Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The opinions of Nadav Shragai

The opinions of Nadav Shragai are currently citation numbers 1(3 citations); 14(4 citations); 41(2 citations); 46 (1 citation); 49(6 citations).

Total citations of the opinions of Nadav Shragai = 16 out of approximately 130 citations in the article. Nadav Shragai's opinions are over 10% of the articles total citations. In all but one of the citations his opinions are presented as fact without attribution. WP:RS states that articles should be based on third party RS. Nadav Shragai's opinions are clearly not third party on this issue. He works for the JCPA and thus his job is essentially as an advocate for the Israeli establishment position. His opinions clearly represent a substantial opinion on the issue,so they should be included, but they should be properly attributed and not given undue weight. Dlv999 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to take Shragai to RS/N if you feel he's not a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Already did it. The two editors who responded (both uninvolved) agreed that he should be attributed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Until_1996.2C_nobody_called_Rachel.E2.80.99s_Tomb_a_mosque Dlv999 (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Did I miss where you notified editors who might be interested in the discussion on, say, this talk page? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of the etiquette surrounding RS/N submissions, I thought the aim was to garner comment from uninvolved editors. Perhaps you could resubmit the source if you are not happy. Dlv999 (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO's statements should stay and the claims of the biased "jcpa" and others have no place in this article.

Many Biblical scholars doubt that these stories reflect any actual persons or happenings - see The Bible and History.

I have added this to the Biblical History section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Rachel born 11 Cheshvan 1553 BC

This is definitely not known to history. If some interpretive text claims this, then the text needs to be specified... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

"Third most important site in Judaism"?

I have been looking for a ranking of important sites in Judaism, but have been unable to find one. While some sources describe this site as the "Third most important site in Judaism", others do not. What or who makes it the third most important site - as opposed to the 4th, or 5th - and is such ranking actually part of mainstream Jewish faith? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The "source" is likely the "jcpa" again.Historylover4 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a joking riposte to the claim that Jerusalem is 3rd-most holy in Islam. In Judaism, Jerusalem dwarfs everything else in holiness; other sites are mainly either not definitely known and outside the traditional Land of Israel (e.g. the places of events of Exodus), or have a somewhat mixed and ambiguous legacy (e.g. Shiloh)... AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you find a source for that? I can only find sources repeating the claim that it is the third holiest site - maybe there is something in hebrew. Can't even find a list of holiest sites!87.194.44.183 (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Is UNESCO important enough to mention in the lede?

I can't see why it isn't, and can see no explanation for its removal from the lede other than censorship by those who disagree.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

UNESCO is an organization with a Secretariat that commissions research, but it is ultimately subject to a Council of member states. The decisions of the Council reflect the policies of the member states and sometimes contradict the recommendations of the Secretariat. A case in point was the decision of the Council in 2012 to declare the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem a World Heritage Site, although the report commissioned by the Secretariat had concluded that the Palestinian Authority had not fulfilled the criteria for making such a declaration. So any reference to UNESCO should make it clear whether it is a reference to the work of the Secretariat or to decisions of the Council. The article indeed does this: it says correctly that the Council voted to recognize the dual name of the site. (This decision was made irrespective of historical data, since the member states of the Council voted according to their policies on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddy1414 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How are a bunch of foreign imperialists' views relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which country you are from, but in reference to a religious site that is part of world heritage, the United Nations would seem relevant. There is currently a lot of representation in the article given to arguably "foreign imperialists" - that is to say the Israeli government from the perspective of the West Bank.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In global terms the Israeli position on the mosque is clearly a fringeminority position. The decision by UNESO only recieve one opposing vote. The article is majorly biased throughout, presenting the Israeli position (not accepted by the rest of the world) as the only opinion on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What can be done about this? 93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Per NPOV all significant opinions should be presented. This means the Palestinian/Muslim perspective and the rest of the world as well as the Israeli opinion. In terms of acknowledging that it is a mosque - the Israeli position is clearly the minority opinion, as evidenced by the solitary opposing vote recognising it as a mosque at UNESCO. per NPOV minority opinions should not be given undue weight. Dlv999 (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Have found a quote from the UNESCO document - "These cultural treasures are special to all of humanity in addition to the religious significance ascribed to them by people of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish traditions. Since Israel’s occupation, the Israeli Government has attempted to highlight the Jewish character of archaeological and heritage sites in the occupied Palestinian territory, while erasing or neglecting the universal character of these heritage sites and denying access to all people of faith. This Israeli policy has been used as a political tool to maintain and entrench control over Palestinian lands and resources and as a pretext for its continued settlement activity in contravention of international law. In fact, much of the settlement enterprise is concentrated around archaeological areas where Israel makes claims of exclusive heritage, including the settlements of Shilo, Bet El and Kiryat Arba." It seems to describe the current state of this article quite well.93.96.148.42 (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Muslim and Arab positions are a racist fringe/minority opinion not worthy of being mentioned in this article.

How is the opinion of a modern foreign anti-Semitic imperialist European organization that represents all peoples except Jews and aids a hostile foreign people who invaded Israel that are intent on usurping ancient Jewish sites and history relevant to an article on an ancient Jewish holy site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read Racism. There are not many Jews in the world - they are a small majority in Israel and the territories controlled by Israel. There are a lot more Arabs, and about a hundred times as many Muslims than Jews in the world -[[1]]. UNESCO represents about 49 governments.93.96.148.42 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. UNESCO has 196 Member States.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226" is a Zionist right wing loony toon, apparently the world is out to "get Jews" put aside those little facts about AIPAC, and Europe leaders bowing before Netanyahu! According to this extremist "Jews are under attack"!!Historylover4 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rachel's Tomb. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110604141101/http://www.mideastweb.org/un_palestine_holy_places_1.htm to http://www.mideastweb.org/un_palestine_holy_places_1.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the Jerusalem_Center_for_Public_Affairs a reliable source, and should it be used?

