Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 2

POV source
This seems like a POV source. It should be included for the sake of including the Israeli/Jewish POV, but it shouldn't be treated as fact, and most certainly should not be used to present the Palestinian POV.VR talk  01:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs is not a reliable source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

How is that biased and unreliable? It appears to be objective and accurate. On the other hand, reference #48, http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-slams-israel-over-designating-heritage-sites-1.263737, does not seem reliable. Haaretz is a highly biased news site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirkand555 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking around the site we can see many articles dedicated to defending Israel, and many anti-Hezbollah, anti-Iran, anti-Palestinian articles. The center is also run by Dore Gold who is the former Israeli ambassador to the UN, so its position is clear. The articles can only be used as a source for the personal opinions of the authors. Not as facts. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What you have described sounds like a neutral site, since all of those views are normal and mainstream. Furthermore, how does this even affect facts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirkand555 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

JCPA is an advocacy group, and their comments can be included if attributed, but not when they conflict with actual third-party secondary reliable sources like The Guardian.  nableezy  - 15:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Guardian vs. JCPA belies the crux of the matter. The Guardian piece was written by a generally unnotable newspaper reporter and the JCPA was written by a noted Middle East columnist, author of several books on the Middle East, who was a staff writer for the Haaretz for over twenty years. More importantly, the Guardian and JCPA do not contradict each other in any way. Thus it is incorrect to remove the JCPA-sourced vital inforomation "in exchange" for the Guardian article.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you well know that the "notability" of a reporter is irrelevant to the question of its reliability. Though I would be very interested in knowing if you would accept without any attribution material from this or this "noted Middle East columnist[s], author[s] of several books on the Middle East, who [were] staff writer[s] for several newspapers".  nableezy  - 16:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the authors your mentioned is mocked for his reliability, so no. But regarding this article, I never stated that Shragai's statements should be unattributed. So if we can restore the material with the attribution I think we can all go along our merry way.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer: having the material with attribution is a good idea. But we still have to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. That means Shragai's statements can be quoted in small amounts. It also means that any opinion Shragai alone holds should not be in the lead.VR talk  08:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, because unreliable partisans "mock" a "noted reporter" who is an "author of several books on the Middle East" and a correspondent at multiple newspapers he is not "reliable". I understand now. Thanks.  nableezy  - 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So the red herring about Fisk aside, do we agree that the content should be restored with attribution?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 18:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussion I posted a link to the Jerusalem Post with the same material. JP is a reliable source and Shragai has quite a bit of expertise on the matter. Plus the Guardian doesn't contradict what Shragai says. I'm going to add the JP source tomorrow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that know. By all means do that. I made an edit, self-reverted because as I again forgot about a restriction, that I think deals with this how it should be dealt with. I dont know why the history of what Muslims call it should be in the lead, but it should be sufficiently explained in the body. Right now there is a bunch of garbled English in the lead, and no explanation in the body.  nableezy  - 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You really don't understand why a UNESCO world heritage site using a 15 year old name should be in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I dont, and I dont know why there is only this one person writing that this name has only been used since 1996.  nableezy  - 14:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I believe Zero searched but couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with the mosque. Why only one person is writing about it is a very good question, but doesn't really change anything. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it does change whether or not it should be even mentioned in the lead.  nableezy  - 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the piped link makes the argument pretty clear, but sure. This is an exceptional claim, that the Palestinian leadership suddenly decided to change the name of the place for political reasons. If it were true I would expect that there would be several sources attesting to it. It may well be true, I dont know, but including it in the lead gives undue weight to the claims of a single reporter, a rather partisan one at that.  nableezy  - 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No More: please find either a neutral source, or a Palestinian source for any claims regarding Palestinian or Muslim views. It is rather ridiculous for you to rely on anti Palestinian sources to present views of Muslims/Palestinians. It is like going to anti-Zionist sources to learn about Judaism. If it is a major Israeli view to deny the Muslim connection to Rachel's Tomb, then we can mention that lower in the article as an Israeli view.VR talk  08:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it is mentioned in multiple sources that Rachel's tomb has included a mosque (a Muslim place for prayer) for hundreds of years. What is the point of contention is whether this mosque has been called after Bilal ibn Rabah or some other name (such as Qubet Rihal).VR talk  09:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Nableezy, it might be considered UNDUE if you had a bunch of sources saying it has always been called something, but that is not the case here.
 * @VR, the idea I need to find a "Palestinian source" for this is ridiculous. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I am saying that placing such an emphasis on something that has been reported by a single person, a reliably partisan reporter at that, for a WP:REDFLAG claim is the problem.  nableezy  - 15:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One sentence in the lead is "such emphasis"? considering we have exactly zero sources that contradict the claim, it is not due weight or a REDFLAG. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a redflag claim on the basis of it being an extraordinary claim that has been made by a single reporter. Who else makes this claim besides Shragai? And yes, a single sentence in the lead for something that only one person claims is too much weight. WP:LEAD establishes that notable criticisms or controversies should be included, and if all that exists on this supposed controversy is a single partisan reporter then it is not a notable criticism or controversy. Included in the body sure, but the lead requires more than a single writer's claim for inclusion.  nableezy  - 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You not liking something doesn't make it a REDFLAG. If for example someone could come up with a source equating "Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque" with "Rachel's Tomb" from before 1996 (we're not talking 13th century here, that's a mere 15 years ago), then we wouldn't have an issue here. I'm sure you can google for yourself to see that this is not the only such "criticism", but I will note for future reference that you think the fact someone is "partisan" is a reason not to include them in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a rather gross distortion of what I have written. That something is backed only by a lone partisan reporter is why it should not be in the article. In a review of Shragai's book The Story of Rachel's Tomb, Joshua Schwartz of Bar-Illan writes the following: The political leanings of the author are clear as well as his political and religious message. None of this would have suffered if the author had made a greater attempt at producing scholarship (and not just selling books). and later Is The Story of Rachel’s Tomb scholarship? By no means. The review is in . The claim that Palestinian officials all of a sudden decided to change a centuries old name on a political whim is in fact an exceptional claim, a claim made by only one person, a person with a reliably predictable political slant. It is not a "notable controversy" and as such does not belong in the lead. Also, this "Story of a martyr" dated as being from 1987 uses the Arabic for Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah (مسجد بلال بن رباح)  nableezy  - 19:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the issue. Shragai is not saying that "Palestinian officials all of a sudden decided to change a centuries old name on a political whim". He is saying that associating the tomb itself with Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque is recent. I like your saraya.ps source. Could you tell us who runs that site for those editors who don't know Arabic? I have to assume that's the best source you could find. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you are misunderstanding the issue. It is Shragai and Shragai alone that is making the claim that associating the tomb itself with Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque is recent. I am glad you like the source. But I do question the good faith of a user that asks for a source using that term prior to 95 and then says the one brought isnt good enough. Searching in Arabic is much more difficult than English or even Hebrew, but you already knew that, which is why you keep asking for a source prior 95. But once such a source is brought, you persist in your insistence that this lone partisan's WP:REDFLAG claim should be included in the lead of the article. Charming.  nableezy  - 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I was expecting something that equates Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque with Rachel's Tomb from, say, a newspaper or something, not just mention of Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque (is that source even talking about Rachel's Tomb?) on the website (which probably didn't even exist in 1987) of the armed wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. I'll ignore your silly accusations, and pretend we don't know what you'd say if someone used a similar source from the opposite side for, well, anything whatsoever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence assumes that I would attempt to include such a claim on the basis of a single reporter, a reported well known for their partisanship and not much else. Needless to say, that is a baseless assumption. My comments about WP:REDFLAG remain with no refutation, this remains an extraordinary claim made without an extraordinary source.  nableezy  - 22:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @No more: please don't distort my words. I said "a neutral source, or a Palestinian source for any claims regarding Palestinian or Muslim views." You can find a neutral and reliable source, such as academic sources. You could also quote a high-ranking Muslim cleric or Palestinian official, and that would constitute "the Palestinian view". What you may not do is quote anti-Palestinian Israelis and then put words into the mouths of the Palestinians.VR talk  17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source per wikipedia policy. Nobody is putting words into the mouths of Palestinians. We are trying to get the encyclopdia to report on a certain fact (one that nobody has yet been able to refute by the way) in a neutral tone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your irrefutable fact? We have sources referring to the tomb as a mosque dating back to the 1800s. We also have sources that refer to it as some variant of "Bilal ibn Rabah mosque" dating to the 1990s.
 * I'm not sure if editorials in the Post (or any newspaper) are reliable sources to be used without attribution.VR talk  22:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @NMMNG. Are you of the opinion that Shragai's statement should be included without attribution? I'm not, despite the fact that its basically an uncontradicted statement by a very reliable source. However this counterclaim that it should be attributed was used against me.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind it being attributed. Will that satisfy those who want to pretend that the place has always been called Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque? Notice how many times this article mentions "Qubbat Rakhil", a name you can find in dozens of sources going back centuries, compared to "Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque", which editors here are having problems finding a mention of older than 15 years. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be fine in the body (like the edit I made), attribution does not solve the problem of placing such undue weight on a sole reporter's extraordinary claim in the lead of the article. And lets not forget, a source dated 1987 has been brought here, which, for the less mathematically proficient among us, is more than 15 years old.  nableezy  - 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have not answered the question if that source is saying the tomb is part of the mosque or just mentioning the mosque. And let's not forget that site didn't exist in 1987.
 * And you can keep saying it's an "extraordinary claim", but so far it has not been contradicted by a single source, including, as far as we know, that of the armed wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad which you brought here.
 * Here's Haaretz reporting on the issue. Waiting to hear why it's still not a notable controversy.
 * By the way, here is a Palestinian that seems to make a distinction between Rachel's Tomb "known as Qubbet Rahiil in Arabic" and the "Muslim graveyard where in the “Bilal-Ibn-Rabah Mosque” Islamic rites and prayers for the deceased were performed." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What site didnt exist in 1987? The website? So what? As far as the Haaretz report (its actually the AP), let's look at what they actually say:"Israelis charged that Rachel's Tomb was traditionally referred to also by Muslims as such in Arabic, as 'Qubat Rachel,' although the structure also traditionally included a Muslim prayer house adjacent to a Muslim cemetery. They charge that the name 'Bilal bin Rabah Mosque' only came into use following Arab-Israeli riots in 1996 and was coined by Palestinians for political reasons."Note how it is an Israeli claim that the name only came into use in 1996?  nableezy  - 22:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. So it's not just "one partisan reporter" anymore, now is it?
 * Could you answer the question about how the PIJ site uses "Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque" in relation to Rachel's Tomb? Is it saying the two are the same or not? I've asked this several times already but you keep ignoring it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You asked for a source using the name, thats all I provided. And yes, it is no longer a single partisan reporter making the claim, but it is worded as a claim, made only by Israelis, in the AP report. If you want to include that Israelis claim that the name was invented in 1996 for political purposes then by all means. I still dont see why that should be in the lead, a few news reports on a UNESCO statement isnt exactly indicative of any notability.  nableezy  - 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for a source using the name in reference to Rachel's Tomb. I see why you didn't answer the question earlier, and that your claim above that a source was provided is dishonest. Unfortunately that was to be expected.
 * So no editor has been able to find a source (even one from Islamic Jihad) that shows usage prior to 1996 of "Bilal Bin Rabah Mosque" in reference to Rachel's Tomb. Or in other words, a "REDFLAG" claim that should be quite easy to refute were it incorrect, has yet to be refuted. Again, I'm not surprised. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What nonsense, dishonesty while claiming others are dishonest. What you asked for, and being dishonest about you making a request that is still on this page is quite shameless, is Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I brought a mention of it from before 1996, and now you are claiming I am dishonest? Charming. Why would an Arab source make mention of Rachel's Tomb if the name they are using is Bilal ibn-Rabah Mosque? Your request [the one now, not the one you made earlier which you dishonestly misrepresent now] is unintelligible. And you once again ignore the fact that AP calls this argument a claim made by Israelis, not a fact as you have repeatedly, and dishonestly, pushed into the lead.  nableezy  - 23:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your selective quoting doesn't make you look less dishonest. Here's the diff. Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I believe Zero searched but couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with the mosque. I did not ask for just any source talking about a mosque with that name, as is pretty obvious to anyone who can read English. So I suggest you quit lying about what I said. The fact you didn't answer the first 3 times I asked you exactly what your source says also doesn't exactly make you look especially honest about what you thought I was asking for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean my accurately quoting you doesnt make me appear less dishonest? Obviously, because there was no dishonesty, except of course on your part. You asked for a source using the name prior to 1996, I gave you such a source. My quote of you is not a lie, and the very fact that you claim my accurately quoting you is lying shows just how willing you are to distort even your own words. I, up until now, never thought so little of you that I would have expected such base dishonesty. Others sure, but until now I had not seen you purposely lie about the record. I guess that settles at least one question. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 00:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mean your deliberately omitting the second sentence which shows exactly what I was talking about is very dishonest. It's called selective quoting. The record is indeed there. I provided a diff that shows the full context, making your dishonesty very clear. Here is another diff from right before you posted your source. Good luck trying to misrepresent what I was asking for based on that one. Your not answering repeated requests to clarify what your source says is also quite telling.
 * The question of your dishonesty was settled long ago. I could not possibly care less what you think about me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your entire comment says Should be pretty trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. I believe Zero searched but couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with the mosque. You say that it would be trivial to find a mention from before 1996 if it was used then. You then said that Zero couldn't find anything equating Rachel's Tomb with a mosque. The equating of Rachel's Tomb with a mosque is not the same thing as find[ing] a mention from before 1996. Your not saying what you now wish you said is not cause for continuing with such rank dishonesty here. And no matter, look below. There are indeed sources equating Rachel's Tomb with a mosque from well before 1996, making your newly requested cause for continuing with this act as baseless as your original cause. There is nothing more than an Israeli claim that the PA invented this name in 1996 as a political stunt. I realize that you and others you pal around with would very much like that Israeli claims be accepted as though they resemble fact, but this encyclopedia is not, at least not yet, a publication of the MFA. Until such time that it is, your dishonesty will not accomplish your goal. The record is here, and anybody can judge whose dishonesty is an established fact. Im glad you could not care less what I think, it gives me great comfort. I wonder if you do care to be so shameless that you repeatedly lie about the words that appear on this very page. But maybe thats just me. Now that there are sources that say that Rachel's Tomb has been called a mosque, going back a hundred years, is there any reason why we should continue with this "discussion" on whether an Israeli claim should be included in the lead, and whether it should be presented as anything other than such a claim? But, just in case those two arent enough for you, if you would like more sources on Rachel's Tomb being a mosque from before the last 15 years, then here you go. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 01:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The second diff I posted above shows I was quite clear about what I was asking for before you provided your source, and I asked for clarification of your source right after you posted it, a request which you ignored. So feel free to keep lying about what happened, the record is there for all to see. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a source from 1876, that calls Rachel's tomb a "little mosque". Here's another source that says a mosque lies on the spot of Rachel's tomb - dated to 1878. Clearly, Shragai's assertion that "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" is wrong. VR talk  00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

good source for future reference

 * Rachel weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb  T i a m u t talk 17:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this source is appropriate. Basically, I was thinking of inserting the following passage as an rquote (to balance out the rquotes highlighting Jewish veneration): VR talk  10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I searched the quote here: and found it but I couldn't see who said it as I cant see the page, are you sure it was Henry Bascom Ridgaway in 1876? It should be added to the article, I have seen Chesdovi cheery picking certain materials and highlighting them into articles while ignoring other things, he added both highlighted quotes that are currently in the article, this will help create a better balance. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Its page 206 of the source you're searching.VR talk  23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with that. There are loads of other travelogues from western visitors to Palestine in the 18th and 19th centuries that say the same thing. Another good source to expand and fact chck his article against is:

Contested Mediterranean Spaces: Ethnographic Essays in Honour of Charles Tilly By Maria Kousis, Tom Selwyn, David Clark
 * These sources and ones like this and this are preferable to news reports.  T i a m u t talk 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention also that Pringle, ho is used as a sourcein the rticle has lots more information about the site that we havenot includedhere yet. Whoever has time to minethese things is ncouraged to o so.  T i a m u t talk 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Vermeulen's book doesn't reveal much to me on google books. If you have any text or scanned copies of it, could you send it to my email? VR talk  22:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Which Area?
Currently the article says the tomb was under Area C of the Oslo Accords. Shragai doesn't seem to say anything. Michael Dumper, professor at University of Exeter, states that the tomb is in Area B, not in area C.

Thoughts?VR talk  09:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Did Montefiore build a mosque at Rachel's Tomb?

 * "The domed chamber of the tomb was built by the Ottoman authorities.[3] A second room, an antechamber serving as a mosque, was built by Montefiore in 1841."

The pre-Montefiore structure was indeed erected by the local Ottoman Pasha in 1615, who no doubt built upon an earlier monument at the site. But the renovations made by Montefiore in 1842 entailed a complete overhaul of the crumbling structure. It is not correct to say the existing domed section was of sole Ottoman origin. Montefiore should also be credited with this. As Strickert says, "the cupola however had already been a well recognised feature of the tomb & likley underwent repair work." It is also absurd to suggest that it was Montefiore who constructed the antechamber for exclusive Muslim use. Unless there exists a firman that makes this a condition of his extension, Montefiore did not build a mosque for the Muslims at Judaism 3rd holiest site! Chesdovi (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Chesdovi, check out the sources I linked to above. Montefiore did indeed build a mosque at the site or at least a minbar and place for Muslims to pray in a building adjacent to the tomb. The site was used as a Muslim cemetery for centuries, up into the 20 th century.  T i a m u t talk 22:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right (or wrong) Chesdovi, but I wasn't around when all this happened. I only go by the reliable sources. They say that Montefiore built a mosque complete with a Mihrab.
 * But why is so hard to believe Muslims and Jews co-existing? If the (Muslim) Ottomans can build a shrine for a Jewish matriarch, and give Jews exclusive rights over a place Muslims also find holy, then a Jewish pilgrim can build a mosque for Muslims adjacent to (not on top of) Judaism's 3rd holiest site.VR talk  22:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree that Montefiore renovated the existing structure. So how about this:
 * "The present structure, consists of two chambers. The domed chamber of the tomb was built by the Ottoman authorities in 1615[need a source for the date]. In 1841, Montefiore renovated the tomb and added to it an antechamber with a mihrab to serve as a mosque."
 * VR talk  23:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I accept many sources indeed ascribe the addition of the vestibule, sans mineret, as being especially for Muslim prayer, (I listed a few of these above a while back.) But I wonder where this idea comes from, that a religious Jew, intent on purchasing land and financing building projects for Jewish Palestinians, built a mosque for the Muslim's of Bethlehem at an important Jewish holy site. I find it rather odd. It is incredible to think that this "mosque" was provided intentionally by a benefactor of, what seems to have been, only Jewish causes in Palestine. Rational needs to be provided for this presumption which has gained wide acceptance as fact, but without explanation. Chesdovi (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do you think Muslim Ottoman authorities renovated sites of Jewish worship in Palestine, including the Western Wall? Why do you think the Muslim Ottomans gave Jews the exclusive use of the site, despite Rachel's holiness in Islam?
 * More importantly, why is it so hard to believe that Muslims and Jews are capable of altruism?VR talk  05:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Altruism by Ottoman Pashas? You are too generous. Why do I think Muslim Ottoman authorities renovated the Western Wall? Because is it Hait el-Barak of course. Why did the Muslim Ottomans supposedly give Jews the exclusive use of the site? Probably upon payment of a heavy bribe or upon persuasion of an influential Jewish adviser or to gain influence with a prestigious foreigner. Jews and Muslims can care about each other, but you obviously have no idea of friction caused by holy sites in this part of the world. Priests brawl at Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity. Chesdovi (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi. You might find things 'odd' as I do with most articles here, but it is unwise to allow your personal suspicions about sources containing information you dislike get in the way of respecting their authority in wiki terms. Yours remarks about Suleiman the Magnificent's restoration of the WW above are, frankly, ignorant, malicious and stupid. Just keep to sources. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not aware Suleiman the Magnificent renovated the Western Wall. Are you referring to his “uncovering” of it? Since when does one give credibility to such tales of Jewish folklore? Last time I checked it was Montefiore who added the last layers of bricks to the Wall. And I can tell you that it was for the Jewish veneration of the site, not to assist the Muslims in reinforcing Al Aqsa. You are fully aware of the refusal of Muslim recognition of Jewish rights to the Wall throughout the ages. The "altruistic" Ottomans would not allow the Jews to pave the area in 1840 at their own expense. They were even cautioned against "raising their voices" there - indeed, their synagogue was shut down in 1589 for that very reason. Any actions at the Wall made by Muslims were no doubt for their own veneration of the spot - were there any? The only instance we have of Muslim benevolence at the Wall was indeed by Suleiman the Magnificent: Aparantly his Jewish subjects were experiencing probelms at the site so he said they were officially allowed to pray there. What a nice person. Why he did, we do not know. It was definitely not of his own volition. Did he have an ulterior motive? We don't know. Oh, and he also built an "oratory" for them there. How kind, but what are the details surrounding this 1500s event? I would advise not to take it at face value. Explanations and rational for such events would be nice. There may be sources saying "Montefiore built a mosque at Rachel's tomb", but it is okay for me to question this assertion, just as you have in the past questioned Jewish attachment to the Westen Wall. It is also okay for me to suggest on talk that Muslim rulers may have been swayed by the occasional bribe here and there or done things only to improve their international standing, local relationships or personal prestige. It is not at all malicious to do so! This is the situation around the world nowadays, how much more so in history. Chesdovi (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, son, if you weren't aware either, you don't read much history or you are unfamiliar with the meaning of 'renovation' in English. If you think Arabs/Moslems are people who, unlike the belligerent occupants in Palestine, cannot ever be read as acting now or in the past in good faith, or from ideals, I suggest you desist from writing articles, since such a premise is alien to WP:NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, anyone who has read much history of the treatment of Jews and their holy places by Arabs/Muslims knows that that good faith rarely had anything to do with it and the main ideal present was that Jews were to be treated as an inferior class that must be reminded of its subjugation as often as possible. But I think it's very likely you knew that already. Son. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you call the alleged sprinkling of rosewater on a wall "renovation", so be it. Do bear in mind that Suleiman the Magnificent was engaged in a massive regeneration project in Jerusalem, overhauling the entire outer walls of the city, also making renovations to the Haram itself. That some earth was moved away from a major retaining wall in the process can easily be seen by Jews as a favour to them alone - enough for them to make up stories about how the Sultan himself returned the wall to them. Are there any non-Jewish sources which refer to this event as being done specifically for the Jews? I can actually entertain the fact Suleiman cleansed and gave the Jews permission to pray at the wall and his building of an “oratory” for them there without any ulterior motives. It is easy for a powerful foreign ruler to make such a tiny gesture of good will for the towns 1,363 abiding Jewish citizens. In fact, this firman greatly bolsters the claim that by the 1500s the wall, apparently hidden under layers of muck, was still regarded as a major significant Jewish site. But for a private self-made Jewish philanthropist to part with his money to build mosques over Palestine? Remember, this thread is about my sensing that a Jewish Englishman was only concerned for the rights of his Jewish brethren, and did not give a hoot of the needs of Bethlehem Muslims. If the cemetery was so important for the Muslims, they would have built a prayer room there themselves, not allowed a Jew to do it for them. Why would have Montefiore wanted to sow discord by giving rights to Muslims at Jewish site – was he unaware it was bound to cause friction? Did he not think of build a synagogue? What is the meaning of this plaque at the site. Is there no Arabic sign informing the Muslim faithful of Montefiore bequeath to them? Chesdovi (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn. I wrote of restoration, you read that as renovation, and in both cases show you do not understand what these words mean in English. The rest is just an attempt to blob your personal views, as NMMGG's lachrymose meme is just a tirade to cover the fact that what he complains of as the Arab treatment of Jews is exactly what Palestinians complain of in the way they are treated by Israelis. I do appreciate the confessional mode in literature, but the personal resentments or WP:OR violations flagrantly brandished here do not inspire confidence in your abilities to write a neutral article, as opposed to a screed that trumpets the Zionist myths of reclaiming an abused patrimony from these wretched interlopers. You must not let your suspicions in any way undermine the authority of RS.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My "lachrymose meme" is well documented historical fact, as I'm sure you're aware. For most of the past 1400 years, in most of the Muslim world, Jews would have been absolutely ecstatic if they were treated as Israel treats the Palestinians today. I eagerly await your long winded reply which will ignore the essence of what I just said but will instead focus on pointing out any grammar or spelling mistakes I might have made. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. As any Jewish historian will tell you, the great millenial tragedies of diaspora Jewry were concentrated in Christian lands, and not characteristic of life under Islam. One can't say that of course. Evangelicals would be offended and their help is indispensable.Nishidani (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No? I wish I could say I'm surprised you said that. That Jews were treated worse by Christians doesn't mean they were treated well by Muslims. Have you read Bernard Lewis? The situation of Jews living under Islamic rulers was never as bad as in Christendom at its worst, nor ever as good as in Christendom at its best. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But never deny someone the opportunity to learn. If you want a short list of the devastation and abuse of historic mosques by Israel since 1948, read Meron Benvenisti's account in his Sacred Landscape(2002), or more recently Rochelle Davis's Palestinian Village Histories (2010). Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you keep on bringing the I/P issue into this, but the unfortunate loss of historic mosques at the hand of Israel is nothing compared to the clossal Jewish loss of the Temple Mount to foreign monuments of Muslim conquerors from Arabia and Egypt. Just a reminder: Jews banned from Hebron shrine for 700 years, from Temple Mount for 1,000 years under Muslim religious decree. Were Jews a security threat? Anyway, no need to comment next time when you feel Muslim character traits are under attack, especially here, when I am proposing the same self-centred mindset occurring in a Jew. Chesdovi (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again you are bringing your POV into this, talking wildly of 'colossal Jewish loss' at Arab hands. It only translates as 'Sure, we're wiping the Arab presence off the map of Palestine and Israel, but they were asking for it, after depriving us, with the colossal losses we suffered from Arabs over the millenia.' 'the Jews were banned from Hebron for 700 hundred years' (read Hebron), etc. I don't read this lowbrow rubbish in Jewish historians, and I don't want to read it here. Blogs are full of it. Frankly all this nonsense is not helping editing here- Nishidani (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This is getting pretty far away from the purpose of the talk page. Can everybody please focus on the sources and the article? I dont think discussing Jewish or Palestinian losses at the hands of the other has much to do with what this talk page is meant for. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, all of the above is against page policy, and I apologize for my remarks, which however were directed at those who keep intruding personal or ethnic POV remarks into arguments about sources.Nishidani (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits that don't correspond to sources
Chesdovi, please follow the sources. Regarding this edit: "'Muslims, Christians and Jews all venerate Rachel as the wife of a patriarch, yet until the beginning of the 17th-century, only Muslims were allowed to visit the tomb. Records indicate however, that in 1615, Muhammad, Pasha of Jerusalem, repaired the structure and gave the Jews exclusive ownership of the site'"
 * plenty of sources say he built the mosque. So why did you insert "allowed"?
 * What type of sources are they? If they are books written by credible authors, I have raised an issue here about this anomaly and want to know upon what these authors make such a claim. These authors also "were not there at the time" and it is wrong to blindly insert such a wild assertion without any explanation as to why this may have occurred or concrete evidence affirming this fact. The British Government periodical stated: "It is stated that the ante-chamber was built at the same time as a special place of prayer for Moslems." There is no written confirmation of this point, and it is just as likely that Muslims commandeered the antechamber at some later stage, using it for their own purposes, not as planned by its Jewish builder. Jewish stories actually tell of how it was the Jews who had asked Montefiore to build the extension to allow for more room for pilgrims, Jewish pilgrims, that is. It is also totally inappropriate to assert and emphasise that the Muslim usage was as a mosque. It was to them foremost a shrine and secondly a funeral parlor. And for all intense and purposes, the site could also be classified as a synagogue and church. I mean, what makes it a mosque? – that Muslims prayed there? It lacks all the trappings of a purpose built mosque – the mihrab could have easily been added at some later point. As far as I can see, when George Frederick Owen states that "Montefiore purchased the grounds and monument for the Jewish community, added an adjoining prayer vestibule," he does not mention anything about Muslims. It seems from this source the prayer room was added for the Jewish community, a much more acceptable assumption. Chesdovi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Page 280 of this book: "All sources agree that Montefiore built the Muslim prayer room in the mid nineteenth century."VR talk  20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree too. But if he built it for them is in question. Chesdovi (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This book, p.177: "Montefiore, who added a vaulted vestibule on the east for the Muslims to pray in".VR talk  20:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, you inserted the word "yet" (in the top paragraph) to make an argument that the source does not make. Finally, why is it that "only Muslims were allowed to visit the tomb" is treated as fact, but "gave the Jews exclusive ownership of the site" is preceded by "reports indicate"? The source cited makes no such distinction. Both facts appear equally unconditional.
 * I added:
 * "Yet" is simply added to show that although all religions had just claims to the site, non-Muslim were nevertheless not allowed. I don’t see what new argument I am making here: the source says “non-Muslims were not allowed to visit”. I added “reports indicate” to the later part of the paragraph, because it is unusual for rights to be passed to the Jews in such circumstances, while it is very probable that at times under Muslim rule, only Muslims were allowed. (Why indeed was Montefiore compelled to purchase the site “for the Jews” if they already had equal access at rights there in the first place?) To provide explanation for why nowadays Muslims are prohibited from the site by the Israeli government is easy to do, so it can be stated without the need to provide embellishments such as “it seems”, or “accounts indicate”. This is common in historical works, for when dealing with history, it is much harder to assert things with accuracy. What I have attempted here is to address the context vacuum missing in the cited source. Chesdovi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unusual in your view, not in the source's view. Again, I don't accept your analysis. If a reliable source makes the same analysis feel free to quote it.VR talk  20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed to . Chesdovi (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine. But some questions just don't have an answer in reliable sources. How long should we wait for an answer?VR talk  20:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this edit,
 * which source says "the marauding Arab e-Ta'amreh tribe"? Seriously, find me the source that calls Arabs marauding.
 * I did not call Arabs marauding, I refered to the Ta'amra tribe as such. This adjective was used by Finn to describe the lawless tribes of the Judean Hills in his time: "We came into contact in this way with the small tribes between Jerusalem and the Jordan; with the semi-wild Ta'amra between Bethlehem and the Dead Sea as far as Engeddi", Stirring times, Volume 2, pg. 187. Elsewhere he states: "But this year had seen far less of the wild tribes near Jerusalem than the year before, when they had been called in to join the factions of Abu Gosh and Othman el Lehham, and when their marauding expeditions threatened to become a very serious evil." Chesdovi (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that source isn't talking about marauding the Rachel's tomb. The context seems to be inter-tribal warfare. Also, Finn seems like an unreliable and very biased source as he calls the tribe's activities "evil" (and then refers to biblical prophecies).VR talk  20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is used here as a generalisation of the nature of the tribe. The word does not need to be sourced in connection with the site. The Shaik Hamdan extorting money episode can be classed as marauding anyway. And Finn literary style is common of the time, and he should be reliable, bearing in mind his position of authority. I don't mind attribution. Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great.VR talk  20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you wrote "prevent them from damaging the tomb". Yet the sources say "to prevent damage to the tomb", never indicating that the tribe is the one that was damaging the tomb. Did you make this up?
 * It is valid point raised that it is not clear from the given source that the tribe was paid to prevent themselves from damaging the holy shrine as opposed to them paid to guard it. Again, this occurrence of lawless Arabs extracting protection money is sourced to Finn who notes that the Ta'amra tribe required an annual fee of £50 "for not injuring the Sepulchre of Rachel." (Finn, vol. 1, 119) It was quite common for Arab bandits to demand money from Jews in return for safe passage or to hold Jewish shrines to ransom. Jews had to pay up even to assert their rights at such places as the Western Wall. Entry from Finn’s diary, January 19, 1855: "We also required the apprehension & imprisonment of Shaik Hamdan of the Taamri for extorting money with his sword drawn, from Jews at Rachel’s sepulcher yesterday." Chesdovi (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again Finn doesn't come across as a reliable source. But, I would like to hear other editor's views on this. A potential compromise could be including him but with attribution.VR talk  20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

VR talk  05:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * you wrote "Yet in 1843, there were still reports of Muslim dominance at the site." The source says no such thing. That is your own original research.
 * If Jews are not allowed to step inside a shrine by Muslim, then Muslims dominate the site. Jewish access should have been guaranteed after the rights and land was purchased for them. Chesdovi (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That Jewish access should have been guaranteed" is your own original research, unsupported by the source. Let's stick to the sources. Leave your own analysis out.VR talk  20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not my OR that Jewish rights were guaranteed at the site. Montefoire purchased the site for the Jews. It was their property. Access for them should have been a given. A report from 1843 says they were barred from their own property. Does this need a reword? Chesdovi (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The report does not appear to say that ("barred from their own property"). Perhaps you should quote which part you believe says that.VR talk  20:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edits that don't correspond to sources (ii)
This edit:
 * "He built an adjacent vaulted reception vestibule on the east for Muslim prayer use, possibly as an act of conciliation"

does not match the source:
 * "and to conciliate Moslem susceptibility, added a square vestibule with a mihrab".

Why was "possibly" added? Chesdovi (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL.
 * Chesdovi, you added the word possibly in this edit. I merely retained the word that you had added.
 * But I agree with the "possibly" because the source in question, George Napier Whittingham's book published by Dutton, doesn't appear to be a scholarly source. The scholarly sources make no mention of "to conciliate Moslem susceptibility".VR talk  23:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part of: "The dome of the tomb resembles a Moslem wely, and the tomb itself has been an object of veneration to the Jews for over three thousand years. The Crusaders erected over this monument a little building some twenty-four feet square, formed by four columns bound each to each by pointed arches twelve feet wide and twenty feet high, the whole crowned by a cupola. The Mohammedans in the sixteenth century destroyed a portion of this building, and, instead of a pyramid, built a stone cenotaph. In 1841 Montefiore obtained for the Jews the key of the Tomb, and to conciliate Moslem susceptibility, added a square vestibule with a mihrab as a place of prayer or Moslems" do you find unreliable? Anyway, I have found another source which states that in order to "keep the peace" with the Muslims, he saw to it that a mihrab was fixed in the antechamber :
 * כדי לשמור על דו־קיום בשלום עם המוסלמים דאג מונטיפיורי להתקין ׳מחרב׳ (גומחת תפילה מוסלמית) בפרוזדור הקבר״
 * Source: Perakim be-toldot ha-yishuv ha-yehudi bi-Yerushalayim, Yehudah Ben-Porat; Ben Zion Yehoshua; Aharon Ḳedar. Publisher:	Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi, 1973-1976. pg. 310. The sources which state "he also built a mosque for the Muslims" refer to it being used for prayer at the time of Muslim burial, so it was not used as a mosque in the conventional sense. I doubt jama'ah (communal prayer) ever took place there on a regular basis and I have not come across any sources which actually mention regular Muslim prayer services taking place there. On the other hand, Jews did occasionally use the site as a synagogue. It was most certainly not Montefiore's original intent to provide an extra mosque in Palestine for the Arabs. That will be made clear here. Chesdovi (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How are either of the sources reliable? You need to show if the publishing houses are reputable (academic/scholarly) or if the authors are professors or lecturers.
 * I don't understand your argument: the sources do say it was used for Muslim prayer. I never said jama'ah took place there (though it probably did). Salat is the Islamic term for all prayer (Salat al-Janazah is the prayer at the time of burial).VR talk  05:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources also say it was used to Jewish and Chrisitan prayer, and may other things besides. Were all visitors to shrine asked to removed there shoes before entering? No. Therefore this was not a mosque. Chesdovi (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think the shoes argument holds much weight. Please find source saying it wasn't a mosque.VR talk  04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Documents on Jerusalem: Volume 4; Volume 4 published by PASSIA does not, as far as I can tell, refer to the tomb as a mosque. The ante-chamber merely served as a place for Muslims to pray in, as no doubt other faiths did: “It consists of an open antechamber and a two-roomed shrine under a cupola containing a sarcophagus. The building lies within a Moslem cemetery, for which it serves as a place of prayer.” The source does not state: “It consists of a mosque….” It was primarily a reception area for the pilgrims to the tomb and a useful location for burial rights for those interred outside. Any text in this article will make it clear that the additional room was not interned by Montefiore to be used as a mosque by Muslims, just as he would not have built an extra room next to David’s tomb to be used as a church by christians. If on the other hand, it can be proven that it was his intent, rational will be provided, because there is no precedent for such projects initiated by him to provide houses of worship for members of other faiths in the country at the time. It could also be that Montefoire paid for restoration of the tomb enclourse only, and at the same time, the Ottomans added the vestibule intened for Muslim use. We don't know the detais, and no RS can claim to do so, because documentation from the time has been lost. No RS can claim that it was built as a mosque with certainty. I have written to the author of one such source who sattes it was built "for the Muslims to pray in" and we shall wait to see what he says. Chesdovi (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you ask the author to publish their response to you on some website, so that everyone can see it?VR talk  03:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

His response was: Date: Thursday, 5 January, 2012, 11:21 Dear Mr - You will find the references in the sources cited. Presumably he provided the room with a mihrab (not a mosque exactly) to compensate the Muslims for being excluded from the tomb chamber itself. The site continued to be a place for Muslim burial for many decades after that. Denys Pringle You will see from the correspondance that the author of the source you provided which said that he built it "for Muslims to pray in" says that it was "not exactly a mosque". Chesdovi (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead
The lead of this article is now almost entirely about the I-P conflict. That is embarrassing for this project. There is substantial detail in the body. It should be paraphrased while the excess fighting between the two sides should be substantially reduced. Editors will not like my version of it so I am asking for someone else to put in the effort.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note: A whole lot of history while actual architecture takes too much of a back seat. Bordering on giving too much emphasis on recent (Internet age) history in the body.Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good tag Cptnono. I'll try to work up something when I have the time, unless someone beats me to it. I think the recent exclusion of some sources in the lead is detrimental to the article as a whole.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No minaret?
From all the mosques listed on the newly added template, it seems only the Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque has no minaret. How odd. In many sources the "mosque" is called a "vestibule", "ante-chamber" etc. Why use these terms if it was simply a mosque? People can pray anywhere, that they did in this reception area does not make it a mosque, just as Jews praying there did not turn it into a synagogue. If now the site has the trappings of a synagogue and is used frequently for communal prayer, it becomes a synagogue. There is no evidence that in the late 1800s the side-room ever had anything but a prayer niche. There was no minbar, minaret, prayer mats, imam, congregation. Yet you want me to accept this building was built as a mosque? Pull the other one. Chesdovi (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you want to consider WP:TRUTH which says that truth matters less than verifiability. However, many prominent mosques haven't had minarets until centuries later.VR talk  03:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It now has a mihrab . Is that not enough to make it a mosque?93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Would like some discussion in the article as to what "Rachel's tomb" may really be
The article does say that the first mention of "Rachel's tomb" was in the 4th century AD but I was curious to know what if anything is known or thought about how this structure originated. Have there ever been any archaeological studies done? Are there any theories as to why this building was originally erected? As there is general consensus among modern Biblical scholars that the Biblical stories of the Patriarchs including Jacob do not reflect actual people who really lived, Jacob's wife did not exist either, therefore she did not need a tomb, therefore it cannot actually be Rachel's tomb. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible I came to this article hoping to find out what is thought as to what this building really may have started as and was disappointed to find no discussion of this. I do feel that there really ought to be at least a single sentence in the article saying that it is a general consensus of Biblical scholars that no such person as Rachel ever existed and therefore this cannot actually be her tomb. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. You sound well informed. Would you be able to find a few sources and write a little on this? Wikipedia is written by people like you!93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Balance in opening paragraph
I have rewritten the opening para to try to remove discrimination. Previously the muslim name was separated from the other names it is known by. My revision is as follows.

Rachel's Tomb (קבר רחל translit. Kever Rakhel), also known as the Dome of Rachel, (قبة راحيل translit. Qubbat Rakhil), and as Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque' (مسجد بلال بن رباح), is an ancient structure believed to be the burial place of the biblical matriarch Rachel, and to be a mosque named after Bilal ibn Rabah. The site is located on the outskirts of Bethlehem, a Palestinian city just south of Jerusalem, in the West Bank. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please provide infomation as to why the structure was "named adter Bilal ibn Rabah." Chesdovi (talk) 12:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be pleased to, but am not an expert. Reliable sources I have read state that the mosque IS "named after Bilal ibn Rabah, but not WHY- note WP:TRUTH. If this is important to you, I suggest you research it, and add it to the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"Mosque to Muslims"
In a number of places, the site is described as being a mosque to muslims. If it is a mosque to muslims, it is a mosque to everyone, regardless of what else it may be. This is particularily true when it is recognised as such by UNESCO. Moreover, "mosque" is a word used solely to describe a muslim place of worship, making the phrase redundant. While i understand that a number of Jewish/Israeli extremists want to deny that the site has ever been used as a mosque, this is obviously a minority viewpoint (cf UNESCO), that does not deserve prominence or recognition in the article. This is not to say that extremist denials that it is the tomb of Rachel - important to Jews, Christians, and Moslems should be given prominence.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to reply, but after reading the "Jewish/Israeli extremists" bit, I'm not going to bother. Removing your edits until someone who knows how to talk to people shows some support for it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry-. Please do not be put off by what was not meant as offensive language - maybe other people deny it too- please provide examples if it is important to you. I was going on the references found in the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Date of Rachel's Death: 1500BC?
The date of Rachel's death is not mentioned in this article on her tomb. I have added her date of birth, 11 Cheshvan 1553 BC, as listed at Rachel, to the article, but I feel that the date/year of death would be more appropriate- please add it.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no good reason to believe that Rachel was a real person and even less reason to believe a date of death can be identified. All that exists is religious tradition. Also, you can't use Wikipedia as a source, see WP:V.  Zerotalk 10:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, why does the article talk about Rachel's tomb as though it was a burial site, rather than a symbolic memorial?93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Did Rachel exist?
This has been questioned a number of times on this page. It has been claimed that the consensus among scholars is that she never existed. I would be most grateful for sources that support this view, so this can be added to this article, and the article about the biblical character.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Problematic sourcing
Unfortunately, I've been short on time and thus haven't been paying much attention to this article but can anyone please explain why this source was expunged from the article? Also, a source that states that Israelis "did not visit" the tomb (as if it was some voluntary, self-imposed restriction) for the 19 years that it was under Jordanian occupation is obviously a problematic source. Israelis were forbidden by Jordanian authorities to visit the site in violation of the armistice agreement. In fact, no Israeli was permitted to visit any holy site under Jordanian military occupation. The author makes it seem as though the lack of visitation was voluntary. There is obviously a POV problem with this source and its use (in the lede no less) is extremely problematic. This POV push is compounded by the removal of Nadav Shragai as a source. There exits now a serious imbalance with this article that needs remedial action to restore a modicum neutrality. Does anyone have thoughts on this matter?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'To be sure, the Jordanians would point out that Jews were not excluded from Rachel's tomb for the period from 1949 to 1967. However, the border between Israel remained impassable, and for all practical reasons, Jews felt excluded.' Strickert, Rachel weeping: Jews, Christians, and Muslims at the Fortress Tomb, p.132
 * There are serious imbalances elsewhere. The Bible has two burial sites for Rachel, yet our article prioritizes the Bethlehem one, and relegates mention of the equally valid alternative (perhaps older) to a second tier, and afternote, and this reflects contemporary politics, rather than what archeological and biblical textual scholarship say. Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, you cherry pick the opinion of one author that supports your political position. Here's another opinion on whether the Jordanians allowed Jews (not just Israelis) to visit their holy places which were under Jordanian control. There are of course more such sources. That Jordan didn't allow Jews to visit is a matter of historical record, Strickert's opinion on how the Jordanians would excuse it notwithstanding. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that this article  wouldn't be regarded as a RS as it contains an inaccuracy "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" this is the title of it, and its inaccurate as source above shows that long before 1996 it was called a mosque. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree. There are sources dating back to the 1800s on google books that call the tomb a mosque.VR talk  00:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Foreign Englishmen may have observed the building as a Muslim wely or used the more common "mosque", but did the local Arabs refer to it as such? Historically it seems they called it Qubat Rahil, not Masjid Rahil. Only recently did they start calling it Masjid Bilal. In fact, does "Bilal" appear in any 1800s sources? Chesdovi (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is one that comes close. It doesnt specify Bilal, but it says the following:"The description given by Dr. Robinson (i. 218) may serve as representative of many other accounts, all agreeing with each other, which may be read in almost every book of eastern travel. It is 'merely an ordinary Muslim Wely, or tomb of a holy person, a small square building of stone with a dome, and within it a tomb in the ordinary Mohemmedan form, the whole plastered over with mortar."<small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct, it looked like an "ordinary Muslim Wely" because it was built by Muslims in the Muslim style. Was it described as "a venerated mosque which hither gather the Mohemmedans for prayer"? Nope. Wely means a shrine, and a shrine is not synonymous with mosque. Chesdovi (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi, I was only responding to the assertion that "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque" made by Shragai. I did not find the word Bilal appearing in the 1800s sources.VR talk  05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see Shragai actually state this. He says: "Rachel's Tomb never served as a mosque for the Muslims. The Muslim connection to the site derives from its relation to Rachel and has no connection to Bilal ibn Rabah, Muhammad’s first muezzin." Isn't it newspaper editors who make up sensational article headlines like "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel’s Tomb a mosque"? In a similar article written by him, it looks like he entitled it: "Rachel's Tomb, a Jewish Holy Place, Was Never a Mosque," not that it was never called one. There is a difference. He knew very well about the mihrab, and the existence of one obviously does not make a room a "mosque," or does it? Pilgrims may have identified is as looking like an one, but was it ever used as one in the conventional sense? Strickert says it was used by the locals as a place for prayers in connection with [infrequent] burials in the adjacent cemetery. If so, that needs to be made clear – this was not considered a Muslim holy place by dint of the Montefiore “mosque” – it was a funeral parlour – and that’s as far as it goes. If they needed a niche to remind them which direction Mecca is in, all well and good. I doubt very much that the Muslims ventured out to the isolated spot 5 times a day for communal prayer. There is no minaret, no muezzin, no dome. It is just a room with a prayer niche, inaccurately called a mosque instead of a wely. I have seem other early accounts in relation to Joseph’s tomb, and if the name Bilal ibn Rabah would have been current, it most certainly would have been recorded somewhere, as are the other Muslim buildings which are named in the vicinity of the Nablus shrine. Western visitors would not have missed the opportunity to infuse their account with stories of the first Muhammed’s muezzin being buried there. Shragai is claiming that the supposed historic connection with Bilal is in fact recent And I agree. Chesdovi (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent analysis Chesdovi. Shragai is a noted author and journalist who has done extensive research on the issue. His views on the subject, which have been published by reliable and verifiable sources, should most certainly be noted in the article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Edward Robinson (scholar) would recognize a mosque if he saw one and he specifically says it's a shrine, not a mosque. On the other hand, a mid 19th century Christian traveler calling a structure he was not even allowed to enter a "mosque" is not really strong evidence it was one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And let’s remember that non-Muslims are generally allowed into normal mosques. It is only at extra holy shrines that Islam places restriction of entry on non-believers. I am interested to know if it was for this reason, the sacredness attached to the Kubbat Rahil shrine in Islam, which caused Jews and other non-Muslims to be shut out during various periods. Chesdovi (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Shragai says the tomb "was Never a Mosque". Reliable source says "Rachel's tomb is of Ottoman origin, having been used throughout most of its history as a mosque." (p.278)
 * I think its time you guys realized that just because something is a mosque, doesn't mean its not Jewish holy site. For example, Al-Aqsa is a mosque, but it is also the holiest site in Judaism. No one should deny either fact. Muslims and Jews have overlapping claims.
 * And if you are blaming "newspaper editors" for blatantly inaccurate claims, then that would imply that not much fact-checking has been done for that particular article (which in turn lowers the reliability of the source).VR talk  04:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * VR. Don't see what the problem is. We have two opposing views with two scholarly sources providing different opinions so we include them both.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have to include a view when its proven to be inaccurate.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh great VR, let's rely on what Sansour Dabdoub heard from eldery residents of Bethlehem. If that is your yardstick for what constitutes a reliable source, Shragi is as reliable as any.  Chesdovi (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is more accurate. What Netanyahu said may be wrong, but he said it, and we gotta include bibi's views just like we included Erdogan's views. Is that good enough for you guys?VR talk  03:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The objection that Jiujitsuguy raised at the start of this section seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. Strickert says the Israeli border was closed but Jews were in general not excluded, contrary to some other sources which claim all Jews were excluded. Strickert is supported by two eminent pro-Israeli authors, namely Martin Gilbert and Raphael Israeli. Both spell out in detail that Jordan closed the West Bank to Israelis and Muslim and Christian Israelis were excluded too (with the exception of some supervised Christmas visits to Bethlehem). The Raphael Israeli reference is Jerusalem Divided, p23; I lost the Gilbert one for the moment ;). This doesn't mean that other Jews could visit easily, but in theory they were not excluded. Zerotalk 10:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Blog
First of all I have used the source that was introduced by other editor to the article but it seems that dlv999 deleted only portion of the material that was sourced by this source I wonder why.Also reintroduction of Muslim significance of the site before any other religion its clear POV push--Shrike (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The denial of this site as a Mosque is clearly a minority opinion and should not be given undue weight in the article. If you want to include the disputation of the Mosque in the lead then we must include the fact that the international community has affirmed that it is a mosque (the resolution at UNESCO passed with a single opposing vote). Israel has disputed this but Israel has been heavily criticized for its position. If you take issue with the other use of the citation you are welcome to review it as you see fit. I did not notice the addition when I made my edit. Blog's are not RS so if there is any dispute over the statement I agree it should be removed. Dlv999 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you say that this is not RS(though its arguable per WP:NEWSBLOG).Please delete other material that is sourced to this blog.--Shrike (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, the article includes quotation from a religious text to a)justify the existence of a body and b) testify to the location of a burial place. While some inclusion is made of a disputed location for the tomb, no inclusion is made of the disputed existence of the body, that is to say questioning the existence of Rachel as a historical person.93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Israeli Political Point of View needs balance
At the moment, this article seems to be based almost entirely around Israeli opposition to UNESCO classifying the site as a Moslem place of worship. To the point that references to the sites role as a mosque and graveyard, even the name of the mosque have been excluded from the lede. Looking at the talk page, it is clear that there is doubt, if not certainty, that the site is not Rachel's tomb, and that Rachel probably never existed. The Christian history of the site as Rachels Church is ignored. The use of the site as a mosque - which consensus, UNESCO and the existence of a Mihrab supports is dismissed. The use of the site as a graveyard for Bethlehem is also largely ignored. The location of the site - in Occupied Palestinian territory - is also glossed over. The controversy surrounding Israels decision to seperate the graveyard and building from Bethlehem by a wall which has been internationally condemned is described largely in terms of Israeli Government reaction to Unesco's decison to classify the site as a mosque and grave yard. Most of the sources used are rIsraeli, despite the site being located in the Palestinian State/West Bank, and many are of dubious reliability. In short, the current article largely repeats claims made by the Israeli government, right wing Israeli Newspapers, and lobby groups. I have made repeated efforts to try to add balance to the article, which have been reverted. For example, the site is known as Rachel's tomb, and as Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque. Currently this is not mentioned in the lede, and the body includes the text "UNESCO lied and named the Jewish site "Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque". This was a politically motivated move to disenfranchise Israel and Jewish religious traditions." I believe that this article is being targeted by politically motivated, or religiously convicted people seeking to push a Zionist point of view, and urgently needs attention, and protection.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a source that says it was politically motivated if you can bring other sources we can incorporate them in the article too.--Shrike (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have tried that, but it gets deleted. Where are the sources that says UNESCO "lied"?93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have broken 1RR.And deleted edits that substianed by the sources.My last edit doesn't say that UNESCO "lied--Shrike (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I made no such claim, and object to this personal attack. You made two edits, one with a misleading edit summary, and the second with no edit summary. In the first one you reverted many edits, and removed the POV tag, while describing your edit as something else. I may have technically broken 1RR, but as an experienced editor you should use edit summaries to describe the edit you have made, not just one. In any case, the problem with the article, is that most of the sources used are POV, and it presents an extremist israeli point of view. Please feel free to reinstate your constructive edits.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with 93.96.148.42, the article is problematic in many ways. Why is the Muslim name (Bilal bin Rabah mosque) not in the lead? Why is the Israeli position on the UNESCO vote presented as fact in the Wiki voice when it is clearly a minority opinion (the vote at UNESCO was only opposed by one country)? Dlv999 (talk) 09:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Muslim name is irrelevant because it is a modern foreign Muslim name of an ancient Jewish site that follows the tradition of Muslims in usurping ancient Jewish sites and history just like they did to the Temple Mount and Joseph's Tomb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 04:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not an organ to promulgate the personal opinions of editors, it is an encyclopedia that should represent ALL of the significant opinions that have been published in reliable sources. Dlv999 (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Racist organizations are not reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about organizations that promote Zionism?93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with organizations that promote truth and justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a bit of misrepresentation of the UNESCO vote here. First of all, 44 out of 196 members voted for adding the site this article talks about to the list of World Heritage Sites. That's not a majority, that's less then 1/4 of the members. Apparently there are only 21 countries on the World Heritage Committee, but maybe it was voted on in the General Assembly. The current sources don't say. Second, the fact a country votes for adding a site to the list does not necessarily mean they endorse a particular name for the site, or think it's a mosque, or any other such OR interpretation of the vote. All you can say is that X countries ("out of Y members" would be nice) voted to add the site. That's it. Other conclusions are interpretations and thus not allowed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, the article does not discuss any vote to add the site to the list of world heretage sites. The UNESCO vote discussed in the article is over a resolution concerning the site.. The vote at UNESCO was taken by the executive board which constitutes 58 member states (who are elected to the board by the general conference of 196 members) and as such represents the democratic process of the body. The vote was passed by 44 votes in favor 12 abstentions and one opposing vote, which is a clear majority. From the cited source: "the site was included in a resolution by Unesco last week, which described it as a mosque and noted that it formed "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories". The UN body in charge of culture, education and science also urged the Israeli authorities to remove the site from its national heritage list, where it was placed in February this year."
 * The current passage in the article reads "UNESCO urged Israel to remove the site from its heritage list, stating that it was "an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories". A resolution was passed at UNESCO that acknowledged both the Jewish and Islamic significance of the site, describing the site as both Bilal ibn Rabah Mosque and as Rachel's Tomb." Which clearly is justified by the source. In all honesty, I don't understand the claim of misrepresentation. Perhaps you can explain further exactly what you take issue with. Dlv999 (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the talk page, not the article. For example, a couple of sections up you say UNESCO "recognized it as a mosque". That's incorrect. I was mistaken about the specific vote (which you can read here). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the resolution names the site Bilal bin Rabah mosque as well as Rachel's tomb. So by passing the resolution UNESCO have recognised it as a mosque. But, if you are not questioning the article content, it may be more productive for us to agree to disagree on this point. Dlv999 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact it's called a mosque in a resolution that's not about whether it's a mosque or not doesn't mean UNESCO or its members recognize it as a mosque. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So UNESCO use the name Bilal bin Rabah mosque in their official press releases and resolutions, but they don't recognise the site as a mosque? Interesting theory, but contradicted by the sources. Even the sources that represent the Israeli postition say that UNESCO accepted the site as a mosque (that is what they are upset about). See for instance the JCPA piece published in Jpost . "On October 21, UNESCO (the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) declared that Rachel’s Tomb near Jerusalem is the Bilal ibn Rabah mosque" Dlv999 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What about the sources describing it being used as a mosque in the medieval period? I would also like to point out that the article "Rachel's tomb was never a mosque" which is referenced extensively in this article may be biased.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also like to pint out, that UNESCO resolved that " The Palestinian sites of al-Haram  al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs in al-Khalil/Hebron and the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem: the Board voted 44 to one (12 abstentions) to reaffirm that the two sites are an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories and that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law, the UNESCO Conventions and the United Nations and Security Council resolutions." That is to say, that UNESCO's primary concern was with the status of the Mosque/Tomb with regards to the occupied Palestinian Territories.93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what they voted on, following Israel adding those sites to its national heritage list. Not sure what your point is, though. The vote was whether the site is part of Israel or the OPT, not whether it's a mosque or not.
 * Which sources describe it as being used as a mosque in the medieval period? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My point is that their concern was that Israel was trying to annex an integral part of the occupied Palestinian Territories. The Israeli claims about mosques and Jewish history of the site are used to justify this annexation. This role of the site is not properly dealt with in the article, which at present seems to me to over-emphasise the Jewish history of the site. Perhaps it would be possible to add some material about Israeli use of historical/biblical claims to justify confiscating land- The BBC wrote  "The Tomb of Rachel - a shrine to the Biblical matriarch revered by Jews, Christians, and Muslims - has also been a source of controversy.

Israel's West Bank barrier juts far into Bethlehem so that the tomb is located on the Israeli side, ostensibly for security reasons. However, Palestinians say it impedes their access and represents an illegal land grab." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8527532.stm) at the moment this article repeats those "security concerns" as though they were reality, while minimising Palestinian concern.93.96.148.42 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting interpretation, but what actually happened is that Israel added it to a national heritage list (not exactly annexation) and the UNESCO board issued a statement saying they consider it part of the OPT. It's a declarative statement by a body that doesn't wield any power in issues of territorial dispute.
 * It's impossible to "over-emphasise" the Jewish history of the site since that's the major part of the site's history. You obviously want to over-emphasize the recent controversy over a place that's been around since at least the 4th century. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the centre of a Muslim cemetery.93.96.148.42 (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)