Talk:Mausoleum of Abu Hurayra

Co-ordinates
The co-ordinates given here are not correct, I think. As given they indicate a spot on the Tel, where the village was, but according to this page, that structure is the minaret of the Ottoman mosque. The mausoleum (according to the website, and to Google Maps) is in the Ha-Sanhedrin Park over the road (at this location:31.8675°N, 34.7432°W: It could be refined a bit, but then for some reason the tomb indicator disappears altogether). Moonraker12 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * you are absolutely right. Here is proof via streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.8679687,34.7424863,3a,75y,115.62h,89.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCzSUZIaex5-2TtO3bMhavg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Mainspace?
Is this article getting posted any time soon? It looks fine to me; why was it deleted last summer? I only found this because I was thinking we needed an article on this place and was fixing to write it myself; but this is better than anything I'd have come up with. En avant, mes amis!. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Moonraker12, yeah, I should have worked on this, but it got lost among so many other things to do.... User:Oncenawhile moved it, a bit prematurely, IMO, to mainspace, together with  Yibna Bridge and    Jisr Jindas. I thought two articles were enough  to expand at the time, so this was moved back to the draft section. There are still lots of things missing from this article, though, the Conder and Kitchener stuff, and the Guérin stuff, just for starters.....  Huldra (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I have restructured the article to pull all the inscription-related information into one page, and added many more illustrations. Hope you approve of the amendments. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the reconstruction is absolutely great! Wonderful idea to have the text from Clermont-Ganneau, besides the translation! Im still reading the Taragan  articles...(Btw, feel free to work on User:Huldra/Nabi Bulus and User:Huldra/Nabi Kifl!)  Huldra (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * thanks! I just read the one Taragan article that I can access - it gives a lot of interesting context, but I couldn't see anything more to add that was directly descriptive of the tomb itself.
 * Shall we move it to the mainspace, and if so do you want to DYK it? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can send you the other Taragan article, if you want it? What I thought was interesting, was that Baibars apparently gave the architect a pretty free hand, except that Baibars wanted that middle arch, with the zig zag, to echo an arch in his great mosque in Cairo. This reminds me of what he did with Jisr Jindas: putting his personal mark upon the building, so to speak. I have tried to find a picture on commons of the Cairo arch, but has so far been unsuccessful. It would have been fun to have the two arches pictures side by side, ....something like we did with the lions, on Jisr Jindas. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. I have looked around, the best I can find is below. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two different set of arches, those on both sides have what I believe is called cushion Voussoir, while the one in the centre has the zig zag. The cushion Voussoir is used at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and before then, it was used at the Fatimid Bab al-Futuh, in Cairo. Taragan,2000, thinks that reusing these elements is a form of spolia by the victorious conquerer. Also, while unfortunately there is no picture on commons, the tomb itself is very clearly a Crusader sarcophagus. Huldra (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

any objection to getting this into the mainspace now? We can add more in due course. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , not at all, go ahead. Sorry my interest sort of fizzled out here....Huldra (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"one of the finest domed mausoleums in Palestine."
This quote needs a source. I couldn't find it in the sources I have. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It comes from Petersen, A Gazetteer of Buildings in Muslim Palestine, Part 1, p313. Zerotalk 12:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK?
Should we try for a DYK? When is the last date to nominate? Huldra (talk) 21:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * sure - I think we have about three hours left! Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What about: Did you know...that the Mausoleum of Abu Huraira has been called "one of the finest domed mausoleums in Palestine"? Huldra (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * how about “...that the ‘’’Mausoleum of Abu Huraira’’’, also known as the Tomb of Rabbi Gamaliel of Yavne, has been described as "one of the finest domed mausoleums in Palestine”?”
 * Might be too long though - I haven’t checked. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We could have it as Alt 1 and Alt 2, Huldra (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * perfect! Onceinawhile (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have nominated it, see Template:Did you know nominations/Mausoleum of Abu Huraira, I haven't reviewed another article for DYK, yet, though. I will try to do that tomorrow, unless you do it for me....? Huldra (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will also try to do the QPQ tomorrow. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment
More use should be made of the architectural description in Fischer and Taxel: Ancient Yavneh: Its History and Archaeology. The Bibliography should distinguish between sources used and not. "Maqām Abu Hureira

The elaborate Mamluk tomb structure of the Maqām of Abu Hureira (Fig. 31) stands northwest of the tell, at the same place Yavnehites used for burial at least as far back as the Roman period. Thus, it is relevant to question whether this was actually the ﬁnal resting place of the companion of the Prophet Mohammad, as tradition would have it, or whether this was just a convenient myth tagged on to an already-existing burial site.

