Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 4

Recent Deletions
do you have any policy-based or source-based rationale for the deletions in this edit. Since the words you removed are directly supported by high quality sources, this risks looking like a POV edit.

Whilst you have discussed around this topic in previous posts, I have re-read all your posts in the threads above and cannot find any proposed justification for removal of the text other than a personal WP:OR analysis that these scholar's statements don't fit with what you think this article should say. Please allow other editors to comment by setting out the policies and sources that underpin your deletion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Framing it as a "deletion" is inaccurate. As it's your insertion that was never supported by anyone. It's very strange, again with the pinging, and the "personal" as if this were about me. Three editors described the insertion of the comparison between Christian and Jewish visitors as undue and unnecessary and you've yet to justify its insertion as anything other than your feeling that it "must" be in the article (because?). You can keep creating talk page sections (while ignoring the talk page) but that won't change things. To reinforce what was previously said as to why the insertion is meaningless.

So to say that most of the early recorded visitors were Christians, while Christians were deliberately banning Jews from traveling, and while the journey was highly unsafe for Jews, presents a picture which is misleading and Undue. Jews weren't able to just go on tour whenever they wanted. Drsmoo (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The second quotation doesn't end with the period you put there, but continues "but the poems of Jehuda Halevi, the tolerance of Islam, and the reputation of Northern Syria as a center of the Kabbala, combined to draw many Jews to Palestine." It's also a bit odd that your second quote says that Omar forbad Jews to enter Jerusalem while your first source, on the same page and the next page, says exactly the opposite.  Actually I don't recall any Muslim period, before or after the Crusader rule, when Jews were less able to visit Jerusalem than Christians were.  If such periods existed, your sources don't indicate them. There are many surviving accounts of Jewish travelers throughout that period; for example there are more than a dozen in Adler's "Jewish Travellers of the Middle Ages". Zerotalk 13:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1905 book in the second quote, from Israel Abrahams, makes generalizations that are patent nonsense and should not be used. It is known to everyone that from 638 down to the 11th century, Jews had as much access to the city as the majoritarian Christians. Saladin restored Jewish rights to residence and visits after they had been interrupted by the Crusaders. The small community nonetheless declined to almost zero thereafter. Travel often relied on the existence of ethnic/sectarian networks, and wherever these broke down, pilgrimage etc., declined.Nishidani (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the 1905 book had a typo and meant "until Omar" based on the next sentence "Even in the centuries subsequent to Omar" and the references to the "tolerance of Islam" which wouldn't make sense otherwise. (He likely meant Constantine until Omar.) The relevant passages for that source are that after Omar travel was still dangerous for Jews. The earliest travelogue in "Jewish Travellers" is 817. None of the travelogues seem to reference reaching Palestine/Jerusalem/Israel/The Holy Land until Benjamin of Tudela. There is Judah Halevi who writes of his "trip to Zion"in around the same period as Benjamin, however he doesn't seem to describe his time there. Are there any Jewish travelogues of Israel/Palestine before Benjamin of Tudelah? Drsmoo (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Travel was dangerous for everyone, of any persuasion, in premodern times. For several centuries, after Umar and then after Suleyman the Magnificent, there were no special difficulties for Jews, who had very substantial communities throughout the contiguous Middle Eastern world. They did not emigrate en masse, and the reasons for this absence of aliyah do not lie in persecution.Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Some more sources (first two are from the same source):

I fail to see the purpose of this. It has nothing to do with Rachel's tomb. We all know that Muslims, Christians and Jews went on pilgrimage in Palestine. It is all common knowledge, familiar I am sure to most editors. Relative to the population, Jews were an exiguous percentage of the population from late Byzantine times down to the 19th century, as indeed also Christians, the majority until the 11th-12 centuries, when their numbers began to dwindle. All suffered slaughter: in 1099, the Jewish population could congregate in one synagogue, where they were all killed by the Crusaders who, however, did so while dispatching a reported 70,000 (probably exaggerated) Muslims, similar numbers are mentioned for the bruited Persian/Jewish slaughter of Christians in 614. The 1099 massive pogrom seeded in Islamic culture the notion of holy war by the way, since that is what the Crusaders called their form of belligerent murder. Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that inserting a statement saying the first and majority of descriptions were Christian, without pointing out that when those first Christian descriptions were written, Jews were barred from entering, and that there were very few Jews writing about travel is misleading. Drsmoo (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you need a source saying Jews were barred from entering Rachel's Tomb. It's that simple.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure

Drsmoo (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the basis for an inference you are making, that were it not for the ban, Jews would have made pilgrimages to Rachel's tomb. The second, more serious oversight, is that, as your source and many others state, the proscription on a Jewish presence in the region of Aelia extended to Jews of the Christian persuasion. The ban on Jews in Aelia thus applied to both and if pilgrimage existed would have hampered both communities. The ban was clearly observed in the breach since as your source adds, the Talmud has several passages speaking of Jews in or passing by Jerusalem in the 2nd-3rd centuries, and Jerome's own teacher in Bethlehem was a Jew. Christian pilgrimage was probably exiguous, until after Constantine's mother's time. Eusebius mentions only 4 examples. Lastly, you haven't paid attention to the wording of Tertullian's text:
 * "For it behoves him to proceed from the tribe of Judah and from Bethlehem. But we perceive that now none of the race of Israel has remained in Bethlehem; and (so it has been) ever since the interdict was issued forbidding any one of the Jews to linger in the confines of the very district, in order that this prophetic utterance also should be perfectly fulfilled"
 * "Oportebat enim eum de tribu Iuda et a Bethleem procedere. Animadvertimus autem nunc neminem de genere Israelis in civitate Bethleem remansisse exinde quo interdictum est, ne in confinio ipsius regionis demoretur quisquam Iudaeorum, ut hoc quoque esset adimpletum, id est propheta"
 * to linger is demorari in Latin, and specifically means to 'stay over,' and contextually here clearly signifies 'breaking one's journey to put up in Bethlehem'. The whole passage says nothing about Jews being forbidden to pass through the region of Aelia. To the contrary it attests to the idea that those Jews who were travelling there could not take up residence, or stay over there, something which does not impede pilgrimage.Nishidani (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While your original research is interesting, Princeton University Press is quite clear: "That the prohibition was enforced by the death penalty is confirmed by Justin (Apology I 147: cf Dialogue with Trypho 16 and 92), who remarks that "death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it [Jerusalem]." The interdict applied not just to the city proper but to the entire municipal territory of Aelia Capitolina, which included the mountains immediately surrounding the city, known as Oreine ("the hill country," Lk 1:65), and extended northward to Gophna and southward to Herodium and Bethlehem." Regarding Judeo-Christians, it seems likely that they were prohibited. I don't see the relevance though. Tertullian wasn't a Jewish Christian, and non-Jewish Christians were allowed to enter. I wouldn't be surprised though if there were some Jews who risked sneaking into Jerusalem to study and pray due to its significance, the fact that Jews were barred from entering there and Bethlehem under punishment of death is well established.  Drsmoo (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Re Judeo-Christians, if you had extended the quote, we would see that the author wrote "is not entirely clear" - so we should not try to draw a conclusion.
 * Either way, I do not understand the relevance - none of this would stop Jewish travellers from the seventh century onwards. Your source 6 above found this "curious", suggesting there is no obvious reason for the lack of recorded pilgimages as you are suggesting. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that when the first Christian descriptions were written, Jews were banned from entering. Regarding the seventh century onwards, there are "very few" pre-modern Jewish travelogues. So to say that most were Christian is, as has been pointed out, not meaningful. Unless one is trying to create a misleading POV. Drsmoo (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo. Try to refrain playing the pot to my kettle. Most of what I said is from the sources you asked me to read. What you are engaged in is irrelevant original research in the sense that, lacking material on Jewish pilgrimage to Rachel's tomb in this early period, you are casting around for material that explains why there is no evidence for it, i.e. some ban on them making pilgrimage, a ban that also applied to Judeo-Christians. As I said: if you want to make this point, then all you need do is find an RS that specifically states Jewish (and even Jewish Christian) pilgrimage to Rachel's Tomb dropped off because of the ban on Jews in Aelia.Nishidani (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Your own translation is original research, quoting from a reliable source is not. The fact that the ban applied to Judeo-Christians has no relevance to anything. And yes, a source was provided which stated that Jews were barred from Rachel's Tomb. And that's while having no obligation to respond to meaningless ultimatums. Drsmoo (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. The translation provided was from the standard English version. I simply gave the Latin text, and glossed the word to linger which, like demorari, means to 'hang around' and not move on. The text RS you yourself cited, Jack Finegan, uses the same text, Look up the word 'linger' in any English dictionary. Any one who 'lingers' is told to move on. The Roman ban if applied would have meant anyone found there would be put to death, not just told not 'to linger'. Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The source is clear "death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it", it's not contradicted by Tertullian either. Drsmoo (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

To try to bring this to a head, we can write: "The first historically recorded pilgrimages to the site were by early Christians in the first centuries CE. The first recorded Jewish pilgrimages were in the 10th century,[ref name=":0" ] and most recorded historical witnesses to the tomb were Christian; [ref name=Strickert] although it should be noted that Jewish and Judeo-Christian travel to the region was banned during the Aelia period from the early second century until the [ ] century."[citation needed]

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that would be misleading and POV. Drsmoo (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, then we will delete the last clause starting "although it should be noted". The rest of the sentence is directly supported by WP:RS and will stay in the article whether you like it or not. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is "we"? That sounds a lot like tag-teaming. The fact that Jews were barred from entering under penalty of death is WP:RS, as is the fact that there were very few Jewish travelogues written at all. Drsmoo (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are systematically ignoring all of the evidence that does not favour the snippet you have, which regards not a ban on pilgrimage to Rachel's Tomb, but a prohibition on Jews, including Jewish Christians, from residing in Aelia, including Bethlehem, a ban that cannot have been executed thoroughly for the early period because both the Talmud and Christian patristic literature notes the presence of Jews, Jewish Christians and Christians in that area while the threat of execution was not yet revoked. By the way 'we' in English refers to all people present. Oncenawhile is asking for some compromise consonant with the known historical record.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Jews were barred, under penalty of death, from entering Aelia and the surrounding region. Tertullian wrote that no Jews remained in Bethlehem and that Jews were prohibited from lingering there. B does not contradict A, though I'm happy to add both to the article. The fact that some Jews managed to sneak in does not change the fact that they were barred from doing so under penalty of death. Drsmoo (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo, your "surrounding region" point in your first sentence is mixed up - per your sources above that component comes from Tertullian. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. "From this and other ancient references to Hadrian's action it is supposed that the emperor's orders took the form of a resolution adopted at his recommendation by the Roman Senate (senatus consultum), a resolution which decreed that it was forbidden for all circumcised persons to enter and to stay within the territory of Aelia Capitolina, and that any person contravening this prohibition should be put to death. That the prohibition was enforced by the death penalty is confirmed by Justin (Apology I 147: cf Dialogue with Trypho 16 and 92), who remarks that "death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it [Jerusalem]." The interdict applied not just to the city proper but to the entire municipal territory of Aelia Capitolina, which included the mountains immediately surrounding the city, known as Oreine ("the hill country," Lk 1:65), and extended northward to Gophna and southward to Herodium and Bethlehem. He then says that the inclusion of Bethlehem in the prohibition is confirmed by Tertullian. Drsmoo (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you show the full subsequent sentence it is clear that the author is saying that he knows it applies to the surrounding region because Tertullian confirms it. It can't be any other way because he doesn't provide any other source for the statement re wider application. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant to convey, I may have written it poorly. I don't think there's any disagreement here. Drsmoo (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Jewish Christians were barred under penalty of death from entering Aelia and the surrounding region. They were savagely persecuted for 2 centuries during which Jewish worship was considered a religio licita. Yet documents say, notwithstanding this both Christians and Jews did either pass through or reside in that area while the general ban was still enforceable. As for Tertullian, or any other ancient author, nothing written in these texts is prima facie proof of anything. He is citing a law while writing in far-off Carthage, not making empirical observations of how it was implemented or otherwise in distant Palestine, whereas his rough contemporary Origen states that in his time Bethlehem was an object of Christian tourism, when the law forbade Jewish Christians technically from entering that area. Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

