Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 14 March 2022

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

No More Mr Nice Guy - unexplained revert

@No More Mr Nice Guy: “better” is not a sufficient edit comment. Please explain your rationale. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

My rationale is that this photo is better, although I think some form of this iconic image would be even better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

”Better” is your conclusion, not your rationale.

If you refuse to provide a rationale, your input can only be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note you may have broken 1rr here (original authorship provision, etc), Onceinawhile. The photo you added is a very poor photo - taken from outside of the compund (in the old cemetary), some distance away, and at a very poor angle. If we were to do a side by side then this would be a good modern one. Or alternatively a modern photoo from inside the compund (which is visited by numerous pilgrims).Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

NMMNG replaced a picture with both a 1978 and 2018 version of the tomb ...with only a 1978 version. That was a change which made the page less informative..I am restoring. And I do not agree that a picture from the inside is relevant for the lead, obviously it has to be from the outside (seriously, for what other building do we have, in the lead, a picture of the buildings interior?) Huldra (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

What I did was restore the photo that was there instead of one which both I and Icewhiz objected to but you just restored that one despite knowing it has no consensus. Nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, before this latest round, we has a late 19th century depiction of the tomb. It seems that we all think that a more modern image is appropriate? Onceinawhile and myself think that one with both 1978 and 2018 version is passable, you want only the 1978 version, Icewhiz wants an interior version. I am not saying the present picture is optimal, but I think the present double picture is better than only having the 1978 version, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, what you normally do in that case is restore the picture that has been there for a while and discuss how to improve, not edit war your preferred version over the objections of multiple other editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to a 2018 photo per say (or post 2000 photo) - I may have preferred one if one was readily available on commons. I suggested 1978 as a middle ground after seeing what was readily available - the priginal photo was also ok. As for Onceinawhile's photos (which per commons she took herself?) - they do not show the structure (you see it just barely) - taken from some distance away and with other structures in the way - these are clearly inappropriate for a main photo as they do not show the building in question but rather the general surrondings only.Icewhiz (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that’s right. After a long and fruitless discussion with NMMNG on this topic a couple of years ago, I finally managed to find the time to go and take some better photos. It felt like an easier solution than continuing to go round in circles here.

I spent a day walking around to look at every possible angle. I have put some of the other photos in the article gallery.

Icewhiz, to your comment on showing the original structure, the fortifications mean that is simply not possible as they have been covered by the modern barrier walls. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A photo from inside the modern compund (past the outer walls, from the parking lot inside), would be best. There are no good angles for shooting pictures (except for from the air) from outside the outer walls (except for possibly the north) - by design - this was designed to block sniper fire. The building (as well as various auxiliary building and annexes that got added - for the yeshiva etc.) is visible inside.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not correct; I took inside-the-wall and inside-the-tomb building pictures too but they provide no more visibility than the inside pictures already on commons. The problem is twofold - (1) the orientation of the building, in which the long edge is away from the road, and (2) the fortifications surrounding all four walls, three of which are right up against the building and the fourth of which is the angle onto the post-1967 ornamental gate structure which you linked to a picture of above.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Also your parking lot suggestion didn’t work either; the parking area is the bottom “square” of the wall - a different area to where the tomb building is, and the walls surrounding that are the base style of the barrier, therefore much taller than the tomb building. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I was not there since they did the latest construction, but I thought there should be a large inner courtyard inside behind the wall. If there is no shot of the tomb building, then an inner picture would he better

Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is a copyrighted aerial photo, which shows the situation clearly. As I mentioded, I took photos from every available angle, and posted the best ones on commons. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

This is just more reason to show one of the iconic pictures of the tomb as it was when it still could be seen properly. Further down in the article photos to illustrate the fortifications can be included where the description of their building is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. Per Huldra, that would be "less informative".

The fortified state of the tomb is its most prominent feature. Most other maqams look almost exactly the same - in wider architectural context the "older" pictures you refer to are entirely unremarkable.