As I understand it, this is a political think tank with an agenda, not a reliable source. I do not see any role for this source in an unbiased article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Although the JCPA is a political think tank with an agenda, it employs, like many other think tanks, accredited scholars and diplomats, etc., to do research on its behalf. Consequently, its publications can indeed be quoted, provided that claims of fact are properly documented and evaluations are not unduly biased by an agenda. Otherwise almost all statements from Palestinian sources would have to be rejected in principle, since they are rarely free of an agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddy1414 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Is UNESCO a reliable source, and should it be used? As I understand it, this is a political think tank with an agenda, not a reliable source. I do not see any role for this source in an unbiased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand it to be an international organisation, part of the United Nations - not a think tank- and its decisions to represent the views of the member governments. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

JCPA is clearly not an unbiased RS on this issue. However I think inclusion is warranted on the basis that they are a significant opinion so long as it is attributed to JCPA and not as fact in the Wiki voice. Dlv999 (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be ring-fenced as a partial view.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The NewYork Times described it's head as a long term advisor and supporter of Netanyahu. I feel that this is not reflected in the ways its views are presented in this article, especially in the coverage of the Israeli government's dispute with all other governments bar one at UNESCO - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/world/middleeast/arab-spring-and-iran-tensions-leave-palestinians-sidelined.html 93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The JCPA should be deleted and left deleted as its not a valid source versus UNESCO.Historylover4 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

In line with what I thought this discussion concluded, I have removed all JCPA citations to the article. If it is felt necesscery (why?) to restore them, Dlv999's request should be respected.46.115.108.204 (talk) 10:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

They appear to have come back in. I have deleted these again and replaced with CN tags. There are enough good sources out there that we really don't need to be using advocacy sites. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible Canvassing

@Drsmoo: this article is noted above as being of interest to five WikiProjects. Please could you explain why you chose to invite editors from just one of these WikiProjects to this discussion? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I asked on wikiproject Judaism because it was specifically in reference to the history of Jewish pilgrimage to the site, which is what was in question. Why would I ask on another religion's wikiproject regarding the history of Jewish pilgrimage? Drsmoo (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

1996 and Haaretz Archives

Does anyone have access to the Haaretz archives? The claim re the Bilal bin Rabah name being first used in 1996 comes from the non-RS 2007 JCPA article by Nadav Shragai, and has been repeated in other sources since. Shragai sources his claim to:

1. Danny Rubinstein, “The Slave and the Mother,” Ha’aretz, October 9, 1996, and
2. A private conversation with Orientalist Yoni Dehoah-Halevi.

The second of these is worth a laugh, when you note that his friend Yoni is a retired IDF Lt. Col. who just happens to also be a researcher at the JCPA ([2]).

So we are left with needing to see the 1996 Rubinstein article if we are to validate the claim.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have easy access to Rubinstein's article (Hebrew on microfilm maybe, not today). There are three separate questions that are accidentally-on-purpose confounded by activists. (1) Was it ever called a mosque before 1996? (2) Was it associated with Bilal ibn Rabah before 1996? (3) When did Muslims start denying it was the tomb of Rachel? Here are the best answers I have:

(1) In the second half of the 19th century it was called a mosque frequently. Some examples: p56: "A small Turkish mosque covers the cave". p103: "Rachel's tomb—a modern mosque". p101: "The present monument is an unpretending Turkish mosque". p206: "This is a little mosque of the roadside, which is regarded with great sanctity by the Moslems." p38: "Her tomb, on the site of which is now a mosque.." All these are consistent with the room that Montefiore built or renovated for Muslim prayer, complete with mihrab. Since that plus continuous availability for Muslim prayer is all that is needed for a building to be a mosque, there isn't much to discuss.

(2) I wasn't able to find mentions of Bilal ibn Rabah in relation to this place from before 1997, but I can't search in Arabic. About 6 years ago I discussed it with an academic who had conducted research on the tomb on the ground in Bethlehem. He knew it as a local tradition but wasn't able to say when it originated. According to a booklet published by AphorismA Verlag that reports on an oral history project of the University of Bethlehem, the local Al-Fawagreh tribe who used the adjacent cemetery remember the site as a shared Jewish-Muslim site associated with Bilal ibn Rabah. As with most oral history, this can't be dated.

(3) Actually only some activists deny the association of this place with Rachel, contrary to many centuries of Islamic tradition. This is a predictable outcome of the exclusion of Muslims from the site by Israeli religious and civil/military authorities.

Zero^talk 08:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Zero0000, very interesting. You may be interested to note a statement from Bowman's 2014 paper (linked in our article): "...the Palestinian Authority’s synecdochal extension of the name given to Montefiore’s antechamber – the Bilal bin Rabah mosque – to the whole of the shrine."

In other words, he thinks the terminology wasn't fabricated in modern times as the anti-Palestinian activists suggest, but rather it was extended. This is consistent with your point (3) above. Unfortunately he does not give a source for this statement, nor does he explain why and how the ante-chamber received this name in the first place.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Your objections are not based on wikipedia policy. Shragai is a longtime journalist working in this area. JPost is RS. That you think Shragai's sources are not up to par is irrelevant and not a policy based objection. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed until you wrote this that Shragai had written the JPost article. As a senior researcher for JCPA, who has had this issue as a pet project since he proposed this unsourced fact in 2007, he is certainly not RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue being his "pet project" has no bearing on weather he is RS. The fact he also works for JCPA has no bearing on whether he is RS. He is a long time journalist, including 25 years at Haaretz. The piece was published in the Jerusalem Post, also an RS. You can take it to the boards if you like. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Which of those five sources I brought that show it called a mosque before 1996 are not reliable sources that was called a mosque before 1996? The booklet that I mentioned is a reliable source too. Shragai can stay as an attributed opinion. Zero^talk 00:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Where did anyone say it was not called a mosque before 1996? Shragai is saying that it wasn't called "Bilal bin Rabah mosque", which I think we all know is true so I'm not sure why you're suggesting Shragai should be attributed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sharagai says "Rachel’s Tomb never served as a mosque for the Muslims" and it is obvious from his text that he is referring to all time, not just immediately before 1996. As to when it started to be called "Bilal bin Rabah mosque", we only have Sharagai's opinion so far. Personally I think it is likely to be true (give or take a few years), but that doesn't change the fact that the only source presented is the opinion of a noted activist. Zero^talk 03:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The source is the Jerusalm Post. That the journalist may be an activist is neither her nor there, particularly since I haven't seen you object to the inclusion of information from full fledged activists like Max Blumenthal sourced to group blogs like Electronic Intifada or +972 mag. I'm also quite surprised at the weight you're giving to 19th century Christian (mostly priests, one unnamed author) travelers, as if the authors of these primary sources were experts on what structures are used as mosques. Quite interesting. Anyhoo, like I said, the information in the article is from the Jerusalem Post. We have no contradicting sources. We all think it's most likely true. What's the problem? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We do have a contradicting source - Bowman (per above) stating "the Palestinian Authority’s synecdochal extension of the name given to Montefiore’s antechamber" is stating that the name was given to the antechamber before the PA's involvement.

