Talk:Western Wall/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Judaism re-word

"Jewish tradition teaches that the Western Wall was built upon foundations laid by the biblical King Solomon from the time of the First Temple. A Midrash compiled in Late Antiquity refers to a Western Wall of the Temple which "would never be destroyed", and Lamentations Rabbah mentions how Rome was unable to topple the Western Wall due to the Divine oath promising its eternal survival. Another Midrash quotes a 4th-century scholar who said "the Divine Presence has never departed from the western wall", and the Zohar similarly writes "the Divine Presence rests upon the western wall".

Some medieval rabbis claimed that today's Western Wall is a surviving wall of the Temple itself and cautioned Jews from approaching it, lest they enter the Temple precincts in a state of impurity. Many contemporary rabbis believe that the rabbinic traditions were made in reference to the Temple Mount's Western Wall which accordingly endows the Wall with inherent holiness. Most secular scholars believe however that these traditions originally pertained to a western wall of the Temple itself, and since the 1500s, were gradually applied to the surviving retaining Western Wall of the Mount."

References

---/ Chesdovi (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I made some minor technical improvements to this paragraph. Is it supposed to be added to the article, or replace some part of it? The last sentence is unsourced, and I would object to adding it without sources, but apart from that it is nice. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

It is supposed to replace the first paragraph under Judaism. Re your edit, if we were to capitalise the Western Wall it would unambiguously refer to today's WW, and since there is dispute as to which wall the sources refer to, I prefer to leave it as "western wall". Chesdovi (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with primary sources like Zohar being cited directly like this, without the support of a secondary source. The Zohar is a highly esoteric book that is full of obscure metaphors and literary references; even the language is frequently obscure. We have no business interpreting it ourselves. Zero^talk 21:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chesdovi Let me sleep on it, with your permission.

@Zero There are many clear statements in the Zohar, that can be read and are very interesting and not obscure at all. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Now you tell us your interpretive method? It supports what I wrote. In this case you are wrong in any case, since it isn't clear which wall exactly is meant by "western wall" in this source. If I have the right place, it says something like "For Rabbi Yehuda said: The Shechinah has never moved from the western wall of the Temple, as is written: "Behold, He stands behind our wall"." If it never moved from the Temple itself, it didn't move to the Kotel which is not part of the Temple — that's my interpretation of this clear statement, which is also not allowed in the article. Zero^talk 01:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I can concede that point. It is however easily mended. I now understand that Chesdovi actually prewarned this, when he removed the capitals from "Western Wall", to allow for different interpretations. And that is also the second paragraphs, where he brings those interpretations. To completely prewarn any misunderstanding, we could add "(western wall" of the Temple". We could even put the second paragraph first. Debresser (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chesdovi With said provisions - second paragraph moved up and removal of the capitals I myself incorrectly added, yes, I am in favor of replacing the first paragraph of the Judaism section with the text you posted above. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

It appears someone forgot WP:BRD. Besides, 30 days is far too short for an archive length and after I reverted, which was my prerogative, it was on the next editor to discuss on the talk page, not to revert, plus Chesdovi can't edit here anymore so the page won't be getting clogged up regardless. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems as though someone forgot that WP:BRD is not wiki policy, and the suggested cycle is one of several options. Generally, one should not use it to revert a very experienced editor. In 10 years, I can't remember, and I am technically 'on the other side', having ever seen an edit by Hertz that I found ill-advised. To the contrary. Reverting is easy, too easy, and should be a last resort measure among wikipedians, unless one is dealing with the usual IP, or POV-warriors.Nishidani (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, like I said, 30 days is far too short, IMO and you should have used the talk page rather than reverted. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I really resent the fact that there is yet another disagreement on this talkpage. That said, I think 60 days is better. People here tend to forget things that have been agreed upon, and new editors can't be counted upon to consult the archives, so a longer period serves this article best. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh dear, let's have some peace in the family. I have no desire to make this housekeeping change over anyone's objections, and will put the settings back where they were, immediately. I thought the need for some shortening was obvious, but 'taint necessarily so. Do please bear in mind that when a page reaches the size of this one (170k) it can increase loading time enough to inconvenience those with slow internet connections. Nishidani, I truly appreciate the vote of confidence. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Article changes and POV

Firstly the lead is way too long. In addition, I think the map on the side looks silly and needs to be removed. If you want to make bold changes, it should be discussed here first and then discussed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC) I agree. Hewre's the Ist 2 paras, 80% mof which is not proper to the lead.

The Western Wall, Wailing Wall or Kotel (Hebrew: About this sound הַכֹּתֶל הַמַּעֲרָבִי (help·info), translit.: HaKotel HaMa'aravi; Ashkenazic pronunciation: Kosel; Arabic: حائط البراق‎, translit.: Ḥā'iṭ Al-Burāq, translat.: the Buraq Wall, or al-Mabka: the Place of Weeping) is located in the Old City of Jerusalem. It is a relatively small segment of a far longer ancient retaining wall, known also in its entirety as the "Western Wall". The wall was originally erected as part of the expansion of the Second Jewish Temple by Herod the Great, which resulted in the encasement of the natural, steep hill known to Jews and Christians as the Temple Mount, in a large rectangular structure topped by a huge flat platform, thus creating more space for the Temple itself and its auxiliary buildings. The term Temple Mount originates in the biblical Hebrew name of the hill, Har HaBáyit (הַר הַבַּיִת), lit. "Mount of the House [of God]". To Muslims the same hill and its artificial rectangular encasement is known as the Noble Sanctuary, al-Haram ash-Sharīf (الحرم الشريف).