I am aware of no other religious building in the known world which is entirely fortified on all sides.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

About your statement that "Most other maqams look almost exactly the same": I used to see this picture on sale on eBay..for years....under the name of "Rachel's Tomb". It isn't, of course...it is (or rather was) the maqam belonging to Sar'a. Huldra (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: Ah yes, I think that might also be another one of those which No More Mr Nice Guy considers to be an “iconic image of Rachel’s tomb”... Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Off hand - Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount come to mind as 2000+ year old example. The Temple Mount in particular functioned as one of the inner fortified keeps of Jerusalem (and there are non-Jewish examples as well - e.g. from Meso America IIRC).Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes you're right, and books such as Peter Harrison (2004). Castles of God: Fortified Religious Buildings of the World. Boydell Press. ISBN 978-1-84383-066-5. have been written about them.

Interestingly we become accustomed to thinking about those fortifications as an integral part of the overall buildings. Perhaps we should do the same here.

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It might be unique as a 21st century example (though Syria/Iraq might have some other recent examples) - when conceived the tomb was under constant sniper threat (as was Gilo from Beit Jala) - things have quieted down, but there still are disturbances and hurled pipe bombs at the tomb on a monthly or bi-monthly basis.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The best thing would have been if we had a picture taken in the same spot as, say, the 1978 picture. That way, we could clearly see the development. (Look at the bottom of Abu Dis, with pictures from the same place in 1990s, 2004 and 2009. Or Nabi Rubin, with pictures from 1985 and 2012.) Huldra (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. I will create some galleries with the different available angles to help us consider. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done See galleries below. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

To put it as the top picture of the article, first you'd need to show that the fortifications are considered part of the tomb by most reliable sources, which I doubt. If you want to inform the reader, you should show a picture of the tomb since that is the subject of this article. Lower down the fortifications can be shown where they are described. Like in the Abu Dis article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Abu Dis article is not only about the wall, it is about the village. Almost ditto for Nabi Rubin, which consists for several buildings. However, Rachel's Tomb is, basically, only one building. One solution could be not to have any picture in the lead....I would prefer that to having a misleading picture, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The site is one of the most important holy places in Judaism. Obviously having a disgusting and amateur user photo is not appropriate. Drsmoo (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh?? Virtually all pictures on wp are "disgusting and amateur user photo". Btw, I am leaning more and more to not having a picture in the lead, at all. Huldra (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

While it's true there are a lot of fairly low quality photos on Misplaced Pages, the one you keep restoring is particularly amateurish and hardly shows anything about the subject of this article (except a little bit of POV, and even that really badly). One of the famous pictures of this famous site should be at the top of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, I had no idea that a picture, taken by wikipedia user Whoiswho in 1978, was a "famous picture" of this place? Huldra (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Gosh, I had no idea someone would try to misinterpret what I said in such a childish fashion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That is the problem, though: it was no interpretation. It was what you actually said. I suggest we remove the 1978 picture (partly because it is not "famous", but mostly because that is not how it looks today.) Presently, this article misinform its readers: when you see a picture of a standing building in the lead, one automatically thinks that is what it looks like. Not so here. Huldra (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You know I didn't say that specific picture is the one I thought should remain there, but kudos for doubling down on the childish misinterpretations instead of just dropping it.

Also, that's exactly what the tomb is like, only there's a wall near it now. We want to show the tomb, the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, people can read for themselves and see what you said. As for "that's exactly what the tomb is like"...AFAIK, nobody can see it that way anymore. So this article is misleading its readers by having that picture in the lead. Huldra (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed they can, including my response to you the previous time you just tried to edit war the same version of photo - . That was only two days ago. How quickly we forget.

So you would argue that Buddhas of Bamiyan is "misleading its readers" because it has a picture from 1976 which clearly shows the subject of the article rather than a current photo that doesn't? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Quite....except the picture hadn't "been there for a while", as you claimed.

