Talk:Western Wall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Jewish history. An attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.

Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: History of the Jews in the Land of Israel Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, Henry Cohen (? add categories), History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess) Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded) Translate: from German: Judensau

	Israel Portal Western Wall is part of the WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles.
Project Israel To Do (Drop-Down Menu): edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Copyedit: Yossi Sarid, Havlagah, Palestinian views of the peace process Cleanup: Israel Export Institute, Agricultural Research In Israel, Israel lobby in the United States Expand: Category:Companies of Israel, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Category:Israeli songs, Port of Haifa, Allon Plan, Israel Antiquities Authority, Secular Jewish culture#Dance, Carmel Winery, Goldstar, List of Egged bus lines, Cellcom, Bezeq, Diamond industry in Israel, Geneva Accord, Zman Tel-Aviv Stubs: Israel stubs Update: National Religious Party NPOV: Israel and the UN, Israeli military action in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict Other: update WP Israel banner to include rating scale Translate from Hebrew: Yuval Steinitz, Women in governments of Israel [1] Translate to Hebrew: Gemara, Chief Rabbi, Palestinophilia, David Gans, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, David Bar Hayim, Jacob of Lissa, Nosson Zvi Finkel, Bezalel Ashkenazi, Solomon Schechter, Av Beit Din, Howard Fast, Guardian of Zion Award, Martin Gilbert, Hasbara, Israeli wine, Pierre van Paassen, Uri Davis
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have one article about the wall that covers all names and reasons for holiness? --Brion

Probably. I didn't want to just move it, in case Ed had some actual reason for using the Arabic name in an English context. Vicki Rosenzweig

I am trying to give Arabic names some prominence, as English-speaking Arabs tend to use the Arabic names for various things and places. By the way, I think "Wailing Wall" refers only to a short segment of a much longer wall. I don't have time to finish up tonight -- sorry. --Ed Poor

I've merged the two under "Western Wall", with a note of all three names. Vicki Rosenzweig

I have placed the history of the Wall in broader perspective. The Jewish and Israeli view is important as they are the ones who have shaped its aura and who control the Wall having held sway over it tightly since 1967.User:IZAK

Unfortunately, I lost about 6 paragraphs due to an edit conflict. IZAK, there are remains of all four walls (the southern wall excavations are a major archeological park), Jews have not always prayed at the Western Wall--they prayed at the Eastern Wall during Byzantine times. Maimonides gives evidence of a synagogue on the Temple Mount itself, i.e., not all rabbinic authorities agree that access to all parts of the Temple Mount is forbidden to Jews. The Western Wall was built by Herod less than a century before the Temple's destruction. The Wall as we know it contains at least three different eras of construction, including the 19th century. "Fateful and cataclysmic" is hardly a POV way to describe the encounter between Jews and Muslims. Etc. Etc. Etc. Danny

1)The entire area of the wall is actually buried in high mounds of civilizational debris. If you could keep digging down all the way, obviously the remnants of all the nearby walls should be there deep down under.2)The fact remains that Jews HAVE prayed in that tight area. After the Byzantines came the Moslems and they deliberately built cemeteries and bricked up the gates on the Southern side efectively barring Jews from there. But Jewish tradition thru-out the ages only focuses on the Western Wall nevertheless.3)Temple Mount can also refer to wider circumferences, so that areas removed from the place of the Even Shesiya, the Holy Foundation Stone, could theoretically be used. However, Maimonides himself never lived in Israel, having died in Egypt, and his postulates remain theoretical in the sense that no major rabbinic authority in Modern times has allowed Jews onto the mount itself, especially since no-one knows wher the exact spot of the spiritually of-limits Holy Of Holies actually is nowadays.4)Herod CONTRIBUTED to the HEIGHT of the Wall, the original foundations go many yards deeper, maybe up to 30 yards below the ground. So Herod's 'wall' rides piggy-back and is in effect an extension of the original wall down below.5)Since the history of the Jewish Temples stretches back over 2,500 years, one can safely assume that there is much that we have yet to learn about the wall and how many layers and eras of construction lie below.6)Well, the Arab(Islamic)- Israeli(Jewish) ongoing wars especially in modern times are very fateful since there is always the specter of a larger imbroglio leading to Armegedon.In 1973, the USSR was ready to attack Israel in defense of its Arab clients who were defeated by the Israelis, and was forced to back down after Nixon declared the highest state of US military alert.The current intifada was sparked by the failure to achieve a settlement including serious issues regarding the Temple Mount.It is fateful and cataclysmic indeed, not an understatement.Thanks for the feedback.User:IZAK

Point by point:

1. Certainly, if you keep digging, you would find remains. I am saying that remains still exist that were never covered. For example, the southeastern corner of the Old City is part of that same Temple wall as the Kotel. Similarly, the 3 arches in the southern wall excavation. At the far corner of the southwestern wall, we have grafitti from the time of Julian the Apostate indicating that it was an area of Jewish worship.
2. Contemporary Jewish tradition of the past few centuries focuses on the Western Wall. In Byzantine/Muslim periods, other areas were considered sacred.
3. Maimonides visited Jerusalem on his way to Egypt and described the synagogue in a letter. As for rabbinic authorities, you are basing yourself on a Kaftor va-Ferach which mistakenly claims that the Wall is part of the Temple proper. Very, very few Jews hold by that today. The outer fringe of the Temple Mount on all four sides is considered Herod's addition (see Mishnah Middot) and does not have the same sanctity as the rest of the area. In other words, you do not need ashes of a red heifer to go up there--immersion in a mikvah is sufficient. It may not be done, but the possibility exists (without even getting into a debate over whether tum'ah hutra be-tzibbur [ritual impurity is permitted if the masses of Jews are ritually impure] or not). For a contemporary religious authority, former Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren wrote extensively on this. The area surrounding al-Aqsa is almost certainly in these additions (rubo ba-darom: quoting from memory but that's essentially what the Mishnah says).
4. Yes, we have a lot to learn, but the wall itself is Herodian, and what lies below is Herodian (see above: Middot). We have done excavations. You can even see the results in the tunnel, up to the bedrock. No First Temple remains. If anything does remain from the First Temple, it is within the Haram as-Sharif compound, where no digging is permitted by the Waqf. The original wall down below is still Herodian.
5. The Arab-Israeli (and not Jewish) conflict is a relatively modern phenomenon, going back about 120 years. While I believe that the Temple Mount is one of the most volatile areas in the world, it wasn't always like that.

By the way, the two major monuments on the Temple Mount are Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa. Danny

Thanks.

1. "south eastern corner of the old city"..? Well how far does one really go? No doubt any nook and cranny in the "Old City" can somehow be tied in with older structures.It is safe to assume that over the centuries successive waves of Jews kept their eyes on the most vital area, being the Western wall since it is mentioned in the classical texts of Judaism.

No. You are mixing up so many things. The Temple Mount is a compound in the Old City. It runs along the eastern edge, above the Kidron Valley, and the walls of the Temple Mount form part of the walls of the Old city. The southeatern corner of the Temple Mount is the southeastern corner of the Old City. The walls are Herodian, with Byzantine, Abbasid, Mameluk, and Ottoman additions. Nevertheless, the Herodian walls are clearly visible and have been since Herod built them. Actually, some of the stones are even earlier. You can go see them if you want. There is even a crack in the wall, where the masonry stops and starts again. This indicates Herod's additions to the area that was originally part of the Temple Mount. It has nothing to do with nooks and crannies in the Old City. My challenge to you would be to see how far back those classical texts go. What are the talmudic references, for example, to the Western Wall. Good luck finding them. Jews pray facing the Temple Mount and the site of the Holy of Holies, not the Western Wall. While I happen not to like the politics of the people that run it, you can even go on a tour of the Temple Mount tunnels to see the remainder of the walls that were covered over. They will tell you that the holiest site there is site opposite the Holy of Holies.

1. Being that the entire Temple Mount, Har HaBayit, is holy ground, so it is reasonable to assume that over the years Jews prayed ther from differnt directions. After all, by extension of this concept, Jews to the North of Jerusalem face South. Jews of the South face North, when praying.But the fact remains that the Westtern Wall retained the dominant devotions of the Jews, even in the diaspora.

It may be reasonable to assume, but it is incorrect. In fact, it was an innovation of Shneur Zalman of Liady (18th century) in the Tanya and he also speaks of the Temple Mount. Never did the Western Wall the focus of Jewish devotion. The Temple Mount was a focus for directing prayer, not the wall. It's a gemara: "In Jerusalem, pray toward the Temple Mount, on the Temple Mount, pray toward the Temple, in the Temple pray toward the Holy of Holies, in the Holy of Holy, direct your devotion to the throne of God situated between the cherubim." No mention of the Western Wall there.

1. No-one but Rav Goren accepted what Rav Goren had to say.But the point is moot. Basically the Moslems kept the Jews off the mount, sometimes on pain of death due to the Islamic holiness of the place. No rabbis that i know of sanction/ed going onto the Temple mount by Jews without it being part of a greater messianic redemption.

Wrong again. Goren based his work on previous scholars and opinions. Plenty of rabbis that I know of do sanction prayers in certain areas. Again, I am not supportive of this personally (but for other reasons), but the facts are that rabbis did and do sanction it. Read Goren's responsa for sources.

1. The references to a western wall relate to the Roman conquest, and Herod was part of the Roman period. His work on the Temple is actually praised by the rabbis even tho he personally was repugnant to the Jewish people.Babylonia's destruction is wrapped in even greater unknowns.

No they do not. Herod was on the cusp of the Hasmonean period and the Roman period. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding the destruction of the First Temple. Again, the sources do not confirm what you are saying.

1. From the time of Mohammed there were already fights with the Jews of Mecca and Medina which had large Jewish populations. They like many others of the years of Moslem conquest were put to the sword. Yes there were periods of calm, but ther has always been an Isalamic struggle with Jews and Judaism, which then extends into recent times and forms the basis of the Israel- Arab struggle.

Sorry, but this is a combination of fact and pure bullshit. When Omar ibn al-Khattab's armies took Jerusalem (and it is a matter of debate whether he was actually present), many of the soldiers were Jewish mercenaries. Muhammad did have disagreements with the Jews of Mecca and Medina (and Yathrib, but we won't even go there), but there were also times of very prosperous cooperation. There is no Islamic struggle with Jews and Judaism since the founding of Islam. Maimonides flourished in Egypt. The Golden Age of Spain occured under Muslim rule. The Gaonim thrived under the caliphs of Baghdad. Hey, according to one source, which I question too, Omar actually offered to rebuild the Temple for his Jewish subjects after taking Jerusalem--but then again, I also question the story of his meeting with Sophronius at the Holy Sepulchre. It's an interesting story, the source of the Mosque of Omar bit below, but it is certainly questionable.

P.S. yes, thanks, It is called Al Aqsa, but people also refer to the general area as the Mosque of Omar inclusive of all Islamic shrines on the Temple mount. User:IZAK

They are wrong. Actually, you are wrong. The Temple Mount is Haram as-Sharif. Al-Aqsa has nothing to do with the Mosque of Omar. Some people call the Dome of the Rock the Mosque of Omar, but it neither dates from Omar nor is it a mosque (it is now, but historically it was not). The Mosque of Omar is behind the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. You can reach it by the western entrance to the courtyard. It is behind the Greek Orthodox Gethsemane (the one in the Old City by the CotHS, not the one on the Mount of Olives). IZAK, I spent a good seven years living in the Old City. I guided tours there, I helped design two museums there, I wrote a book about it. This argument is silly. Danny

No, yo are wrong. It was not part of the Temple (and spare me the Kaftor VaFerach, who was obviously wrong, or else no one would be allowed up to teh Western Wall). It was part of the retaining wall holding the landfill in place. It is an addition by Herod. Furthermore, it was not the only place believed to survive. In Byzantine times Jews prayed by the Southern Wall and the Eastern Wall on Tisha BeAv since they were not allowed into the city. Maimonides may have even described a synagogue on the Temple Mount itself that he prayed in (I have some problems with the text, but it is generally accepted.) The question really is, when did the Wall gain such prominence? (I would also ask why--after all, Leibovitch did call it the Diskotel and was not a big fan.) Danny 01:03, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have editted the section on permitted/forbidden access to areas of the Temple Mount trying for both better English and somewhat more accurate protrayal of the situation. Please help. OneVoice 15:08, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 A recent interpretation suggests that the Western Wall is not a surviving wall of the temple? 2 first time in 2,000 years 3 Muslim reverence for the site, or counter-claim to Jewish claims 4 Violation of armistice agreement 5 Part of a Roman Fortress 6 Not much here on Maps, location etc. 7 "Wailing Wall" 8 Gentiles

[edit] A recent interpretation suggests that the Western Wall is not a surviving wall of the temple?

A recent interpretation by whom? Jayjg 15:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's been a month but we still didn't get an answer on the question posed by Jayjg. I suspect either original research or a provocation here, since (1) Jerusalem is a hilly city (2) the Temple Mount is being called here by a name that came into being more than 600 years after the events, (3) The Occam's razor. I am moving the para in question to talk:

• Temple or Roman fortress? A recent interpretation suggests that the Western Wall is not a surviving wall of the temple. Titus clearly states that the entire city was to be leveled, save for three towers; however, in the enthusiasm typical of the Roman army, even these were destroyed. Neither Titus nor Josephus mention the formidable Haram esh-Sharif, and nor is there any indication that the Romans disturbed it. It has been proposed that the reason they paid it no attention was that it was not considered part of Jerusalem at the time, instead being a Roman fortress. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 05:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this where it comes from [2]? If so, then this article's POV is completely misrepresented, as can be seen from the following quotes: "Excerpts from early historical sources that the Temple was shaped like a TOWER.", "CONCLUSION: What we see in the above three texts is a common usage of the word TOWER that is associated with the meaning of TEMPLE." (emphasis mine). I notice the same misrepresented "mislocated " theory in Temple Mount article. Will remove it. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 07:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's another argument [3]which lends more weight to this theory, perhaps best researched and expressed by Washington University professor emeritus George Wesley Buchannan. The argument hinges on the many references, both scriptural and historical, that the temple of Solomon was built on or near the Spring of Siloam, and that the waters flowed from under the door of the temple. By contast, there is no spring on temple mount: the buildings there are served by cisterns. The actual spring is several hundred feet South of the wall.

If there is no reasonable objection here I may put the paragraph back into the article with appropriate references. I feel mention of this should be be made in all wiki articles dealing with the temple mount, because of the preponderance of the evidence. However, this is sure to spark intense debate, if not an outright ideological war, and I don't have the energy to wade into such a conflict alone. — Clarknova 28 June 2005 05:13 (UTC)

I believe that the link was already given and commented on. Is this theory notable in any way, or is it an extreme minority position? Jayjg ^(talk) 28 June 2005 17:57 (UTC)

No, it's not the same article. You would have noticed this you'd bothered to load both pages and read them. This and related articles have been published by the author in three historical journals, and if you read this article you'll see numerous references to similar work by others.

Almost by definition, any scholastic community is going to be a minority. Whether the position is too small to be considered depends on the size of the group you choose to contrast it with. Compared to the world population, the number of people that believe in continental drift would prove to be a minority. The population of geologists promulgating this view would appear infinitesimal.

You have a similar problem when you pit archeology against popular mythology. If majority opinion is the litmus test many wiki articles will have to be revised. — Clarknova 29 June 2005 02:15 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it's a different article from the same source. In any event, WP:NPOV is quite clear that while minority positions should be presented, extreme minority positions should not. Does this theory have any currency amongst the relevant archeologists? Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 16:54 (UTC)

[edit] first time in 2,000 years

The bit that says the wall become under Jewish control for the first time in 2000 years - can this be made a bit more specific please. i.e. what was the date when it was last under Jewish control please? Year 0005? --Rebroad 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muslim reverence for the site, or counter-claim to Jewish claims

I am writing about the paragraph which partially reads "today there is a legend that Muhammad tethered his winged horse for political reasons to counter Jewish claims to the wall"

I find this not in keeping with the NPOV policy, and have changed the paragraph to read "The site is also holy to Muslims who believe Solomon to be a prophet. Muslims believe that Muhammad made a spiritual journey to Jerusalem on a winged horse, al-Buraq. While there, he tethered the horse to a wall which some Muslims believe to be the Western wall. Hence the Arabic name for the wall is the al-Buraq Wall. Some see this as one reason for Muslim reverence for the wall, others see it as propoganda to counter Jewish claims to the wall. Due to the holiness of the site in Islam, Muslims during the Caliphate of Omar had built the Dome of the Rock and the nearby Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, encompassed by the wall."

I believe this to be more NPOV and a lot less imflamatory.

the way it was, it was still not NPOV since that belief is heavily disputed among historians, so I've added the other POV there to balance (without saying it's political). Amoruso 09:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the source, but I can't find a source to the contrary — and it seems common sense that the Al-Aqsa Mosque would be where the tethering was said to have occurred — so I rewrote this. Again, a better source from someone more knowledgeable might be nice. Calbaer 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The source if from a news-site. There are history books claiming the same, but their claim is even more radical, especially underlining that this is in fact a political hoax. if i find more sources, we'll expand on it. your cleanup is fine I think.. Amoruso 09:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Judging from his Wikipedia entry, the author of the source is an apocalyptic evangelical Christian writer who has predicted that the world would end by now. There are plenty of decent people like that and what he says about the past — unlike what he predicts of the future — is probably true, but clearly a grain of salt is needed when reading such writings. Calbaer 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of armistice agreement

The text says: "1948 Arab-Israeli War, the area near the wall was taken over by the Jordanian Arab Legion. Jews were denied access to the wall, in violation of the 1949 armistice agreement,"

How can the *1949* agreement have been violated in *1948*? Is this supposed to involve time travel or just really forward thinking? Somebody goofed here.

The second sentence need not be contemporaneous to the first, but I've rewritten to clarify. Calbaer 23:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part of a Roman Fortress

There are many who believe the Wailing Wall was part of a Roman Fortress[4]. --134.159.96.254 22:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many who believe the Earth is flat. Please review WP:RS. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not much here on Maps, location etc.

Can a map of Jerusalem with the western wall be included? The description doesn't include where it is located. Is the Wall now part of another building, or can it be walked around? --217.204.163.50 08:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

the wall is part of the walls that surround the temple mount. It can be walked around, although the area part of the southern wall is an excavation site. There are houses attached to the walls in some parts of the northern and western sides (the part of the western side can be walked through the tunnel). There are maps availabe through the external links of Jerusalem [5] maybe they can be added.Amoruso 09:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Wailing Wall"

The article says that the phrase "wailing wall" is derogatory, but this is only one opinion and I'm not sure it is even a majority opinion. Lots of Jewish sources mention this name without stating or implying that it is derogatory. This should be clarified as an opinion of some people. Incidentally, the claim at here that this name was introduced after 1917 by the British is incorrect since the New York Times used it on April 24, 1895 and twice in 1913. --Zero^talk 16:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

it's deragtory for Jewish people and is frowned upon, that's fact. Amoruso 16:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Many Jews regard it as offensive. Many do not. That's what the article should say (preferably with citations). Examples of Jewish groups that do not regard it as offensive include the right-wing Aish Hatorah: [6] [7], the Jewish Virtual Library [8], and the Jewish Agency for Israel [9]. Some Israeli sites (commercial and religious) that use the phrase without compunction: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Even Israeli government web sites use it: [14], [15], [16]. --Zero^talk 05:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Esh Hatora and others find it offensive very much. The fact they use it is something that's totally irrelevant. In order to show your opinion you have to bring links that show that they like/endorse the term. For example, esh hatora explained simply the reason for the wailing wall name - how from this you deduced they don't find it offensive ? on the contrary, from their description it's obvious it's not very "nice" term for them. Official sites use it for PR or tourist or info purposes or out of not making the difference, but it's still offensive per se, which is the reason it's not being corporated into hebrew. It's an offensive per definition, as it's a name not given by Jews and not a name Jews relate to. The jewish virtual library link is another example whereit's clear it's not the preferred name - they say the name that should be used is hakotel hamaravi. I'm thinking you simply googled "wailing wall" - mentioning the name doesn't mean thinking highly of it. Amoruso 05:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence contrary to my examples. You only provided your own rhetoric. My evidence proves beyond doubt that not every Jewish organization regards the name as offensive. The fact that many of them prefer a different name is not relevant to the question. --Zero^talk 10:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally the article of Nadav Shragai that you referenced mentions "the 'Wailing Wall,' which is what Jews called it over the ages". The fact of the matter is that the idea that "Wailing Wall" is offensive is a modern idea that has only partly caught on. --Zero^talk 11:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, you can add "to some" if you want or "can be" whatever... who cares, it's trivial in the article. The point is that it has an implicit offensive tone since Jews cried over their misfortunes there while not having their nation. Amoruso 00:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything derogatory about the name Wailing Wall. On the contrary, it provides good explanation that the site had become more than just a place of pilgrimage or prayer. The Jews of yesteryear were brought to tears by being in mere presence of the wall, an emotional reaction not commonly aroused. It must have made an impression on the non-Jewish travellers to site. God wants our tears, if only nowadays prayers were said with such emotion as they were a century ago! It has also been know as the Weeping wall, not only because of humans tears, but maybe due to the midrash which says the reason why the western wall was not destroyed was because the angles tears strengthened it to the extent that the Romans weren’t able to topple it. Chesdovi 14:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I know in Israel it is derogatory to many, perhaps because it's perceived not Zionist to think of Jews now that keep weeping of misfortune instead of taking action. Your midrash reference is very nice, though I don't think it's reasonable that it's the same wall, unfortunately. Amoruso 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Although all the old books and stereo-views describe the Jews weeping about the dispersion of their nation and the destruction of their Temple, who says that was all they wailed about? There were many a things to wail about under the Ottoman discriminatory regime to which the Jews were subjected too. And even if Zionism has solved to some extent the dispersion of the Jewish nation, it still remains true nowadays that Zionism can’t provide cures for all life’s ailments, so desperately needed. What action can Zionism take in rebuilding the Temple? Let us continue to wail by the wall until it is rebuilt - speedily in our days. (Sorry for sounding so theological!)Chesdovi 14:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Zionism can take action in rebuilding the Temple. Amoruso 15:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe through Zionism, or divine power, or a little bit of both. The point is, it will be rebuilt. One of the major points in Judaism. Masterhomer 04:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan holds, the ingathering is the first step....But whatch out for Iran! Chesdovi 15:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentiles

"It is sometimes referred to by gentiles as the Wailing Wall" That statement gives the article a jewish PoV. What is a "gentile" to a person who is not of Judeo-Christian influence? - anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.175.89.36 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

It is not only unacceptable POV, it is wrong. Up above on this page I gave 11 examples of Jewish uses of the name including very mainstream examples. The choice of name is not divided into Jews versus Gentiles, and the article should not claim it is. --Zero^talk 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)