The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism and is the place to which Jews turn during prayer, and the Western Wall is considered holy due to its connection to the Temple. Due to the rabbinic ban on praying on the Mount, the Wall is the holiest place where Jews are permitted to pray. 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 finalised by Herod the Great, who enclosed the Mount with an almost rectangular set of retaining walls, built to support extensive substructures and earth fills needed to give the natural hill a geometrically regular shape. On top of this box-like structure Herod built a vast paved esplanade which surrounded the Temple. Of the four retaining walls, the western one is considered to be closest to the former Temple, which makes it the most sacred site recognised by Judaism outside the former Temple Mount esplanade. Just over half the wall's total height, including its 17 courses located below street level, dates from the end of the Second Temple period, and is commonly believed to have been built around 19 BCE by Herod the Great, although recent excavations indicate that the work was not finished by the time Herod died in 4 BCE. The very large stone blocks of the lower courses are Herodian, the courses of medium-sized stones above them were added during the Umayyad era, while the small stones of the uppermost courses are of more recent date, especially from the Ottoman Period.

One quick way of doing this is to strike out flab or expansion.I gave my very aabove. Editors are welcome to remove my strike out signs, and provide their own. Or simply make a short 2 para synthesis suggestion for the above.Nishidani (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that something in the above might not be in the article. Someone has to comb through the long lead and article and make sure that nothing is overlooked. I switched the part about rabbinic ban and put in the link to status quo because that is more accurate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the following from the lead:

The term Western Wall and its variations is mostly used in a narrow sense for the section traditionally used by Jews for prayer, and it has also been called the "Wailing Wall", referring to the practice of Jews weeping at the site over the Destruction of the Temples. During the period of Christian Roman rule over Jerusalem (ca. 324-638), Jews were completely barred from Jerusalem except to attend Tisha be-Av, the day of national mourning for the Temples, and on this day the Jews would weep at their holy places. The term "Wailing Wall" was thus almost exclusively used by Christians, and was revived in the period of non-Jewish sovereignty between the establishment of British Rule in 1920 and the Six-Day War in 1967. The term "Wailing Wall" is not used by Jews and increasingly many others who consider it derogatory. (ref name=Forward>Hillel Halkin (12 January 2001). ""Western Wall" or "Wailing Wall"?". The Forward. Retrieved 28 September 2015.</ref)

In a broader sense, the Western Wall can refer to the entire 488 meter-long retaining wall on the western side of the Temple Mount. The classic portion now faces a large plaza in the Jewish Quarter, near the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount, while the rest of the wall is concealed behind structures in the Muslim Quarter, with the small exception of a 25 ft (8 m) section, the so-called Little Western Wall. The segment of the Western retaining wall traditionally used for Jewish liturgy known as the "Western Wall" derives its particular importance to it having never been fully obscured by medieval buildings, and displaying much more of the original Herodian stonework than the "Little Western Wall". In religious terms, the "Little Western Wall" is presumed to be even closer to the Holy of Holies and thus to the "presence of God" (Shechina), and the underground Warren's Gate, which has been out of reach since the 12th century, even more so.

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again. I think the lead needs to be taken down a notch. I'm going to look at the lead again and see if we can make the above changes, and see if anything removed is in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

# Jewish Section: This section is mostly about Satmar's POV and is undue weight. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Egalitarian and non-Orthodox prayer

I propose to replace the current text with the following:

"While during the late 19th century, no formal segregation of men and women was to be found at the Wall, conflict erupted in July 1968 when members of the World Union for Progressive Judaism were denied the right to host a mixed-gender service at the site after the Ministry of Religious Affairs insisted on maintaining the gender segregation customary at Orthodox places of worship. The progressives responded by claiming that "the Wall is a shrine of all Jews, not one particular branch of Judaism." In 1988, the small but vocal Women of the Wall launched a campaign for recognition of non-Orthodox prayer at the Wall. Their form and manner of prayer elicited a violent response from some Orthodox worshippers and they were subsequently banned from holding services at the site. In response to the repeated arrest of women found flouting the law, the Jewish Agency observed 'the urgent need to reach a permanent solution and make the Western Wall once again a symbol of unity among the Jewish people, and not one of discord and strife." Some commentators called for the closure of the site unless an acceptable solution to the controversy was found. In 2003 Israel's Supreme Court upheld the ban on non-Orthodox worship at the Wall and the government responded by allocating Robinson's Arch for such purposes. But in 2012, critics still complained about the restrictions at the Western Wall, saying Israel had "turned a national monument into an ultra-Orthodox synagogue," and in April 2013 the Jerusalem District Court ruled that as long as there was no other appropriate area for pluralistic prayer, prayer according to non-Orthodox custom should be allowed at the Wall. This led to the expansion and renovation of the Robinson's Arch prayer area which would be placed under the authority of a Pluralist Council. In August 2013, a platform named "Azarat Yisrael Plaza" was completed to facilitate non-Orthodox worship." -- Chesdovi (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