The Buddhas of Bamiyan are gone...and the article clearly states so in the first sentence. If Rachel's Tomb was also blown up, then I would argue for having one of the most famous pictures of it in the lead (say, the picture from that British era stamp). There are lots of former buildings which have a picture of them, how they looked when they existed (just see Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain). Rachel's Tomb is in a different category, as it still exists. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

this outside shot from 2014 - is probably a better shot then those presented (in terms of angles and composition). However, after looking at images used, it seems that an interior shot with the tomb sign is more often used - and I think we should present the interior entrance.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Other decent shots (but not on commons), are from a high angle - e.g. this from 2013 (from this news article ), or aerial views - .Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That first one is a good find.

The interior gate picture doesn’t work because - apart from being interor - all it shows is the modern gate which was added post-1967. The core structure housing the tomb is not visible.

As to the other pictures, the ToI article you linked to twice shows the fortifications as its lead image. Most other media article do as well.

I think we should follow the news media and have an image of the fortifications as our lead image. As I said above, the tomb itself is unremarkable when compared to any other maqam (shrine).

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I support using the interior tomb shot as a tasteful photo which is also indicitive of the current presentation. I also think photos of garbage and graffiti in which the actual structure is barely visible should be removed.Drsmoo (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the photo should show the tomb. Either one of the old iconic images or if there's a good interior one (which I don't think the one with the sign is). By the way, I found the previous discussion Once alluded to above. Last section Here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, now Drsmoo have placed a new picture in the lead...in the middle of the discussion here. That picture is quite unacceptable, IMO; I cannot think of a single article of a standing building which has part of the interior (and a not even very interesting part of the interiors!) in the lead.

So far, of the pictures I have seen, this picture is the best up to date one I have seen. Unfortunately, that is not on commons, and unless someone flies a drone above the tomb, (and, I assume, get permission from the Israeli army first), take a picture and upload it...then it wont be.

I think the outside shot from 2014 is acceptable in the lead, or, if we cannot agree on that: then none at all, Huldra (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair point on changing the image while discussion is ongoing. I restored the one that was there before all this started. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok. We could perhaps ask soniahalliday.com for permission to use this picture? ...if we can agree on that? Huldra (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? Interior lead photos are great. For example, I think the below photos would make great lead images for some other well known tombs:

• The Taj Mahal
• The Treasury tomb of Petra
• The Imam Husayn Shrine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, none of them have an interiors in the lead... Huldra (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

If we get permission for the soniahalliday aerial shot (or similar) - that's a good picture and I would support it.Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the soniahalliday pic as well. Drsmoo (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I can ask soniahalliday.com for permission, but before I start on that, I need to know that we all agree about having it in the lead. User:Onceinawhile? User:No More Mr Nice Guy? Huldra (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer one of the iconic images, but you don't need my permission. The consensus is what it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I am supportive. Thanks Huldra. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I have asked them. So now we just have to wait and see.... Huldra (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Angles

North-east

• c.1880
• 1894
• c.1910
• 1933
• 2005 (now inside the expanded compound)
• 2011

• Mid 1990s North-east perspective: The last photo in here (says 2012 below but mid-1990s above; the date is clear from the vehicles
• 2008 picture of the same North-east perspective:

North

• 1930s
• 1940

West

• 2016
• 2018

East

• 1934-1939
• 1978
• 2018

• A 2014 photo from Hebrew wikipedia:

South

• 1912
• Unknown
• 1898–1946
• 1930s
• 1940s?
• 2018
• 2018

South-east

• 1891
• 1934

• 2012 picture of the same South-east perspective:

"Venerated as the third holiest site in Judaism "

Presently the article says "Venerated as the third holiest site in Judaism", so I was looking for an article, named, say Holiest sites in Judaism

Alas, that doesnt exist, while we have:

• Holy of Holies
• Holiest sites in Islam
• Holiest sites in Sunni Islam
• Holiest sites in Shia Islam
• Holiest sites in Sufi Islam

Does anyone feel like starting Holiest sites in Judaism? Huldra (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

After the temple, patriarchs cave, and Rachel's tomb it will be mostly filled with a random list of known shrines - some of which are not widely accepted. (In fact, some Jews would not accept anything but the temple as holy, though most will see the two tombs as historically significant). It will also probably be filled with possible sites (e.g. Beit El, Mt. Sinai, etc.). This would not be one list - e.g. Nachman of Breslov's yomb is accepted by (very vocal) few.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have always found this religious site ranking to be rather odd. For example, the subject of this article only became a "top X" site in the last century. So does the ranking really mean anything?

