Jump to content

Talk:Damascus Gate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mezuzot

[edit]

"Today, only three of the Old City's gates have mezuzot attached." Which three? Can anyone verify this? Yechiel (Shalom) 12:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not an Israeli building

[edit]

Its located in East Jerusalem which is internationally regarded as occupied Palestinian territories, so it cant be an "Israeli building" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image

[edit]

The image in external links section is invalid. It divides the occupants of the area by religion, then it has Armenians (nationality) with their own section. Not to mention there is already a Christian section which most Armenians fall under. I think the image should be more clearly labelled, please change this, if nobody changes it ill find a better image and upload it. Thanks --Eidetic Man (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the actual division of Old Jerusalem doesn't make sense? Those are the 4 quarters. Or do you mean the image suggests that the division is based on religion, which you think is misleading?

Armenian Quarter Crazytonyi (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel

[edit]

There seem to be unreasonable stubbornness about the country issue. This gate, as all other gates in this wall, are in Jerusalem. Jerusalem is defined by Wikipedia itself as "the capital of Israel, though not internationally recognized as such". I suggested adding the remark "(disputed)" in order to better reflect the aforementioned description, adopted and justified by Wikipedia itself. Furthermore, these sites are de facto accessible from Israel and under Israeli civilian control. The place is not claimed by any other country, except the Palestinian Authority, which has not acquired full independence yet. Taipei is defined in Wikipedia as "the capital of the Republic of China", even though most countries in the world recognize it as a provincial capital within the People's Republic of China. In short, there is no reason to ignore the fact that these sites are in Israel, except for expressing political opinion, which, as far as I understand, is forbidden on Wikipedia. Sirwal (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has imnplications for a number of regions in the world. There are a number of bases in Antarctica where the de facto administration is the only country claiming sovereignty, but this claim is not generally accepted. PatGallacher (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some editor on Wikipedia have a peculiar way to conduct a debate. First they violently remove all edits of their "rival", then they comment on his remarks selectively. I wrote several reasons for writing Israel as a country. You referred to only one. First of all, there is a special treaty for Alaska, which makes things a bit different there. Secondly, you simply ignored the rest of my reasons. I am sorry, but this is not a joint intellectual effort. It is more like a boxing ring. Kindly comment on all of what I wrote above, or return the article to its original state, before the erasure of the name of Israel. Sirwal (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I said Antarctica, not Alaska. Similar objections would apply even if there was no treaty in relation to Antarctica. Israel and Jordan have signed a treaty. PatGallacher (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote Alaska and meant Antarctica, but that's not the issue here. The treaty between Israel and Jordan says the following (article 9 §1-2): "Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance. In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines." The Washington Declaration says the following (B(3)): "Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines. In addition the two sides have agreed to act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions." As you can see, there is nothing in this treaty that suggest that the Old City of Jerusalem is not in Israel. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not act upon treaties. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is phenomenological, namely describes the facts as they are without passing judgement. Sirwal (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should wikipedia be showing the current reality, or historical or proposed borders? I say the current reality. West Jerusalem is not universally recognised as being part of Israel, yet many maps place it within Israel - the reality between 48-67 (East Jerusalem was in Jordan - also not internationally recognised) Why have the maps not been updated to show current control? The fact that Israel controls and claims sovereinty in the whole of Jerusalem should be showed by the maps. There was never any acceptance on either side that any part of Jerusalem was part of the other country before '67, yet the city was split on maps, etc. Similarly, places in Northern Cyprus are not shown as being in "Cyprus". It is a fallacy to say the old city is not in Israel. It most certainly is. Whether this fact is internationally recognised or not is a different matter which is a merely an academic point. How can it be left showing parts of Jerusalem being isn any country? As fas as I'm concerned, the whole of Jerusalem is suject to dispute, yet WJ is shown as part of Israel. In addition to the fact that Jordan has renounced its claim, eastern Jerusalem locations should aslo be shown as part of Israael. When areas of this part of the ity come under Palestinian Authority control, they can be described as such. until then, these pales are firmly in Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please present your world view source that shows the Damascus Gate is in Israel. If someone steals my car, so the car thief is technically in "control" of my car, which, as Chesdovi says, is the "currently reality". Does it mean that the car now belongs to the car thief. The OC is no more in Israel than it is in Palestine. The is the most NPOV that can be displayed. -asad (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Hashimites stole East Palestine and half of West Palestine, while the Zionists stole the other half of West Palestine. The current reaility shows this: We have a UN member state called Israel in half of West Palestine, another called Jordan in East Palestine. And what of the other half of stolen West Palestine? Half is part of the PA and the other half remains part of Israel. Quite simple really. Pre-67 Israel was also on stolen land. So is post-67 Israel. After 10 years squatters gain legal title. Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Squatting? really? isn't that something about individuals receiving land when there is no dispute for X years which changes by national laws, and is completely unrelated to nations forcibly annexing land? The damascus gate is in the old city, which is in East Jerusalem, Palestine. The attempted annexing by Israel was rejected by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 478, thus the territory is only occupied by Israel, not a part of Israel. Passionless -Talk 23:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess I was wrong about squatting. But can you give me the UN resolution number that recognised Israel in its Pre-67 borders? Chesdovi (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was the 1949 Armistice Agreements that made the pre-1967 borders what they are. I'm not sure of any resolution that recognised Israel in the pre-1967 borders, but United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 may be relevant. Passionless -Talk 00:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to add

