Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Will be starting review.
Pyrotec (
talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So far I read part of the article to the middle of British rule 1917 - 1948, so I've some way to go. So far the article appears to be of GA standard, but there are some minor problems that could be fixed without too much difficulty:
I now will continue the GAR. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
An interesting read. Overall, I consider that this article is of GA standard. It has a broad scope and is well referenced and illustrated; but there are a number of direct quotations in the article that are unreferenced. I'm putting the article On Hold to allow these, possibly rather minor defects, to be attended to.
Specific "problems":
Pyrotec ( talk) 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the 88 references in the Reference section are full references, but references 38, 39, 42 to 45, 47 and 49 are wikilinks to chapters in books or scriptures. Some wikilinks appear to be broken, or missing, e.g. Reference 49 leads here - Interpunct, which is not a valid reference; and there is no Kav Ha-yashar article for Ref 42 and 46. Could the Middot reference be fixed; one red-link is probably acceptable fora GA (no red-links would be better)? Pyrotec ( talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This article should raise alarm bells on POV. For instance, the events of 1929 are treated in a seriously distorted fashion, the article currently says:
On August 14, 1929, after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall, 6,000 Jews demonstrated in Tel Aviv, shouting “The Wall is ours.” The next day, the Jewish fast of Tisha B'Av, 300 youths raised the Zionist flag and sang the Zionist anthem at the Wall.[30] The day after, on August 16, an organized mob of 2,000 Muslim Arabs descended on the Western Wall, injuring the beadle and burning prayer books, liturgical fixtures and notes of supplication. The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]
Even the most highly regarded Israeli historians give a much more nuanced impression than this - Benny Morris in "Rightous Victims" says that the Muslims long feared a violent take-over of the Wall - p.112 "the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions".
Morris doesn't mention any attacks on "individual Jews" on Aug 14th 1929 (and I don't see a reference for this). Rather, he infers that organised and/or mass violence was brought to the Wall (and for the first time?) by the Zionists, starting the following day with: "hundreds of Jews - some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons - demonstrated on the site". Benny Morris (a very, very long way from being a friend of the Palestinians!) says things like: "In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.[226 Porath, 1976] ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall".
I'm also very alarmed at statements like this "In October 1928, the Grand Mufti organised a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Wall. He ordered new construction next to and above the Wall, with bricks often falling on the worshippers below. The volume of the muezzin was turned up while the Jews were praying.[31]" being referenced to "The Case For Israel", a polemical work that, amongst other things, appears to justify torture and communal punishment. There seems no doubt that the construction work did interfere with worship - but we should be absolutely sure of our facts before claiming it was done provocatively to damage race relations. The Mufti, for all his faults, has too long been used as a propaganda bogeyman with the most absurd exaggeration of his influence. We reference the distinguished historian (who specialises somewhat in Israel) and convinced Zionist
Martin Gilbert - but only for the trivial statement "The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]". Again, alarm bells ring - where's his real scholarly input?
PR
talk 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations, this article is now at GA-class. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Even the most highly regarded Israeli historians give a much more nuanced impression than this - Benny Morris in "Rightous Victims" says that the Muslims long feared a violent take-over of the Wall - p.112 .....
PR wrote: The lead is seriously distorted - the statement "an important Jewish religious site located in the Old City of Jerusalem which is also of significance to Islam" is probably the reverse of the situation - 3/4s of what's now visible was put there by Muslims, some of it relatively recently.
According to the article, only the top 3 rows were added by a Muslim. The first 7 are Herodian, the next 4 were “added by Umayyads”. This means during that period, maybe by Jews? Even if it was done at the behest of a Muslim governor, it is doubtful that it was done to enhance the significance of the site. It was probably general maintenance, as layers of the same period are also found on the southern wall. The next 14 rows were added at the request of the Jew Monrefiore. Provide infomation which would change the wording to something stronger than "significance". Is it holy because a winged steed was teathered there? (NB. I read a hadith that said Buraq was tied to the Sakrah). I think the lead should give more weight to Judaism as it has gained the status of the holiest and most venerated Jewish site. Chesdovi ( talk) 01:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Will be starting review.
Pyrotec (
talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So far I read part of the article to the middle of British rule 1917 - 1948, so I've some way to go. So far the article appears to be of GA standard, but there are some minor problems that could be fixed without too much difficulty:
I now will continue the GAR. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
An interesting read. Overall, I consider that this article is of GA standard. It has a broad scope and is well referenced and illustrated; but there are a number of direct quotations in the article that are unreferenced. I'm putting the article On Hold to allow these, possibly rather minor defects, to be attended to.
