Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 September 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
@ Makeandtoss: thanks for writing this interesting article.
Technically, aren't the Hashemite family custodians of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, rather than any of the sites themselves?
Also, the article mentions occasional funding of the Holy Sepulchre, but never formal "custodianship" of any Christian sites. Is that correct?
Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
“ | While the Supreme Muslim Council (SMC) was in charge of administering the site, the then ruler of Mecca and leader of the revolt against the Ottoman Empire Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, whose son became the first king of Jordan, was accepted as its custodian by the SMC leadership. This custodianship has been passed down by to subsequent Jordanian kings. | ” |
Makeandtoss ( talk) 17:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is about
Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites. Tel Al Ful is not a holy site, and not remotely connected to any Jerusalem holy site. This article is not about claims Jordan may have had to the West Bank before relinquishing them as part of a peace treaty it signed with Israel. This picture is simply not related in any meaningful way to the subject of the article, so please stop edit warring it back in, and read
WP:ONUS - there is no consensus for its inclusion.
Attack Ramon (
talk) 20:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not a new addition, making the claim of following WP:ONUS curious. WP:NOCON however says
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
The fact that the material has been included for a year gives it implicit consensus, and yall the ones that need consensus to change it. nableezy - 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Your comment above should be next to the dictionary definition of 'hypocrisy'
[3]
The textual material I removed is the same as the caption of the now-removed image , and as both me and Icewhiz have written, the half built palace isn't really relevant to this article. Now, go back and read what you wrote in the above diff - In response to my comment that the onus for inclusion of something was met years ago, you worte "And it no longer is.
WP:ONUS is policy, and you need to edit accordingly".
Attack Ramon (
talk) 22:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not "the holy shrines", just "Muslim' holy shrines! Not the Christian ones, and most definitely not the Jewish ones. Propaganda article with preposterous title, shameful for Wikipedia. Arminden ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is the proof for custodianship over the Holy Sepulchre and other Christian shrines? Nada. Don't come with political declarations of Arab Christian denominational leaders with tactical interests, but show me Status Quo or other legal proof. The peace treaty of 94 only mentions Muslim shrines.
Hasbara is junk, but this is idiotic junk. Low-IQ propaganda. Shameful to Wikipedia. Arminden ( talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
And I've signed over it with the mayor of Galapagos. This is Wikipedia, not "The Raghadan Telegraph". This whole thing must be either removed or thoroughly rewritten. Arminden ( talk) 06:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There are two aspects of such claims, de facto and de jure. De facto, HM King Abdallah has no say over anything at the Holy Sepulchre - he doesn't have the keys, nor are his police officers patrolling the church and pushing the crowds back at the Holy Fire ceremony, or receive taxes & fees for the water & electricity bills, doesn't decide when to impose or lift lockdown during an epidemic,... nothing. De jure, he's not mentioned as custodian - neither in the Status Quo (when the last relevant firman was written, the Hashemites were still in Mecca), nor in the Mandate for Palestine, the UN partition resolution (whose relevance can be disputed), the 1948 Armistice, the Oslo accords, the 1994 peace agreement's paragraph No. 9 (Muslim shrines only), and I'm not even mentioning Israel's Jerusalem Law, because that one is as much one-sided as the stuff you will come up with. All the rest is political maneuvering between real and wannabe actors, all of it not a base for encyclopedical articles. Actually, just the Status Quo and the peace treaty have true legal relevance, unless you can prove otherwise. The recent Raghadan White Paper claims rights since 1917, this propaganda piece here mentions 1924 (beware, whoever wrote it might get into trouble with the secret police in Amman, 7 yrs are a long time!) - on what base? I'm truly curious, for the fun of it. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 07:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Gilabrand, Debresser, Huldra, Chesdovi, Nyakanyaka, Cagri Onat, Zero0000, and Dougweller: hi. Does Jerusalem, in your opinion, contain Jewish holy sites? Is the King of Jordan their custodian?
Same question (the second one) regarding the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
An article I never noticed before, Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites, apparently lacking cross-referrencing and flying, unintentionally, under the radar, is titled in a way that suggests both. Re. the Holy Sepulchre it's even claiming de facto and de jure custodianship. Our friend who wrote the article all by himself is very well-intentioned and flexible, but seems to be a bit overexposed to internal Jordanian sources.