I suspect the concept was created in response to the "Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam" theme. As to that theme, I have yet to figure out whether that was propagated primarily by those seeking to diminish Jerusalem's importance in Islam or vice versa...

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, this pre dates Islam (identification issues of Rachel (the other 2 sites are well established back to Herod and back) aside).Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wendy Pullan,Bible and Gun: Militarism in Jerusalem's Holy Places, 2013, page 16: "In legal terms its location is heavily contested; it was to have been returned to Palestine under the Oslo agreements but in 1995, under pressure from settlers and religious groups, Israel decided to retain it. Since then this important Jewish holy place has been made into a high-profile national religious shrine, referred to by its devotees as either the second or third holiest place in Judaism. The uncertainty about its status stems from different competing interest groups, but the ranking also indicates a recently revived and politically motivated place in the Jewish pantheon." Onceinawhile (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Being at approx. no3 predates Oslo by quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I am trying to separate what is myth...from what is reality. EG, I have seen some writers claim that the mosque at the site is a recent invention....but there are a lot of writers up during the history who refer to it as a mosque, (including Chateaubriand, mentioned above, in 1806). I am interested in when can the first mention of the "third holiest site in Judaism" be dated to? Huldra (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The current id of site is dated at least back to the first century (in terms of literature mentioning it). As for where the first claim of 3rd - I'll have to look it up, I am certain it is pre Oslo as I have heard this well before Oslo. The mosque claim is mostly new - in Ottoman times this was under some Jewish control (the building expanded by Jews a few times) - unlike the other 2 sites - and was a major Jewish pilgramage site, Muslim use and importance was sporadic. Rachel's Tomb is one of the few sites (the other being patriarchs cave and the temple) which have a long standing identifaction (the current site has a minority view for a different location, but it is a two millienia old id), and it is a major biblical figure - the identification and the figure being accepted by most Jews. Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you reverted before I could even type up the explanation I had promised in the edit summary!

Huldra is right re Chateaubriand et al. That shows that the "Since the mid-1990s" reference in the lead is either wrong or misleading (misleading because they may or may not have used that exact name, but it was a mosque). I have moved the source here ("Until 1996, nobody called Rachel's Tomb a mosque". The Jerusalem Post. 2010-08-11. Retrieved 2016-08-30.) for discussion: the article was written by Nadav Shragai. The article notes that "The writer is a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, for whom this Jerusalem Issue Brief was written." Which means this was originally written for a non-RS advocacy organization. The author makes three claims

• "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel's Tomb a mosque"
• "As opposed to the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs, which also serve as the location of mosques, Rachel’s Tomb never served as a mosque for the Muslims."
• "The Muslims also escalated their rhetoric. They stopped calling the site “Rachel’s Dome,” as they had done for hundreds of years, and began calling it the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah."

The first statement is clearly untrue, given the sources already in this article, as is the second statement given the presence of the mihrab installed by Montefiore (and numerous writers noting that the room was used as such). Icewhiz, your description of Ottoman relative use is directly contradicted by sources already in the article, so it would be helpful if you could explain where your information is coming from.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It was perhaps also used by Muslims (not quite as a mosque, but that's a technicality regarding maqams). It was not called Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Icewhiz, I dont get what you are telling me to square with what the traveller/explorers in the 1700s and 1800s write....(and I have read a lot of them...) they virtually all write about the typical Muslim/Turkish structure/mosque...which was also venerated by the Jews. And yes, the travellers, like Chateaubriand, calls it a mosque. AFAIK, In modern times, it wasn't before Montefiore (in the 1840s) it became more of a Jewish site, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is also the matter of terminology. "Mosque" is etymologically equivalent to "masjid" which means "place of prostration". Technically it doesn't have to be a building to be a mosque (this is also why many insist that Al Aqsa Mosque = the whole Temple Mount compound). Even if you discount the enormous amount of written evidence, the presence of the mihrab and the cemetery are enough to be 100% certain that Muslims prayed at the site for centuries.

