Talk:Western Wall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleWestern Wall was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 10, 2008Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Reforming[edit]

The second paragraph should be

"The Western Wall is the Holiest Place Jews are allowed to visit today. Its holiness in Judaism is a result of its proximity to the Temple Mount. Because of the Temple Mount entry restrictions, the Wall is the holiest place where Jews are permitted to pray, though the Foundation Stone, the most sacred site in the Jewish faith, lies behind it. The original, natural, and irregular-shaped Temple Mount was gradually extended to allow for an ever-larger Temple compound to be built at its top. This process was finalized by Herod, who enclosed the Mount with an almost rectangular set of retaining walls, made to support the Temple platform and using extensive substructures and earth fills to give the natural hill a geometrically regular shape. On top of this box-like structure, Herod built a vast paved platform that surrounded the Temple. Of the four retaining walls, the western one is considered closest to the former Holy of Holies, which makes it the most sacred site recognized by Judaism outside the previous Temple Mount platform."

As the Western Wall is known as a Jewish heritage site more then a muslim (see encyclopedia Britannia), this should be the second thing there, not pushed behind an Islamic note.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.184.90 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Western Wall[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Sourcing issues, involving uncited material, verifiability concerns, and dubious references, remain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007 listing has quite a few issues:

  • GA criterion 1b):
    • Numerous subsections are very short, which breaches MOS:OVERSECTION;
    • The lead, which currently stands at 758 words, may be too long per MOS:LEADLENGTH;
  • It contains uncited material, meaning it does not meet GA criterion 2b);
  • It has numerous tags for NPOV issues, meaning GA criterion 4 may not be met;
  • And at over 10,500 words, not counting quotes, tables, captions, or lists, this article might contain excessive detail and not meet GA criterion 3b). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There definitely appear to be more than a few aspects to the page that are a complete mess – as not untypical for one of these very dated GAs. Iskandar323 (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who ever did care about GA or GAGA or whatwver? It's work in progress, a politically hotly disputed site (by more sides than meets the eye), and classical encyclopaedic gem-like cut & polish won't ever be reached. Arminden (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People said that about J. K. Rowling, Arminden, and yet it still has an FA star. Anyway, thanks for tackling some of the issues, and in response to your post on the talk page, you can find the automatically-updated archives in the talk header template at the top. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I would find it better to keep on the active talk page topics which are still being discussed. It seems to me that we have a hyperactive archiving bot patrolling the talk page.
    I said that I don't care much at all about stars and Wiki labels; about improved quality I most certainly do. Arminden (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the parameters of the archive bot so sections should stick around longer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why "undue weight" tag for Leibowitz?[edit]

His opinion is a) very well known and often quoted, and b) at least as relevant as Mr. Reiter's take on the Islamic Movement in Israel, and indeed the IM itself, although I believe Reiter referred to Raed Salah and his radical Northern Branch and less so to people like Mansour Abbas.

May I remove the tag?

PS: has the previous discussion been archived? Why and where to? Arminden (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does there need to be a standalone ideological views section at all? Most of this material relates to views among religious groups and is duplicative of the existing sections based on religion that include views pertaining to those religions. I can see it being better folded into those other sections. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's outsized compared to the Mainsteam subsections that precedes it. Please take a look at the change I've made, trimming the unnecessary detail. Alaexis¿question? 13:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

Just a quick look at the article reveals some interesting bias. The Arabic name of the western wall is removed from the opening sentence, and is placed afterwards with a "in Islam", as if Arab Jews for example had no name for this wall for centuries, and without consideration of the fact that this site is located in East Jerusalem, which is part of the Israeli occupied West Bank. East Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the article. Also interesting how Jordan occupied EJ but Israel controlled it. Not sure what RS say about Jewish population leaving in 1948, but I am pretty sure the mayor signing a surrender agreement and moved the Jews out of the quarter. Not sure how that explicitly qualifies as "expulsion". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that Arab-speaking Jews referred to the Western Wall as Al-Buraq Wall, do you have sources for that?
As to the surrender of the Jewish Quarter, this is quite similar to the surrender of Jaffa which happened earlier that month. Does it mean that the expulsion of Arabs from there also doesn't qualify? Alaexis¿question? 10:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion In Infobox[edit]

I believe the article's infobox should be changed to that of a Holy Site, much like the Dome of the Rock's page. How come on there, it's listed as Holy Site in Islam, but the holiest site in Judaism is not listed as such? This seems quite one sided, especially considering the two sites are just metres away from each other. Theirishisraeli (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History as Place of Worship Citation[edit]

An English translation of the Scroll of Ahimaaz with historical commentary by Robert Bonfil is available at ISBN 978-90-47-42731-5, from Studies in Jewish History and Culture, Volume 22. NuanceQueen (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2024[edit]

Update "U.S. President Donald Trump" to "Former U.S. President Donald Trump" Maxjd1 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: I think this may fall under MOS:PERSONOROFFICE. Shadow311 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: Per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE, saying Former U.S. President Donald Trump is unnecessary unless context requires it. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Western_Wall&oldid=1209428260"