How about the following: "The first historically recorded pilgrimages to the site were by early Christians in the first centuries CE. The first recorded Jewish pilgrimages were in the 10th century,[ref name=":0" ] and most recorded historical witnesses to the tomb were Christian; [ref name=Strickert] although it should be noted that Jewish and Judeo-Christian travel to the region was limited, with certain exceptions, due to a ban during the Aelia period from the early second century until the [ ] century."[citation needed]

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Still POV, my preferred version is the one currently on the page. Though I'm open to adding the information on Jews (and Jewish Christians) being barred under penalty of death. As well as adding Tertullian's observation that no Jews remained in Bethlehem. We can also add that there are very few pre-modern Jewish travelogues in general. Drsmoo (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, combined proposal as follows:
 * "The first historically recorded pilgrimages to the site were by early Christians in the first centuries CE. The first recorded Jewish pilgrimages were in the 10th century,[ref name=":0" ] and most recorded historical witnesses to the tomb were Christian; [ref name=Strickert] although it should be noted that Jewish and Judeo-Christian travel to the region was limited, with certain exceptions, due to a ban under penalty of death during the Aelia period from the early second century until the [ ] century, there were no Jews in Bethlehem during Tertullian's time and there were very few pre-modern Jewish travelogues in general.."[citation needed]
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, that actually is much better, I would change it a smidge though to the following: ''"The first historically recorded pilgrimages to the site were by early Christians in the first centuries CE (Sered) and most recorded historical witnesses to the tomb were Christian; [ref name=Strickert]. Jewish and Judeo-Christian travel to the region was limited (with some exceptions) due to a ban under penalty of death from the early second century until the fourth century, with Tertullian attesting that "no Jews remained in Bethlehem." (Finegan) There were very few pre-modern Jewish travelogues (Eliav -Feldon), with the first recorded Jewish pilgrimages to the tomb in the 10th century (Sered). Drsmoo (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can live with this as a compromise. I worry it feels heavy with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, but I don't think it's misleading. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's WP:ORish, but not contrafactual, and I'm not going to niggle if other editors accept this as a reasonable compromise, though I would have worded it somewhat differently, purely on stylistic grounds, along the following lines.
 * "Early documentary evidence for visiting Rachel’s Tomb was provided by Christian witnesses . [ref name=Strickert]. with the first historically attested pilgrimages to the site by early Christians  dating back to the first centuries CE (Sered). Jewish and Jewish Christian travel to the area was limited, given the Hadrian’s interdiction on Jews entering the region around Jerusalem. This ban, which carried the death penalty, was formally in force for some centuries, though exceptions of leniency appear to have existed. Tertullian attests for this period that 'no Jews remained in Bethlehem.' (Jack Finegan) There were very few pre-modern Jewish travelogues (Eliav -Feldon), with the first recorded Jewish pilgrimages to the tomb in the 10th century (Sered).Nishidani (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)"


 * thanks for this. I note you deleted "from the early second century until the fourth century". What time period do you think the ban applied to? I do think we should include a time frame around this. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 'formally in force for some centuries'. Anyone clicking on Hadrian (ca.135 ca.) can arrive at the end of the time frame. But in any case, I'm happy with the compromise you both worked out.Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Caption on image
readers deserve an explanation as to why we are putting a century-old image in prime position instead of a recent photo. I don't care what it says, so long as we explain. If you don't like what was written, write your own. But a blatant revert is lazy against what was clearly a good faith edit. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree on all counts. I made a perfectly legitimate BRD revert. Your new caption is an obvious POV push which I can't imagine you thought will remain unchallenged. The current image is a well known iconic image that represents the tomb. I think the current image and caption are fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So you think it's fine for a reader to remain in the dark as to why we are showing an old pencil sketch instead of a recent photo?
 * And what exactly is POV about explaining that it is no longer visible from the street. Please explain this in simple terms as I really have no idea.
 * Oh and please source your claim that the sketch is iconic.
 * Finally, please give me another example of a still-standing ancient building whose primary image is not a recent photo.
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * please respond to the above. Otherwise I can only assume that your objection has no substance behind it. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I explained my objection both in my edit summary and in my post above. I am not required to let you waste my time with an endless back and forth that consists mainly of you asking irrelevant questions and demanding answers. Fool me once, etc. If another editor supports your edit I will gladly continue the discussion. Meanwhile, do not take my future silence as consent for your proposed changes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. Reverts need rationale that stand up to more scrutiny than a quick scratch at the surface. Your explanation says POV yet you don't explain why, and you claim the image is well known and iconic without proof. You know well that Wikipedia is about quality of discussion, not quantity. If you are not prepared to discuss, you will be ignored. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The modified caption is clearly a POV violation. The image it accompanied did not show any wall. What would you think of a caption for either your image or the current one that read "Due to Palestinian violence, the site was surrounded by walls and can no longer be seen from the street"? That should tell you how POV your caption was. Epson Salts (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)</s
 * The caption was simply "Today, the tomb is encircled by the Israeli West Bank barrier, so is no longer visible from street level." That is objective fact.
 * Your "Due to Palestinian violence" is commentary, which is POV because it is only one component of the debate around the wall. An example equivalent but opposite POV would be "Due to an Israeli land-grab significantly outside the Green Line..." or similar.
 * The uncontroversial fact is that the wall exists, and such that the tomb is no longer visible from the outside. We should not include commentary either way. What is POV about that?
 * Oncenawhile (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The caption should simply describe the image. Drsmoo (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you so reticent to explain to readers why we are not showing a modern photograph? Avoid this is pulling the wool over the eyes of readers, plain and simple. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Who is "you"? You didn't add a modern photo, you just added a non-sequitor to the caption. Drsmoo (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You, Drsmoo, and any other editors opposing clarity. There is no modern photo in this article because no modern photo exists or is even possible, since the tomb sits behind 8 meter high walls. Why would anyone want to hide this simple fact? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware of the modern status of the location: here is a map showing the wall and the tomb: .