That "Since the mid 1990s" in the lead is giving the wrong impression. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the 19th or earlier sources presented show this being called "Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah" - to the contrary - they all mention Rachel. Nadav Shragai was published by JPost - not as an opinion - so this has JPost's editorial blessing as well as the think tank JCPA. Contrary to what you state above, Shragai did not write "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel's Tomb a mosque" - this is indeed the title - but as you should know - article titles are written to be catchy, and we do not use article titles. Shragai actually documents in the article quite a bit of prior Muslim use of the site - under the identification of Rachel. Shragai uses the narrow definition of mosque (in which a site without a minaret, muezzin, and which isn't used for regular prayer - is not a mosque) - he does however mention quite a bit of early Muslim tradition/use - all associated with Rachel. He contends that The Muslims also escalated their rhetoric. They stopped calling the site “Rachel’s Dome,” as they had done for hundreds of years, and began calling it the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah. The Muslim religious authorities (Wakf) first began to employ this name in 1996, and it eventually took root in Palestinian national discourse. - the claim of 1996 is solely about the name (he himself says in the same sentence hundreds of years of Muslim documentation).Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the Jerusalem Post article, JCPA does not claim it was never a mosque. Just that the name Bilal ibn Rabah mosque was invented in 1996. Someone should look into the age of that name.

In 2000, after hundreds of years of recognizing the site as Rachel’s Tomb, Muslims began calling it the “Bilal ibn Rabah mosque.”Members of the Wakf used the name first in 1996, but it has since entered the national Palestinian discourse.

Jonney2000 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nadav Shragai is not exactly a reliable source for all this. He is just notorious and can be quoted with attribution because he deeply studied the topic but he is not neutral and cannot be trusted.

And the Jerusalem Center for Public Affair, for which he works, is not reliable at all and is not notorious enough to be used.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the discussions above it seems that the title given to the article of Nadav Shragai was wrong and that he never claimed it was not a mosque but that he just claimed it was given a name : "Bilal ibn Rabah mosque". It is not proven that he didn't try to confuse his readers but the contrary neither. So, whatever, given the sources provided by Huldra and in particular what Montefiore himself refers to a mosque there, I have modified the lead and have written : "the mosque of the site", which clarifies everything. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Original research warning). I heard from a personal academic contact who lives in Bethlehem that the association of Bilal ibn Rabah with the place is probably not very old. Despite his remarkably low record of reliability, Shragai can be correct sometimes (presumably by accident). On the other hand, plenty of sources called it a mosque going back centuries. Zero 14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Still ORish - but with some backing) - a gBooks search with a date filter prior to 1996 - google search pre-1996 for Bethlehem Bilal Rabah comes up empty (5 hits that are by chance - not for this site). A unfiltered date search - shows quite a bit of hits - post-1996.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be the original PA charge - 1996. PA Waqf and Religious Affairs Minister Hasan Tahboub accused Israel of planning to destroy the dome of Bilal Ben Rabah Mosque in Bethlehem to build a synagogue on the second floor. Islamic Waqf director Muhammad Ismail Ayesh said the mosque was built on Waqf property and that Israel 'must be stopped.'. Some books (some of which seem OK quality wise and independent of Shragai (though some also cite him)) repeat the first in 1996 claim - .Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, a mosque (unlike a shine, or grave) never had to be for someone. (In that way, mosques are very much like churches, or synagogues, I believe.) I have no idea as to how old the association of Rachel's Tomb with Bilal ibn Rabah is, but the place used as a mosque is ..undeniably...centuries old. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The biggest error that our friend Shragai is largely responsible for is the claim that Muslims deny the connection of the place to Rachel. Some few might make that claim for political purposes (similar to the false claims by some that only Jews revere the place), but in general the connection is not denied either by Muslims or Christians. When I was trying to investigate the 1996 assertion, I found 1997-8 articles from the Palestinian News Agency starting about 1997 which used expressions like ""Rachel's Tomb inside Bilal bin Rabah Mosque", "Rachel's Tomb and Bilal bin Rabah Mosque" and "Rachel's Tomb near Bilal bin Rabah Mosque", showing that they were not competing names but rather separate functions. Zero 02:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: you may have forgotten this discussion where you found another source for Shragai's claim, which you said was a high quality one. Interestingly, the editor that removed this well sourced information from the article for no reason also participated in that discussion. I will be restoring it to the first mention of the ibn Rabah name per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