That looks like a neutrally worded and relatively well sourced section. Nice work. Debresser (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Chesdovi (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Undone, together with other edits. Please notice that the edit you made is not the precise text you posted here. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Which part? (I removed all text from the page which I used to prepare the above text) Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There were other paragraphs and other changes. Debresser (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have undone part of my last revert here and restored this text, as per the agreement here. Even though only you and I have commented in this section, but surely other editors would have registered their objections, should they have had any. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The issue of egalitarian and non-Orthodox prayer is significant enough that The Jerusalem Post on March 7, 2016 has said it could bring down Netanyahu's government. It is not simply about egalitarian prayer but about the Israeli government's willingness or unwillingness to provide official recognition to Reform and Conservative Judaism. This is not simply a religious issue but politically explosive one. We need to make sure we don't downplay it as a minor matter. VanEman (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, there was already mention of the prayer section in the article. Secondly, you should be reaching consensus before you reinsert someone that is contentious. You should revert. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Resnicoff interfaith service (II)

Here I noted my removal of the material about the "unusual interfaith service at the Wall." While it has not been flagged up by the WP:UNDUE prefects who patrol this page, I wonder whether it has been given too mush space here, especially as it appears at Wilson's Arch (Jerusalem). Chesdovi (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't worked on wikipedia in a long time, but Chesdovi was kind enough to direct my attention to his note about deleting information about the highly unusual interfaith mixed-gender service allowed by the Ministry of Religions for the US Sixth Fleet. I thought this matter was settled in 2010 when he first called the service "insignificant," and I noted that, while I did not write the entry, I was present, so (1) am not neutral; but (2) on the other hand, I know how "significant" this unusual service was. As was reported in the Jerusalem Post (in both the daily and International weekly edition) reporters asked the Ministry official (Yonatan Yuval) if this kind of service would be allowed again for other rabbis, and Yuval's answer was no -- this was a special service in honor of the visit of the US Sixth Fleet. This is a part of history (and Yuval himself, representing Israel's Misrad HaDatot used the word "historical") and I don't think "insignificant" is a word that applies. NearTheZoo (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Photos of the Wall and gender discrimination

I notice that the many photographs of the Wall do not include any with women's faces. This is an example of discrimination. While ultra-Orthodox Judaism prohibits women's faces from being shown in publicized photographs, that is not true for Reform and Conservative Judaism, nor for most other religions. Wikipedia should not bend to the wishes of one branch of a religion, namely Orthodox Judaism, in the matter of what photographs to be published. I am putting back the photo of Anat Hoffman as she is being arrested. Photos of her arrest have been widely publicized and it matches the text that notes members of the Women of the Wall have been arrested for praying in their fashion.VanEman (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Going down the article there are many photos/pictures/paintings with women. In addition, this is not a news article, this is an encyclopedia article. The pictures and edits you are adding are disruptive to the flow to the article and appear to be pushing a NPOV. And "pray tell" what does a picture of the entrance to the wall have to do with prayer notes? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

1. VanEman, do not repeat edit that were reverted, until you establish that they have consensus. You are a know edit warrior, and if this happens one more time, there will be ample reason to have you blocked and/or topic banned.
2. I see quite a few pictures with women. If you don't see them, that is your problem, and yours only. Debresser (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

there's even one titled "women at prayer" or something along those lines. This is not the Anat Hoffman encyclopedia.You need to cease your pov edits.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I never said there were no pictures of women. Please look at my first sentence. It says there are no pictures of "women's faces." Faces. You seem to have a problem reading. It is your problem, and yours only. VanEman (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who's read about Hillary Clinton's e-mail server has gotten to see how upset she was that Orthodox newspapers deleted her face from photos accessed from the U.S. federal government. The feds let you use any photo they give out for free, but you are not allowed to photoshop them. The same problem happens in Israel. Here are some references:

1. NY Post: "Orthodox publications won't Show Hillary Clinton's photo, Oct 1, 2015: http://nypost.com/2015/10/01/orthodox-publications-wont-show-hillary-clintons-photo/

2. Daily Mail: January 13, 2015: Orthodox Israeli newspaper airbrushes female world leaders out of #JeSuisCharlie march photographs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908579/Orthodox-Israeli-newspaper-airbrushes-female-world-leaders-JeSuisCharlie-march-photographs.html

3. Times of Israel, June 4, 2015 They Would Have Blurred Golda Meir's Face Too: http://www.timesofisrael.com/they-would-have-blurred-golda-meirs-face-too/

This last article points out that this practice of censoring publication of women's faces in photos been going on for decades. We should prohibit that practice at Wikipedia. VanEman (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever some people do, and some people do the most amazing things, this is not part of Jewish law, and in any case it is not being practiced on Wikipedia. Anything else? Debresser (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Debresser (talk) Yes, there's more. I respect the right of a publication to publish photographs of men only. And I respect the choice of people who buy those publications knowing that they discriminate in that way. I don't respect the right of people to "photoshop" women or anyone else out of history, and I don't want Wikipedia to be complicit with that discrimination just because we as editors aren't conscious of it. We can all make a better effort to make sure that the photos we use on Wikipedia reflect a global and inclusive mindset. VanEman (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that is not something else, that is the same thing you said before, and I already told you that Wikipedia does not engage in that practice. In simple words, you are trying to make a non-point. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Lack of info in article on what if any evidence proves that the "western Wall" is indeed a remaining part Second Temple.

