Most Jews, religious and secular, consider the wall to be important to Judaism since it was originally built to hold the Second Temple. They consider the capture of the wall by Israel in 1967 as a historic event since it restored Jewish access to the site after a 19 year gap.[140] There are, however, some haredi Jews who hold opposing views. Most notable are the adherents of the Satmar hasidic sect who retain the views espoused by Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, who would not approach the Wall after the 1967 conquest (although he did visit the site during his visits to the Holy Land in the 1920s)."
I suggest it should be changed as it is inferring that Satmar Chasidim do not consider the koisel to be holy. This is grossly false. As a Satmarer, we do consider the koisel to be extremely holy, but do not visit the koisel out of political views, as doing so is a groyse zchis for the Zionist state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by יעקב-חיים (talk • contribs) 14:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Benjamin and Chelo
When I checked the writings of Benjamin of Tudela, I saw what seemed to be a very clear reference to the Western Wall. This created an quibble in my poor brain: since Benjamin is so well known, why do so many scholars say there were no clear references to devotion at the Western Wall until later centuries? In addition, there is the story of the "western wall" attributed to Rabbi Chelo, which is also seemingly ignored.
Just now I realised why, and it shows the danger of interpreting primary sources. They weren't referring to the Western Wall at all. Here is proof.
Benjamin of Tudela (edition of Adler, 1907, pp. 22–23):
Jerusalem has four gates-the gate of Abraham, the gate of David, the gate of Zion, and the gate of Gushpat, which is the gate of Jehoshaphat, facing our ancient Temple, now called Templum Domini. Upon the site of the sanctuary Omar ben al Khataab erected an edifice with a very large and magnificent cupola, into which the Gentiles do not bring any image or effigy, but they merely come there to pray. In front of this place is the western wall, which is one of the walls of the Holy of Holies. This is called the Gate of Mercy, and thither come all the Jews to pray before the wall of the court of the Temple.
Chelo (edition of Adler, "Jewish Travellers", 1930, pp. 130–131):
The holy city possesses to-day four gates : the Gate of Mercy, at the east; the Gate of David, at the west; the Gate of Abraham, at the north; the Gate of Zion at the south. Leaving the city by the Gate of Mercy, we climb the Mount of Olives, the mountain of oil, the place where of old the red calf was burnt. It is here that we find the valley of Jehoshaphat, the brook Kedron, Bethphage, and the cemetery of the Israelites. ... It is this western wall which stands before the temple of Omar ibn al Khattab, and which is called the Gate of Mercy. The Jews resort thither to say their prayers, as Rabbi Benjamin has already related.
Did you notice the problem? Both these rabbis place the "western wall" at the Gate of Mercy, but the Gate of Mercy is in the east wall of the Temple Mount. Not only does every scholar concur that that is where the Gate of Mercy is, but Chelo says so quite explicitly. Benjamin does too but it is not quite as plain: the Gate of Mercy is not listed in the four gates because it is the same as the Gate of Jehoshaphat according to him (the Gate of Jehoshaphat was in the east wall, according to Gil). Both these rabbis are referring to the east wall. Now I found this conclusion also in the book Jerusalem by F. E. Peters (p328). Peters doesn't suggest why these gentlemen would call the east wall "west", but I will (OR follows): on climbing the Mount of Olives just as Chelo suggests, one sees to the west the "temple of Omar ibn al Khattab" and the wall with the "Gate of Mercy" right in front of it. Zerotalk 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
(Brilliant. You've matter there for another article). Note that it was just inside the Gate of Mercy, the gate on the wall west of the Mt of Olives, where an inscription was found which reads 'The traveller, Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, noted of the Western Wall that all the Jews wrote their names on the Wall'.Menashe Har-El, Golden Jerusalem,Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2004 p.42. Nishidani (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Original research is not something what could be part of Wikipedia articles.Btw after checking numerous sources I found that the claim that Mugharbi quarter was 800 years old or built in 12th century does not stand.