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Btw Oncenawhile, you said again Wikipedia is not about consensus, this is similar to when you didn't know what a revert was. Just letting you know that wikipedia is in fact based on consensus. Drsmoo (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I said "Wikipedia is about quality of discussion, not quantity". As WP:Consensus states: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity; nor is it the result of a vote." Oncenawhile (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I support Drsmoo's revert of material that attempted to give this issue UNDUE weight in the lead which Oncenawhile petulantly put in the article when he didn't get his way with the image. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Guys, there is no way you can hide this from people. The tomb in now inside a wall. It's incredibly obvious to anyone who goes there, yet you want to obfuscate it for readers here. We'll have to take this to an RFC or other form of DRN. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do whatever you feel you need to do. This information is already in the article no less than 4 times. Good luck finding a consensus to UNDUE it even more. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the single most absurd attempted application of UNDUE I have ever seen proposed. Obviously undue cannot apply to describing the single most obvious thing that any real life visitor to the Tomb would see. If it is prominent in real life it should be prominent in this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to quote where UNDUE says anything about what real life visitors see, and I'd point out that it talks about prominence in sources, but that seems to be an exercise in futility. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What a lot of BS, NMMNG. Zerotalk 00:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's featured as and where it should be, in the sections detailing the modern status and description of the tomb. Drsmoo (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Do elaborate, Zero. Do you also feel that a mention in the lead, a mention in the body, a map showing the barrier and a picture showing the barrier are not enough for this article? Or were you questioning my interpretation of UNDUE? Please share your thoughts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The previous caption improved the article by informing readers why an old image of an existing building was being displayed contrary to normal practice in Wikipedia. Various wordings are possible, but deletion is definitely to the detriment of the article.  I read the arguments and found yours to be lacking. You even undermined yourself when you wrote about "prominence in sources"; can you imagine that most recent sources describing the site don't mention one of the sites most notable features? Zerotalk 01:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This explanation pre-supposes the assumption that this is the reason for the old image, rathe than the alternate, and more plausible , explanation that the old image is considered iconic, whereas the new one is not. Epson Salts (talk) 01:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Who says this is contrary to normal practice in Wikipedia? Maybe "most recent sources" do mention it, and maybe they don't, I really don't know. Unless they're activist sources like the architect Once was using as a source, I doubt they linger on it very much. As I mentioned, this is already mentioned in the lead and in the body, accompanied by a map showing the route of the barrier and a picture of the barrier itself. Is that not enough weight in your view?
 * I'll tell you what I'm sure is contrary to normal practice in Wikipedia - highlighting one issue that promotes your POV in the caption of the main image in the article, particularly when the picture doesn't even show the feature the caption is supposedly describing. That you would support an editor who tried to do that is what's BS here, but sadly no longer surprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There was an unusual typo in your post. Where you wrote "activist" you must have meant to type "University of Cambridge Professor of Architecture". Perhaps your computer's autocorrect feature is accidentally set to "tendentious misrepresentation". Oncenawhile (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Now you made me cry. I would just write something like "the building is now closely surrounded by walls" in the caption, which is objectively true, perfectly neutral, and perfectly justified. Zerotalk 02:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And why would we write that? The White House is surrounded by a tall fence on all sides, yet our photo does not show that fence, nor do we make any mention of it in the caption.  Stop with the POV pushing. Epson Salts (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If we woke up tomorrow and the White House was surrounded by an 8m high concrete barrier right up to the edge of the building, it would be described in the first paragraph and the caption.
 * You are missing the most important point though. You wrote that the White House photo does not show the fence. That is because an external photo is possible without showing the fence. The point here is that an external photo of Rachel's Tomb is not possible because of the barrier right in front and towering over it. Here is a video of what is now visible from the street. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The video you posted conclusively disproves your point - from its first  frame, where the outside  wall of Tomb Of Rachel can clearly be seen. Epson Salts (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly that is a modern wall. It is not the wall of the tomb itself which is behind it and looks like this. That wall is now covered, as can be seen in this photo. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not covered by the separation wall, though, now is it? So can we drop the hyperbole about "8m high concrete walls," whose only purpose is to advance a POV? Epson Salts (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, I am very open minded about the way we describe it. I simply think readers need to understand that (a) when the first paragraph says the tomb is in Bethlehem, the situation is not as simple as that, and (b) that there is a reason why we don't show a full modern picture of the tomb in the introductory photo. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Joseph's Tomb shows a painting as well. There's really no issue here other than POV pushing. The barrier is mentioned plenty in the article including in the lead and as mentioned before, included where appropriate, in modern descriptions of the location. Drsmoo (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That is because no recent photo of Joseph's Tomb was available until 2014, not because one could not be available . You still have not explained why my points (a) and (b) above would be POV. Continually claiming POV without explanation makes it look like there's another reason you don't like it but you're not willing to tell everyone. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Three editors have described your changes as POV pushing. I'll let you know, claiming some kind of bullshit secret motive isn't going to lead to anything good. The first paragraph describes the historical nature of the site. The fourth paragraph describes its modern status, which is where the description of the barrier is introduced, and where it should be. Captions should describe the image they're captioning. Drsmoo (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about votes or throwing around vacuous claims. It is about reasoned argument, which means addressing the points head on. In (a) above, I noted it seemed misleading to state that the tomb in is Bethlehem without any clarification, since it is not currently accessible from Bethlehem-proper. In (b) all I am proposing is a form of words which explains that the view shown in the sketch or old photo no longer exists, yet you have consistently failed to explain why you believe that is POV. Why are you avoiding these simple and reasonable points? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The location mentioned in the first paragraph is accurate. You've yet to make a reasoned argument, or honestly, any argument other than claiming it needs to be there. The game of making a change, then demanding an explanation for why it was reverted by others, then demanding the same explanation again, and again, and then when they ignore you claiming that you'll redo the edit because they're not responding to you anymore isn't reasoned discussion either. (Another game is making multiple talk page sections about the same subject in rapid succession). I don't see any consensus for changing the image.Drsmoo (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Re (a), I agree that Bethlehem being the location is accurate, yet it is also misleading without a "but...". Do you honestly believe that the enclosure and annexation of this tomb by the Wall is not notable enough for the lead paragraph? And on (b) you continue to evade my question. Ultimately this is question of whether one want to help readers understand this situation or not. It appears you are simply fighting to hide "inconvenient truths".. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, I believe the enclosure of the tomb by the wall is not notable  enough for the image caption, especially since no wall is visible in either the current image, or the one you were trying to push. It seems you have not actually read the article we are discussing, as the fact of the wall enclosing the tomb is in the lead. Now that have we put that argument to bed, let's move on. Epson Salts (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "the lead" (all the paragraphs) and "the lead paragraph" (the first paragraph). A lead paragraph is reserved for only the most notable items on a subject. The idea that the actual status of the location doesn't qualify for this is absurd. To say "the tomb is in Bethlehem" without any other explanation is an embarrassment for our encyclopedia. Here's a test for you - if you met a professor in an elevator and asked them to describe the tomb, would they really get through five whole sentences without a single allusion to the unusual location and the fortification? Frankly most people would mention it in the first sentence. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