The whole article seems to except the idea that the Western Wall is indeed originally part of the Second Temple without citing any archeological research that backs this up. The intro states "The wall was originally erected as part of the expansion of the Second Jewish Temple by Herod the Great" but no where in the article is any mention of any sources that support this statement with archeological evidence. Surely there has been at least some archeological research that supports the claim, right? There really needs to be a section in the article that delves into archeological research as to the true origin of the Western Wall. While it may be just excepted by many as true, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to just accept this "fact" at face value. We need to include reliable sources that back up the commonly accepted claim of the origin of the Western Wall. There also appears to be a non-fringe minority view with the archeological community that argues an alternative views as to the true origin of the wall in question. See this source, for example: http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2013/article/wailing-at-the-wrong-wall --2601:644:400:8D:DC45:7581:2B62:5030 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

First, I think you mean "accept", not "except". Second, please read WP:LEADCITE. The lead section, or opening section, of the article is supposed to summarize material that appears elsewhere in the article. Consequently, it is usually unnecessary for the lead to include footnotes because they are included in the body of the article.

For example, the section "Construction 19 BCE" has four footnotes (two of which are informative, rather than providing sources). The others link to articles published by MSNBC and the Israel Antiquities Authority. So it is not true that "the whole article seems to [accept] the idea that the Western Wall is indeed originally part of the Second Temple without citing any archeological research that backs this up."

As far as the Popular Archaeology article to which you link, I am not an archaeologist, but as far as I know the view it expresses is considered a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, and we are not required to give "equal time" to fringe theories. Popular Archaeology seems to acknowledge this as well: "To be sure, Sams and Martin's proposals have drawn criticism from other scholars, particularly those who subscribe to the mainstream view." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Kotel or HaKotel?

Why is the transliterated name of הַכֹּתֶל being written as "kotel" and not "hakotel"? I have never heard the Western Wall referred to by English or Hebrew speakers, or speakers of both, without using the definite article. After all, "הַכֹּתֶל" is HaKoTeL. Any problem with changing the references of the introduction and infobox to "hakotel"? Even "Ha-Kotel" would make more sense than just "Kotel". Jyg (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The bolded text in the first sentence is supposed to list the main English names, one of which is "the Kotel" (English article with borrowed Hebrew word). I believe that is much more common than "ha-Kotel" in English writing so it would be a mistake to change it. The Hebrew article "ha" is already used in the transliterated Hebrew. Zero^talk 23:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Zero. In English it is called "the Kotel", in Hebrew "HaKotel". Debresser (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Western Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.thekotel.org/content.asp?id=28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724161100/http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=803&CatId=2 to http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=803&CatId=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724161119/http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=628&CatId=4 to http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=628&CatId=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724161214/http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=2715&CatId=4 to http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=2715&CatId=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724160935/http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=131&CatId=4 to http://english.thekotel.org/today/Event.asp?EventId=131&CatId=4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724160944/http://english.thekotel.org/today/article.asp?ArticleID=80 to http://english.thekotel.org/today/article.asp?ArticleID=80
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/770030.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308072412/http://womenofthewall.org.il/about/mission-statement/ to http://womenofthewall.org.il/about/mission-statement/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/858755.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nakba.sis.gov.ps/english/British-mandate/Alburaq%20Revolution.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Status Quo

The status quo for no Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount has nothing to do with the ancient Status Quo in place for holy sites in Israel. The status quo for prayer is just a status quo from 1967 where Israel forbade Jewish prayer on the Mount. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source that this 1967 position is known as "status quo"?

The section Western_Wall#September_1928_disturbances refers three times to the centuries-old Status quo of Holy Land sites. This is worth a reference in the lead.

This article should be in Category:Status Quo holy places, like all the other sites.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

there's a status quo since 1967 forbidding Jewish prayer on the mount. It is not "the" Ststus Quo that governs control over holy sites. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile Reading the section you referred to, it is clear that the status quo mentioned in that section does not exist any more, and was not the same status quo that presently exists.

Why was the status quo holy places category removed? It applies both historically and at present. Debresser (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I added the cat back. Again, the status quo that is mentioned in the article is a "lower case" status quo, it's an internal Israeli policy of not allowing Jewish prayer on the Mount, it is not "THE" Status Quo that was signed in the 1800's. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying you think the Status quo of Holy Land sites is not relevant to this article and therefore should not be in the lead? I don't understand. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: can you confirm re above? Also, the wording in this article "the status quo policy" is a confusing way to describe the post 1967 inter-Israeli understanding. I propose the lead covers both of these matters with more clarity. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have made some edits to reflect this. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm OK with that. We don't have to call it a status quo and let the reader read the linked article if needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Western Wall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308070301/http://womenofthewall.org.il/about/history/ to http://womenofthewall.org.il/about/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150909063216/http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/html/jer202.htm to http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/html/jer202.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151216064801/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/html/jer318.htm to http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/html/jer318.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151216061050/http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/html/jer093.htm to http://jnul.huji.ac.il/dl/maps/jer/html/jer093.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228153005/http://english.thekotel.org/default.asp to http://english.thekotel.org/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wailing Wall may actually be the Wall of the Roman Fortress in Jerusalem

Article needs to include minority opinion that the Wailing Wall is actually the Wall of the Roman Fortress and that the Temple was in that portion of Jerusalem known as the City of David. That is the location of the Gihon Springs, which is the only spring in Jerusalem, and the water of which was used for temple services.