Specific "problems":
Pyrotec ( talk) 19:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority of the 88 references in the Reference section are full references, but references 38, 39, 42 to 45, 47 and 49 are wikilinks to chapters in books or scriptures. Some wikilinks appear to be broken, or missing, e.g. Reference 49 leads here - Interpunct, which is not a valid reference; and there is no Kav Ha-yashar article for Ref 42 and 46. Could the Middot reference be fixed; one red-link is probably acceptable fora GA (no red-links would be better)? Pyrotec ( talk) 20:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This article should raise alarm bells on POV. For instance, the events of 1929 are treated in a seriously distorted fashion, the article currently says:
On August 14, 1929, after attacks on individual Jews praying at the Wall, 6,000 Jews demonstrated in Tel Aviv, shouting “The Wall is ours.” The next day, the Jewish fast of Tisha B'Av, 300 youths raised the Zionist flag and sang the Zionist anthem at the Wall.[30] The day after, on August 16, an organized mob of 2,000 Muslim Arabs descended on the Western Wall, injuring the beadle and burning prayer books, liturgical fixtures and notes of supplication. The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]
Even the most highly regarded Israeli historians give a much more nuanced impression than this - Benny Morris in "Rightous Victims" says that the Muslims long feared a violent take-over of the Wall - p.112 "the Palestinian delegation to Mecca during the hajj, or pilgrimage, of 1922 had declared: "the Holy Places are in great danger on account of the horrible Zionist aggressions".
Morris doesn't mention any attacks on "individual Jews" on Aug 14th 1929 (and I don't see a reference for this). Rather, he infers that organised and/or mass violence was brought to the Wall (and for the first time?) by the Zionists, starting the following day with: "hundreds of Jews - some of them extremist members of Betar, carrying batons - demonstrated on the site". Benny Morris (a very, very long way from being a friend of the Palestinians!) says things like: "In 1928 the Muslims sought British confirmation of their traditional rights at the Wall, after all, they owned the Wall and the adjacent passage where the Jews worshipped.[226 Porath, 1976] ... Right-wing Zionists began to demand Jewish control of the Wall".
I'm also very alarmed at statements like this "In October 1928, the Grand Mufti organised a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Wall. He ordered new construction next to and above the Wall, with bricks often falling on the worshippers below. The volume of the muezzin was turned up while the Jews were praying.[31]" being referenced to "The Case For Israel", a polemical work that, amongst other things, appears to justify torture and communal punishment. There seems no doubt that the construction work did interfere with worship - but we should be absolutely sure of our facts before claiming it was done provocatively to damage race relations. The Mufti, for all his faults, has too long been used as a propaganda bogeyman with the most absurd exaggeration of his influence. We reference the distinguished historian (who specialises somewhat in Israel) and convinced Zionist
Martin Gilbert - but only for the trivial statement "The rioting spread to the Jewish commercial area of town and was followed a few days later by the infamous Hebron massacre.[33]". Again, alarm bells ring - where's his real scholarly input?
PR
talk 16:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Congratulations, this article is now at GA-class. Pyrotec ( talk) 19:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Even the most highly regarded Israeli historians give a much more nuanced impression than this - Benny Morris in "Rightous Victims" says that the Muslims long feared a violent take-over of the Wall - p.112 .....
PR wrote: The lead is seriously distorted - the statement "an important Jewish religious site located in the Old City of Jerusalem which is also of significance to Islam" is probably the reverse of the situation - 3/4s of what's now visible was put there by Muslims, some of it relatively recently.
According to the article, only the top 3 rows were added by a Muslim. The first 7 are Herodian, the next 4 were “added by Umayyads”. This means during that period, maybe by Jews? Even if it was done at the behest of a Muslim governor, it is doubtful that it was done to enhance the significance of the site. It was probably general maintenance, as layers of the same period are also found on the southern wall. The next 14 rows were added at the request of the Jew Monrefiore. Provide infomation which would change the wording to something stronger than "significance". Is it holy because a winged steed was teathered there? (NB. I read a hadith that said Buraq was tied to the Sakrah). I think the lead should give more weight to Judaism as it has gained the status of the holiest and most venerated Jewish site. Chesdovi ( talk) 01:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)