--Tritomex (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree, we shouldn't have any original research in articles. Therefore, the primary sources Benjamin and Chelo, assumed by some Wikipedia editor to refer to the Western Wall when they don't, are not permissible. We are often lenient in this respect when the content of the primary source is self-evident and uncontested, but that is not the case here. With Chelo, it is even more obvious, since he states explicitly that his "western wall" is at the "Gate of Mercy, at the east". It isn't original research to read a source carefully. Anyway, as I mentioned, the prominent historian Francis Edwards Peters agrees with my conclusion. I just checked Peters' book and he also describes the founding of the Maghrebi quarter in the 12th century, with quotations from the primary sources. Zerotalk 01:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Tudela should be in the article, along with the problem Peters and others note. Chelo doesn't belong at all, since he says explicitly that he refers to a different place. Zerotalk 02:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Ben Dov notes a difference of opinion as to which location is meant regarding both these mentions of the "Western Wall"/"Gate of Mercy". We should note Tudela with the dissenting interpretations, but also Chelo, as some have taken him also to mean the Western flank, as opposed to the Eastern retaining wall. One wonders if other later descriptions also refer to the Eastern Wall? I now wonder what indeed the Bach meant in his code, although one author has taken his statement as refering to the Western Wall as we know it today. Chesdovi (talk) 10:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Still think we shouldn't use Chelo, it isn't very interesting that some people didn't read him carefully. By the way, don't you think he just plagiarized from Benjamin? His words are so similar, he could have written the same things without visiting. Zerotalk 11:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah-ha! I now find that Chelo's itinerary is considered a forgery. I'll come back with more. Zerotalk 02:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Question reliability of source (Danziger)
Several items are sourced to "Danziger, Hillel (1990). "The Kosel Affair". Guardian of Jerusalem. Artscroll." This book is an adaption by Rabbi Danziger of a biography of Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld written by his grandson Shlomo Zalman Sonnenfeld. The older Sonnenfeld was one of the most important religious opponents of Zionism in the mandate period, though you wouldn't know it from his article in Wikipedia. The book belongs to a genre of religious writing that favors story-telling over factual history. You can see what I mean by reading these extracts from the book. Are those anecdotes literally true? The writer would not consider that important; what is important is that the stories teach us something about the person being eulogized and provide a lesson for us. There is an extremely large volume of such literature. Back to this article, neither the younger Sonnenfeld nor Danziger have any reputations as historians. Danziger is known as a translator and commentator on Talmud and other religious texts. Look at pages 28 (page 29 is missing) of this Neturei Karta magazine to see an attack on the book by those claiming to follow the path of the older Sonnenfeld. I find all of this fascinating, but to use this book in Wikipedia as a source of history is somewhat preposterous. Zerotalk 01:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's look at the problem in practical terms. It's used I think three times, and when in doubt one does well just to find a better source, but here for one item this is not easy. For the other two one can easily remove either the information given as irrelevant, or replace the source.
(1) The British government issued an announcement explaining the incident and blaming the Jewish beadle at the Wall. It stressed that the removal of the screen was necessary, but expressed regret over the ensuing events.
This is mentioned in Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of Augest 1929 (1930) and should be sourced to that or any other comparable source.
(2) Yitzchak Orenstein, who held the position of Rabbi of the Kotel, recorded in April 1930 that “Our master, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld came to pray this morning by the Kosel and one of those present produced a small chair for the Rav to rest on for a few moments. However, no sooner had the Rav sat down did an Arab officer appear and pull the chair away from under him.”
I think (2) can be removed, per WP:Undue as too particular as a sectarian detail for a general article. It does not seem attested elsewhere.
(3) The Chief Rabbi of the ultraorthodox Jews in Jerusalem issued a protest letter on behalf of his community, the Edah HaChareidis, and Agudas Yisroel strongly condemning the desecration of the holy site. Various communal leaders called for a general strike. A large rally was held in the Etz Chaim Yeshiva, following which an angry crowd attacked the local police station in which they believed the British officer involved in the fiasco was sheltering
(3) seems unattested elsewhere. I don’t doubt the veracity but it does distort by selective quotation the complexities of Sonnenfeld’s position which apropos the wall incidents was highly critical of Zionists also.