Attribution is a sensible compromise that I think is ok here. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

NMMNC, what you wrote about what sources I didn't complain about is risible. You know perfectly well that I have never cited Blumenthal or EI, nor would I ever cite an opinion piece in +972 without attribution. Should I compile a list of crap that you never complained about? I am being 100% consistent as you know perfectly well and the last thing I am going to do is apologise for having high standards. As for Shragai, his opinions don't suddenly become citable without attribution when they are published in a newspaper. The editors of JP didn't check his claims, they only published them. You know that too; stop playing games. Zero^talk 08:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

We can write that 19th century travelers described it as a mosque. We can't say it was a mosque unless one of those travelers was well-versed on Islamic architecture. Either way, I'd like to see a good explanation why a Christian priest who was there in person is less reliable than a Jewish activist writing a century later. Zero^talk 09:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it makes you mad, but them's the facts. I can't recall you complaining about use of activists (even in blogs) when it supported your POV. If I am mistaken I will gladly apologize, and for what it's worth you are one of the more intellectually honest contributors here when it comes to use of sources, but it will be a happy day when I see you saying a Max Blumenthal or Ben White or whatever other really bad sources people put in articles can't be used.

Anyway, we have Rubinstein now so seems like attribution is not necessary. And to answer your question, a 19th century christian traveler going by a building and calling it a mosque doesn't mean people actually used it as a mosque. I think you know that. It means he thought it looked like a mosque. If he said people were praying inside, that would be another matter. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have obtained the article "The Slave and the Mother" by Danny Rubinstein in Haaretz, Oct 9, 1996, page B2 (Hebrew). Here is roughly what he writes that is relevant. Hebrew speakers, please fix obvious typos in the Hebrew and complain about dubious translations.

אבל הכל מבינים שהשאלה אינה איזה תוקף יש למסורות ההיסטוריות, אלא השימוש הפוליטי שנעשה בהן. כשם שישראלים רבים החלו לתלות קדושה פוליטית בקבר יוסף כשכם, וכשד עשרות קברי קדושים שהתגלו לפתע לאורך כבישי הגליל ובהרי ייחדה ושומרון, כך נוהגים הפלשתינאים באחרונה ביחס לקבר רחל

As we all know, what matters is not historical traditions but the political use made of them. Just as many Israelis began to revere the tomb of Joseph in Nablus and dozens of graves and shrines(?) were discovered along the roads of Galilee and the West Bank, so have the Palestinians taken similar steps with regard to Rachel's Tomb.

זה חודשים אחדים שפרסומי משרד ההקדשים (הדתות) של הרשות הפלשתינית מוסיפים לשם האתר, קבר רחל, את הכינוי מסגד בילאל אבן רבאח. במלים אחרות, הרשות האיסלאמית לא מכחישה את העובדה שזה מקום הקבר הקדוש, אלא מעלה את הטענה שבמבנה קבר רחל (שבערבית נקרא בדרך כלל כיפת רחל) קיים גם מסגד, לזכרו של קדוש מוסלמי

A few months ago the Ministry of Religious Endowments of the Palestinian Authority added to the name of Rachel's Tomb the alias Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque. In other words, the Islamic Authority does not deny that the place is a holy grave but argues that Rachel's Tomb (known in Arabic as the Dome of Rachel) is also a mosque that commemorates a Muslim saint.

עכשיו טוענים ברשות הפלשתינית, כי על פי מסורות איסלאמיות, כובשי הארץ המוסלמים נתנו למסגד שהוקם בקבר רחל את שמו של בילאל אבן רבאח, ולכן זכותם של מוסלמים להיכנס ולהתפלל במקום כאוות נפשם. אם קיימות מסורות כאלה, הן אינן מוכרות בתולדות הארץ ופורסמו באחרונה רק בהקשר הסכסוך על עבודות הבנייה שהחלו במקום

Now, say the PA, according to Islamic tradition the Muslim conquerors gave the mosque existing at the tomb the name of Bilal ibn Rabah, and so Muslims have the right to enter and leave as they wish. If there is such a tradition, it is unknown in the history of the country and has only been published in the context of the present conflict and construction work.

Rubinstein also gives some information about the site during the Jordanian period, when it was renovated several times and some famous people were buried there. Also about some Islamic architectural features that I didn't figure out. Zero^talk 13:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

There are some typos in the Hebrew but the English translation is pretty good (is that you or google? Google has reached a really good level of translation). The Hebrew doesn't say "graves and shrines" - קברי קדושים is graves of holy people, but that's really not important.

To the point, this corroborates Shragai's claim that they only started using it (I'm talking about the name in all my posts above, not whether the building or parts of it were used to pray) in 1996 and contradicts Bowman's (an anthropologist?) paper, that doesn't cite a source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(added later) small correction below. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how it contradicts Bowman. Can you explain your view?

Also, the statement "אם קיימות מסורות כאלה, הן אינן מוכרות בתולדות הארץ ופורסמו באחרונה רק בהקשר הסכסוך על עבודות הבנייה שהחלו במקום" doesn't suggest that it was made up by the PA (as Shragai claims) but that it is not in the previously published history. This leaves open the oral traditional point that the PA apparently claims. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but "אינן מוכרות בתולדות הארץ" does not even remotely imply published history. It definitely includes oral traditions.

By the way, that should be "conflict over construction work" not "conflict and construction work" in Zero's translation above. Didn't notice that earlier.No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The translation is google plus my complete rewording based on guesswork and a tiny bit of Hebrew knowledge. Rubinstein is a journalist who writes very carefully. He speaks Arabic fluently and has a deep knowledge of Islamic culture (he used to give lectures on it at Ben-Gurion University). He is certainly saying more than that it wasn't published before, but more like that such a tradition was not known of before. The prior existence of oral traditions is of course impossible to disprove absolutely but here Rubinstein is saying "if it existed, nobody heard of it" which is weaker but still pretty strong. Incidentally the article is a report of his meeting with the waqf officials and he reports on other things regarding the tomb that are in the waqf archives. Zero^talk 02:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish sources