Ancient historian recorded that "not one stone was left on another" with respect to the Temple, after the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD

The Jewish leader of Masada stated that Jerusalem was completely destroyed and the only thing left standing was the Roman Fortress.

some material is below. Other material can easily be found.

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2013/article/wailing-at-the-wrong-wall

In recent years, however, some scholars have challenged the traditional view. Not without controversy, they have revolved their arguments around what they consider to be a misreading or dismissal of the literature by Josephus and others regarding the size and location of Fortress Antonia, the Roman enclave in 1st century Roman-occupied central Jerusalem that represented the might of Rome in the otherwise troublesome (for the Romans) province of Judaea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.134.22 (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

An English professor is not a RS on archaeology, especially for such a dubious claim, especially against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

How about this site which references the the historian Josephus and the Jewish commander of Masada.http://www.baseinstitute.org/pages/temple/22 Don't know if it is usable but it certainly contains the main points of that theory such as these below, showing that all that was left in Jerusalem was the Roman Fortress.

Historian Flavius Josephus wrote that the entirety of the temple was indeed in total ruin and destruction after 70 AD. He went on to say that if he had not personally been in Jerusalem during the war and witnessed the demolition by Titus of the temple that took place there, he wouldn’t have believed it ever existed.

One of the dramatic events that Josephus describes in his work is the plight of the fleeing rebel Jews who went to the fortress in Masada. Eleazar Bin Jari (commander of the Jewish rebels at Masada) in 73 AD encouraged those in the high mountain fortress that suicide was the only answer rather than surrendering. This same Eleazar memorialized the following about the destruction in Jerusalem: “It [Jerusalem] is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing left but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those [the Romans] that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins.” Eleazar was documenting that Jerusalem was eradicated with nothing standing, except the Roman camp called the Antonia Garrison Fort with its high stone walls still standing. 71.174.134.22 (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Overall entry quality, e.g. Views

The views section appears to be poorly referenced and have strong POV issues. The Muslim view, for example, is expressed through a 1973 quotation and little else. The Jewish view gives more space to the opinions against the Jewish claim, and has no history of the Jewish claim before Jordanian occupation. Etc etc. It is possible that other sections of this article are similarly partisan or low quality, but I don't have the capacity I'm afraid to read though it now. I hope someone else can do much improvement to this, sorry I can't. I'm surprised the overall entry/'article' has got the status it has. Thanks 81.184.194.20 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree entirely. The Views section of the article is a useless collection of useless quotations, almost entirely avoiding the mainstream views of any of the parties. Zero^talk 04:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't "References" be called "Bibliography"?

Hi, User:MShabazz and User:Debresser. I saw your recent edits and was just thinking that it is perhaps better to call the "References" section by the name "Bibliography", since that is the name usually given for such sections, whereas the section on "Footnotes" can remain as it is, even though sometimes the word "References" is used for "Footnotes." What do you think?Davidbena (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

It is usually "References", while "Footnotes" is much less used. "Bibliography" is simply not what those are. Debresser (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography is acceptable per MOS:NOTES:

“Several alternate titles ("Sources", "Citations", "Bibliography") may also be used, although each is questionable in some contexts..."Bibliography" may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography ("Works" or "Publications").”

In this case, there would be no confusion, since the subject of this article is a place not a person. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I was initially under the impression that the section was a list of works cited in the article, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I think it's a list of recommended things to read about the Western Wall, and it should be given the standard name of "Further reading" per WP:LAYOUT. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The footnotes mention the references. This is usually done without putting the references in a separate section. It is not a bibliography. In short, we should keep it the way it was. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Map in infobox

The infobox map is useless. Not only is it unreadable at the scale displayed, but even when clicked on to show it full size, entirely fails to actually say where the wall is. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is a technical problem that occurs on other pages too. The position marker (three red dots) should appear on the larger versions too, but it doesn't because the software is not programmed for it. I'll try to raise this issue on an appropriate techie page. Zero^talk 00:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

How are readers supposed to know that the wall is marked with 'three red dots' anyway? A 'position marker' is only useful with a key. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It is the marker used on infobox maps throughout Wikipedia. I'm not defending it, except to note that there is very little space to do more with the thumbnail size. Zero^talk 04:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Attitude of some haredi groups towards the Western Wall due or undue

Arminden is getting back at me for removing tagging the point of view of Yeshayahu Leibowitz as undue by tagging the following paragraph about the point of view of whole sections of the haredi population as undue. From my experience I know this is a highly notable fact in wide circles, and I see nothing undue with it. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Some haredi Jews also hold different views. Most notable are the adherents of the Satmar hasidic dynasty who retain the views espoused by their Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, who would not approach the Wall after the 1967 conquest because of his opposition to Zionism, although he did visit the site during his visits to the Holy Land in the 1920s.