The MaqŒm building is composed of a square tomb chamber (6.2 × 6.2 m) and an entrance hall (8.5 × 12 m). The domed tomb chamber contains an ashlar sarcophagus covered with carved marble slabs. There is a mihrab (prayer niche) on the southern wall. The interior of the entrance hall is divided by columns and arches into two arcades. There are six domes, ﬁve of which are 6 m high, and one, above the bay leading to the tomb, 7.8 m high. At the entrance to this hall are three arches, each 2 m wide and 4.2m high. The central arch is framed by a zigzag-patterned frieze, and the other two are framed by a cushion voussoir (Taragan 2000; 2005; Petersen 2001: 313−316). In the wall surrounding the building, on the lintel of the gate, is an Arabic inscription. It says that the MaqŒm’s riwāq, ‘porch’, was built by Khalīl Ibn Sawār, 260 the governor of Ramla, by order of Sultan Baybars, in 673 AH (1274 CE). Another inscription above the doorway of the tomb chamber says that the portal connecting the riwŒq and the tomb was built by al-Malik al-Ashraf Khalil, son of the Sultan Qala<un, in 692 AH (1292 CE). The building is located ca. 400 m west of the tell (probably the ancient core of the contemporary village), and the surrounding area served at least from the Medieval period until 1948 as one or more village cemeteries (Y. Levi, IAA Archives; Taragan 2000: 124). The location of the building and the Medieval pottery ﬁnds uncovered ca. 100 m to its west may indicate the size of the settlement of Yavneh at that period. There is no proof of a real continuity between the core of the village on the east and the area of the tomb, which may have been designed exclusively for burial purposes. In any case, at the end of the Ottoman period and during the British Mandate, the tomb area (west of the Gaza–Jaffa Road) remained vacant. Also during the Mamluk period, when the different parts of the mausoleum were erected, there was profuse secondary use made of Byzantine marble architectural elements, mainly columns and Corinthian capitals. The Arabic inscriptions, which commemorate the building projects of Baybars and of al-Ashraf Khalil at the site, were carved on older marble slabs."

Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Undue?
User:Shrike, when you add something like this, I thought it was customary to actually go to the talk page and argue your case, not just do a drive-by tagging.

As for mentioning "formerly belonging to the depopulated Palestinian village of Yibna" is giving it "undue weight", let me remind you that for the overwhelming period of time since that first construction text, in the 1200s, the mausoleum was located in Yibna.

Secondly, Petersen refers to the place as Yibna/Yubna, and only in parenthesis mention (Hb. Yavne). Under these conditions, I think it is rater preposterous of you to claim that mentioning Yibna in the lead is giving it "undue weight", on the contrary, we are reflecting the sources. Huldra (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I already explained in the edit summary hat it doesn't belong to the WP:LEAD please read the relevant policy not every fact that mentioned by WP:RS should be included in the lead--Shrike (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you cited WP:UNDUE: To quote it: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." (My bolding.) I have just shown that Petersen places this mausoleum in Yibna. Petersen is WP:RS. That everything mention by WP:RS should not be in the lead, is correct. But here we have that the WP:RS at  least as often mention Yibna as Yavne, as the place for this mausoleum. So how can you justify only mentioning one of these names in the lead? Huldra (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Huldra on this. Zerotalk 00:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So what if it often mentioned it doesn't mean it belongs to the lead.--Shrike (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LEAD says that the lead "should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." You want the opposite: to censor away the fact that for most of its existence, the Mausoleum was located in a place called Yibna. If you don't have any other argument than "I_dont_like_it", (and so far you haven made any) then in the lead it goes, Huldra (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also agree with Huldra. Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok I will start an WP:RFC--Shrike (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC about Yibna

 * 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.

Where should be the mentioning of Yibna village in the lead or in the body of the article?--Shrike (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey

 * The mausoleum is a remnant of Yibna (though the sarcophagus may be earlier). I think it should be in the lead in this way (as a remnant of Yibna) and not just as formerly belonging to Yibna. Zerotalk 11:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In its current form it doesn't seem appropriate (it appear to be just levered in in classic I/P point-scoring fashion). However, it could be fitted into the second paragraph in the lead (e.g. "Since the 12th century, when the area was known as Yibna, it has been known as a tomb". It's also a shame that the grammatical errors in the first few sentences have not been noticed or corrected during this dispute. Number   5  7  11:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In Body or omit all together. Undue emphasis on former Ottoman name of a settlement (Yavne) with roots extending much father back.Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In lead - see section above. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In lead, pr WP:LEAD, which says that the lead "should summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The main part of this mausoleum was built when it was part of Mamluk  Yibna, and for the next 600-700 years, through the  Ottoman and  British Mandate eras,  it was also called  Yibna, before it became Yavne some 69 years ago. (The sarcophagus was probably made when it had its Crusader name: Ibelin).  Huldra (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yibna is the Arabic name for Yavne - which was the predating settlement name prior to the Arab conquest. The name remained in an Arabic transliteration and then reverted to a transliteration of the Hebrew following 48. This isn't a case of a separate locality with a separate name - but a continuous locality that retained the same name (with variations in Latin (more significant), Arabic (mostly the same)). Frankly, Yibna might not pass AfD or a merger discussion if it were nominated - it would be a hard argument to make that settlement during the Ottoman period should be spun out to a separate article. This is a distinct situation from the case of a village, with a different name, that was destroyed and then incorporated into some other locale (which would pass as an abandoned location, still possibly notable independently).Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Except that the mausoleum didn't exist when it was still called Yavne. So you are making a case on an irrelevancy. Zerotalk 08:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz, twice now you have referred to Yibna as "former Ottoman name of a settlement" /"settlement during the Ottoman period".....Sigh, you do realise that this Mausoleum was built in the Mamluk era, don't you?....you know, the guys who were there before the Ottomans? Huldra (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are few or no actual Ottoman names in Palestine anyway. Zerotalk 01:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yibna is not just ‘’another name’’ for Yavne. your description is incorrect. This map shows clearly where the old town of Yibna was. It is southeast of Highway 42 and northeast of the recently-constructed Yavne East Railway Station. The land of Yibna remains desolate today. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * - see google maps - - the Mausoleum itself is in a very small park surrounded by buildings (west of 42) - it is outside of the built up area of the Ottoman era village, which can be seen here -  (switch between PEF and city view) - the built up area in 1880, which is a bit away from the mausoleum (which is per google-maps is on the other side of road 42, some 200 meters west of the road and some roughly 400m away from PEF-1880 Yebneh) is currently in a municipal park between the train-tracks and road 42 - there is some build-up north of the park and east of the road (Ramot Ben Zvi), and the Yavneh train station is just south of the park. The name Yibna itself is clearly a variation of Yavenh (And in PEF-1880 - Yebneh).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Icewhiz. The Amudanan link is very useful - it’s great to see it so clearly.
 * On that basis, it seems to me that we shouldn’t say that it was “in” Yibna, but instead that it “belonged” to Yibna or similar. So we would say that today the mausoleum is in Yavne but previously it belonged to Yibna. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree. Fischer and Taxel (see above) describe the situation clearly, as it was before WW2. Like most places, the cemetary or burial area (now a "municipal park"!) was on the edge of the settlement, with a little separation. That's still "in" in my book. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The distance between the mausoleum and the built-up area of Yibna during the mandate period was 200 meters. I measured it on a hi-res map.  And there is no reason to restrict "Yibna" to its built-up area either. So "in Yibna" is perfectly correct.  The mausoleum was one of the buildings of Yibna from the time of its construction to 1948 and there is no reason to not say so. Zerotalk 15:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

*In lead Besides the excellent points mentioned above (leads should contain an acknowledgment of prominent controversies), it is important to name Yibna explicitly because Wikipedia's Muslim readers may be only familiar with the name Yibna and not its Hebrew name. Including both names would prevent confusion, especially considering how recent the name change was. Wikipedia should always try to be inclusive in its outlook, and it would be unfortunate if editors tried to use Wikipedia to erase the history of a certain people or culture. User:Gablescar blocked sock--Shrike (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In lead per discussion above establishing that they are different places, rather than two names for the same place. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Lead per policy. L3X1  (distænt write)  00:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
User:Zero0000 What is your proposed wording?--Shrike (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.

Name of site
- The site is named on maps, on the building itself (the big Magan Davids are hard to miss), and in official Israeli state law it is a designated official holy site and is under the purview of the Ministry of Religious Services (as you may see here - .pdf] and in copious other such publications). This isn't a case of individuals "adopting" the site, but rather a state enterprise (which is more widely described here - ). While we may view with suspicion such attributions (just as Abu Hurairah is conflicting both in construction date (hundreds of years too late) and other sources (Medina burial)... Which is not unique - to such sites throughout the world) - it is not our place to judge the merits of other people's holy places. It is clearly a designated holy place to Jews - and this should be reflected in naming.Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I don't read Hebrew, so giving me references in Hebrew is a waste of time...But I have read, say, Meron Benvenisti's Sacred Landscape: Buried History of the Holy Land Since 1948, and he writes a lot about the taking over of former Muslim holy places in Israel.
 * Secondly, this article isn't about the place, it is about the building, and the construction texts clearly states that it was built in various stages during the Mamluk period. I don't understand why this is so difficult to understand? It might have been a holy place since the Canaanite period, for all we know; that doesn't change the fact that the building is from the Mamluk period. We should perhaps mention that neither Abu Huraira nor Gamaliel is likely to have been buried there...it is in one of the sources (can't recall which, at the moment) Huldra (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the building construction date - it is quite obvious neither is likely (600 years for one, 1200 for the other). Abu Huraira is also known to be buried in Medina. It is however quite likely Gamaliel is buried near this location. Regarding the building - it is an officially designated Jewish place, has an official name, and serves a day to day use as a synagogue and banquet hall.Icewhiz (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I read in Gamaliel II, it sounds as if he would have been outraged to have a grand building associated with him? Also, that Israel officially designate it to be a Jewish place doesn't change the construction date, or purpose. Huldra (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Grave worship is definitely a complex issue in Judaism (which many abhor and avoid, while also forming a "cultural divide" between different Israeli Jewish groups). However, the purpose of the building, at present and for the past some 70 years, is to serve as a synagogue, banquet hall, and an important person's grave designation - all this being well funded by state funds via a government ministry which pays for upkeep of the building (and obviously there is also quite a bit of upkeep in the surrounding single-purpose HaSanhedrin park. We typically state the recent use of a building prior to historic use.Icewhiz (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would suppose that Israel also pays upkeep of, say Jisr Jindas and Yibna Bridge ...and they no longer serve for transport of the Mamluk army. They are still Mamluk bridges, though, even if they have served as Israeli bridges since 1948...Huldra (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Sephardic Jews
This should be removed for two reasons. First because it is also used today by non Sephardic Jews (and we would have to clarify the text between 48 and subsequent years). Second, in modern Israel/Jewish political correctness (and I am not generally PC...), calling out Sephardic Jewish habits appears quite bigoted to a contemporary reader - so if it is just trivia it is best to leave out.Icewhiz (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's what the source says, and neither trivia nor bigoted. If the timeframe needs clarifying, ok. Johnbod (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is something that would appear bigoted to a present day Israeli/Jewish reader. I agree it was not intended to appear so, and nor do I petsonally agree with this PCness. This is not as bad as repeating a source using the N word in English (which many past sources do), but still possibly jarring for some readers.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC) missing not.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no reason to go into that much detail when just using Jews would suffice, and I caution Johnbod to be more civil in the edit summaries. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Using just "Jews" would not suffice because that is not what the source says. The N word has no place in this discussion, even as a comparison, because Sephardic Jew is in no way treated as an ethnic slur; the selective POV is the only thing I find jarring from this discussion.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * are Sephardic Jews not Jews? There is no reason to go into finer detail especially considering that it wasnt the point anyway and was just used as identifying, and that now it's irrelevant. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling out Sephardic Jews and particularly their religious practices regarding graves is highly sensitive.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is just being precious. Follow what the source says. Zerotalk 13:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about racial slurs or anything like that. My point is that after 1948 Jews came to pray there. It's irrelevant that they were Sephardim and if we leave it as Sephardic, we would have to edit it and say that now it's not just Sephardic Jews. The source was just identifying which groups of Jews were the first to come pray, but it's irrelevant to the overall article that the first Jews in 1948 were Sephardic and not Ashkenazic or American or whatever. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant that they were Sephardim, since they were north African, and shared the pan north African-Arab culture of reverence for saints. Constantly melting down the rich diversity of Jewish peoples and cultures into one abstract identity is an abiding problem here, and in the cheaper literature, all of it nationalist. The history of Hebron in recent times is incomprehensible unless one makes a clear distinction between Sephardim and Ashkenazim, for example. If one dislikes Sephardim, one can link it using the phrase, in the sources, 'The involvement of Jewish immigrants from Arab countries, many of them from North Africa,' (p.9). I.e.
 * "The involvement of Jewish immigrants from Arab countries, many of them from North Africa.'"
 * That is a compromise. This is an English, global encyclopedic, and no one reading it is going to have bizarre prejudices flame up on encountering the word Sephardim.Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, it's irrelevant to say what types of Jews unless you then clarify that today it's not just Sephardim. If you want to say that Sephardic Jews popularized the site, that is fine, but it also needs to mention that it's not just Sephardic Jews who visit the site. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia one must follow sources, and the source specifies they were immigrants from Arab and north African countries who developed this attachment. This habit of repeating an argument saying a source's information is 'irrelevant' (the same argument was made at Breaking the Silence) suggests to me editors here consider their personal likes and dislikes decisive for content. They aren't and you should know that. This is particularly true of Gideon Bar's article, since where the profile is relevant in the development of a new culture in post-48 he explicitly states it. Thus also at Haifa, he states;
 * "The evolution of the place during the 1950s was the outcome of endeav- ors made by the local Jewish inhabitants of the city, mainly its Sephardic community, together with the institutional activity of the MRA.' (p.12)"
 * You don't 'clarify 'it's not just Sephardim' if the source doesn't say that. This is elementary wiki practice, SJ.Nishidani (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz's remark above in particular
 * "Grave worship is definitely a complex issue in Judaism (which many abhor and avoid, while also forming a 'cultural divide' between different Israeli Jewish groups"
 * shows why you cannot elide 'north African Jews' and write Jews, since many Jews abhor what many other Jews think important. Overwrite 'Jews' and that important distinction is lost.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So "mainly its Sephardic" means all Sephardic? As I said, if you want to say that the Sephardim popularized the pilgrimage after 1948, that is fine, but it also needs to mention that the site is not just visited by Sephardim, since it isn't. Not everything needs you to dig in and post walls of text when people here just want to clarify for people. Not everyone in the world has access to journals and can decipher things. Reading the article as you have it now implies that only Sephardim visit the site and that is just not true. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Again this is an elementary oversight. It is not what 'I want to say'. It is a matter of faithfully reporting what a source says. Can you understand that?Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, so let's go by the source as you pasted: "The evolution of the place during the 1950s was the outcome of endeav- ors made by the local Jewish inhabitants of the city, mainly its Sephardic community, together with the institutional activity of the MRA.' (p.12)" That doesn't say what you wrote in the article that it was only the Sephardic Jews. The source says it was local inhabitants, mainly Sephardim (not only) and the MRA. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gawd! For the nth time, SJ, please (a) try to take some time out to actually read the sources and (b) then read what editors who do read them say about them. You so far have evidently done neither. By way of clarification, I cited an analogy with the Yavne -Sephardim nexus in Gideon Bar's article by noting what he says about Haifa and the Sephardim. To get the point over, I made an analogy to illustrate why stating Sephardim revived the Yavne cult was important (because Bar thinks being specific about them in Haifa, or in Yavne, important). What do you do? Instead of grasping the analogy from within Bar's own article, you now tell me we should rewrite what he says about the Sephardim at Yavne by using the language  he used concerning the Sephardim at Haifa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! C'mon. If you are not interesting in actually concentrating on issues, just kindly step away from the article.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Official Jewish Shrine
This needs to be rewritten. There is no such thing as an Official Jewish Shrine. It's now controlled and funded by the Israeli government and perhaps that's what is meant? Sir Joseph (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is an official holy site (מקום קדוש) - declared as such by the Israeli ministry of religion, and funded. There aren't all that many of these (most of the various graves are not - just the "major" ones).Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then say that in the article. The Israeli Ministry of Religion doesn't speak for Judaism, and there is no "Official Jewish Shrine." If you google that, the only result is this article Sir Joseph (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Official in the snese of Israeli gvmt designated.Icewhiz (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, but that doesn't mean Official Jewish Shrine. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Official Israeli gvmt Jewish holy site. I agree (as any 10 Jews will invariably have 11 opinions) that this is not official per all Jews. The status here is similar to other recognized tombs - e.g. Simeon bar Yochai's tomb.Icewhiz (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I made some changes to the wording which specifies that Israel made the change and is not an "official Jewish shrine." Sir Joseph (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

denial of Jewish History
- several RS (e.g. Bar, Taragan) - which were cited next to this sentence - claim this site is attested to in Jewish literature as the Rabban Gamliel tomb since the 13 century. Please self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What the fuck do you mean by that moronically offensive suggestion, when all I was doing was adjusting the text to fit the precise meaning of the ('Jewish' if you must insist) sourcing, used in editing an article?


 * You’re referring to this which took out the ’since’ in ‘frequent visits to the tomb are recorded in the literature of medieval Jewish pilgrims since the late 13th century.’ because the source cited does not have ‘since’ or what that implies, but specifies medieval.
 * "These settlers adopted the adjacent tomb and reused it as the tomb of Raban Gamliel. As in many similar cases throughout the State of Israel, the tradition that connected Jews to Yavneh was not unfounded, and was based mainly on the literature of Medieval Jewish pilgrims, who frequently mentioned visits to that place.Gideon Bar p.9"
 * Hana Taragon wrote:
 * (b) A third source, Ele Masa'oth - the itinerary of a Jewish pilgrim, written sometime between 1266 and 1291,1° sheds light on another aspect of the building - its dome:p.122. If you go to the footnotes, you find a suspicion Ele Masa'oth may have depended on another work, and that:-

"It is thus not surprising that Yavne remained associated in the minds of pilgrims with Rabbi Gamliel- who was indeed probably buried there - albeit not necessarily with Rabbi Gamliel 11.''' p,.139 n.11"
 * She is, in the context of that note, referring to medieval pilgrim literature.
 * In short, our text now closely paraphrases Gideon Bar, who has no mention of 'since medieval times to modern times.' To the contrary he explicitly says it was no longer a place of pilgrimage until post-1948.  Hana Taragon also provides nothing for that 'since'.
 * So try and desist from making the kind of deeply offensive 'guess' about my putative anti-Semitic denialism of the kind we have in your heading. My job, like any editor, is to stick to the historical record, and not tamper it by WP:OR for some misbegotten belief that manipulating texts helps a national cause, as is almost normal however in this area.Nishidani (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for your extreme uncivil behavior? Try to take a deep breath before posting if something gets you this heated. As to your claim, the sources do state that Jews did go there in the middle ages so why would that be removed?Sir Joseph (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That was an extreme WP:NPA attack on my putative motives', identical to your remark on my page some time back that I shouldn't edit Palestinian articles but move out of this area because you are convinced I have a problem with 'Jews'. You don't find one kind of offensiveness problematical, but blather on about civility when I tell the insulter nin no uncertain terms to pull up their socks.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No such thing has been removed from the article, and Nishidani has not proposed its removal. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That makes (a) Icewhiz ignoring the footnote from Gideon Bar and accusing me of denying 'Jewish history' (code language for having a problem with Jews, i.e., antisemitism) when, unlike him, I actually read the source and (b) SJ accusing me likewise of removing a passage I never touched. The problem, gentlemen, is to read the bloody texts, and understand them before jumping to inanely offensive conclusions about 'motivations'. Jewish history is what scholars, most of them Jewish thank God, tell us about Jews and their history. It is not some vague impression swabbed up from one's high school memories of the history curriculum. They are two, utterly different worlds, and to think that one can edit Wikipedia without reading the scholarship, while relying on one's impressions, is, need it be said, patently absurd.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are we attacking Nishidani for being the only one to actually read the sources (accurately)? This behavior has become more and more common, and is driving the good editors away. I am not saying you, Icewhiz and Sir Joseph, have not shown signs of being "good editors" but accusing another of denying Jewish history, when all they are doing is presenting it accurately, is entirely inappropriate.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * When did Icewhiz personalize the discussion? He never made a comment that I can see about Nishidani's motive. He just created this entry that there is a denial of Jewish sources, according to him. He didn't mention any motive on anyone's part. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , seriously? He wrote a header called "denial of Jewish History" and pinged Nishidani. Apparently, Nish's true motive is to "deny" Jewish history by accurately representing sources. How is that not personalized?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) We're back to the ABCS of reading. The header is:'denial of Jewish History' and the illustrative link is to my edit, which he asked me to revert. He explicitly suggests that in hewing to the academic source, rather than distorting it as some prior editor had, I was 'denying Jewish history'. It would be astonishing to me that anyone could imagine that fidelity to scholarly language could be construed as an attack on Jews and their history, were I not an old hand in the I/P area, where anything goes, and what mostly goes (out) is intelligent editing strictly according to the best wiki protocols. If you can't see it, stiff cheddar. Now drop it, so editors here can focus on sources and texts.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * He pinged Nishidani because he made those edits. He did not say anything about Nishidani or his motives. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Learn to read. He called my edit a 'denial of Jewish history' which means I am a denialist regarding things Jewish, tantamount, (/I've been reading this stuff for a decade and a half) to the insinuation, which you apparently share, that I am anti-Semitic ('have a problem with Jews' in your euphemism). Drop it. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

denial of Jewish History, break 2
Ok, can someone please explain to me exactly why we have a POV label on this article? Huldra (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure about the POV label too. As this article is due for Main Page in the coming days, I would like to obtain consensus to remove the maintenance tag, as the article would need to be pulled/pushed back otherwise. I am not 100% sure about what the dispute is, from my reading, it appears to be about the claim of how the mausoleum became an officially designated Jewish shrine and the disagreement over details in the section of Mausoleum of Abu Huraira, in which I fail to see any concerns. Alex Shih (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the official Jewish shrine is just something that has to get rewritten. I did not put the tag up. I just put the dubious tag on that claim. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * there is no reason and the tag is pure vandalism. The only "purpose" this discussion holds is to accuse Nish of being uncivil TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that you stalk. I was wondering how you got to this article. Again, telling someone to fuck off is uncivil. Nishidani has a habit of being uncivil to editors he disagrees with and it needs to stop. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Through the DYK, a venue I regularly contribute to. Your "contributions" do not interest me enough to "stalk" you but finding those two diffs took a few seconds. "Stalk" is not the best term to use. I would be more concerned by an apparent inability to read sources or realize who is actually being uncivil.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The tag was in response to editing today that pared down the Jewish history of the site in the lede. Specifically the sourced statement that this site was known to Jews since the 13th century was removed. This is a sourced stmt - it is sourced in the body as well as in the lede. I will note that this article to begin with was in a very borderline POV situation (site name and Jewish history (we started out here, back in September, with a denial of any pre 1948 Jewish history)). The lede should reflect the body, and if the site was known since at least 1266-1291 to Jews, then it should be stated so clearly in the lede. The lede should not over emphasize Muslim aspects of this site.Icewhiz (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Icwhiz, you make it sound as if this was important for Jews in the 14th, 15th, 16th etc century...and I have not seen any source for that. Some places were important for Jews during that time, say Meron, Israel. And known to Jews, well I assume Istanbul was also known to Jews, that really doesn't say anything. As I stated on my talk page:  to my knowledge this was not a Jewish pilgrim site after Baibars first construction, that is 673 AH (1274 CE), until 1948. If you have sources saying otherwise, please tell. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have frequent recorded Jewish medieval pilgramage visits since the 13 century. As for the amount of visits in the late Ottoman periods the sources are silent - we do not know (nor, I would add, do we know of exact Muslim use in each decade or century). Nor do we know if there was an earlier Jewish tradition regarding the site - the first known record is 13th century - earlier we do not know if they knew/attributed anything to the site, nor do we know what made Baibars construct here.Icewhiz (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please note some of those frequent pilgrimage visits? Who were they? Huldra (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I am relying on Taragan here. Have not read the PRIMARY accounts in this instance. Typically these are travel logs to the holy land that were preserved (note this is the pre print era, quite a bit was not preserved, though Jewish Genizahot have led to some modern recoveries).Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I follow Huldra's page, noted that a DYK article was mentioned there, and read over the page, and made some elementary improvments basically in style and grammar. I then checked several sources and noted anomalies.One was a WP:OR violation. It consisted in the introduction of the words 'since the late 13th century' implying continued Jewish interest for several centuries down to the present, which the same source denies. The source mentions the medieval period,and says it was not an object of Jewish pilgrimage until post-1948. Correcting the text according to the source given has led to the extreme and personalised protests of both Icewhiz and Sir Josephand with Shrike as usual doing the reverting. As I documented above, neither had read the source in question. Both keep repeating the idea that this has been an object of pilgrimage since the 13th century, despite it being shown no such source has been produced to date.
 * This irrational series of late objections to a simple set of corrective edits, readily verifiable, lends itself to giving the impression some editors don't want this to pass to the DYK, on the eve of its appearance. I can think of no other explanation for the bizarre remarks made above, by editors who have demonstrably not read the sources while reproving someone who had taken the (minimal) trouble. The tag should be dropped as a piece of shabby gaming of the DYK process. I should apologize to Huldra, our finest I/P editor in terms of content and productivity, and withheld my corrections for a few days, because I forgot that any attempt I make to help out is read as some devious antisemitic assault on the 'truth', and treated as such. Had I remembered that, this imbroglio might not have imperilled her work and the recognition it deserves.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been rereading the two Taragan papers I have. She mention one Jewish traveller in the 13th century..nothing after that. What is clear, though, is that this article have a massive under reporting of the Muslim history, especially (as Taragan tells it), this place is influenced by Baibars main mosque in Cairo. Or, as Taragan puts it: "In conclusion, it may be said that the great mosque in Cairo, which "incorporated" all the aspirations of its patron, was "quoted" in the tomb of Abu Hurayra in Yavne. Whoever passes by or enters it is confronted not only with the builder, but also with the victory he embodies." To repeat: I see NO proof of this place having any significance for Jews between the 13th century and 1948. If anyone has any proof of that: please tell. Huldra (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Since no one has demonstrated a purpose for the tag, it should be removed. Any renewed efforts to reinsert it should be considered as acts of vandalism and of gaming the DYK process. I would remove it myself but that risks breaching 3RR; needless to say, at least one editor here would relish the opportunity to report me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * AGF. The sole reason this tag has been introduced is removal of sourced information from the lede regarding Jewish documentation of this Jewish holly site - that is the sole objection here.Icewhiz (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an admission, Icewhiz, that the tag should be removed since it has been repeatedly shown that no sourced information was removed. What was removed was WP:OR not in the available sources on the page at the time I removed them. It is also evidence that neither you nor Sir Joseph read the sources, nor my notes on this while objecting to the 'removal' of this unsourced stuff.