True or not the information is pov-ed the way it is written given it let people think it would not be venerated as a mosque before 1996, which is false. At best/worst, just the name was changed and it does not matter. Per due:weight, what matters here is today's situation. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all it's true, as I'm sure we all know by now. Second, how do you figure that "Per due:weight, what matters here is today's situation."? The name Rachel's Tomb is probably used in 100x sources. Per weight we shouldn't be giving the two names the same treatment. I don't mind putting the much much less used name in the lead, but it should be clear this is a new name for this ancient tomb. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

New Picture

Ok, the soniahalliday site never came back to me....and it has been a week, so I'm kind of giving up. So, the question is, what picture should be in the lead? I have 2 suggestions:

• 1, no picture
• 2, a composite of A: the traditional picture, say this with B: a more modern view, say this outside shot from 2014

Comments? Huldra (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• 3 - picture from 1978, which is used in several wikis. A poor (angle, composition) modern picture should not be used. . In any event a composite should not be the main picture (I am sure there is some MOS against it). If and when we have a decent modern photo (and we know there are some, just not on commons - might be possible to fair use here) - then we should consider using it.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I support this picture if no modern free use one is found. Though I think we can find one. We can also keep trying to ask soniahalliday. Drsmoo (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to ask them. I did, as politely as I could..but never heard back. Perhaps you are luckier. An alternative is to contact editor Avraham Graicer, AVRAMGR on commons. He has uploaded a lot of really nice aerials on commons. I dont know how he takes them, though....if it is with a drone, he better make sure that he has permission from the Israeli soldiers there, first, as apparently flying drones over Israeli soldiers can be a capital offence these days...... Huldra (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• 4 - a composite of two pictures from the same angle: File:Rachel’s Tomb in the early 20th and 21st centuries, southern view.jpg. This shows a like for like comparison, whilst showing the notable modern fortifications in an elegant manner. It even has foliage on both sides in both pictures, creating a warm feel. And if you look really closely, it has the added bonus of a rabbi on the roof in the top picture. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• 2a alone - I think that the "holyness" of the site is more reflected by picture 2a along, among those suggested 'til now. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We never decided on this - any more thoughts? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of any solution here, I have used the two-photo structure at Joseph's Tomb. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The two-photo picture has been removed as there was consensus to not use the "modern photo", with the photo described as "particularly amateurish", "very poor", "amateur", "I am not saying the present picture is optimal”. It is tendentious editing to replace a stable photo with one's own photo that has already been rejected. I have made a request here Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Photos for Rachel's Tomb and Joseph's Tomb to solicit additional input.

If a suitable image of the exterior of the tomb itself (not the barricade surrounding the tomb) can be found, that would likely be the best fit, otherwise, it would be best to use a photo of the interior entrance. Drsmoo (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your description of those three who opposed the modern photo in the discussion four year ago include yourself and a now banned user. Huldra and I, and others, supported having a modern photograph. It was established that the opposing users objected to showing the fortifications, but that objection did not have consensus. A further discussion was held, two years were given for comment, and the current structure was implemented. Perhaps open an RFC? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There was unanimous consensus against the garbage strewn picture you posted for this holy site. The existing image has been stable for four years, and a decade before that. When there is unanimous consensus against your image, to wait four years and then simply re-add it against consensus is disruptive. As is removing a reference to Judaism while keeping Christianity and Islam in the same sentence.