If one wants to retain (3) it needs such a balancing statement re Sonnenfeld's position, which attributed the ultimate blame to Zionists. But again, I think the detail could rather be moved to 1929 Palestine riots. The Western Wall has millenial history and should not dwell on a small partisan detail.
Thus for this page, what can be authoritatively sourced to the Commission's results might be retained. The other two are not quite appropriate per WP:Undue and because one statement is selective in its distortion of the record. Nishidani (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
20,000 square meters?
The article says that the plaza has 20,000 square meters, and indeed the source says that. However, the area of the part coloured white in the map at the top of the page is only about 10,000 square meters (I measured it). Does the map show only part of the plaza perhaps? Zerotalk 14:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The stones; question source and information
We have this:
The next four layers were added by Umayyads in the 7th century. The next fourteen layers are from the Ottoman period and their addition is (most likely mistakenly) attributed to Sir Moses Montefiore who in 1866 arranged that further layers be added “for shade and protection from the rain for all who come to pray by the holy remnant of our Temple”. The top three layers were placed by the Mufti of Jerusalem before 1967. (Horovitz, Ahron (2001). Jerusalem: Footsteps Through Time. Jerusalem: Feldheim.)
This is highly unsatisfactory. Nobody with expertise in the subject would not know whether or not Montefiore added layers to the wall, and of course this is nonsense. A quick look in his diary (page 177 of volume 2) shows what the quotation is about: "The Governor during this visit [in 1866] kindly gave me permission to erect an awning for the 'wailing place' near the western wall of the Temple, so as to afford shelter and protection from rain and heat to pious persons visiting, this sacred spot." (my emphasis). Then we have three layers added "before 1967". He doesn't know when? Someone does; let's find it. Note that this 1946 image shows the same number of courses of small stones then as there are now. However, there seem to be 2 or 3 more small courses than in this 1870 photo. Zerotalk 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This photo published in 1881 (and so taken a bit earlier) shows fewer courses of small stones than this photo taken in 1929. So the change occurred in that interval. Zerotalk 02:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Which again shows that it wasn't during Montefiore's 1866 visit. Zerotalk 02:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, the memoir of Pliny Fisk reports that in 1823 there were 16 courses of small stones (p310). At the moment there are 16 at the north end and 17 at the south end. The situation is unclear. Another source of confusion is the small extension upwards at the far north end. I believe that was built in 1929, and maybe it is a mistaken basis of claims that extra rows of stones were added by the mufti. Zerotalk 14:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Another deficiency in the article is that that it fails to mention the major excavation done in 1967 (or soon thereafter). The level of the pavement was lowered about 2 meters. You can see from the above photos that there are two more courses of huge stones visible now. The original level was even much lower (witness that the base of Barclay's gate is several meters underground now). Zerotalk 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The following— "four layers were added by Umayyads in the 7th century. The next fourteen layers are from the Ottoman period and their addition is (most likely mistakenly) attributed to Sir Moses Montefiore who in 1866 arranged that further layers be added “for shade and protection from the rain for all who come to pray by the holy remnant of our Temple”. The top three layers were placed by the Mufti of Jerusalem before 1967." Was removed from the artical long ago. Although this information may be questionable; it is highly unsatisfactory to leave the article with NO explanation of the source of the most recently added layers to the wall Naytz (talk) 01:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Having false information is worse than nothing. What Montefiore did in 1866 is recorded in his diary in detail and you can read it for yourself at archive.org. No actual historian supports this story. It isn't a tradition either, just an urban myth. Zerotalk 09:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Who does really think that these uppermost courses are of any importance at all and isn't the Israeli Rabbi of the Western Wall, one step forward! Not me. We don't know who has finished the Royal Stoa and the Western Wall section supporting it since that recent coin find, now Shimon Gibson claims that it is plausible that the wall destruction was mainly due to the 363 earthquake, Ronni Reich contradicts but still is confident that the Romans only did some demolishing a few years AFTER storming the Mount in AD 70 - now THOSE are interesting topics! Who's done some patching at the top, either for good engineering reasons, or just to annoy the Jews praying below, in which decade between 1880 and 1929 - what difference does it make? The eastern bulge has not been fixed properly at all by the Egyptians and the Seam area might collapse any time soon, say some "insiders". The southern bulge has been "fixed" by the Jordanians with neat industrially-produced stones and looks like a new villa in West Amman. Now THOSE are relevant topics to me.
Montefiore kept on visiting Jerusalem, things he started during one visit he finished during a later one, see Mishkenot Sha'ananim, and his estate continued after his death, so what he did or didn't do in 1869 precisely is irrelevant, but I'm quite convinced that he wasn't allowed to meddle in Waqf business. That he "donated" money to all kinds of authorities, a.k.a. baksheesh, that's an absolute certainty, since he did get things done in Turkish-run Jerusalem. That's not cynical, that is plain knowledge of the daily modus operandi of Ottoman rule anywhere at the time. But that's off the point, even if one tries to figure out how the Turks put that money to work :-)
Good luck and a happy year 2015, user: Arminden.
Montefiore
As per discusion under The stones; question source and information I am adding mention of the suppossed addition of several layers by sir moses montefior
(Edited from User talk:Arminden) Montefiore did not do anything to the stones of the wall. That is an urban myth that won't die. Probably it derives from a misreading of his diary where he speaks of erecting an awning. Note that at the end of the blog (your second link) there is a link to another blog where it is written that Montefiore did nothing and that "The top three courses were added by the Muslim Religious Council as part of general repair work." I have seen the latter claim elsewhere too, but neither the other source nor this one is citable under Wikipedia rules. I see "Muslim Religious Council" here too, which is probably citable, but it's annoying to have only "recently" when it probably happened in the 1920s or earlier. Zerotalk 04:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The story of the awning erected by Montefiore is repeated in his report to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, printed in The Occident, Feb 1, 1867, p502. Zerotalk 06:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is something from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Aug 12, 1942): "Minor repairs to the Wailing Wall, involving the replacement of several crumbling stones in the upper rows which endangered worshippers, will be made shortly, it was announced here today. An agreement to this effect has been reached by the Chief Rabbinate and the Antiquities Department of the Palestine Government. Zerotalk 04:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (Sep 8, 1929): "In the meantime, eye-witnesses are reporting continued construction and the addition of six upper layer of stone to the right of the Wall, similar to those previously laid on the left side. The new layers of stone will facilitate the approach from the Mosque of Omar to the Wall." I don't get this, there are definitely not 6 courses more now than there were prior to 1929 (see the photos linked above). Maybe it is referring to parts of the wall south of the "Western Wall". Zerotalk 04:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And even more relevant, JTA October 16, 1928: "The question of Jewish right of access to the Western Wall of the Temple, commonly known as the Wailing Wall, was further aggravated by the Arabs yesterday, Sunday, when those claiming property rights to this Jewish Holy Site, commenced building operations on the Wall. It appears that the Moslems intend to add a line of stones on top of the Wall. These operations caused new excitement among Jerusalem Jews and the president of the Jewish community immediately submitted a protest to the District Commissioner. The District Commissioner. The District Commissioner, however, replied that the “Arabs have the right to build over the Wall.” It was stated that Col. Frederick H. Kisch, political representative of the Zionist Executive in Jerusalem, will bring the matter before Acting High Commissioner Luke." Zerotalk 04:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
And so to the Palestine Post of Aug 20, 1942, p3, we find where the top row of stones originated and also find that the Montefiore myth was believed then too.