I see this "source": Shragai, Nadav. The Palestinians who are shooting at the Rachel's Tomb compound have already singled it out as the next Jewish holy site which they want to 'liberate', Haaretz, (October 31, 2000). That link is to an activist website that is obviously not a reliable source, including for indirect reports and translations. Who here has checked that it agrees with the Haaretz article? Zero^talk 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Shragai's style is easily seen from his article (assuming it is correctly reported): "The room surrounding the tombstone was renovated, and an additional room was built near the existing one." He has deliberately omitted the key fact about the additional room that is a large part of the Muslim claim. In his JCPA piece he writes "Moses Montefiore obtained a permit from the Turks to build another room adjacent to Rachel’s Tomb in 1841 to keep the Muslims away from the room of the grave and to help protect the Jews at the site." the second half of which is entirely invented (and it is hard to not use a stronger word). There is nothing whatever in the original reports about keeping Muslims away or protecting Jews. Actually it is an insult to Montefiore, whose egalitarianism was extraordinary for his time period. It is ridiculous to treat Shragai as more than a journalist with opinions that might be cited with attribution. Zero^talk 02:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Longtime journalists published by mainstream newspapers are reliable sources on Wikipedia. If you want to change this, I suggest you start a discussion at an appropriate board. Until then, your opinions as to what constitutes a "rubbish source" carry absolutely no weight. Epson Salts (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any time for editors who don't care whether the stuff they insert into Wikipedia is true or not. Journalists are not reliable sources except for modern events. They are not historians. Zero^talk 03:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(1) Per Wikipedia policy., Journalists published in mainstream papers are reliable sources (2) the material I inserted into the article is clearly supported by a reliable source, and even you concede it is correct. (3) someone who want to relay on 200 year old primary sources rom non-historians doesn't strike me as someone who cares re whether the stuff they insert into Wikipedia is true or not. Epson Salts (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources: https://www.academia.edu/7252017/Iconic_Spaces_as_Border_Makers "Since 1996, Palestinians have strengthened their claims to the shrine. According to the old discourse the place was known as "Dome of Rachel", however a new recent version refers to it as the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque."

https://www.academia.edu/23045024/Borders_as_Totems_Veneration_and_Consecration_by_the_Separation_Wall "Since 1996, Palestinians have strengthened their claims to the shrine and its environs. Palestinian activists and religious agents are now producing and reinforcing a new religious narrative. Muslim accounts of veneration of the site date from as early as the 11th century and are consistent with the Jewish interpretations. The place is aptly named in Qubat Rahil(The Dome of Rachel) in Arabic. (Al-Harawi 1953; Strickert 2007: 87–89). However, in recent years, a new layer of traditions is being produced according to which the site is identified as the Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque in honor of the Prophet Muhammad’s personal companion and former slave, who is also considered Islam’s first mu'adhdhin(or muezzin, a crier who announces prayers)(Arafat 2013)." Drsmoo (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither of these provide sources for the 1996 statement, so we can reasonably assume that they, like every other source here, is ultimately derived from Rubinstein's 1996 article provided by Zero above. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Clearly they do, and they can be used, along with Jpost and Rubinstein. Drsmoo (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert

It is true that the notoriously careless Martin Gilbert wrote "Rachel’s tomb has been a place of Jewish pilgrimage even before the Roman destruction of Jerusalem." but since all authorities agree that no historical source mentions Rachel's tomb at the present site until the 4th century, how does Gilbert know? I think he was either taking Genesis at face value or he was just writing stuff he likes without a source (which he something he did). Personally I would treat this as WP:FRINGE and remove it, but given Gilbert's status I will just attribute it. It can't stand as a plain statement of fact in obvious contradiction to the rest of the article. Zero^talk 05:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Zero, Is there any reliable source indicating that Martin Gilbert isn't reliable, or "notoriously careless" as you describe him? Using "according to Martin Gilbert" (who is a highly esteemed historian) for one source, but not for other's is obviously POV and seems like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Gilbert is possibly referring to Jewish pilgrimage festivals and visiting the graves of patriarchs/matriarchs due to their holiness in Judaism. He also didn't specify that particular location, rather "Rachel's tomb" in the general sense. This article does deal with other possible locations of the tomb, so things are a bit more abstract. Also, the next sentence is strange, as there would likely be more Christian pilgrims due to their being 1,000x more Christians than Jews, not sure why there's a "but" there when this contrast isn't in either source, seems Synthy. It would be better to write it as:

"Rachel's Tomb is the third holiest site in Judaism. Jews have made pilgrimage to the tomb since ancient times, and it has become one of the cornerstones of Jewish-Israeli identity. Christian pilgrims wrote of the devotion shown to the shrine by local Muslims and then later also by Jews, and throughout history it was not considered a shrine exclusive to any one religion." Drsmoo (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If Gilbert wasn't an "esteemed historian" I would certainly take it out. The sentences in Gilbert's book immediately before and after this one refer explicitly to this tomb, not to some tomb somewhere, so I think it is reasonable to take this sentence the same way. At face value he is making a claim that is not supported by lots of other sources including many in our article. If we include his claim, we should do what we usually do when opinions of sources differ, namely attribute them. However, I agree to your rewording since it avoids presenting readers with an apparent contradiction. Zero^talk 06:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, we could also use this source in addition. "From Josephus we know that in his days several tombs of biblical holy persons were not only extant but were probably also centres of religious activities. He mentions the tombs of Abraham's brother Nahor in Ur (Ant. 1:151), Eleazar's tomb in Gabatha (Ant. 5:119) Rachel's tomb near Bethlehem (Ant 6:56)" Drsmoo (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