[edit]
I've only time to poke my head in for a brief moment this morning. It's good to see the article growing and that your contributions haven't altered it drastically while I was asleep. For my part, I'd like to see it move in a more chronological direction like other articles in its class, with sections devoted to the Second Temple period, then Aelia Capitolina, etc., leading up to the present day.
As far as the Second Temple and the Romans're concerned, some sources I'll develop as time permits are:
Thanks I think. I don't have a problem with a chronological ordering, but the subheadings should be based in historical and archaeological scholarship. Please remember this article is about the gate, and not the Second Temple Period (a topic not generally treated by that name in reference to this gate by the scholarship as far I've seen). I tried looking at the links you gave, but only the last one works for me and it deals only very briefly with the gate. (Unfortunately, I don't have access to a library and rely quite heavily on online sources to write my own contributions.) I added another source above that gives a bit more (brief) information on developments during Roman, Byzantine and Umayyad times. It doesn't mention anything about the Second Temple period though. Tiamuttalk 20:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name in arabic

[edit]

When reaching the light rail stop at damascus gate, they announce in arabic "muhammad Bab al-amud". I didn't see the muhammad part mentioned in the article. Does anyone have idea what Damascus gate has to do with muhammad? pastasauce (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word you're hearing is mahattat, which is a derived form of the word mahatta, which means "station." It could be that the word's getting pronounced muhattat because the Arabic spoken in Jerusalem has its own local idiosyncrasies - I'll be sure to pay more attention next time I'm on the train.—Biosketch (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distorted text

[edit]

How does the text added here:[1] accurately describe the events of the 2021 Israel–Palestine crisis? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. The assault occurred at a place not at the Damascus Gate as part of a sequence of clashes that began more than a week earlier. The source does not support the edit; not even close. Also, I have invited SoaringLL to self-revert the 1RR violation. Zerotalk 12:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

::Because information on the source specifically talks about what happened in the Damascus Gate during that period. This is not a summary on the entire 2021 crisis, which goes far beyond the scope of this article. Also my first revert was against an IP who is not allowed to edit in ARBPIA in the first place, so my second revert doesn't count as an 1RR violation. SoaringLL (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC) (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון)[reply]

A, notnews, b. that is a blatant NPOV violation claiming that it is "Israeli protesters and Palestinian rioters" all instigated by an assault for walking a dog on a Friday. Curious why the hundreds of Jewish extremists from the ultra-nationalist Lehava group marched towards the Damascus Gate entrance of Jerusalem's Old City - where large numbers of Palestinians had gathered - chanting "Death to Arabs" on Thursday wouldnt be mentioned. nableezy - 14:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

​David, hi. I've copy-edited the article and took issue with a piece of material. Now I see that it was introduced by you in 2017. Be so kind, could you please explain why you brought in the Lamentations Rabbah quote? For somebody who isn't a scholar of Jewish religion, the quote looks

  1. unrelated to the topic, Damascus Gate, and
  2. self-contradictory.