So apparently Once was attempting to put false information into the caption, and it's not necessarily "common practice" to have a photo? Color me shocked. I will, for the last time I hope, note that I think the current image and caption are fine, and that the issue of the barrier is amply noted in the lead and article, including being illustrated by both a map and an image. That seems like enough WEIGHT to me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You write "it's not necessarily "common practice" to have a photo". I suggest you review Template:Holy sites in Judaism. All but this one and Joseph's tomb (where a modern photo had not been available until recently) include modern photos as the lead image. There are a great many other examples I could bring. Unless you have evidence to support your statement, it can only be ignored. Which brings us to the real question here: if this article is going to continue to look odd by showing an old sketch as a the image for a building that still exists, why should we not explain why? You keep evading this question - unless you address this point, there cannot be a resolution here. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * we've amply explained why it uses a sketch - it is an iconic image, and has nothing do with the wall. Epson Salts (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite repeated requests, noone has been able to substantiate the alleged "iconic" nature of the image. So I can only assume the sketch is not noteworthy. If you wish this article to deviate from common practice, you can't just throw out random words and hope that some of them stick - you need a real rationale that is based in actual fact and stands up to some level of scrutiny. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confused as to who has to make arguments here- you want to make a change to a long-standing version of the article - the onus is on you to justify it. So far you have failed. You claimed there is no article that uses sketches instead of recent photos - that was proven false (and then you disruptively went and tried to change the other article offered as proof). You claimed the tomb can't be photographed because of the wall - and then promptly shot yourself in the foot by posting a video and a still photograph that show the tomb . Multiple editor have told you that what you are doing is POV-pushing - time for you to move on.Epson Salts (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Classic. Having evaded challenge for the umpteenth time, is now clear beyond doubt that your objections are wholly spurious. So instead of apologizing and stepping back, you are trying to flip things around and hope noone notices... You then go on the attack by creating two strawmen claims which misrepresent what I have said (the evidence is above for all to see) - it is cheap and a waste of time.
 * I have raised two valid concerns which remain unaddressed. Until you are willing to address them with reasoned discussion, we will make no progress here. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my second comment in this thread. I am not prescient, just experienced. Barring more editors to showing up to support a change (and I would hope this time not an attempt to insert false information into the article), I consider this resolved. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you have provided no substance to this discussion, yet consider it resolved, you must think that Wikipedia works via a voting system. Just because a group of editors "don't like" a fact, doesn't mean the discussion is over. Quite the opposite. Until we conclude a reasoned and substance-based discussion, this discussion will continue. I intend to summarise the substance of this discussion shortly and will then proceed to improve the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent claims
The debate above regarding the PA's recording of their name for the site in 1996 may have a parallel. Pullan writes "Since [1995] this important Jewish holy place has been made into a high-profile national religious shrine, referred to by its devotees as either the second or third holiest place in Judaism. The uncertainty about its status stems from different competing interest groups, but the ranking also indicates a recently revived and politically motivated place in the Jewish pantheon."

Does anyone have any sources which are inconsistent with Pullan's claim that ranking was "recently revived"?

Oncenawhile (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Fringe and counterfactual attempts to undermine Jewish holy sites are pretty lame. The claim is false.


 * "On the approach to Bethlehem is Rachel's Tomb, perhaps the most holy of Jewish shrines after the Wailing Wall and the Tomb of the Patriarchs." (https://books.google.com/books?id=oiK7AAAAIAAJ)


 * "Rachel's tomb at the entrance to Bethlehem, is one of Jewry's most holy sites" (https://books.google.com/books?id=T1iV4jiS2sgC)


