Talk:Western Wall/Archive 4

Time to close the Kotel
So thinks Nathan Lopez Cardoso: Shut down the Kotel Chesdovi (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't need to add this do we? Western Wall books containing prayer for Israel ripped. Chesdovi (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * you are being disruptive to the project. Wikipedia is not a forum. Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Cardoso repeats the opinion of Bleiweiss that the Wall should be closed to Jews to save the unity of the Jewish people!!!! Chesdovi (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If these are notable and not fringe, then you could mention them. I personally think they are fringe. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Politicisation of the Wall
I think the sections relating to the Israeli/Palestinian/Muslim views relating to the politics surrounding the Wall in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be merged into a new section called Politicisation or In the Arab-Israeli conflict. I think this needs to be separated off as there has been Muslim recognition of the site being associated with Jews for centuries. It was only after the Zionist appropriation of the Wall and its subsequent control of the now contested site that we find Muslim denial of any Jewish association. This obviously stems from the Muslims world's territorial conflict with Israel. It would seem that some views espoused by Muslims are not authenticity "Islamic" but have been informed or inspired by the conflict. Views? Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree very much with your point of view, with the exception of your usage of the word "Zionist". I think that this is not the only Muslim stance that was influenced by the conflict. Not decided on the question if we should make a separate section for this issue. Also depends on how many reliable sources can be found to support this point of view. Debresser (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Source: "What must be recognized is that although there are many political issues relating to the relationship between territory and identity that remain matters of intense dispute within Israeli society, the notion that the Western Wall must remain under Jewish sovereignty is entirely uncontroversial. It is acknowledged even by those of the Zionist left who are otherwise willing to entertain far-reaching territorial compromises.  It is acknowledged even by radical secularists who, although they have nothing but disdain for the religious character of the site, nonetheless place great importance on the …" [cannot preview the rest] <.ref name="Mock2011"><./ref>  I wonder if he also mentions the radical religious who do longingly await the release of the Wall from Zionist captivity. Chesdovi (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But what is the source for the statement that the Arabs are making the Western Wall into an issue because of political reasons? That, if I understood correctly, is what you were saying. Debresser (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is pointless trying to distinguish religious from political/nationalistic motivation on either the Jewish or Islamic sides. Zerotalk 02:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sacred for all
Why don't you look up the definition of the word sanctity? Your edit summary that you used when you reverted me is not the definition of sanctity. I know you need to push a POV but try to tone it down. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You look it up. Chesdovi (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did. What part of sacred, holy, regarded with reverence, worthy of religious worship, inspiring awe, etc. doesn't apply to the Wall? Even you with your extreme hatred for the Wall and anything associated with Israel can see that the Wall is sacred to Jews, it may not be sacred to you, but to 99.999999999999998754367% of Jews it is sacred. Sir Joseph (talk)  00:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to Michael from Haifa (#14), Lesley Hazleton also regards the wall as, well, just a wall:
 * "As a wall, per wall, it’s beautiful — giant, worn ashlar stones with wild self-seeded capers growing through the cracks. But as a symbol of Jewish heritage, it seems to me peculiarly inapt.  It’s just part of the retaining wall of the platform on which King Herod (yes, that Herod, who was, by the way, half Arab, and whose adoption of Jewishness was opportunistic in the extreme) built the kind of lavish, over-the-top temple you expect of dictators." Up Against the Wailing Wall, cited in Midstream, Volume 33: "Hazelton also expresses disdain for the Western Wall." Chesdovi (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Allow me to speak for most everyone, Who the "Wall" cares what Lesley Hazleton cares? I doubt most people don't even know who she is. Allow me to speak for Lubab Debresser and say he'll take R' Moshe Feinstein's view, in the ref I quoted above, over some no name above you love to find during your googling to find any anti-Zionist view to match your agenda to tear down the Wall. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Most Jews do not view the wall in religious terms. Why would they? Most Jews are irreligious. Who are you trying to kid here? Chesdovi (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And what does that have to do with anything? They still hold it is sacred. Your anti Zionist views are bordering on anti Jewish views which is odd considering that I'm assuming you're Jewish. Even your rebbe would say what you are doing is folly. What you are doing is crossing a line, you should stop already. Look at all the sections you are starting on this talk page just to de-judaize the Western Wall, you are taking a page from the PA playbook. Sir Joseph (talk)  04:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "In fact, Judaism has traditionally shied away from cults of holy objects or places." Chesdovi (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, like rebbes, not like Temples, Shuls and the Western Wall. Have you not seen the sources? Are you a religious Jew or is your anti-Zionism NK philosophy so strong that your halachic viewpoints are so warped? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to stop adding in every source you find. Not every source you find is a reliable source. I will report you as a SPI and a POV warrior if you keep doing this.Sir Joseph (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If Reform Jews "refuses to attach any religious significance to the wall", they do not view it as being sacred. Chesdovi (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It is your OR that they attach no religious significance to the Wall. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain clearly why citing Symbols of Defeat in the Construction of National Identity is OR and not RS. Chesdovi (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Does he represent Reform Judaism? The fact that Reform Judaism has a prayer service at the Kotel clearly shows that they do have religious significance to the Wall. In addition, where does he state that RJ attaches NO religious significance to the Wall? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Usage of the above source was in relation to this Chesdovi (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's clearly not true, unless of course you doubt the Mishna or Talmud + Shulchan Aruch doesn't exist either. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Primary sources? Tut, tut. Chesdovi (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here, http://www.reformjudaism.org/western-wall, even if you're nor religious it's still sacred. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is another awful example of a RS. The wall has not even existed for "For thousands of centuries"! Chesdovi (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Second Temple was around 550 BCE or so, so thousands of centuries is correct, unless you doubt the Temple existed. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Erm, no? Chesdovi (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Official Union of Reform Jewry (American) resolution in support on Women of the Wall: http://www.urj.org/what-we-believe/resolutions/support-women-wall Sir Joseph (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph & citing RS
Here SJ uses May One Take a Pebble from the Western Wall as a Souvenir? to support the fact that most Jews attach sanctity to the Wall. Am I missing something? Chesdovi (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What is the issue? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue is that while this may be RS for citing Haredi viewpoints, it cannot be used to represent the views of 12 million other Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I added a source. It's common knowledge that the Western Wall is holy, and R' Moshe Feinstein is not just for Haredi viewpoints, he represents American viewpoints of the common man. You don't need to source that the sky is blue. You are the one that added the dubious tag because you are a self declared anti-Zionist and for some reason that means anything to do with Israel needs to be delegitimized. Is there a specific reason you want to de-judaize the Western Wall? Even the Satmar Rebbe never went as far as you are trying to do. It is not dubious that the Western Wall is a sanctified place. Is there a dubious tag on the temple mount mosque? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Common knowledge" will just not do, especially after I've provided umpteen RS challenging that perception. Chesdovi (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This section is just a continuation of the one above. I propose we close it and see what the consensus will be regarding the question whether all Jews view the Western Wall as holy. Debresser (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I need help
There are editors here who clearly are incapable of editing. Chesdovi (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are hilarious. And I forgot to ask you. Have you ever edited under a different name before? Sir Joseph (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I know you have. Chesdovi (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take a genius to figure that out, it says that right on the top of my talk page. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And I'm not Daniel from the Netherlands!! Chesdovi (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He doesn't live in the Netherlands anymore, I think he lives in the UK, just like you. And isn't it sad that two POV pushers with fringe views are readily identifiable? You need to tone it down. דע לפני מי אתה עומד Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  05:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you call me a POV pusher one more time, I've had it with you. Chesdovi (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) You do the same with me and I thought you wear the badge proudly. 2) Your OP in this section I believe is a violation of Wiki policy as well. Like I said, you need to tone it down. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OP being? (excuse my ignorance) Chesdovi (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

original post, and that is ironic, considering your original post. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I did consider resorting to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests‎ before reporting what I feel is your disruptive behaviour. Chesdovi (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi, why don't we all agree that you have an extreme POV? No reason to be insulted by that. I am fine with your POV. It is your good right. Just let's try to edit together productively, okay? Since this section seems to be more about editors than about any subject matter, I propose to close this section as well. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) with below. Sir Joseph has made an extreme personal attack on Chesdovi, which you removed along with my admonition. To accuse an editor of being in the pocket of a foreign government is totally unacceptable. I think my record for disagreeing with, and reverting, Chesdovi is as good as Zero's, but unlike 'extreme' editors, he uses all of the relevant wiki protocols, works hard on getting sources, and engages in depth on the talk page. Almost all editors, myself not least, here have been accused of having an 'extreme' POV, which means the adjective is just an expression of profound distaste for what is perceived to be the other perspective. When this distaste reflects different religious views, one must make strong efforts to look at the evidence, mainly per WP:Due and not at the POV or the person. I suggest that Chesdovi has come up with some interesting stuff, now formulated below, and that we appraise it according to that policy alone, with zero tolerance for further niggling attacks.Nishidani (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * you don't insert fringe opinions and claim it's normative. You have a POV, but you don't go on a spree to get your pov into the articles.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1. You claim they are fringe. Provide RS to support your stance first! 2. Insertion of so-called "fringe views" is permitted, if done so according to policy. As the section was tagged, Malik (or yourself had you not been blocked for edit warring) was wrong in my opinion to remove cited material, especially Leibowitz as it had not encountered any opposition for 2 years at talk. Chesdovi (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * you can't reinsert after s revert, you needed to discuss and get consensus, you continuously do this.it is disruptive to the project.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 13:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Outright fabrication, I'm afraid. The only time I recall reverting without checking it with you first was here. I have not even attempted to reinsert material Malik removed 8 days ago. And Debresser, you state you are "fine with my POV," but earlier, you shockingly call me "really disgusting" for presenting alternative views. The hutspah. Chesdovi (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a very old wall for many Jews...
What is the explanation for this removal of source material from talk? Chesdovi (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like an archvivebot making a mistake. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus: Jewish views
I am pasting over raw, unedited material from Sandbox for collaborative editing : Chesdovi (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jews generally consider the wall to be important as a remnant of the Temple Mount. While a prevalent narrative claims that the Wall was the focus of the centuries long Jewish yearning for Zion, until the 1500s, there is no specific mention of Jewish longing for the Western Wall, nor does evidence exist suggesting that religious significance was attached specifically to the Western Wall of the Temple Mount. It was during the 16th century that rabbinic traditions relating to the western wall of the Temple were conferred upon its western retaining wall. By the late 1800s the Wall began to assume increasing importance to both local Jews and the diaspora for its exclusively religious significance. Zionists, both orthodox and secular, began to celebrate it, and consider it an integral part of Zionism's national struggle. Fierce contention between Jews and Palestinians over prayer rights emerged, and the denial of access to Jews when the city came under Jordanian rule (1948-1967) served to intensify a diasporic and local Jewish sense of the wall's importance. Since 1967, in the wake of Israel's conquest of this sector of the city, the Wall has been described not only as the "symbol of Jewish unity and survival," but also as a "flaming symbol of Jewish disunity, hatred and increasingly violent Jew-on-Jew confrontation". The shift from Israel's foundation as a secular state into a Jewish state (as a civic religion) has coincided with a shift of symbolic focus in Zionism from Mount Herzl to the religiously symbolic Western Wall.

In response to arrests following a service held by Women of the Wall, the Jewish Agency spoke of the urgent need to "make the Western Wall once again a symbol of unity among the Jewish people, and not one of discord and strife." For some, the Wall has been "turned from a national monument into an ultra-Orthodox synagogue."

Jews consider the capture of the wall by Israel in 1967 as a historic event since it restored Jewish access to the site after a 19-year gap.

Referring to the Wall, Rabbi A. I. Kook quipped that "some men have hearts of stone and some stones a human heart".

In the aftermath of Israel's capture of the Wall during the 1967 Six Day War, many Jews around the world reacted with unbridled euphoria and hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews subsequently flocked to the site. In time, the resulting religious sentiment evoked by the "miraculous" event was short-lived for most Israeli Jews.

While Brigadier Rabbi Shlomo Goren viewed the Western Wall as secondary in importance to the Temple Mount itself, he proclaimed after it's capture that "Israel would never again relinquish the Wall", a stance supported by Israeli Minister for Defence Moshe Dayan and Chief of Staff General Yitzhak Rabin. A 2007 poll found that 96% of Israeli Jews would not give up the Western Wall for peace. In 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu declared: "The flag that flies over the Kotel is the Israeli flag... Our holy places, the Temple Mount – will remain under Israeli sovereignty forever." Others opinions prioritise the preservation of human life and propose relinquishing the site to obtain a genuine peace deal. On this point Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik publicly criticised the "exaggerated importance" attached to the site and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz said he would "gladly return it to the Arabs" to deter conflict with the Muslim world. Amos Oz wrote that it's not worth sacrificing a single life to liberate locations like the Western Wall.

According to Aronoff, the Wall under Israeli control has become "symbolic of continuity" and is "perceived to condense the glory and then the desuetude of the past and the national redemption of the present". Other Jews regard Israel's possession of the site an "unmitigated disaster" and are appalled that renewed Jewish accessibility was granted through "evildoers, heretics and through the violation of severe sins." To this end, a significant minority of religious Jews boycott the Wall to protest the Wall becoming a symbol of "Zionist conquest" used to lure people to believe in the "Golden Calf of Zionism".

In 1994, Shlomo Goren wrote that the tradition of the wall as a Jewish prayer site was only 300 years old, the Jews being compelled to pray there after being forbidden from assembling on the mount itself.


 * I'll be happy to look at this after Shabbes. Where do you propose to place this material? Debresser (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

"The fact that one editor does not agree does not make this dubious"
Why is this different? Chesdovi (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be childish. If you want an answer to that question, ask on that talkpage, don't whine like a baby. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not answer the question here? Why is Chesdovi precluded from tagging an assertion as dubious, while Debresser is at liberty to do so? Chesdovi (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not answer here? Because this is the talkpage of Western Wall and not of Palestinian wine, and because the question is just a provocation without any worth to any content discussion whatsoever. Debresser (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disputed section
"The outspoken Orthodox Israeli philosopher, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, felt the wall had become of place of idolatry. As only God could possess the attribute of holiness, the so-called 'holy places' lacked sanctity. He referred to the wall as 'no more than a pile of stones constructed by the wicked king Herod,' and was happy for the site to be returned to Arab control. He was also against how Judaism was being used to further Israeli nationalism and fiercely criticized how the state held military and political ceremonies at the wall. In response to his view of how both the secular and religious had come to treat the wall, he facetiously proposed that the plaza revamped as the largest discothèque in Israel and named the 'Divine Disco.'"
 * from 

I believe that it is appropriate to be included in the article because, judging by the number of different people referring to his views, it is a prominent view, and therefore should be given due weight. Also, each of the other sections simply list (prominent) individuals and their (prominent) opinions of the wall.&mdash; Lucas Thoms 05:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I will repost the material. Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I keep stumbling upon reference to Leibowitz in sources relating to the wall. Why has he been censored from this page? Chesdovi (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Even before a serious reply to your question, I'd like you to replace the word "consored" by another, neutral, term. If you didn't know, Wikipedia is not censored. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

According to some scholars...
Under the premise of "Restore previous, sourced, sentence", why did you remove According to some scholars, it was in the late 16th century, when the Western Wall was revealed, that it became a permanent place for Jewish prayer? Chesdovi (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose this question was addressed to me. The answer is: because that information is already included in the sourced text which I restored. Why that interesting and sourced text was replaced by a vague and unsourced sentence, I do not understand. Debresser (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I cannot see where in the text you added it says that the place became a permanent place for prayer in the 1500s. It seems to me, that in your dedicated efforts to ensure the article is not deprived of "interesting" text, you have carelessly allowed for a most uncalled for duplication of text. I guess we can forgive you for that glaring oversight, so long as so-called "vague" material is kept off the page...(vague material which calls into question the portrayal of Jews having prayed at the wall for "thousands of centuries!") Chesdovi (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Suleiman the Magnificent is linked. Also, it it simple to add those words back in, see ? Debresser (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So now the paragraph reads:
 * In 1517, the Turkish Ottomans conquered Jerusalem from the Mamluks who had held it since 1250 and various folktales relate Suleiman's quest to locate the Temple site and his order to have the area "swept and sprinkled, and the Western Wall washed with rosewater" upon its discovery. In the late 16th century, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent ordered the construction of an imposing fortress-wall to be built around the entire city, which still stands today. Various accounts relate Suleiman's quest to locate the Temple site and his request to have the area "swept and sprinkled, and the Western Wall washed with rosewater" upon its discovery. At the time, Jews received official permission to worship at the site and Ottoman architect Mimar Sinan built an oratory for them there. In 1625 arranged prayers at the Wall are mentioned for the first time.
 * Can you kindly enlighten me as to why you feel it is necessary to include the Suleiman legend twice, and why it is not so simple for you to reinstate "According to some scholars, it was in the late 16th century, when the Western Wall was revealed, that it became a permanent place for Jewish prayer"? You see, by simply re-adding "In the late 16th century," you are failing to note that some believe it was only then that the wall became a fixed site for Jewish worship. Chesdovi (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me first of all admit that I agree that the text now say the same thing twice. Still, the text you propose to add is 1. not sourced 2. the term "some scholars" is vague 3. relevance needs to be established as well. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you being intentionally disruptive? Most editors would have snapped by now, the way you feel you alone have the right to revert other editors additions on such spurious grounds. So let's settle this, once and for all: 1. It was sourced, to Halkin, the first reference on the page. You also removed 2 further refs in your hasty revert instead of resorting to talk as you expect little Chesdovi to. 2. "Some scholars" is perfectly acceptable, ESPECIALLY when you insist on using the much more encompassing "most Jews" without insisting on the need to cite RS. We can easily add the names of the various scholars, but you prefer to remove the text. That in my view is unhelpful editing. 3. What on earth do you mean by "relevance needs to be established". I presume for Debresser, such a view will never be relevant, so it will never be allowed to remain on the page? Of course it is relevant. This last point of yours has left me stunned. I will add for good measure, your addition of "the construction of an imposing fortress-wall to be built around the entire city, which still stands today", ITSELF UNSOURCED TEXT, IS THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY. Chesdovi (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I am not intentionally being disruptive. I have removed the repetition, which you correctly pointed out. Thank you. If the text is sourced to the same source, it should still be mentioned with ref tags. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

www.dailyhalacha.com as a RS
Re: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_Wall&diff=next&oldid=705778731 Remove dubious template, for sourced statement. The fact that one editor does not agree does not make this dubious], please clarify how dailyhalacha.com passes for "Most Jews attach sanctity to the Wall, while others do not." Chesdovi (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And why am I the only who has to discuss matters here first? If you have an issue with the tag, let's hear it here first! Chesdovi (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dailyhalakha fails WP:RS. If anyone disagrees they should argue the point at the RS/N board.Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dailyhalacha isn't the RS, it's Moshe_Feinstein as the RS. Out of curiosity, why is DH not a reliable source regardless? If Chesdovi can bring some academic who writes a book as a reliable source, I can't bring a rabbi as a reliable source? Certainly a rabbi would be a reliable source on rabbi stuff. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dailyhalacha is not wp:rs but I think rav Moshe Feinstein is for the information that "Most Jews attach sanctity to the Wall, while others do not". Anyway, should this inforamtion require a source ? We are not far from a factual case equivalent to the "sky is blue". Pluto2012 (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit:) "Most Jews do not view the wall in religious terms. Why would they? Most Jews are irreligious. Who are you trying to kid here? Chesdovi (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC) "
 * Well. To take into account the "atheist" point of view, instead of "sacred" you could use "highy symbolic". The most important would be to add why it is an important place eg using this source. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Feinstein is reliable for what some genre of religious Jews think. Not all religious Jews, and certainly not non-religious Jews.  Many non-religious Jews would see it as having deep cultural significance.  I don't think we should stretch words like "sacred" beyond the meaning of the source, which in this case is a strictly religious meaning. Zerotalk 12:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ludicrous to derive the stance of "most Jews" from the rulings of a sole rabbi, however great esteem they may have been held in. How are we to explain the practice of North American Orthodox Jewry, who despite R. Feinstein's view that the Flag of Israel represents a foolish reminder of the deeds of evildoers, proudly display the heretical banner in their synagogues? Shall we use R. Feinstein's stance on the flag to represent the opinion of "most Jews"?! On the specific point of whether or not Orthodox Jews view the wall as "holy", it would be fanciful to reach a conclusion by citing an individual opinion without consulting the entire gamut of halakhic responsa on the matter. Avnei Nezer stresses the fact that the wall does not possess holiness, a view supported by Yabia Omer and Minkhas Shlomo who reported that the "great rabbis" never were concerned that the wall may have been inherently holy. Chesdovi (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just my opinion on the subject of this section. I agree with Nishidani that Dailyhalakha fails WP:RS on this issue. On the other hand, the statement that it came to reference, "Most Jews attach sanctity to the Wall", is definitely not dubious. The correct template to use would have been Refimprove. Debresser (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A statement that assumes the content is a fact should have an empirical basis, not just take the form of an opinion. Anyone, from God to Pollyanna can have an opinion, but such views are pointless. Unless 'most Jews attach sanctity to the wall' can be referred to some relevantly broad polling among communities in Israel and the diaspora, crossing secular and religious lines, then it is just Feinstein's view. Some other rabbis would, as documented above, contest that. So neither Feinstein's view nor the generalization meet our criteria for reporting facts.Nishidani (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for Chesdovi's additions of academics? Those are RS? If Rabbi Feinstein says and quotes Shulchan Aruch, etc, that is a RS for Jewish source. Certainly more so than an academic source on Jewish halacha. Why would an academic be more of an RS than a Rabbi for the Jewish view on the Western Wall in terms of sanctity? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Shulchan Aruch has nothing to say about what most (contemporary) Jews believe.Nishidani (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still a reliable source for the sanctity of the Wall. Even secular Jews while not being religious feel the Wall is a place of sanctity, and moreso the secular Jews of Israel who are "religiously secular." It is indeed dubious to state that Jews don't believe the Wall is a place of sanctity. Chesdovi is simply playing a game of wordsmithing. I should not even be editing here but his edits are getting under my skin. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's a 50/50 split, with half secular Israelis viewing it as a holy site, the other cultural/nationalistic. Chesdovi (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That actually reads, taking into account p.159 (+161) 'But the whole population also views the wall as a traditionally religious shrine.' The survey relates to Israelis, and not to Jews generally however.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How can he write that when the poll shows a large minority, 34%, view the wall solely as a national site? Chesdovi (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nishidani that Chesdovi is misrepresenting the source. I personally think this is indicative of most of his edits, but in almost all cases I don't have access to his claimed sources. The statement that a site is "primarily" national, does not exclude at all that the site can also be of religious importance.
 * Nishidani, your call for a source is commendable, but that does not negate that the statement that "Most Jews attach sanctity to the Wall", is definitely not dubious. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No Deb, that is not what the poll indicates. Chesdovi (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You are kindly requested to refer to me with my full username. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Religious shrine' is not the same as 'sanctity'. Sanctity invokes, in the large sociological anthropological literature, a notion of tabu: 'a religious shrine' is not intrinsically loaded with tabu. It requires reverence. The status of Al-Aqsa/Temple Mount is full of the former, the thousands of shrines to religious figures lack it, and cannot be placed on a par.Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Holiness
There are conflicting views as to whether the wall itself possess holiness. I want to list here a wide range of sources about this so some lines may be added about this:


 * Orthodox
 * The Chief Rabbinate countered attempts by the National Parks Authority which had wanted to turn the plaza into an archeological attraction. An architectural plan to develop the enlarged Western Wall area into a two-level plaza - one for worshippers, the other for tourists - was rejected by Nissim who said that the entire area was holy. The implications of Nissim's stand were not only that the Wall itself was invested with holiness but even the area in front of the Wall was holy.... Nissim said that all the four walls of the Temple Mount were holy, since the Shechinah was still present on the Mount even though the Western Wall was the only remaining wall. Unterman said only the Western Wall was holy... Unterman's view that only the Western Wall had intrinsic holiness won out over Nissim's. THE POLITICAL ROLE OF THE ISRAELI CHIEF RABBINATE IN THE TEMPLE MOUNT QUESTION, by Yoel Cohen


 * A small minority of Jews, headed by the chief military rabbi, Shlomo Goren, objected to both Dayan's ruling and that of the rabbinical authority on the grounds that these decisions, in fact, handed the Temple Mount over to the Muslims. This group argued that the Western Wall has no holiness of its own but its importance derives from the Temple Mount, and that it symbolizes the destruction of the Temple and the expulsion of the Jews from Israel. Contested Holiness, Gonen, R. p. 152.


 * Progressive
 * The Kotel has become a holy place because it is a place of prayer. It is prayer which sanctifies the Kotel... In rejecting women who wish to wear tallitot and tefillin, the northern Kotel is flawed in its holiness... A place that is not equal is not holy to me. The Holiness of the Western Wall, by Avigail Antman on womenofthewall.org


 * Mazor wrote that the Western Wall is merely "a retaining wall built by Herod when he expanded the Second Temple and the Temple Mount," and that "[i]t has no sanctity at all." Jerusalem and Its Role in Islamic Solidarity, by Yitzhak Reiter


 * This much might have been expected, but almost no one was prepared for the effect of the capture of Jerusalem and the return to the Western Wall. Reform Jews had for more than a century stopped praying for the restoration of the Temple and its sacrifices; they do not consider places holy, and the Wall is hardly an object to appeal to a group that had for years emphasized modern esthetic values. Yet those stones quickly brought Reform Jews, as it did all Jews, a mystic message of the unity of the Jewish people, of its unbroken historic continuity…, Eugene Borowitz


 * "..Simultaneously, secular Israelis are more inclined to dismiss Orthodoxy’s arrogant fierce opposition as irrelevant to their daily lives. To them, the Western Wall is essentially a tourist attraction in which they have little interest. Still, let’s pause to consider what has been gained. The Western Wall is not as sacred as many pretend. It is not the remnant of Solomon’s Temple. Rather it is the last standing remnant of the Second Temple... The right to pray in one’s own manner at the Western Wall is an important achievement in the struggle for equality in Israel. However, it is not of actual religious significance to the overwhelming majority of Jews worldwide. Far from it. If, God forbid, there would be a restoration of the ancient sacrificial practices, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of Jews everywhere would be appalled. So, as progressive Jews now exercise our right to worship at the Wall in our own way, let us do so as a demonstration of our continuing demand for equality, nothing more. The Wall symbolizes our history too, our celebration of the establishment of the State of Israel that is of tremendous importance to Jews everywhere. The Western Wall is an ancient monument the emotional and historical impact of which cannot be measured. But it most definitely is not a symbol of a Judaism we would ever wish to see restored. Finally, Reform Jews can pray at the Western Wall. But why should we want to?


 * Rabbi Uri Regev, president of the World Union for Progressive Judaism, laments that most Israeli Reform Jews have been put off going to the Wall altogether. He agrees that, because the Reform Movement's attachment to the Wall is essentially existential, as it is for secular Jews - it is significant to them as a fundamental part of their heritage, rather than a remnant of the literal home of God - they are less willing to fight for their right to pray there than the Orthodox. The Hottest Spot in Town, JP
 * Anat Hoffman is head of the Israel Religious Action Center (which is the legal wing of the Reform Movement) and a member of the Women of the Wall prayer group. "The Kotel can no longer be called a holy place under the existing authorities," she says. She believes that the rabbinate has let the Jewish people down. "They were not able to live up to their rhetoric, they were not able to live up to the holiness of the Wall." The Hottest Spot in Town, Jerusalem Post
 * The Temple in Jerusalem destroyed by the Romans in the First Century of the Common Era was significantly fortified by the Roman puppet ruler Herod, a mass murderer, idol worshipper and certified loony a mass murderer, idol worshipper, and certified loony. That the Western Wall took on the high degree of holiness that it retains to this day is one of the strangest phenomena of Judaism. Jewish Spectator - Volume 62 - Page 3 1997.
 * The Western Wall or Kotel, archaeologically impressive though it may be, is not holy to me in a conventional sense–and recent events have made it less holy in my eyes, though not in the ways you might think. Many, many Jews consider the Western Wall to be holy because it is the oldest remaining structure from the time of the Temple. It’s not, mind you, even a wall of the Temple itself–it’s just a retaining wall around the Temple Mount. To me, this makes the wall interesting, poignant, historically critical, and relevant–but not inherently holy. Friday Night: What’s Truly Holy About the Western Wall – Kveller, Jordana Horn
 * Though there are certainly people who today regard the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, or at least the Kotel—the Western Wall, as “holy” places for Jews, the sacralization of buildings, soil, and stones are not congruent with basic Jewish thought. Reconsidering Israel-Diaspora Relations - Page 411


 * Humanistic Judaism has a different perspective on the Western Wall. Atheistic in essence, it does not accept the claim that there is inherent holiness, or something metaphysical, in the stones themselves or on the Temple Mount. Moreover, the Western Wall is not a relic of the Temple; it is only a supporting side wall to the renovations made by King Herod to the Second Temple. They originally did not serve as a prayer spot and near the wall there were streets and shops and commerce, just regular human living without any sacredness attached. The first evidence that the wall became a known prayer site began only in the 15th century. The absurd article appearing on signs leading to the Western Wall says that "The Shekhinah (God's presence in the world) never leaves the Western Wall of the Temple," is found in ancient writings, but refers to the wall of the Temple, not to Herod's support wall.For Humanistic Jews, the Kotel (a Hebrew name for the Western Wall) serves as a historic monument and a central symbol to the Jewish culture. What do Secular Humanist Jews have to do with the Wall?, Nardy Grun


 * Secular
 * What is holy to us anyway? It’s not a theological question – atheists and agnostics can have holy places as well. Why is a place holy to us? For all the news generated over the years by the indefatigable campaign of the Women of the Wall, at no point did more than a few dozen Israelis turn out on the first day of each Hebrew month to show solidarity. Even in Israel, with its rather weak tradition of environmentalism, you get larger numbers than that when the contractors try and build on a rare, pristine waterfront. Maybe the holiest place in Judaism is Jerusalem’s Gazelle Valley? How about Palmachim Beach? Whatever the Western Wall means to you, its true historical importance has been obscured by political and religious mythology. The massive retaining walls built by Herod around the Temple compound are not the actual Temple walls. Jews began praying at the current location only from around the early 16th century when, under the Ottoman Empire, Jerusalem began to spread in that direction and it became the most convenient spot at the foot of the walls. The Midrash says that “the Shekhina (divine presence) has never left the western wall.” However, it isn’t referring to today’s Western Wall, but a wall that was long since destroyed and built over by Romans, Persians, Mamluks or Ottomans. Before Jews began praying at today’s Western Wall around 500 years ago, in the 1,945 years since the Temple’s destruction they congregated at other sections of the Wall – when the various occupying powers allowed them – and, when possible, on Temple Mount itself (as Maimonides is supposed to have done). I’m not writing any of this to detract from the current centrality of today’s Wall in the Jewish consciousness. It’s just to say that the consideration of where to pray – on the Mount or beside one of its walls – was always a matter of political circumstance and convenience, not holiness. What's So Holy About the Western Wall Anyway?, Anshel Pfeffer in Haaretz


 * What the non-Orthodox Jewish movements and much-compromised WoW achieved is the right to pray at a site that was never a site of Jewish prayer and that has no special religious significance. What makes the Kotel proper religiously significant is that it was indeed used for hundreds of years as a site of Jew's prayer, a replacement of sorts to the Temple Mount which was off limits to them. Otherwise, without those hundreds of years of prayers, it would be nothing more than the Temple Mount's retaining wall. It's Herod's retaining wall, and it has no special holiness in Jewish tradition at all. Reform Movement Loses Almost Everything In New Kotel Deal But Declares "Historic" Victory, Shmarya Rosenberg


 * "The Western wall has become, in effect, a temple where people venerate not God so much as the people he is said to have chosen, and their nation state", Amos Elon, in Jerusalem, Battlegrounds of Memory, pg. 198.


 * The discord among the sects is merciless and uncompromising. The most zealous refuse to worship at the Western Wall, as this may imply recognition of the chief rabbinate of the secular state, which, since 1967, has been in charge of services there. For most other Jews, secular and observant, the Western Wall is the major site of religious and historic veneration in Jerusalem, a place of pilgrimage and worship. In the civil religion of the modern Israeli state, the Western Wall area has been accorded a unique place.<.ref name="Elon1995">{{cite book|last=Elon|first=Amos|authorlink=Amos Elon|title=Jerusalem, Battlegrounds of Memory|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ez1aAAAAYAAJ|year=1995|publisher=Kodansha International|isbn=978-1-56836-099-7|page=194<./ref>


 * Aluf Benn, Editor-in-Chief of Israel Haaretz daily newspaper, recently (September 8) took part in 2015 Shira Herzog Symposium in Toronto, organized by the New Israel Fund of Canada. During the panel that included also Jonathan Kay, Editor of The Walrus magazine and a former Editor-in-Chief of The National Post and Ronit Heyd, Executive Director of Shatil, Aluf Benn said that the Israeli Jewish liberals belittle the religious significance of the Western Wall to the Jewish people and prefer Tel Aviv over Jerusalem. Israeli Jewish liberals have no regard to the Western Wall: Haaretz Editor-in-Chief


 * "the wall per se has no religious meaning - a statement also endorsed by the Reform Judaism movement, which refuses to attach any religious significance to the wall." Ricca, S


 * The womenofthewall.org source is not representative. 1 They are a fringe group. 2. Their arguments are admittedly political. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Why did allow a "fringe" group to be mentioned 10+ times on the page, but have not allowed Leibowitzs' name to appear once? Chesdovi (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a very simple answer to your first question. They are mentioned for their actions, while their opinions on other subjects are fringe and not noteworthy.
 * Again you try to mix two different subjects with your comparison to Leibowitzs, and I just won't fall for it. There is a section above for posting about him. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides, when you take books from who knows where and take it out of context, you can bring it to mean anything. Look at the last one, page 411, read the full paragraph b. It doesn't mean what you think it means. And besides, are we going to bring every source in the world now that matches an anti-Zionist or anti-Western Wall prayer POV? Just because someone published a book doesn't make it a RS. The Spectator should be a RS on Jewish prayer at the Wall? This is just more disruption by a SPA. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 01:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't assess the reliability of the source, but the whole paragraph on p411 is congruent with Chesdovi's quotation from it. Zero{{sup| talk }} 10:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sir Joseph that the quoted text comes to prove something else altogether, and is taken out of context. I disagree with Zero and think that the source proves the opposite, namely that those places (Jerusalem, the Western Wall) are in fact considered holy by Jews. The author then continues to say that that fact poses some theological problems with that, but that only confirms rather than negates the fact. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The quote from Kveller, Jordana Horn is only a personal opinion, and shouldn't be mentioned at all. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Chesdovi is known for cherrypicking and misrepresenting, and on this talkpage alone has been proven to have done so twice. If I'd have the time, I'd easily be able to show tens of sources stating the opposite of the POV that Chesdovi is trying to "prove" here. I see no good coming from this section. Debresser (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM,WP:SPA,WP:SOAPBOX,WP:NPOV,etc,etc,Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is Debresser insists most Jews do attach sanctity to the Wall. Yet that is how s/he see its. Where is RS for support? Above we have another Jew who claims most Jews do not view the wall as holy ("it is not of actual religious significance to the overwhelming majority of Jews worldwide"). I myself can not find RS to support either contention. I feel usage of "most" here is unsubstantiated. I would be much more comfortable with "many" instead. Chesdovi (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would most religious Jews get a consensus ? Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that would be correct, because most secular Jews also see the Western Wall as holy, or at least a symbol of holiness, which comes down to the same. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

---


 * "the holiest site to the Jewish people, the Kotel - Western Wall" at the Reform Judaism Online website
 * "the holy site" in a statement of the North American Reform Movement at the Union for Reform Judaism website
 * "the holiest site to the Jewish people" by Rabbi Gilad Kariv, executive director if the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism
 * A third source that was misrepresented by Chesdovy is Avigail Antman from Women of the Wall, who asks "Is the southern end of the Western Wall just as ‘holy’ as the northern end where we pray today?" It means therefore that the Kotel is holy, just that for political reasons she find the northern end less holy because it has been allocated for a different group. Any normal person understands that is just demagogy. In any case, she has no qualms about the holiness of the southern end, QED. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)