This fresh Royal Household-authored White Paper was brought to my attention by a concerned German Christian scholar. It shows where this all is coming from. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 10:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Makeandtoss, you will do what you must do. But read first. The 7 yrs refer to 1924-1917=7. Not to prison time. Facts first, as always. As for the rest: democracy is quantifiable to a certain degree. I'm in no way superior to anyone by ways of residence or alike, but there is value in distinguishing reality from political spin, and that sometimes come at a high personal cost and through a long process. PS: if this will lead to a break in my compulsive Wiki habit, I'll stay forever grateful to you. This wouldn't change a thing though in the fact that countries, some more democratic and some less, are trying to brainwash their citizens, and that it's every decent person's duty to try and fight it. I sincerely wish you good luck and moral & intellectual satisfaction in this pursuit my friend. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 10:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As discussed above, this article needs to be more specific regarding which sites are covered. As also discussed above, this article appears to be based on this source from the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought (a Jordanian government institution). In the appendix it includes a 2013 agreement between Abdullah II of Jordan and Mahmoud Abbas which states:
Recalling the role of King Sharif Hussein bin Ali in protecting, and taking care of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and in the restoration of the Holy Sites since 1924; recalling the uninterrupted continuity of this role by His Majesty King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who is a descendant of Sharif Hussein bin Ali; recalling that the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) according to which Sharif Hussein bin Ali held the Custodianship of the Jerusalem Holy Sites, which Custodianship was affirmed to Sharif Hussein bin Ali by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine on March 11, 1924; and recalling that the Custodianship of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem has devolved to His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein; including that which encompasses the ‘Rum’ (Greek) Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem that is governed by the Jordanian Law No. 27 of the year 1958
It describes three things:
Finding other sources which make these three points clear would be very useful to this article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Religious authority | Temporal authority | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|
pre-1917 | ??? | Ottoman | Presumably a hierarchy up to the caliph, perhaps via Mecca? |
1917-1924 | Istanbul caliph + Mecca sharif | British | Independent Hejazi state declared in June 1916. British in Jerusalem Dec 1917. Bay'ah of 3 Muharram 1335 AH = Oct 1916 (note typo in White Paper as 1917). Presumably the pledge was related to the Arab Revolt. |
1924-1925 | Mecca sharif | British | Abolition of the caliphate in March 1924. Pledge to the Sharif immediately after |
1925-1948 | none? | British | Saudi conquest of Mecca. Was the continuation of the Hashemite role implict or explicit? |
1948-1967 | Jordan | Establishment of the Jordanian Waqf | |
post-1967 | Israel (with Jordan role at Al-Aqsa) | Jordanian Waqf allowed to continue. Was this unilateral, or some form of agreement? |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
A fact from Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 September 2017 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Makeandtoss: thanks for writing this interesting article.
Technically, aren't the Hashemite family custodians of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, rather than any of the sites themselves?
Also, the article mentions occasional funding of the Holy Sepulchre, but never formal "custodianship" of any Christian sites. Is that correct?
Onceinawhile ( talk) 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
“ | While the Supreme Muslim Council (SMC) was in charge of administering the site, the then ruler of Mecca and leader of the revolt against the Ottoman Empire Hussein ibn Ali al-Hashimi, whose son became the first king of Jordan, was accepted as its custodian by the SMC leadership. This custodianship has been passed down by to subsequent Jordanian kings. | ” |
Makeandtoss ( talk) 17:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is about
Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites. Tel Al Ful is not a holy site, and not remotely connected to any Jerusalem holy site. This article is not about claims Jordan may have had to the West Bank before relinquishing them as part of a peace treaty it signed with Israel. This picture is simply not related in any meaningful way to the subject of the article, so please stop edit warring it back in, and read
WP:ONUS - there is no consensus for its inclusion.
Attack Ramon (
talk) 20:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This is not a new addition, making the claim of following WP:ONUS curious. WP:NOCON however says
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
The fact that the material has been included for a year gives it implicit consensus, and yall the ones that need consensus to change it. nableezy - 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Your comment above should be next to the dictionary definition of 'hypocrisy'
[3]
The textual material I removed is the same as the caption of the now-removed image , and as both me and Icewhiz have written, the half built palace isn't really relevant to this article. Now, go back and read what you wrote in the above diff - In response to my comment that the onus for inclusion of something was met years ago, you worte "And it no longer is.
WP:ONUS is policy, and you need to edit accordingly".
Attack Ramon (
talk) 22:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Not "the holy shrines", just "Muslim' holy shrines! Not the Christian ones, and most definitely not the Jewish ones. Propaganda article with preposterous title, shameful for Wikipedia. Arminden ( talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Where is the proof for custodianship over the Holy Sepulchre and other Christian shrines? Nada. Don't come with political declarations of Arab Christian denominational leaders with tactical interests, but show me Status Quo or other legal proof. The peace treaty of 94 only mentions Muslim shrines.