 * "The renewed encounter of the Jewish People with its holy places, especially the Western Wall, Rachel's Tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and the securing of sovereignty over those places—which are linked with the formative roots of the Jewish People and the Jewish religion—encouraged and reinforced faith that hopes for Redemption were indeed being fulfilled." (https://books.google.com/books?id=BphaWb-aug0C) Drsmoo (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The earliest one you have there is 1967. But Pullan's "recently revived" doesn't have a date attached to it. And another source you deleted without explanation states that the site "became" venerated as one of the three holiest, although without giving a date.
 * Have you seen any sources which give a sense of when this ranking came in to being. It clearly was not handed down by G_d. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * So wait, you extrapolated a date from the text and added it (1995), and now claim there is no date. Ok, lol. There are multiple sources describing Rachel's Tomb as one of the holiest sites in Judaism. Pullan's claim is false. Drsmoo (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * They are separate sentences. Your sources do not contradict Pullan. Do you consider that this "ranking" has existed in mainstream Judaism for 1,000 years? Surely given the number of sources out there which discuss the ranking we can find one which discusses when it came into being. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, they're separate sentences? Lol. The first sentence claims it was only referred to as the second or third holiest place in Judaism after 1995. That was proven incorrect. The second sentence continues Pullan's incorrect description, and says "the ranking also indicates a recently revived and politically motivated place in the Jewish pantheon." So no, you're wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a source mentioned in the article which is more or less about this subject: Susan Sered, "Rachel's Tomb: The Development of a Cult", Jewish Studies Quarterly, vol 2, 1995, pp. 103–148. She explains her use of the word "cult" like this: "A cult (whether of a saint, hero, god, spirit, founder, or leader) occurs at the point of convergence of myth and ritual; both myth and ritual are requisite conditions for a religious phenomenon to be considered a cult. In the case of Rachel, the cult emerged when ritual activity began to incorporate symbols and images associated with her unique Biblical and midrashic myth when her particular myth began to be translated into ritual activity. Today, Rachel's cult is comprised of distinctive themes (fertility, Zionism, and the Holocaust), a place (her Tomb in Bethlehem), an object (red thread), occasions (the day before the Festival of the New Moon and the anniversary of her death), an honorific title ('Our Mother Rachel'), and miracle stories..." As she tells it over 46 pages, even though the tomb was a place of pilgrimage from the 10th century or earlier, the cult emerged in the late 19th and early 20th century. Zerotalk 11:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very interesting, thanks. Does she state the "late 19th century" date explicitly in this context? Oncenawhile (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just reminding everyone that the source Once is using for this is an Architect, not a historian, and she's the only one making this claim (and she's used twice in the lead and only in the lead? Someone must really like her). Seems quite exceptional. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just reminding you, Rachel's Tomb is a building, with a history, and Wendy Pullan is an historian of architecture, specializing in the Middle East. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a very good one if she thinks Rachel's tomb has been considered one of Judaism's top most holy places only since 1995 (an issue that may or may not be related to "history of architecture"). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Nadav Shragai is not even an historian and and gets several points wrong .you don't seem to worry about that. At RS/N, by the way, the advice was to use him only with attribution, which is ignored here. Shragai is a journalist, specializing on Israeli politics and the I/P conflict. He gets things outrageously wrong
 * 'For centuries, Rachel’s Tomb was considered only a Jewish holy place (all of our specialist sources show that is false. I have several other examples.
 * Even so, most experts bungle a detail or two, often by trusting a meme in sources that other experts repeat. I once traced the idea of the ranking of the '4 holiest cities' ranking in Judaism and Islam and could get no further than the 17th century.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (a) I believe we're sourcing the 1996 name thing to Rubinstein now, not Shragai. (b) Shragai was not saying something we all know is untrue regarding the name of the site. In fact he was saying something that despite repeated attempts nobody was able to refute. Your comparison is invalid.
 * If you once traced the idea, perhaps you have sources that support or refute what Pullan said? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Since the mid-1990s,' in that sentence is sourced to Shragai. Shragai's general systematic elision of all the evidence that contradicts his spin produces the falsification of history that remains in his asserting 'For centuries, Rachel’s Tomb was considered only a Jewish holy place.' Compare Bowman and Sered, to name but a few.Nishidani (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it can be sourced to Rubinstein. Zero has the exact info and can change the ref. Can you focus on the topic of this thread though? Perhaps you have sources that support or refute what Pullan said? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I focused on precisely the point you raised. That is the function of threads, to raise issues, and get answers.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you did. So no sources from the time you traced the ranking of holy sites back to the 17th century? That's too bad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirect for "Tomb of Rachel" is needed
Arminden (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Done, but I think you could have done it too. Just create an article with that name and " #REDIRECT Rachel's Tomb " as the only content. Zerotalk 08:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Chateaubriand
I wonder if François-René Chateaubriand observations in 1806 is worth noting? See Chateaubriand, 1814, vol 1, pp. 390-391. Huldra (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)



Holy in Christianity ?
I'd like to see a reliable source (from Christian origin...) stating that this site would be holy in Christianism. I am far of being an expert but Christiniam refers to the Jesus of Nazareth. And if it is true that the Old Testament is considered as a holy book in Christinism, that does not mean that the characters of the book are holy... Pluto2012 (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rachel's tomb is already not here : List of Christian holy sites in the Holy Land.
 * She is not among the List of saints
 * Well - the two sources in the article - - do seem to document some Byzantine and Crusader use. "Holy" is complex (some would contend this is not "holy" in Judaism or Islam either - grave worship being a complex phenomena). She is clearly a "positive" old testament figure (and none of them, IIRC, are saints, but they are recognized by Christians). In terms of present use - I am not aware of any Christian use of the site - though it is possible it is (or used to be - prior to the 90s when it was more accessible) visited by Christians as a historic site (though clearly less significant (for Christians) than multiple other sites in and around Jerusalem and Bethlehem).Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * e.g. these "touristy" sites geared for Christian pilgrims seem to list it in a modern context: .Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand and that's already a good point but it is quite normal that Christian tourists visit sites of the Old Testament given Old Testament is a holy book. But the point is that do they visit this as the Sinaï, because it is just a site or do they visit this by veneration, as they would do for the Church of Nativity... Pluto2012 (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that they visit this site, as well as sites such as Saint Catherine's Monastery (mt. Sinai - official name "Sacred Monastery of the God-Trodden Mount Sinai."), Stella Maris Carmelite Monastery (associated with Elijah), or Abu Ghosh (associated with the ark of covenant) due to them being mentioned (with some identification/association issues) in a book they consider important - the old testament - so the association is religious in nature. In contrast, if they go and visit Petra (as many do) - they do so because it is a very nice site (to say the least - much more impressive than this one) - and not because it is mentioned in a holy book. Whether it is "holy", or "venerated", or "tracing the footsteps of the bible" - is splitting hairs (and probably the multitude of Christian denominations and sub-sects (e.g. orders within the Catholic church) each have a different opinion - Christianity is seldom uniform in this respect) - the nature of the interest is religious in nature.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be on the list of Christian holy sites, even though it not an extremely important one. Christian pilgrimage to the tomb is recorded from medieval to modern times. As for sainthood, Abraham and Moses are not Christian saints either, but they are venerated. Sainthood is a title bestowed on persons by the Christian church and it isn't usually bestowed on anyone who lived before Jesus. Zerotalk 12:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Icewhiz and Zero0000,
 * Thank you for your answers.
 * I am aware that Old Testament characters are "respected" in Christiniasm but I am not convinced they are "holy".
 * And I wonder if they are still "venerated" as they may have been in the Middle Ages...
 * That would be interesting to find an official list (and why not from a primary source such as Vatican website).
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure there a 2 levels of veneration....
 * Rachel's Tomb not in that list
 * not wp:rs but they would rather add some than remove any...
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See this subpage of one you listed. The Christian authorities can hardly claim custody of Rachel's Tomb. It is political pragmatism. Zerotalk 14:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And neither is the Temple mount listed - despite it being a site associated (among other things) with Jesus's final days on earth, and being a Christian site at times (e.g. Templum Domini).Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI : The Temple is not associated with the last days of Jesus on earth. The only thing that I remind about the Temple from my religeous courses is that he chased merchants from there...
 * Zero0000 : I agree about 'pragmatism' and I understand your point but I disagree with you that Christians could not claim some religeous custody on a holy site in their religion, as the Waqf finaly got on the Haram al-Sharif / Temple Mount. And he may well have visited Rachel's tomb that's a kind a link between Judaism and Christianism (and Islam) : love & peace etc.
 * I will try to find WP:RS about all this. They must exist somewhere. Pluto2012 (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See Cleansing of the Temple (a week prior to his death) - regarded to the be the trigger event for Jesus's capture and death - the chasing of the merchants is what got the establishment to act against him. Custody has changed in the past (e.g. Templum Domini).Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, Icewhiz ...ok, this is just my 2 cents (as one who had a very thorough Christian upbringing): the temple, or temple mount never figured big (...not since the destruction of  the 1st temple anyway), Golgatha was a much, much, much bigger thing...Huldra (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @Icewhiz : the Cleansing of the Temple [from merchants] is what I has referred to as the story when "he chased them". But it is controversed if this happens 1 week before his crucifixion or some year sooner. In any case, he also fished on the Tiberiade Lake, which does not make this lake holy... (I confirm Huldra point : the Golgotha is highly sanctified because that's where (in Christian litturgy) Jesus started suffering for the redemption of Humankind).
 * I have found a reference explaining that Byzantins decided to appropriate all the Jewish holy sites corresponding to Tombs of Patriarchs, among them Rachel's one. But that's not enough. It does not mean it lasted after and much more important that it is still holy today. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy - unexplained revert
“better” is not a sufficient edit comment. Please explain your rationale. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My rationale is that this photo is better, although I think some form of this iconic image would be even better. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ”Better” is your conclusion, not your rationale.
 * If you refuse to provide a rationale, your input can only be ignored. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note you may have broken 1rr here (original authorship provision, etc), Onceinawhile. The photo you added is a very poor photo - taken from outside of the compund (in the old cemetary), some distance away, and at a very poor angle. If we were to do a side by side then this would be a good modern one. Or alternatively a modern photoo from inside the compund (which is visited by numerous pilgrims).Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * NMMNG replaced a picture with both a 1978 and 2018 version of the tomb ...with only a 1978 version. That was a change which made the page less informative..I am restoring. And I do not agree that a picture from the inside is relevant for the lead, obviously it has to be from the outside (seriously, for what other building do we have, in the lead, a picture of the buildings interior?) Huldra (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What I did was restore the photo that was there instead of one which both I and Icewhiz objected to but you just restored that one despite knowing it has no consensus. Nice. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, before this latest round, we has a late 19th century depiction of the tomb. It seems that we all think that a more modern image is appropriate? Onceinawhile and myself think that one with both 1978 and 2018 version is passable, you want only the 1978 version, Icewhiz wants an interior version. I am not saying the present picture is optimal, but I think the present double picture is better than only having the  1978 version, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, what you normally do in that case is restore the picture that has been there for a while and discuss how to improve, not edit war your preferred version over the objections of multiple other editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to a 2018 photo per say (or post 2000 photo) - I may have preferred one if one was readily available on commons. I suggested 1978 as a middle ground after seeing what was readily available - the priginal photo was also ok. As for Onceinawhile's photos (which per commons she took herself?) - they do not show the structure (you see it just barely) - taken from some distance away and with other structures in the way - these are clearly inappropriate for a main photo as they do not show the building in question but rather the general surrondings only.Icewhiz (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that’s right. After a long and fruitless discussion with NMMNG on this topic a couple of years ago, I finally managed to find the time to go and take some better photos. It felt like an easier solution than continuing to go round in circles here.

I spent a day walking around to look at every possible angle. I have put some of the other photos in the article gallery.

Icewhiz, to your comment on showing the original structure, the fortifications mean that is simply not possible as they have been covered by the modern barrier walls. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A photo from inside the modern compund (past the outer walls, from the parking lot inside), would be best. There are no good angles for shooting pictures (except for from the air) from outside the outer walls (except for possibly the north) - by design - this was designed to block sniper fire. The building (as well as various auxiliary building and annexes that got added - for the yeshiva etc.) is visible inside.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not correct; I took inside-the-wall and inside-the-tomb building pictures too but they provide no more visibility than the inside pictures already on commons. The problem is twofold - (1) the orientation of the building, in which the long edge is away from the road, and (2) the fortifications surrounding all four walls, three of which are right up against the building and the fourth of which is the angle onto the post-1967 ornamental gate structure which you linked to a picture of above.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also your parking lot suggestion didn’t work either; the parking area is the bottom “square” of the wall - a different area to where the tomb building is, and the walls surrounding that are the base style of the barrier, therefore much taller than the tomb building. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not there since they did the latest construction, but I thought there should be a large inner courtyard inside behind the wall. If there is no shot of the tomb building, then an inner picture would he better
 * Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a copyrighted aerial photo, which shows the situation clearly. As I mentioded, I took photos from every available angle, and posted the best ones on commons. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is just more reason to show one of the iconic pictures of the tomb as it was when it still could be seen properly. Further down in the article photos to illustrate the fortifications can be included where the description of their building is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. Per Huldra, that would be "less informative".
 * The fortified state of the tomb is its most prominent feature. Most other maqams look almost exactly the same - in wider architectural context the "older" pictures you refer to are entirely unremarkable.
 * I am aware of no other religious building in the known world which is entirely fortified on all sides.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * About your statement that "Most other maqams look almost exactly the same": I used to see this picture on sale on eBay..for years....under the name of "Rachel's Tomb". It isn't, of course...it is (or rather was) the maqam belonging to Sar'a. Huldra (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I think that might also be another one of those which No More Mr Nice Guy considers to be an “iconic image of Rachel’s tomb”... Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Off hand - Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple Mount come to mind as 2000+ year old example. The Temple Mount in particular functioned as one of the inner fortified keeps of Jerusalem (and there are non-Jewish examples as well - e.g. from Meso America IIRC).Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right, and books such as have been written about them.
 * Interestingly we become accustomed to thinking about those fortifications as an integral part of the overall buildings. Perhaps we should do the same here.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be unique as a 21st century example (though Syria/Iraq might have some other recent examples) - when conceived the tomb was under constant sniper threat (as was Gilo from Beit Jala) - things have quieted down, but there still are disturbances and hurled pipe bombs at the tomb on a monthly or bi-monthly basis.Icewhiz (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The best thing would have been if we had a picture taken in the same spot as, say, the 1978 picture. That way, we could clearly see the development. (Look at the bottom of Abu Dis, with pictures from the same place in 1990s, 2004 and 2009. Or Nabi Rubin, with pictures from 1985 and 2012.) Huldra (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good idea. I will create some galleries with the different available angles to help us consider. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ See galleries below. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To put it as the top picture of the article, first you'd need to show that the fortifications are considered part of the tomb by most reliable sources, which I doubt. If you want to inform the reader, you should show a picture of the tomb since that is the subject of this article. Lower down the fortifications can be shown where they are described. Like in the Abu Dis article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Abu Dis article is not only about the wall, it is about the village. Almost ditto for Nabi Rubin, which consists for several buildings. However, Rachel's Tomb is, basically, only one building. One solution could be not to have any picture in the lead....I would prefer that to having a misleading picture, Huldra (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The site is one of the most important holy places in Judaism. Obviously having a disgusting and amateur user photo is not appropriate. Drsmoo (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh?? Virtually all pictures on wp are "disgusting and amateur user photo[s]". Btw, I am leaning more and more to not having a picture in the lead, at all.  Huldra (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * While it's true there are a lot of fairly low quality photos on Wikipedia, the one you keep restoring is particularly amateurish and hardly shows anything about the subject of this article (except a little bit of POV, and even that really badly). One of the famous pictures of this famous site should be at the top of the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I had no idea that a picture, taken by wikipedia user Whoiswho in 1978, was a "famous picture" of this place? Huldra (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I had no idea someone would try to misinterpret what I said in such a childish fashion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is the problem, though: it was no interpretation. It was what you actually said. I suggest we remove the 1978 picture (partly because it is not "famous", but mostly because that is not how it looks today.)  Presently, this article misinform its readers: when you see a picture of a standing building in the lead, one automatically thinks that is what it looks like. Not so here. Huldra (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You know I didn't say that specific picture is the one I thought should remain there, but kudos for doubling down on the childish misinterpretations instead of just dropping it.
 * Also, that's exactly what the tomb is like, only there's a wall near it now. We want to show the tomb, the subject of this article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, people can read for themselves and see what you said. As for "that's exactly what the tomb is like"...AFAIK, nobody can see it that way anymore. So this article is misleading its readers by having that picture in the lead. Huldra (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed they can, including my response to you the previous time you just tried to edit war the same version of photo - . That was only two days ago. How quickly we forget.
 * So you would argue that Buddhas of Bamiyan is "misleading its readers" because it has a picture from 1976 which clearly shows the subject of the article rather than a current photo that doesn't? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite....except the picture hadn't "been there for a while", as you claimed.
 * The Buddhas of Bamiyan are gone...and the article clearly states so in the first sentence. If  Rachel's Tomb was also blown up, then I would argue for having one of the most famous pictures of it in the lead (say, the picture from that British era stamp). There are lots of former buildings which have a picture of them, how they looked when they existed (just see Destruction of country houses in 20th-century Britain). Rachel's Tomb is in a different category, as it still exists. Huldra (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

this outside shot from 2014 - is probably a better shot then those presented (in terms of angles and composition). However, after looking at images used, it seems that an is more often used - and I think we should present the interior entrance.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Other decent shots (but not on commons), are from a high angle - e.g. this from 2013 (from this news article ), or aerial views - .Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That first one is a good find.
 * The interior gate picture doesn’t work because - apart from being interor - all it shows is the modern gate which was added post-1967. The core structure housing the tomb is not visible.
 * As to the other pictures, the ToI article you linked to twice shows the fortifications as its lead image. Most other media article do as well.
 * I think we should follow the news media and have an image of the fortifications as our lead image. As I said above, the tomb itself is unremarkable when compared to any other maqam (shrine).
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I support using the interior tomb shot as a tasteful photo which is also indicitive of the current presentation. I also think photos of garbage and graffiti in which the actual structure is barely visible should be removed.Drsmoo (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the photo should show the tomb. Either one of the old iconic images or if there's a good interior one (which I don't think the one with the sign is). By the way, I found the previous discussion Once alluded to above. Last section Here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, now Drsmoo have placed a new picture in the lead...in the middle of the discussion here. That picture is quite unacceptable, IMO; I cannot think of a single article of a standing building which has part of the interior  (and a not even very interesting part of the interiors!)  in the lead.
 * So far, of the pictures I have seen, this picture is the best up to date one I have seen. Unfortunately, that is not on commons, and unless someone flies a  drone above the tomb,  (and, I assume, get permission from the Israeli army first), take a picture and upload it...then it wont be.
 * I think the outside shot from 2014 is acceptable in the lead, or, if we cannot agree on that: then none at all, Huldra (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point on changing the image while discussion is ongoing. I restored the one that was there before all this started. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. We could perhaps ask soniahalliday.com for permission to use this picture? ...if we can agree on that? Huldra (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Interior lead photos are great. For example, I think the below photos would make great lead images for some other well known tombs:


 * Onceinawhile (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, none of them have an interiors in the lead... Huldra (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If we get permission for the soniahalliday aerial shot (or similar) - that's a good picture and I would support it.Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I like the soniahalliday pic as well. Drsmoo (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can ask soniahalliday.com for permission, but before I start on that, I need to know that we all agree about having it in the lead. User:Onceinawhile? User:No More Mr Nice Guy? Huldra (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer one of the iconic images, but you don't need my permission. The consensus is what it is. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am supportive. Thanks Huldra. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have asked them. So now we just have to wait and see.... Huldra (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)