Islam

@User:Sir Joseph, the article states "known in Islam as the Buraq Wall" in the first sentence and "For Muslims, it is traditionally the site where the Islamic Prophet Muhammad tied his winged steed, al-Buraq, on his Isra and Mi'raj to Jerusalem before ascending to paradise, and constitutes the Western border of al-Haram al-Sharif" in the first paragraph. The "Islam" template is apt. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusive statistics.

In the article, it is stated that a certain number of Jews were killed or injured in the 1929 riot, and a link is provided to a further wiki article about the event. In the interests of fairness, the figures should clearly state "x" number of Jews, and "x" number of Arabs, or an aggregate number for both Jews AND Arabs, or the link to the event should stand alone. Currently, it expresses a bias that should not be present. It was a riot that affected both Arabs and Jews, disastrously, not just one group. Thanks! Probato (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It was a anti-Jewish riot, actually.

Request for removal of incoherent sentence

The last sentence in the Ottoman period paragraph states: "Probably meant was the "Great", rather than the "Small" Djemal Pasha." This makes no sense, can someone remove please? As I am not a extended confirmed user.

It is correct. There were two people called Djemal Pasha. One was known as "great", so the other was called "small" to distinguish him. Zero^talk 12:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely it would only be necessary to call one "the Great"; the other appellation would be redundant.

Nuttyskin (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Shining Wall

الْحَائِط ٱلْبُرَاق  is glossed by Google Translate as shining wall, the literal meaning of the Arabic term for the Western Wall. Would Wikipedians who supply phrases in languages other than English remember to furnish literal translations where the supplementary phrase differs in meaning from the phrase used in the article title, please? Nuttyskin (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't mean "shining wall", it means "Buraq wall" quite literally. "Shining wall" completely misses the point and is not a literal name. The etymology of the Buraq's name is already in the etymology section. Zero^talk 11:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment

The western wall can't be a remnant of the temple. There are requirements that must be met...running water (the Gihon Spring is the only place with running water)..a flat thrashing stone...Jesus said the temple would be in the City of David...600ft south of the Fort Antonia perimeter wall. None of these requirements are at the Temple Mount. The stone seen now at the temple Mount is very jagged! Remember the Jews were banished from Israel for 2000 years and have forgotton the actual location of the 2nd Temple!! The temple wasn't located inside the walls of the Roman Fort Antonia.

Not a forum. Please put this somewhere else. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Mugrabim

On the evening of June 10 1967, three days after the IDF occupied the Old City in The Six Day War, 650 residents of the Mughrabi neighborhood were told to evacuate their homes within hours, And that they would be given alternative homes. At their request, the evacuation was delayed until the residents finished removing their belongings from the houses. 1 = Tom Segev, "1967 and the country changed its face", page 423}} ​​Then 15 civilian contractors from Jerusalem evacuated the area and demolished the 135 houses in the neighborhood, [[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] including mosque [[#ref_ {{Haaretz | Nir Hasson | Rare testimony revealed an ancient mosque that was destroyed in 1967 | 1.1732269 | June 15, 2012}} |^]] and Zawiya. And attempts to save her failed.

The initiator of the move was the mayor Teddy Kollek, and he did so on the recommendation of David Ben-Gurion who toured the Western Wall with him the day after the conquest of the Old City. Minister of Justice Yaakov Shimshon Shapira also supported the move. The Israeli government announced that the neighborhood had been demolished because it had become a [[Jordanian] Jordanian] government, and the speed with which it was demolished was justified by the tens of thousands of Jewish visitors who were expected to visit the Western Wall during the Shavuot holiday. "M, for the first time in 19 years. Ten months after the demolition, on April 18 1968, the Ministry of Finance expropriated the neighborhood's land for public use, along with the entire Jewish Quarter, and offered 200 [ [Jordanian dinar]] for each family evacuated from the neighborhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:a040:184:3024:ecfa:fb99:c174:88e7 (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

The restoration to the men's section included a Torah ark that can house over 100 Torah scrolls, the western wall does not own one huge torah ark rather several regular sized arks please change to The restoration to the men's section included several Torah arks which collectivly can house over 100 Torah scrolls, Chazir (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"SW wall": no such thing. What wall did 14th c. author mean?

"The first mention of the Islamic tradition that Buraq was tethered at the site is from the 14th century. A manuscript by Ibn Furkah, (d. 1328), refers to Bab al-Nabi (lit. "Gate of the Prophet"), an old name for a gate along the southwestern wall{{dubious|No such thing as a "southwestern wall". Maybe the S part of the W wall, or the W part of the S wall, or neither of the two. No online access. Explain! (March 2020) No answer yet, will remove. (December 2022)|date=March 2020}} of the Haram al-Sharif.<ref name="reinventing2007">{{cite book |last= Ricca |first= Simone |title= Reinventing Jerusalem |year= 2007 |publisher= [[I.B.Tauris]] |isbn= 978-1-84511-387-2 |page= 212 |chapter= Notes to Chapter One}} </ref>"

Again: No such thing as a "southwestern wall". Maybe the S part of the W wall, or the W part of the S wall, or neither of the two. No online access. Explain!