Hasbara is junk, but this is idiotic junk. Low-IQ propaganda. Shameful to Wikipedia. Arminden ( talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
And I've signed over it with the mayor of Galapagos. This is Wikipedia, not "The Raghadan Telegraph". This whole thing must be either removed or thoroughly rewritten. Arminden ( talk) 06:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There are two aspects of such claims, de facto and de jure. De facto, HM King Abdallah has no say over anything at the Holy Sepulchre - he doesn't have the keys, nor are his police officers patrolling the church and pushing the crowds back at the Holy Fire ceremony, or receive taxes & fees for the water & electricity bills, doesn't decide when to impose or lift lockdown during an epidemic,... nothing. De jure, he's not mentioned as custodian - neither in the Status Quo (when the last relevant firman was written, the Hashemites were still in Mecca), nor in the Mandate for Palestine, the UN partition resolution (whose relevance can be disputed), the 1948 Armistice, the Oslo accords, the 1994 peace agreement's paragraph No. 9 (Muslim shrines only), and I'm not even mentioning Israel's Jerusalem Law, because that one is as much one-sided as the stuff you will come up with. All the rest is political maneuvering between real and wannabe actors, all of it not a base for encyclopedical articles. Actually, just the Status Quo and the peace treaty have true legal relevance, unless you can prove otherwise. The recent Raghadan White Paper claims rights since 1917, this propaganda piece here mentions 1924 (beware, whoever wrote it might get into trouble with the secret police in Amman, 7 yrs are a long time!) - on what base? I'm truly curious, for the fun of it. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 07:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Gilabrand, Debresser, Huldra, Chesdovi, Nyakanyaka, Cagri Onat, Zero0000, and Dougweller: hi. Does Jerusalem, in your opinion, contain Jewish holy sites? Is the King of Jordan their custodian?
Same question (the second one) regarding the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
An article I never noticed before, Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites, apparently lacking cross-referrencing and flying, unintentionally, under the radar, is titled in a way that suggests both. Re. the Holy Sepulchre it's even claiming de facto and de jure custodianship. Our friend who wrote the article all by himself is very well-intentioned and flexible, but seems to be a bit overexposed to internal Jordanian sources.
This fresh Royal Household-authored White Paper was brought to my attention by a concerned German Christian scholar. It shows where this all is coming from. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 10:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Makeandtoss, you will do what you must do. But read first. The 7 yrs refer to 1924-1917=7. Not to prison time. Facts first, as always. As for the rest: democracy is quantifiable to a certain degree. I'm in no way superior to anyone by ways of residence or alike, but there is value in distinguishing reality from political spin, and that sometimes come at a high personal cost and through a long process. PS: if this will lead to a break in my compulsive Wiki habit, I'll stay forever grateful to you. This wouldn't change a thing though in the fact that countries, some more democratic and some less, are trying to brainwash their citizens, and that it's every decent person's duty to try and fight it. I sincerely wish you good luck and moral & intellectual satisfaction in this pursuit my friend. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 10:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As discussed above, this article needs to be more specific regarding which sites are covered. As also discussed above, this article appears to be based on this source from the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought (a Jordanian government institution). In the appendix it includes a 2013 agreement between Abdullah II of Jordan and Mahmoud Abbas which states:
Recalling the role of King Sharif Hussein bin Ali in protecting, and taking care of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and in the restoration of the Holy Sites since 1924; recalling the uninterrupted continuity of this role by His Majesty King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who is a descendant of Sharif Hussein bin Ali; recalling that the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) according to which Sharif Hussein bin Ali held the Custodianship of the Jerusalem Holy Sites, which Custodianship was affirmed to Sharif Hussein bin Ali by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine on March 11, 1924; and recalling that the Custodianship of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem has devolved to His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein; including that which encompasses the ‘Rum’ (Greek) Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem that is governed by the Jordanian Law No. 27 of the year 1958
It describes three things:
Finding other sources which make these three points clear would be very useful to this article. Onceinawhile ( talk) 10:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Religious authority | Temporal authority | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|
pre-1917 | ??? | Ottoman | Presumably a hierarchy up to the caliph, perhaps via Mecca? |
1917-1924 | Istanbul caliph + Mecca sharif | British | Independent Hejazi state declared in June 1916. British in Jerusalem Dec 1917. Bay'ah of 3 Muharram 1335 AH = Oct 1916 (note typo in White Paper as 1917). Presumably the pledge was related to the Arab Revolt. |
1924-1925 | Mecca sharif | British | Abolition of the caliphate in March 1924. Pledge to the Sharif immediately after |
1925-1948 | none? | British | Saudi conquest of Mecca. Was the continuation of the Hashemite role implict or explicit? |
1948-1967 | Jordan | Establishment of the Jordanian Waqf | |
post-1967 | Israel (with Jordan role at Al-Aqsa) | Jordanian Waqf allowed to continue. Was this unilateral, or some form of agreement? |