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I second that. It is pointless other than being of clear cunctatorial intent to shaft the DYK process. Huldra, the situation is even worse for the Yavne article, of which this article is a subset. There is a magificent article on it by Fischer and Taxel, ignored or unused, simply because, one suspects, most of the history they document is pagan, Samaritan,Muslim, Christian. Why so many editors waste our time over piddling POV-empowered reverts and challenges on trivia and refuse to add an iota of information concerning the other sides, Christian, Arab, pagan, of Palestine's multimillenial civilisations, while arguing that only Jewish heritage is important, is beyond me. Nishidani (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, as I noted here, I believe Shrike was in violation of the rules, when he reintroduced the tag, if we are to interpret them according to Version 2 (which, btw, both Icewhiz and Sir Joseph supported.) Are you familiar with the saying: cutting off your nose to spite your face? Huldra (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, but I prefer the more brutal variant I once heard: cutten off ya cock ta spite ya missus.G'nite Nishidani (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fischer & Taxel actually do not discuss previous use of the tomb site (which is a bit away from the tell - some 500m - which is discussed) - they do state - "there was profuse secondary use made of Byzantine marble architectural elements, mainly columns and Corinthian capitals" - but do not document previous use (which is quite probable - you don't erect a tomb with an improbable namesake (Abu Huraira is known to be buried in Al-Baqi' in Medina).Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is to no purpose. The total landscape of Israel/Palestine is full of mythological bullshit, and reinventions of the past- it is one of the reasons why the place has become so irredeemable stupid, and a cynosure for nitwits. This is true of Jewish as it is of Islamic and Christian sites. Joseph wasn't buried in Nablus, nor Rachel outside Bethlehem, nor  Jesse and Ruth at Tel Rumeida. Abraham never brought land off the Hittites, and  Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, are no more 'real' than Achilles, and are not buried at the Cave of the Psatriarchs anymore than Homer's Achilles was buried at the Achilleion. Everybody knows this save for religious caterpillers. So whether Muhammad flew to heaven on Buraq from Al Aqsa, or Abu Huraira was buried in Yavne or Medina is wholly irrelevant. You seem to think there is something embarrassing about the Arab fairy tales, and everything is hunky-dory with the parallel Hebrew fairy tales. Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly myths are not lacking, however we should cover said myths in relation to coverage. As this is a present day Jewish site, with a developed history/mytholodgy - this should be covered. If at all we are giving over emphasis to the Muslim strata in relation to the Jewish and pre Muslims stratas.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources state that Yavne lost its significance for Jews in the 2nd century CE., and thereafter became predominantly Samaritan, then Christian Byzantine, then Islamic, with a brief period of Crusader incursion, and then Muslim/Ottoman until 1948. 1800 years during which few or no Jews were present. In 1950 an Ashkenazi was surprised to learn than 'Oriental' Jews were becoming attached to the site because of legends about saints, 67 years ago. Before that period, Yavne was a pagan township, and remained in good part such even after the Hasmonean conquest. So you have, before Gamiliel, two thousand years from ther Bronze Age onwards, with a Jewish community established only after its conquest, late, by the Maccabees. For 4,000 years you are talking of 2 and a half centuries of a notable Jewish presence. Nishidani (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not go into OR over Yavneh demographics. Regarding this particular site we have Jewish sources from the 13th century. If you have sources for pre-Islamic usage of this site - add them (from what I saw up to now it is highly probable there was something (e.g Fischer states so) - but nothing definite on what).Icewhiz (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We have, so far, not 'Jewish sources from the 13th century', but one Jewish source from the late 13th. century, the anonymous work Ele Masa'oth, which, at least one scholar, Prawer, suspects was in good part a rewrite of things in the Tofz'oth Eretz Israel. We do have Ishtori Haparchi, some decades later admiring Baybars' construction as if the Islamic builders raised that mausoleum to honour the memory of a Gamaliel 11 of whom they probably knew nothing, as little as Haparchi knew about Abu Huraira. This, without any further annotations, is what our sources say to justify 'mentioned frequently in accounts by medieval Jewish pilgrims.' They may be right, but they produce no evidence for this statement. We, as the wiki rules require, follow that expression. Anyone with an historical training or curiosity, will want to dig deeper to see on what basis that, apparently, slipshod generalization we are obliged to paraphrase, rests.
 * Having said that, my point is not to 'get at' or 'deny' Jewish history. I happen to be antinationalist to my marrow, regard any discourse on ethnic 'we-ness' as the farcical jargon of patriotic ideologues who like Lopakhin in Chekhov's Cherry Orchard, would bulldoze a variegated forest of intricately diversified ecological niches for what value the timber will yield, pulping it for a market that wants just one kind of furniture. Israeli scholarship, as opposed to Israeli textbooks, is thoroughly familiar with the mosaic of cultures resident in the land's historical landscape. Wikipedian editors on an I/P mission to 'defend Israel' should take some trouble to familiarize themselves with its richness, and try and learn that the history of Jews in Palestine is just one of many complex narratives, and that you can't get anywhere trying to do with wiki rewriting more or less what was done after 1948, systematically erasing traces of the deep non-Jewish presence in that country. The effect is only to drown a fascinating polyphony in an intensely boring monody.Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious you're so dismissive about 'religious fairy tales' and yet spend precious moments of your single, ephemeral, life detailing the minutia of a religious site. And people think God doesn't have a sense of humor... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.105.109 (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tag
I removed it, because the matter has been discussed already. POV tags are intended to identify a potential problem and encourage discussion, not to protest against consensus that went against an editor. Every consensus debate has another side to it; if the minority side put tags every time, then every article would be tagged. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This has not been discussed - walls of text by some editors is not a discussion. Consensus has not been established - several editors have objected to this removal from the lede. If there is continued insistence to remove the sourced statement that this has been known since the 13th century to Jews AND that frequent visits were recorded - I will open a RfC. Downplaying the Jewish significance of a designated Jewish holy site is a POV issue.Icewhiz (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


 * What I see in the sources provided is reliable sourcing that the site was visited by Jewish pilgrims in the medieval period, and then nothing is sourced after that until 1948 (including a reliable source that there was little or no pilgrimage in the decades preceding 1948). No visits have been sourced for the entire Ottoman period as far as I can see. From this, wording equivalent to "from the medieval period until now" is a distortion of the sources and cannot be accepted. If I have missed a source, feel free to enlighten me. Zerotalk 07:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've returned the information (of this being a known Jewish site in the 13th century), without the "since" - as we do not have sources covering the Ottoman period (we don't know if this was or was not visited).Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * yet here you said "this site is attested to in Jewish literature as the Rabban Gamliel tomb since the 13 century", and claimed Nish was denying Jewish history for removing "since" from the very beginning! Your original tagging was egregious and wasted the time of several editors. It would only be appropriate if you apologized to Nish but I do not anticipate such a gesture.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I was protesting the removal of the 13th century. I conceded the point on "since" (as it requires continuous sourcing - though it is probable that if it was known in the medieval period it was known later as well. Note we have not sourced continuous Muslim use either).Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Overegging the pud to obtain the eyesore of reduplicated text in the lede
We had: "Known to Jews as the Tomb of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavne, frequent visits to the tomb are recorded in the literature of medieval Jewish pilgrims." Icewhiz rewrote this thus: "The tomb is known to Jews as the Tomb of Rabban Gamaliel of Yavne, the first Nasi of the Sanhedrin after the fall of the Second Temple. The site is described as Rabban Gamaliel's tomb, used as a Muslim prayer house, in a Herbew travel guide dated to between 1266 to 1291, and was frequently visited by Jewish medieval pilgrims"

I'll ignore the illiteracy of Herbew, but, as one can see in the bolding, we now have an utter eyesore of reduplicated text in a lead format that insists on laconic synthesis. The detail added, 'The site is described as Rabban Gamaliel's tomb, used as a Muslim prayer house, in a Herbew travel guide dated to between 1266 to 1291,' with its useless bibliographic data on the estimated dating of an obscure text, is utterly inappropriate and presumably stands there for the implication that Rabban Gamaliel's tomb was taken over for Muslims at prayer. There are a hundred things one might add here, such that the site perhaps was built for Islamic pilgrimage (Taragon), balancing Jewish pilgrimage per NPOV; This whole area of 1,600 sq. metres was a Byzantine, then Islamic cemetary, and no historical record links the specific site of the Muslim structure with some remnant of Gamaliel's burial place here, rather than in the rest of the cemetery, etc. In any case, the reduplication is totally inept, as is the POV wadding.Nishidani (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

(b) 'Gamaliel of Yavne, the first Nasi of the Sanhedrin after the fall of the Second Temple.' This was copied verbatim from the body of the article, creating in the lead once more a reduplication. Leads are supposed to synthesize the body of the article, among other things, and not be dumping grounds for unaltered stuff lifted from the article's subsections.


 * Pared down.Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. It's totally awkward still and I would appreciate it if you did some deep research on the spelling of the word 'Hebrew.' which is not as you wrote, spelled Herbew. You read the above, presumably, and ignored the advice on how to spell it. Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL... WOW. Just, wow. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Minority name
Why is the fringe minority foreign name for the tomb used as the name for this article rather than the dominant indigenous Jewish name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B05E:E8C1:78AC:47C:8D19:906A (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it is a Muslim monument, not Jewish, and Arabs have been a part of the landscape and demography of Palestine since at least the 6trh century B.C,E.Nishidani (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen such a bald-faced lie on Wikipedia before. In ancient times this city was populated by Jews like it is today. Jews are the indigenous people, not the Arabs who didn't arrive until the seventh century A.D./CE. You really know nothing about Jewish history other than the lies your imam brainwashed you with, do you? People like you need to stay away from Jewish articles and stop engaging in cultural genocide and appropriation of Jewish history. This is the tomb of Rabban Gamaliel because Jews say so, and Jews are both the majority and the indigenous population of Israel. The Arab opinion is WP:FRINGE because they are a tiny foreign minority, as well as anti-Semitic liars of epic proportions. Abu Hurairah is buried in Medina, not Israel. Even most Arab acknowledge this fact. It's standard Pally Arab propaganda. This place has been a Jewish burial ground for centuries long before the Arab Muslims defiled it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.100.114 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Regardless of history, the signs on the way, in the park, and on the door are reflected in contemporary maps, e.g. Google Maps, is Rabban Gamliel tomb.[[User:Icewhiz|Icewhiz] (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Who built it
The article offers nothing about the age and builder of the maqam. Are there no sources? All the other discussions here would have to benefit from it. It still wouldn't exclude one religion taking over a holy site from another, which is - as we can see here too, in 48, or on the nearby tell with the church-turned-mosque - rather the rule than the exception, sometimes repeatedly at the same spot. Arminden (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, there was something there, but incomplete and only in the lead, not in the history section where I looked for it. Worked on it a bit. Arminden (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)