Here is the passage, which I have taken out from the article until it is clarified:

"Such findings [the archaeologically secured Roman-period gate underneath Damascus Gate] are in keeping with an account in the Midrash Rabba (Eikhah Rabbah or Lamentations Rabbah 1:32), which states that Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, during the Roman siege of Jerusalem, requested of Vespasian that he spare the westernmost gates of the city (Hebrew: פילי מערבאה) that lead to Lydda (Lod). When the city was eventually taken, the Arab auxiliaries who had fought alongside the Romans under their general, Fanjar, also spared the wall from destruction. The chronicler who brings down the historical record adds: "And it was decreed in heaven that it should never be destroyed, seeing that the Divine Presence dwells in the West.""

How is that relevant?

  • The western wall & gate(s) are one thing, and the northern (Damascus) gate a very different one!
  • If it is meant to say: the ENTIRE city wall of Jerusalem was spared in 70 CE, that is not just not confirmed, but actually contradicted by archaeological findings. But I can't see how "the Divine Presence dwells in the West" can be made to refer to a northern gate.

If it was a mistake after all and this passage needs to be left out of this article, it still can be used in other articles about the western sites, such as the Herodian towers next to the predecessor of the Jaffa Gate, the citadel, Herod's royal palace, Shimon Gibson's praetorium gate where Jesus might have been tried by Pilate, in the Old City walls article in the section discussing the western walls, or in any article discussing the 70 CE destruction and the time up to the establishment of Aelia, when, as it seems, the Xth Legion was camped adjacent to the towers and the still standing western city wall (see Hillel Geva etc.). So plenty of other opportunities.

However, then I'd like to pester you with a question of my own: Why would the Divine Presence be on/at the wall of the CITY? Only the eastern city wall corresponds in part with the precinct wall of the TEMPLE, and even there, the Shekhinah is supposed to dwell in the Holy of Holies, or is that a tradition that differs from the position taken by the Midrash Rabbah? Does the Midrash Rabbah see the Divine Presence covering the ENTIRE western part of the city? That would spell serious dialectic trouble, as the entire city AND Temple, which did indeed have its Holy of Holies on its western side, were utterly destroyed. Or does religious logic function in a different way here, maybe there's particular significance given only to the western wall/gate, not to the city quarter and even the Temple compound behind it? If so, this passage, wherever you decide to use it, must be given its very own, more metaphysical, section and needs a clear explanation from a religious pov. Not to mention that that wall and its gates were also totally destroyed, at the very latest by Al-Mu'azzam Isa in 2019, so not a good case for this wall being "decreed in heaven that it should never be destroyed". I need a short guide to the perplexed, so to say.

Thank you, Arminden (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that we do not know 100% if the reference in Midrash Rabba was to the Roman-era Damascus Gate or not, so feel free to remove this anecdote, until we can find overwhelming confirmation that the reference in Midrash Rabba was, in fact, to that old Roman-era gate. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidbena: that's not the point. Damascus Gate is in the northern wall, the Midrash Rabbah speaks of the West. What's the connection, is there something I'm not getting here? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is only partially correct. The Damascus Gate sits diagonally, in a western-northerly direction. It is truly neither north, nor west. Herod's Gate is actually more north than the Damascus Gate. It could still possibly have been considered the "westernmost gate" during the time of the Second Temple. There is a simple way to figure this out. The Temple Mount is a rectangle that has four sides: a southern side and a northern side; a western side (Kotel) and the eastern side (Golden Gate). Note that the Damascus Gate is reached when going almost directly west from the western flank of the Temple Mount. Davidbena (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
;)))))) How did those priests ever win even a single disputation other than by nasty trickery! Arminden (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Damascus_Gate&oldid=1255252809"