Secondary: who is Ibn Furkah, and what did he write? Arminden (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason a source is provided is so that people like you can verify the text. You can't just remove it because you aren't able to check. "Southwestern wall" is a common expression for the southern part of the western wall. In any case the location is indicated by the context. Ibn Kurkah was the pen name of Ibrahim b. Ishaq al-Ansari, who wrote Ba‘ith al-nufus ila ziyarat al-Quds al-mahrus [Inspiration to souls to visit protected Jerusalem] available in the Khalidi Library. Zero^talk 09:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zero. "People like me" do indeed like to check :) I did while you were writing your reply, and found quite the opposite (please see below). Unless Matthews' dissertation has been proven to be fundamentally dated and wrong, the line I removed doesn't belong back in - and that proof must be provided here.

My English isn't bad enough as not to know that "southwestern wall" cannot be construed as anything but a wall facing SW. If one takes the time to expressly redefine it as "the southern section of the western wall", then we can talk - but as of now, if one stretches the argument to the length you seem to be trying to, it can mean as well "the western section of the southern wall", which is precisely what Matthews says. And he got a PhD analysing al-Firkah's text.

Matthews (1932) refers in his first paragraph to the Wailing Wall as "these fifty-odd feet of the southwestern wall", and several times refers to the gates in the south part of the west wall as "southwestern". This is a common way of describing that part of the wall. Zero^talk 02:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I must trust an edit, i.e. either be able to access the source, or take the editor who introduced it by his word, which I'd rather not. It's also not reasonable to expect that I drop everything and travel to Jerusalem's Khalidi Library hoping to get access to Matthews' publication. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an outrageous statement. If you can't access a source it is your problem, not our problem. You are not allowed to delete sourced material on that basis. Zero^talk 02:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Another thing. The "dubious" tag is not an excuse for you to add your personal editorial comments into article space. That's what the talk page is for. I've said this before and you really have to stop. I'm going to be more proactive in deleting such stuff. Zero^talk 02:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Zero, take it easy. Nothing outrageous here. You're choosing what you want to read, and that's not right.

"Dubious" tag, dated March 2020 (!!): "No such thing as a "southwestern wall". Maybe the S part of the W wall, or the W part of the S wall, or neither of the two. No online access. Explain!" Legit, very concise, and easy to understand.

"Dubious" tag, dated December 2022: "No answer yet, will remove." Did so within 2 minutes, the addition was just "for the record". No harm whatsoever.

Perfectly fair. Both the editor who put it in, whoever it was, and anyone else who saw the tag, had years to react. So: fair, as opposed to outrageous.

It's not about whether a source is accessible: it's about the edit based on it. If it makes no sense ("southwestern wall" in a rectangular structure oriented N-S), it must be fixed. If the editor in case doesn't, someone else, me included, should be able to do it - but they need the source. If that editor has become inactive, or isn't interested anymore, are we supposed to leave a nonsensical bit there forever, because he might have lifted it from a nominally legit source, which happens to contain a mistake? That's completely illogical, and logic is your domain, so please. There must be a limit to how much a hard-to-get-by source can be considered tabu; this is Wikipedia, not a "who has access to the rarest books" contest.

It's your right to act as you like, but: 1. It might not be conform with some practice or rule to present the issue right next to the problematic sentence, but it certainly is practical: the editors can see that there is an issue, read what the raised issue is, and react right away, w/o the need to click around. Besides, a real issue being raised is not "clogging" anything, users only see the short tag anyhow, whether it's elaborated or not. 2. The tag is 2.5 years old, it was set well before you informed me about this directive, if that's what it is. Now I moved the section to talk-page within the shortest of times.

It seems that I've angered you with the move - sorry for that, but that's a matter of emotions, not an argument. We've all got good reasons to be angry at the world right now, there are big issues to address, let's try and pull at the same string and make it count; this isn't one of them.

Besides, you don'y need to bother yet, I had a short Wiki break, now I'll be off again, for a while at least, if I haven't lost my marbles completely (time management). Arminden (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(1) The syntax is {{dubious|talk page section title}} It is not {{dubious|arbitrary commentary}}. This tag is not for presenting your analysis in the article. Inventing an long section title in order to get around this restriction is unacceptable, and using an argument that is not a section title violates the tag specifications. If you want to leave an in-place comment only for editors, there is a "reason=..." argument that doesn't display to readers. (2) The problem of rare sources has been discussed many times at WT:V and probably WT:RS; you are welcome to discuss it there. However, the sources here were Ricca and later Khalidi, neither of which is rare, so that problem didn't arise. Zero^talk 10:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Beside my point. Ricca & Khalidi aren't rare, just not on Google Books, while Matthews is. I really don't have the time for technical Wiki studies; if I detect an illogical passage and mark it, I consider this to be for the general benefit, of both users and editors, who are moved to deal with the issue. It worked. The article benefits from it. Whatever minuscule discomfort I might have created is... you finish the sentence for me please. Arminden (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Shortening/modifying the lead

Hi Iskandar323. It's a brave task, but you apparently have noticed by now that you cannot truly do away with most of what's there. I have worked quite a bit at it, and am aware of the many essential bits which cannot be easily removed. Also, I think this requires a bit more consultation. Now step by step.

At a first glance: it is essential that the 2 different definitions are there, right at the start. You replaced/removed "It is a relatively small segment of a far longer ancient retaining wall, known also in its entirety as the "Western Wall".(ref...)". This must go back in, right at the top.