From memory, Gilbert said the number of Jews slaughtered in Hebron in 1929 amounted to 59, not the standard 67 (the total figure of those who expired after 10 or so days). That kind of thing. In that case he was evidently using the first day report in the Jerusalem Post, a primary source, without checking that early report against the secondary sources. Gilbert was an archivalist, and used primary sources. Something similar seems to have happened here. Just speculating: if he wrote 'before the destruction of the Temple 70 CE', this almost certainly indicates that he is using as his source Josephus (who wrote however some decades after that date, but using his memories of the period before he hitched his wagon to Vespasian's chariot), another primary source. Josephus does mention Rachel's tomb, twice, but does not mention pilgrimage as far as I can see. He fails to mention the locations specified in the Tanakh furthermore (See Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus, BRILL 2004 p.112 note 208). By the way, there is a useful overview of this subject at Zecharia Kallai, ‘Rachel’s Tomb: A Historiographical Review,’ in Vielseitigkeit des Altes Testaments Peter Lang 1999 215-223, that might be worth examining, to judge by its title.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, so there's no indications that Gilbert wasn't a highly reliable and esteemed historian. I think, again, we're dealing with a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. I think prayer or worship may be a better word to use rather than pilgrimage, as the former can be said to include the latter, but not the oppose. Drsmoo (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Some sources in the discussion at Talk:1956–57_exodus_and_expulsions_from_Egypt#Proclamation_re_Jews_and_Zionists which were deeply critical of Gilbert's work on the Middle East. Frankly "shoddy" would be a polite way of describing his work on the Middle East. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Look. We are having these tiresome insinuations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT motivations ascribed quite frequently to edit choices that are based on a fairly clear methodological principle in all cases I can remember recently. What Zero, myself and many others on wikipedia try to do is ascertain the factual basis under statements used widely, even in RS. This methodological approach over the years has often lead to the removal of dubious material from the encyclopedia, and, in the I/P area, for Palestinian and Jewish claims. Zero in particular has shot down quite a few ostensible 'facts' in the pro-Palestinian literature. His example has been a kind of ongoing tutorial for myself in that regard. It does not matter whose POV is affected. There is absolutely no doubt Gilbert was an esteemed historian (and even generous with his time, as I know personally). When you write 80 books, you make mistakes on details. Here, a specialist in contemporary history, made a loose remark about Rachel's tomb. One should, in sourcing as in real life, not grasp at straws because it looks promising. It might be the case that 'pilgrimage' began earlier than 70CE, but this is Gilbert's inference. 'Pilgrimage' means a journey, usually taking at least days, to a sacred site (otherwise every time my wife goes to a church in Rome she becomes automatically a 'pilgrim', instead of visiting a site in the vicinity. The Nabi Musa festival, now suppressed by Israel, was often a matter of flocks of Palestinians all over the country going festively to the shrine of Moses, for example, and is described as a pilgrimage. In the present case, one would have to look into the institution of pilgrimage in Jewish practices prior to 70CE. The only evidence I can come up with is that early Christian pilgrims to Palestine followed predominantly a Jewish line of shrines, meaning that probably they were, as one would expect from a Jewish heresy, just taking over a Jewish custom. Pieter Willem van der Horst, Japheth in the Tents of Shem: Studies on Jewish Hellenism in Antiquity, Peeters Publishers, 2002 p.330 on the likelihood of a custom of Jewish pilgrimage earlier than the Bourdeaux pilgrim (who was probably a Jewish Christian).

I think the way this has been phrased is a fair compromise, even if I think on this Gilbert's opinion is worthless. Some editors are just satanically pertinacious, particularly with regard to religious claims (Der Teufel steckt im Detail, as the saying goes), on wiki or off, and this has nothing to do anything other than a dislike of the slipshod, hand-me-down, or meme-circulation, or free invention, or inferences and speculative forays in the sources that are supposed to furnish us with realia, factual evidence. The criterion is that anything must stand up in a court of empiricist law.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

So Zero and I agree to the rewording, is there anyone else who prefers the previous wording? Drsmoo (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

About Josephus

(Copied from above for convenience) Thanks, we could also use this source in addition. "From Josephus we know that in his days several tombs of biblical holy persons were not only extant but were probably also centres of religious activities. He mentions the tombs of Abraham's brother Nahor in Ur (Ant. 1:151), Eleazar's tomb in Gabatha (Ant. 5:119) Rachel's tomb near Bethlehem (Ant 6:56)" Drsmoo (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Josephus wrote that Rachel was buried in "Ephrata", which is usually taken to mean Ephrath that may or may not be Bethlehem. As for your source, I am truly gob-smacked, as Nish would say. Here is the text of Josephus (Antiquities 6:56) that your source uses to claim that Jospehus described the tomb as extant:

"At break of day Samuel roused him from his bed, escorted him on his way, and, when outside the town, bade him cause his servant to go on before and to remain behind himself, for he had somewhat to tell him privately. So Saul dismissed his companion, and the prophet, taking his vial, poured oil upon the young man's head and kissed him and said : 'Know that thou art king, elected of God to combat the Philistines and to defend the Hebrews. And of this there shall be unto thee a sign which I would have thee learn beforehand. When thou art departed hence, thou shalt find on thy road three men going to worship God at Bethel ; the first thou shalt see carrying three loaves, the second a kid, and the third will follow bearing a wine-skin. These men will salute thee, show thee kindness and give thee two loaves ; and thou shalt accept them. And thence thou shalt come to the place called 'Rachel's tomb,' where thou shalt meet one who will bring thee news that thy asses are safe. Thereafter, on coming thence to Gabatha, thou shalt light upon an assembly of prophets and, divinely inspired, thou shalt prophesy with them, insomuch that whosoever beholdeth thee shall be amazed and marvel, saying, 'How hath the son of Kis come to this pitch of felicity?' And when these signs are come unto thee, know thou that God is with thee ; and go to salute thy father and thy kinsfolk. But thou shalt come, when summoned by me, to Galgala, that we may offer thank-offerings to God for these mercies." After these declarations and predictions he let the young man go ; and everything befell Saul as Samuel had foretold." (Translation of Thackery and Marcus) The translation of Whiston is essentially the same but has "Rachel's monument" rather than "Rachel's tomb".

As both translators note, this is just Josephus' retelling of 1-Samuel-10 and has nothing to do with Josephus' time. As well as that, the biblical text says "the tomb of Rachel, in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah" which is often cited as evidence that the tomb was not near Bethlehem. Zero^talk 09:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not about Josephus' writing of his own time, but about Josephus' writing being an indication that the tomb was considered sacred, here are some additional sources:

• Good and Evil Spirits A study of the Jewish and Christian Doctrine "Numerous Old Testament passages show that in the early period ancestral tombs were regarded as sacred places—that is, as sanctuaries...In ancient Israel a sacred tree was a necessary adjunct of an altar. Another adjunct was a pillar (mazzebah). In several instances a grave is said to be marked by the setting up of such a pillar. Thus concerning the burial of Rachel it is said "And Jacob set up a pillar upon her grave: the same is the Pillar of Rachel's grave unto this day" (Gen. xxxv. 20 ; cf I Sam. x. 2) There appears to be no reason for doubt that in all these cases the graves were places of worship, which at a later date were adapted to the worship of Yahweh."
• Jewish Encyclopedia "Desecration of a tomb was regarded as a grievous sin, and in ancient times the sanctity of the grave was evidenced by the fact that it was chosen as a place of worship, thus explaining the circumstance that a sacred stone ("maẓẓebah") was set on Rachel's grave, and that sacred trees or stones always stood near the tombs of the righteous." Drsmoo (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Christians

Drsmoo, per your recent edit, I note you proposed it above. I don't believe it has been commented on yet. I view the "most recorded historical pilgrimages were Christian" to be an important point, even if it does seem obviously to you, and the two pilgrimage sentences are better together from a flow perspective. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The proposed edit was commented on by Zero0000 here Could you point out where in the source it says that most pilgrims were Christian? Even if we might assume that due to the number of Christians in the world compared with Jews, it's strange/synth to put them in contrast to Jewish pilgrimage, when that contrast isn't presented in either source. Additionally, the previous edit was a run-on sentence Drsmoo (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is in the footnote quote: "Rather than being content with half a dozen or even a full dozen witnesses, we have tried to compile as many sources as possible... To be sure, most of the witnesses were Christian, yet there were also Jewish and Muslim visitors to the tomb."