"REPAIRS TO THE WAILING WALL COMPLETED" ... The finishing touches will be put today to the repair work carried out this week on the Wailing Wall, and the lower five courses are to be cleaned of the moss and grass that have sprouted in the cracks. Workmen have laid a 38-metre long row of stones along the top of the Wall, above the portion built onto the original by Sir Moses Montefiore in the last century. At the northern end of the Wall, stones were laid to a depth of several courses. The new stones have been laid to guard against the falling of loose stones." (Incidentally the cleaning of moss and grass was cancelled, as reported a few days later.) Zerotalk 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems that the reason good sources are vague on the top few rows of stones is that they were repaired or added to repeatedly. Zerotalk 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that the sources are vague on the top few layers of the wall. Anything that we could surmise would probobly be OR. However this doesn't take away from the notabilty of the Montefiore story. Many people read this article to find information about the Montefiore story and if it is indeed unsubstantiated that is what the article should say about it
Naytz (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Women's prayer at the Wall" and similar subsections need to be re-written following WP:NOTNEWS
Since nobody has done it yet, I will begin a dialogue here regarding the issue. @VanEman: The problem isn't that the events described are not true, nor is it a problem with sources. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This section and those following it read as if it were a news story written by a reporter, and your edits are only adding to the problem. This is an encyclopedia and these subsections need to be rewritten to conform to encyclopedic style, scope and tone. The point is that there is a controversy and have been protests...all recent names (for example, Linda Siegel-Richman) and exact dates are both non-notable and extraneous information that only serve to bloat an already-long article.--William ThweattTalkContribs 21:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I could not have said it better. The foregoing, I think, goes to the heart of the problem. My revert was also based on WP:BRD, seeing that the content in question had already been reverted twice by others. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
No, the problem is that Orthodox Jewish men delete women. They delete their photographs from newspaper publications, as they did with photoshopping HIlary Clinton out of U.S. government photos. They photoshopped new female MK's out of photographs of the Knesset that was elected in 2015. This is a matter of sexism, discrimination, religious intolerance and censorship. This article is waaaaaaay to long for a normal person who wants a brief overview of the Western Wall. When has the Western Wall been of international interest lately? When Orthodox try to impose their way in a country that wants to have religious freedom for all. Jewish women are no longer going to be deleted. So stop deleting. VanEman (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WP:SOAPBOX, which says in short, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This seems to be an issue for which you have much passion; while not a bad thing in and of itself, that passion is misplaced. This is an article about the Western Wall, not about any perceived problems of "Orthodox Jewish men delet(ing) women". Nor is it supposed to be a comprehensive list of every incidence of discrimination. We have articles such as Discrimination in Israel, Human rights in Israel and Criticism of Israel for such details. What you wish to include adds nothing to the article and has very little to do with the Western Wall per se, however it may be relevant to the specific articles I just linked. I'm going to remove the paragraph in question, please don't re-insert it unless a consensus develops here to do so.--William ThweattTalkContribs 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a need for an article on the subject of women's access to the wall. We have Women of the Wall and even Women for the Wall, but those are too specific. This general article on the wall does not have room for a blow by blow account of the dispute. The article is already way over the recommended article size. The issue of women's access deserves a section, but not a very large one. It would be better to work on what is there, without making it much larger, than adding new stuff every time something happens. Zerotalk 00:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I completely agree with WilliamThweatt. I have reverted the same edit from the same editor and for the same reason, I think that was already a few months ago. I don't understand how this VanEman guy hasn't been blocked yet, after all his edit warring and tendentious edits, of which I know a few on several articles. Debresser (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with Zero, that having a separate section about women is enough. Debresser (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with previous users particularly WilliamThweatt - However per WP:RECENTISM it should be shortened as a detail of certain era. The "current events" and specific cases should be removed.
For now I put a tag. I will soon correct it (Unless I hear otherwise). Caseeart (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Western Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.
I am confused, was the Wailing Wall an actual part of the Temple, or was it separate from it? Please do help me out.108.188.90.42 (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
It is part of the huge retaining wall for the hill (Temple Mount). The temple sat on top of the hill. There is no existing structure believed to be part of the temple itself. Zerotalk 13:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Someone told me it was apart of the temple, supposedly proving Jesus wrong about the temples stones. Jesus said that not one of the stones of the temple would remain on top of another. So, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.188.90.42 (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
![[9]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Location_map_Jerusalem.png){kind=link}