The wall is not part of the hill, but of the retaining wall of the Herodian structure built around it.

It is not that it "is believed to have been begun by Herod the Great". That much is KNOWN. Which of his descendants finished the job is slightly less sure.

Keeping the actual purpose of the wall (retaining wall of the Herodian Temple Mount, and since C7 of the Haram) in the first part of the lead, which works as the definition of the topic at hand, is much more relevant IMO than placing there the number and age of the different upper courses. This might be the actual crux of the matter: your approach vs mine. Excuse me if I'm wrong. I have no doubt that the Haram has been rebuilt by Muslims and used as such since the 7th c., I'm most certainly not trying to pull the article in a "Jewish-leaning" direction, but this is the definition: Herodian retaining wall of the Temple complex, damaged when the Romans did away with the Temple, restored in C7 by the Umayyads, in use as a retaining wall of the Haram ever since less the Crusader period, plus a place of prayer for the Jews since probably C16 (says Hillel Halkin) or C17, with an added importance to Muslims (Buraq) not before the Mamluk period, and probably only in recent times replacing all other traditional Buraq tehthering sites, not least as a reaction to Jewish claims. This is exactly the summary of the respective sections of the article. Also for Muslims, it's not the Umayyad and later courses which matter, but the more ancient ones, associated with Prophet Muhammad. So all the info about the middle and upper courses is much less important, if not outright superfluous.

I don't see why you left in so much of the info re. other Jewish places of prayer (Mount of Olives, Kidron), if you're serious about cutting down. Stating that the WW became the prayer site of choice in C16 or 17 would do. What I do miss is reference to "the Cave" at Warren's Gate, the Early Muslim-period (Fatimid, I think) synagogue opposite the Sakhra, if anything.

Separating from each other the paragraphs re. importance in Judaism and Islam seems twice appropriate: 1. some users are looking just for one of them, and that makes it more user-friendly; editors can expand or modify more easily, too. 2. It's not connected, the 2 reasons (proximity to Holy of Holies vs. tethering of al-Buraq) have nothing in common. Only the general holiness of the Mount connects the two, somehow.

After explaining the narrower and the broader sense together in the top paragraph (the definition), I would still like to give more weight to the two further down and point to the difference, as it is very easily overlooked, which has previously created a huge confusion throughout the article. So again, good for both the user and the editor.

It is inaccurate that the WW "derives its particular importance to it having never been fully obscured by medieval buildings", but it is true that it has become a place of Jewish prayer simply because the rest wasn't accessible, and especially not the spot immediately west of the Foundation Stone/as-Sakhra, usually identified with the site of the Holy of Holies and the Shekhinah. As to the Small WW, an Israeli scholar has published research claiming that the Jews (those of recent generations at least) weren't even aware of its existence. So it's a less crucial topic, not sure it needs to make it into the lead.

I am happy to did away with "whilst". Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, starting from your question in the middle about what I cut and what I didn't, I pretty much tried to cut as little as possible, focusing mainly on obvious duplication (e.g.: Herod was previously mentioned three times). I intentionally avoided making any dramatic content decisions. I did not evaluate the finer points of due weight. I should also note that I am not in the least bit wedded to any of the changes I made. My objectives were purely aimed at achieving something closer to acceptable both from a legibility and style guide perspective (and down from eight scattered paragraphs). I certainly anticipated further tweaking.

On the substance, regarding the different definitions of the Western Wall, I thought the distinction between the part and the whole was a tad academic for the first sentence and not necessarily an aide to the reader simply trying to get a very basic grasp of the subject. Since this precise distinction is also covered elsewhere in the lead, there was an element of duplication here too (and I also thought the ensuing explanation still a bit long). Employing a catchall statement early on seems viable, regardless of dual definitions at play, as under both definitions the Western Wall is still a portion of the wider retaining wall.

I was myself of half a mind about the placement of the sentence on the different layers in the first paragraph myself, so you have simply confirmed my doubts here - but I was a bit stumped about where to put this, as the last paragraph is very modern history and not construction related and the other paragraphs are only sort of quasi-historial or architectural. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead :)

Herod was only mentioned three times? My mistake. He did all the heavy lifting, he deserves at least 5 mentions.

Seriously, the Herodian Temple Mount is the base of everything. And I'd say, a retaining wall ist just one retaining wall, not four. Four are a 3D structure, and it's known as... the Herodian Temple Mount.

I mean it: the article was full of totally confusing jumps, between data relating to the "short" WW (28-60 metres), and such relating to the "entire" WW (488 metres). Fixed it once, and this must not be rolled back. Arminden (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Ricca, an architect, states 36 metres (from memory)Nishidani (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

As I have written, I can't access Ricca online. I took the figures (pre-1967 and post-1969) from the article, as they are now. Absolutely nothing hinges on that.

PS: why did you change my Smiley? :))) Arminden (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Iskandar323, please, I respectfully ask you to please stop your well-intentioned, but by now fully misled attempts to shorten the lead. Several edits have totally changed the intended meaning and are just wrong. Incorrect information is far worse than wording that is maybe too long by some 20%. Honestly. I really have no time to revert the mistakes and feel sad about it. Thank you. Arminden (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)