This is an important point, which we need to reflect accurately.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've read the footnote quote and looked through the book. It doesn't say most of the pilgrims were Christian. It's also not an important point. Drsmoo (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

From Byzantine times onwards Jews were under severe travelling constraints in a predominantly Christian land down to the 10th-11th century. As heirs of Judaism, Christians naturally visited sites, and left ample accounts. Jewish accounts for this period are very rare and only appear to reemerge in the medieval period, with writers like Benjamin of Tudela. One could say that most accounts are of Christiana pilgrimage without making an extraordinary claim. But as Drsmoo says to say most pilgrims were Christian would be an inference as yet unwarranted, even if it is highly le given the geopolitical lay of the land.Nishidani (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Strickert's review of the historical writings on the tomb is the most thorough scholarly analysis in existance, by some margin. He uses the terms "witnesses" and "sources", so I agree pilgrimages is WP:OR inference, albeit the term pilgrimage is deeply subjective and most of the sources Strickert is referring to would qualify under most people's definition.

I have a preference for "recorded visits" as being the most objective description.

The remaining problem is that Stickert is clear that none of the historical sources suggest any special status for any of the three religions. So our summary should equal weight the historica discussion for each of the three.

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Strickert describes Rachel's tomb as "one of the three holiest sites of Jewish pilgrimage." He does write that it is holy for Christianity and Islam as well, but doesn't describe it as having a similar status or importance for them. There are multiple reliable sources that describe Rachel's tomb in the same way Drsmoo (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Correct he says that re Jewish mystics - yesterday I added in a quote from Dresner (note 12) which is the source that Strickert used for this point.

But this is exactly the point - whilst today it is more important in Jewish/Israeli identity than it is for Christians and Muslims, from a longer term historical perspective, Strickert's analysis suggests that that was not the case in pre-modern times: "Rather than being content with half a dozen or even a full dozen witnesses, we have tried to compile as many sources as possible. During the Roman and Byzantine era, when Christians dominated there was really not much attention given to Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem. It was only when the Muslims took control that the shrine became an important site. Yet it was rarely considered a shrine exclusive to one religion. To be sure, most of the witnesses were Christian, yet there were also Jewish and Muslim visitors to the tomb. Equally important, the Christian witnesses call attention to the devotion shown to the shrine throughout much of this period by local Muslims and then later also by Jews."

The article must make this important distinction. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere in the book does it state that the site is equally important to Christianity and Islam. It only says that it is also holy to Christianity and Islam. In addition to Strickert stating that the site is one of the three holiest in Judaism, we have multiple reliable sources that say the same thing. As Nishidani pointed out, it was difficult for Jews to travel for much of those times, so yes likely fewer writing about the site, in addition to their being fewer Jews in general. That has nothing to do with the relative importance of the site to different religions, which Strickert doesn't comment on. Only to say that the site is one of the three holiest sites of Jewish pilgrimage, and only writing that of Judaism. One also, obviously, doesn't build an entire lead around one source. Drsmoo (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If you don't have the decency to read the sources you are quoting (and making false claims about), at least read the article. It is there in the Strickert quote in footnote 2, plain as the light of day: " If there is one lesson to be learned, it is that this is a shrine held in esteem equally by Jews, Muslims, and Christians."

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It bears saying, Drsmoo, that it's one of the strangest things to observe editing in this area that we have a ranking push everywhere to prove Jewish precedence, or some proprietorial right as if all Christian and Muslim reverence or attachment to Palestine were somehow secondary. It is accompanied by a total unawareness of anything about those other religions. In 20 years, from the time Cook's tours became available 12,000 Christians had joined up to visit the Biblical sites, travelling for a month, staying in tents and praying fervently most of them. You can get a glance at this in this chapter. The same practice persists: as a pagan I've had to sit quietly as buses full of singing Catholics drove from site to site, prayed, heard mass twice a day over extended periods, etc. In the contrary narrative you have some early aliyah, mostly associated with flights from pogroms, gradually aligned to a project to make a homeland, and this often unfortunately leads to a proprietorial drive that ignores competing emotional attachments to the symbolic value of that land. There are political, ideological and religious motivations that have to be untangled, as often as not, but whatever the result, one should not confuse territorial claims with worship. Oncenawhile has a source that speaks of equal esteem, not superiority or inferiority. It seems fairly convincing.Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No one is writing of superiority or inferiority, and it's strange that you'd phrase things in those terms. Rachel's Tomb Is uniquely important in Judaism. Including in the Talmud and Midrashim and Jewish cultic practices regarding the tomb. The unique importance of the tomb in Judaism is attested to in multiple sources. There's currently a detailed section in the article devoted to Jewish religious practices and traditions regarding the tomb. We should include similar sections detailing Islamic and Christian traditions and practices regarding the tomb. Drsmoo (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Uniquely' says it all. I suggest you read Glenn Bowman,'Sharing and Exclusion:The Case of Rachel’s Tomb,' Jerusalem Quarterly 58 2014 pp.30-49, which as far as I see, is a major article with no impact on the nonsense here. There is not a skerrick of evidence there to support your statement. All one gets is the transformation of a Jewish.Christian.Muslim shrine into an exclusively Jewish venue by the invention of a tradition prioritizing the first. Note:'Susan Sered has noted that “through the mid-1930s Rachel’s Tomb was a minor Jewish, Christian, and Muslim shrine, not associated with any special concerns or sought out by any particular population”.'Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems some are intent on having arguments. As I said, there's currently a detailed section on "Jewish religious significance", we should add similar sections for Islam and Christianity. Drsmoo (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no intention of making an argument other than saying that your reference to ' The unique importance of the tomb in Judaism is attested to in multiple sources. There's currently a detailed section in the article devoted to Jewish religious practices and traditions regarding the tomb,' is not borne out by the text, nor is it substantiated by Bowman's article (which is not the last word, but citing scripture to proof an ethnic belief is dangerous. Scripture is one thing, popular practice and belief another, varying from age to age and time to time. It can hardly be accidental that sources now conflict as to whether it is Judaism's second or third most sacred cite. In a decade of asking around and searching no one has yet been able to clarify to me when the popular classifications of 4 holy cities arose, for example. The same goes for the ranking in order of sacrality of these religious sites. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I propose the below text:

Rachel's tomb has become one of the cornerstones of Jewish-Israeli identity,[14] and is currently considered the third holiest site in Judaism.[12][13] A detailed review of historical sources by Frederick Strickert suggests the shrine was "held in esteem equally by Jews, Muslims, and Christians".[2] According to Martin Gilbert, Jews have made pilgrimage to the tomb since ancient times,[15] but most recorded historical pilgrimages were Christian, and these Christian writers noted the devotion shown to the shrine by local Muslims and then later also by Jews, and throughout history it was not considered a shrine exclusive to any one religion.[2]

Any comments? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert shouldn't be there, but I'm not going to raise objections. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This would work better imo, also incorporating the revision that was agreed to by Zero0000:

Rachel's tomb has become one of the cornerstones of Jewish-Israeli identity,[14] and is the third holiest site in Judaism.[12][13] Frederick Strickert suggests the shrine was "held in esteem equally by Jews, Muslims, and Christians".[2] According to Martin Gilbert, Jews have made pilgrimage to the tomb since ancient times. [15] Christian pilgrims wrote of the devotion shown to the shrine by local Muslims and then later also by Jews, and throughout history it was rarely considered a shrine exclusive to one religion.[2]

Drsmoo (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The problem is Bowman and Strickert did specialized studies on the tomb, whereas Gilbert was a contemporary historian making a generalization no one can find confirmation for in the specialist literature, which in fact makes his statement look very much off-the-rack. Still, there's a fair degree of overlap between the two, and I'm sure one can find a consensual modulation.Nishidani (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Langton and the Jewish Encyclopedia, which I posted earlier, both concur that the site was likely an ancient place of worship. Drsmoo (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

...which is very different from it being a place of pilgrimage. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I said earlier " I think prayer or worship may be a better word to use rather than pilgrimage, as the former can be said to include the latter" Drsmoo (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of this statement to the point being made.

Anyway, here [3] is another scholarly work which disagrees with Gilbert. See page 30, which say that the first concrete evidence of Jewish pilgrimages are from the 10th century, with Christian pilgrimages a few centuries prior. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

They're all relevant as examples of ancient worship at the site, which is referenced in your link as well. Drsmoo (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"Place of worship" and "Place of pilgrimage" are different things, with the latter being a very small subset of the former.

Oncenawhile (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

In my last edit ([4]) I have made a compromise proposal between Drsmoo's and my proposals above. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Cool, sounds like we're pretty much in agreement then regarding pilgrimage and places of worship (I had actually just submitted this when it said you had posted, I'll include my own compromise as well). Pretty strange for you to completely forgo all the talk page discussion we've been having and unilaterally edit the article as if it didn't happen, and then claim you're representing talk. This seems to be done repeatedly, though. Here's my revised, ideal proposal, and will include my compromise on the main article as well:

Rachel's tomb has become one of the cornerstones of Jewish-Israeli identity,[14] and is the third holiest site in Judaism.[12][13] Frederick Strickert suggests the shrine was "held in esteem equally by Jews, Muslims, and Christians".[2] The tomb is considered to have been a place of worship in ancient Israel [Langton][Jewish Encyclopedia], and according to Martin Gilbert, Jews have made pilgrimage to the tomb since ancient times.[15] Christian pilgrims wrote of the devotion shown to the shrine by local Muslims and then later also by Jews, and throughout history it was rarely considered a shrine exclusive to one religion.[2]

Drsmoo (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Break: Christians

OK, great, we are making progress. Please could you explain your rationale for the following amendments in your edit:

1. Deletion of "The earliest concrete evidence of ... Jewish pilgrims [is] in the 10th century" and "most recorded historical visitors were Christian"
2. Deletion of "currently considered". Note that we don't have a source to state that it has always been seen this way, and with no firm evidence of Jewish pilgrims prior to the 10th century we should not be suggesting otherwise
3. The ancient worship in Israel sentence appears to be referring to Gen 35 verse 20. Why is this is neutral voice? As an aside, this is more than likely what Martin Gilbert is referring to.

Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "making progress" the progress is meant to be made on the talk page. It's wrong for you to to completely ignore the talk page discussions, and simply post your own ideas, and then describe it as per talk. You even kept the grammar mistakes.

• 1. The source doesn't say visitors, it says witnesses, again, this was discussed in talk. The majority being Christian is assumed based on travel restrictions on Jews as well as numerical differences and other factors, this was pointed out to you by three editors on the talk page, and the way you phrased it as if there was a contradiction was strange, with the removal of this inaccurate contradiction agreed to by Zero0000 and myself. Nishidani agreed, which, again, you ignored.
• 2. None of the sources phrase it as "currently considered", the correct phrasing is "is".
• 3. It's in a neutral voice as it's based on multiple reliable sources. Yes, archaeologists and anthropologists do use biblical and other religious writings as clues to understanding the ancient world Drsmoo (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Strickert uses "witnesses" and "visitors" interchangeably in a single sentence, in a grammatic style known as elegant variation. Either way, you have yet to provide a justification for hiding the fact that there is no concrete evidence of Jewish pilgrims at the tomb prior to the 10th century, and that (irrespective of WP:OR attempts to rationalize it) most historical people recorded at the tomb were Christian. Do you have any sources which disagree with these two scholars' statements?

2. Please confirm how long it has been considered as #3?

3. Statements found in the Bible need in text attribution. If a scholar says that the Bible says something, that still means the Bible needs to be WP:INTEXT

Oncenawhile (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The source isn't the Bible, the source is the scholars. Strickert exclusively uses "witnesses" to describe the Christian witnesses. Additionally, we've already discussed this previously, with multiple comments that the assertion would be an unwarranted inference and to be avoided. Drsmoo (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

(re 3) ...and those scholars are explicitly using the Bible to reach their conclusion. So we cannot mislead readers by whitewashing this fact.

(re 1) Unwarranted inference can be dealt with using clarifying words or clauses in the sentence. Deleting altogether sounds like you just don't like it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The current writing isn't misleading readers, and It's the concept that's unwarranted. Again, this has been discussed with multiple editors weighing in, I'm not seeing any new arguments. Drsmoo (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you have gone back to making vacuous statements, I will proceed with the changes. You can then amend. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Amendments made to the relevant paragraph, to bring these closer to the sources. I did not amend for point 2 above so as to be consistent. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you consider multiple editors disagreeing with you to be "vacuous" is telling. As are the consistent personal attacks. Drsmoo (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I will continue this thread below. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Section headings

@Drsmoo: please explain why you support the titles you reverted to? The main header does not reflect the content. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The section relates to Jewish religious significance, including three subsections detailing Jewish customs and practices, of which there are many. I did see that in addition to removing the heading of Jewish significance, you curiously removed a discription of masses of Jews praying at the tomb (while keeping the source). No possible idea why it would be removed. I suggested earlier adding sections for Islamic and Christian beliefs, practices and customs regarding the tomb. When I suggested adding info about Christian and Muslim practices, that didn't mean trying to minimize descriptions of Jewish practices. Additionally, the pings are obviously unnecessary as this is a community discussion. It would be more appropriate to address queries to the community. After all, I didn't write the section, only reverting a bad edit. I would prefer that you not constantly direct messages at specific editors. This is a community discussion, and anyone can reply.Drsmoo (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what the "location" subsection has to do with "Jewish religious significance"? All other similar articles in Wikipedia have a single section on location, which includes all views, not just those of one community. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the location of the site is significant in Jewish theology. As I said before, feel free to add sections regarding Christian and Islamic views and traditions regarding the site. Also, a tip for the future, next time you try to undo a long-standing edit, attempt to justify your own change. Drsmoo (talk) 12:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The only way the location discussion could be considered "significant" in Jewish theology would be if one considers every single topic subject to Rabbinic discussion to have "religious significance"? If so, you would need to believe that per Be’er Heitev 3:2, the question of eating in a bathroom is also significant.

I will accept your argument if you can show me one other Wikipedia article where "Location" is a subheading under a "Religious significance" section. Just one, out of 5 million+ articles.

It really makes no sense. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, not my argument, I didn't write it, but I, along with others, agree with it. Whether you like it not is irrelevant of course. As was said before, feel free to add information about Islamic and Christian practices and customs, and try to avoid strangely removing the word Jew from Wikipedia (including chopping up references and removing descriptions of Jewish religious practices) Drsmoo (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can't justify why you agree with something, your view is able to be ignored. Wikipedia is not about voting, but about quality and strength of one's rationale. You made a revert, and now you're being pushed to explain yourself you try to hide behind "ask the original editor". Pathetic. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I did, in fact, justify why the section is there. You've yet to justify your objection to it (or even attempt to do so). "Look at something else" isn't a policy. Drsmoo (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Your justification turned out to have no substance, proven by the fact that you evaded my attempts to verify it with my post at 14:54, 2 September. So how can it be taken seriously?

To reiterate my objection: you reverted to a structure that makes no sense and has no precedent in Wikipedia. A debate around location does not logically fit under a heading of "Religious Significance". A religious significance section should simply describe the significance. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I answered you. You're confusing the correction of your claim that it was "my argument" with something else it seems. The reason for the correction is that there appears to be a habit where discussion is curiously restricted to two editors. This is done with pinging specific individual editors, and making demands of specific editors, etc. A more appropriate post would have been to make a talk section about the heading, and then ask what editors in general thought about it, and then following consensus. In any case, the reasoning was provided. The claim that it has no substance is incorrect. Additionally, the fact that unrelated references to Jewish prayer were removed, along with removing the heading regarding Jewish significance is revealing. My suggestion is to start a discussion on Wikiproject Judaism and ask there what the religious significance of the location of Rachel's tomb is in Judaism. Drsmoo (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason we are the only two discussing this is because you made a stupid revert about something totally irrelevant, and noone can be bothered to deal with it.

I have tried to verify the justification for your revert, but you constantly provide evasive answers. If you wish to engage, answer my post at 14:54, 2 September. Otherwise I have no choice but to ignore your objection.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it was the pinging and the direct question to a single editor that did it. It's still possible to invite more editors to the discussion though. Why would undoing the arbitrary removal of references to Jewish practice and significance be "stupid"? Obviously "find something else somewhere" isn't how wikipedia articles work. You can't just give people ultimatums based on things that aren't policy. Drsmoo (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you are still talking about the removal of part of that quote puzzles me. I have no problem with you adding back the words at the end of the quote - I didn't mean to remove that clause anyway, but it was irrelevant because the meaning is the same. I haven't responded to you on that point until now because I can't see the merit in explaining to myself when I am perfectly happy with the version with the text added back.

So, to get back to the point.

The stupid bit is the titles of the sections. Why on earth are you fighting to keep a set of titles that make no sense? Since you appear to have accepted that it is unlikely that such a structure exists anywhere else on Wikipedia, surely we can move on.

I don't have a particularly strong preference for the titles I proposed, I simply think the current version is illogical. If you have better ideas, then we can stop this discussion and move on.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The only other thought would be to perhaps merge Location into Rabbinic Traditions. Drsmoo (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How about merging "Location" into "Biblical accounts and disputed location"? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I've long thought that a separate "location" subsection within the Jewish significance section is bad structure. The same issues have long been debated by Christian and secular scholars. I think there should be a separate Location section up higher in which contributions of Jewish scholars are included. In particular, it is crazy that the current subsection does not mention any historical evidence. Zero^talk 08:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

If no objections I will make this change. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering there have been non stop back and forth objections, your edit is curious. Drsmoo (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the conflict regarding headings is a result of previously undiscussed changes. The original name for the Jewish Religious Significance section was In Judaism, it was changed here. Biblical Accounts and Location was changed to Biblical Accounts and Disputed Location here (by an IP). However, there are no longer descriptions of biblical accounts in that section. It would benefit the article to restore the titles to Location and In Judaism. Drsmoo (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The link you are pointing to is not clear, as many changes were made and it is four year old. For clarity, please set out the table of contents you propose, and explain where in the article as a whole you believe discussion of location should be based. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to explain what's unclear about the links. Drsmoo (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not clear how your proposal works because the old version of the article you linked to is so different to today. Please could you simply set out what your proposal is without cross-referring to older versions of the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's basically my point though. For example Biblical Accounts and Location used to describe biblical accounts and the disagreement over the location. But the section no longer includes biblical accounts, so we should reverse the IP edit (which shouldn't have been accepted to begin with) and change it to "Location". I also think the "Jewish Religious Significance" section heading is kind of sloppy and bad, and the original "In Judaism" is what we should return to. Drsmoo (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense, and no objection from me. Can we then combine the two location sections? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Drsmoo (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)