I would also like to remind you that recently you were warned, and very close to being topic banned due to this manner of tendentious editing. Drsmoo (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand this argument. Are those graves you are referring to as garbage? Zero 13:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the garbage in the picture (plastic jug) is what is being referred to as garbage, not the graves. Notwithstanding the fortifications, which are obscuring the entire exterior of the tomb. The original picture that was submitted included far more garbage (not graves) as well as graffiti along the walls. This was then cropped, ostensibly to focus on the tomb, but a piece of garbage was curiously left in the frame. As it is, it is essentially impossible to see the Tomb at all, and the photo is useless. Re adding it against unanimous consensus, and after four years of stability, along with editing only Judaism out of a sentence on religious references, can only be viewed as disruptive editing. Drsmoo (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:NPA. The word “curiously” in the above appears to be an implied attack.

Thank you for pointing out the jug, which I have now cropped from the photo.

I visited this place and can confirm that this is the only available view from ground level outside of the tomb from any direction, due to the high fortifications in all directions.

There remains consensus for a photo from outside, hence why this photo has been there for so long. Many years ago it was edit warred out by a banned user, together with two other users (Drsmoo and NMMNG), prior to a discussion being completed. A discussion was then held which confirmed consensus for the inclusion of a modern image.

If you have a better modern image we could replace it with, that would be great. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be more about the Muslim graveyard in this article as it has been a feature of the tomb for centuries. A photo showing the graveyard still in existence is valuable and should be in the article. I'm wondering if it would be better to put it down further where it can have a more informative caption. Zero 00:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no “consensus for a photo from outside.” Could you explain how you drew the conclusion that there was/is? The only thing agreed was that your image was unsuitable. There was no edit warring either, and it’s problematic that you describe the consensus against your image as such. There was consensus to not use the photo you took, and all editors were opposed to it. Four years later you re-added it. The Misplaced Pages community will decide which photo to use.

I appreciate the described effort to crop the photo but it doesn’t appear to have been uploaded, so no way to see if it actually improves the photo.

Obviously no objection to including a photo and description/text of the Muslim graveyard within the article. Drsmoo (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There were claims made that there was a consensus for a modern image, and a consensus for an exterior image. Both of those statements are incorrect, as can be seen in this talk page. What is undoubtedly true is that there was unanimous strong consensus against the readded image. There was also a claim that the image had been edited, which is clearly false as well. At this point, it’s clear this editing is tendentious. Drsmoo (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not right. The image was edit warred out by a user now banned for sockpuppet abuse. That user, together with two other users (Drsmoo and No More Mr Nice Guy) objected to the image. That was all. And all that happened four years ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide examples of the following things you’ve alleged: 1. Edit warring; 2. Consensus for a modern image; 3. Consensus for an exterior image. Ok the topic of consensus, could you also provide an example of another editor who supported your image? Drsmoo (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See the article history between 13-16 April 2018. Edit warring the image out of the article without consensus by Icewhiz, NMMNG and Drsmoo, against the wishes of other editors. This is a long time ago, but I remember finding the concerted attack frightening. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious

The article says the tomb has significance in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. But there is only a section, with three subsections, on the significance in Judaism. The opening paragraph says it is the "third holiest site in Judaism", which as explained above seems to be highly controversial but that is not mentioned at all. Criticism of the fortification is twice countered with longer justification from Israelis. The use of names for military operations like "Defensive Shield" is clearly not neutral, they are a means of propaganda just as "Intifada" - although choosing names in English is obviously more clever when trying to influence international opinion of the conflict. Calling the West Bank Barrier "security fence" is tendentious (the article about the barrier calls it a "separation barrier") as is leaving out the fact that it is widely seen as violating international law by the international community (both the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly). SovielHungerhabichgarnicht (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Mid-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Low-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• B-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles