Talk:Wilson's Arch (Jerusalem)

Titus Tobler

If someone can read German in the old script, pages 42–43 of Titus Tobler's 1853 book Denkblätter aus Jerusalem contain Tobler's description of this site. I've seen it given as proof that Tobler discovered the arch, but it is a bit tough for me to read. Zero^talk 14:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the pool beneath the arch was known as the "Pool of Burak" by Wilson and others of his time; this should be mentioned. Zero^talk 14:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Location in opening para

It says "...where it is supported against the Northeast corner of Jerusalem's Western Wall...", its confusing as the western wall refers to the entire length of the wall on the western side of Temple Mount. It needs to be rephrased so to give the idea that it is situated on the flank of the modern Western wall plaza and not at the end of the Western Wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moughera (talk • contribs) 18:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

done. Zero^talk 02:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Definition first!

The vault covered by arches, which in turn support the Tankiziyya, is quite long along its N-S axis. There is actually not one, but a succession of arches there, of which the inner- or northernmost is the oldest. We need to first clarify what the article is about: the entire length of the vaults/arches; the Herodian bridge-supporting arch plus its Late Roman extension; only the Herodian arch? What do Wilson, Warren, and Bahat define as Wilson's Arch? To Jewish worshippers and to tourists this is not interesting, but for us it should be the first thing to pay attention to. Arminden (talk) Arminden (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is only one structure called Wilson's Arch. It is directly below the Gate of the Chain. Zero^talk 13:18, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ​Zero. Not quite true. There is an older, Herodian arch. Probably in Pilate's time the breadth of the viaduct was doubled, so the arch supporting it was widened as well. The Mamluks built a platform along almost the entire length of the western retaining wall as base for various buildings, a platform supported by arches, and they aligned their easternmost arches more or less to the older ones. So when you enter from the plaza, the arch seems endless - and I believe it would actually continue for a bit longer along the W Wall Tunnel, if the E-W wall separating the two areas were to be demolished. The space under these arches is used as one single synagogue, which is referred to in day-to-day speech as Wilson's Arch.

We don't have an art. on the viaduct-cum-aqueduct, or causeway, uniting the Western Hill with the Temple Mt, of which Wilson's Arch is only the last, if most impressive segment, so inevitably, inf. about the viaduct will creep into this art. as well.

Now someone has even introduced an infobox for "modern synagogues". I'll challenge it here-below. Anyway, that obviously refers to the entire N-S space, not just the Herodian or even Herodian + Pilate-time arch(es). Which was inevitable, as predicted.

So yes, a definition first! Arminden (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Date

Once the definition has been clarified (see above), one can address the date issue.

Is there any doubt that the latest dating, which is based on absolute dating methods (C14, organic material in mortar) is correct? If not, this should be made clear and the Umayyad theory relegated to "previous attempts", or possibly correctly applying to southern extensions of the Late Roman southern extension to the Herodian arch. Arminden (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Infobox for modern synagogue: against

I don't agree. This is an archaeological site of major significance, which very recently in its history has been taken over by religious authorities and declared a synagogue - a quite controversial step. I don't think an encyclopaedia should concentrate on this recent aspect. Of course, I'm not arguing to ignore current reality, just not to lose the wider perspective over it. Arminden (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Rangasyd, hi. This was your edit.

Zero0000, hi, this is the new thread I have just mentioned.

Davidbena, hi, you might be interested - and wish to ping other "usual suspects". Happy New Year!

Al Ameer son, hi, I imagine you might be among the first "usual suspects" interested. Arminden (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Since we can only have one infobox, it should focus on the main aspect of the article which is the arch and archaeology, not its modern use. Zero^talk 01:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to provide input.

1. It's not unheard of to have multiple inboxes on articles. Since when can we only have one infobox?
2. If it controversial, it's not up to us to determine that. We should be editing based on facts. The synagogue exists. In fact, I could not see any reference in the article whatsoever as to the perceived controversy as claimed to exists by Arminden. To me, that seems like this user is offering opinion, not fact.
3. The addition of an infobox regarding the synagogue does not significantly draw attention to the fact that the synagogue exists, relative to all other content in the article.
4. The focus of our effort in this article should be addressing the many dubious claims.

Shana tova to those, where relevant. Rangasyd (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rangasyd. Thank you for your comprehensive answer.

1. Damn, only now I noticed: I got an email from Wiki, looked up the change and saw the infobox. Looking just at the edit I didn't realise it's not at the top! Rangasyd, I owe you an apology. I was just about to suggest that we should have a first infobox on archaeology, with yours as a 2nd one next to the synagogue section. I had already written: "As the article largely deals with archaeology, this should also be reflected in the primary, i.e. first infobox." Sorry.
2. What's controversial is the way in which the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, along with other far-out nationalistic & messianic private or semi-private orgs like Elad, is kreepingly taking over, metre by metre, new "modesty" rule by new "modesty" rule, the entire space around the Wall, the City of David, and anything in the Holy Basin, really, if nobody rises up to stop them. Wilson's Arch was just the first step they took toward establishing their Diskotel project. Only think of the "Chain of (Jewish) Generations Center" in a Mamluk khan building, of all places!
3. What "many dubious claims" in this article would you like to focus on? I've just dealt with the by now outdated Umayyad origin theory. It's half built by Pilate, which might still upset some :)

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. Firstly, not too sure why my previous entry was not time/date stamped, that should have occurred at 21:16, 3 October 2024 AEST. Secondly, I hold no opinions or views, pro- or anti-WWHF. I edit on here based on what's factual, using reliable third-party sources.

1. Noted.
2. Arminden: Thanks for sharing your opinions around "modesty". The article is bereft of any facts to support your "modesty" opinions. If there are reliable sources to support your opinions, please add them to the article. For example, in the Wilson's Arch section on the Western Wall article, there is no mention of any "controversy". I'm not saying that there isn't, it's just that there are no evidence to support claims of "modesty" or otherwise.
3. Arminden: Please see the following sections: Date, Dimensions, Discovery and excavation, Herodian "Western Stone", and Makhkama building, that are all in need of citations.

Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 00:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Zero's comment.Davidbena (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

"The Western Wall is sacrosanct. But out of a national monument, it has become a synagogue." Dan Bahat, former district archeologist of Jerusalem who headed the Western Wall Tunnel excavations in the years 1986–2007. Arminden (talk) 10:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)