Talk:Rachel's Tomb

Angles

North-east

• 
  c.1880
• 
  1894
• 
  c.1910
• 
  1933
• 
  2005 (now inside the expanded compound)
• 
  2011

• Mid 1990s North-east perspective: The last photo in here (says 2012 below but mid-1990s above; the date is clear from the vehicles
• 2008 picture of the same North-east perspective: [1]

North

• 
  1930s
• 
  1940

West

• 
  2016
• 
  2018

East

• 
  1934-1939
• 
  1978
• 
  2018

• A 2014 photo from Hebrew wikipedia: [2]

South

• 
  1912
• 
  Unknown
• 
  1898–1946
• 
  1930s
• 
  1940s?
• 
  2018
• 
  2018

South-east

• 
  1891
• 
  1934

• 2012 picture of the same South-east perspective: [3]

New Picture

Ok, the soniahalliday site never came back to me....and it has been a week, so I'm kind of giving up. So, the question is, what picture should be in the lead? I have 2 suggestions:

• 1, no picture
• 2, a composite of A: the traditional picture, say this with B: a more modern view, say this outside shot from 2014

Comments? Huldra (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• 3 - picture from 1978, which is used in several wikis. A poor (angle, composition) modern picture should not be used. [4]. In any event a composite should not be the main picture (I am sure there is some MOS against it). If and when we have a decent modern photo (and we know there are some, just not on commons - might be possible to fair use here) - then we should consider using it.Icewhiz (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I support this picture if no modern free use one is found. Though I think we can find one. We can also keep trying to ask soniahalliday. Drsmoo (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to ask them. I did, as politely as I could..but never heard back. Perhaps you are luckier. An alternative is to contact editor Avraham Graicer, AVRAMGR on commons. He has uploaded a lot of really nice aerials on commons. I dont know how he takes them, though....if it is with a drone, he better make sure that he has permission from the Israeli soldiers there, first, as apparently flying drones over Israeli soldiers can be a capital offence these days...... Huldra (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• 4 - a composite of two pictures from the same angle: File:Rachel’s Tomb in the early 20th and 21st centuries, southern view.jpg. This shows a like for like comparison, whilst showing the notable modern fortifications in an elegant manner. It even has foliage on both sides in both pictures, creating a warm feel. And if you look really closely, it has the added bonus of a rabbi on the roof in the top picture. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• 2a alone - I think that the "holyness" of the site is more reflected by picture 2a along, among those suggested 'til now. Pluto2012 (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We never decided on this - any more thoughts? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of any solution here, I have used the two-photo structure at Joseph's Tomb. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The two-photo picture has been removed as there was consensus to not use the "modern photo", with the photo described as "particularly amateurish", "very poor", "amateur", "I am not saying the present picture is optimal”. It is tendentious editing to replace a stable photo with one's own photo that has already been rejected. I have made a request here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#Photos for Rachel's Tomb and Joseph's Tomb to solicit additional input.

If a suitable image of the exterior of the tomb itself (not the barricade surrounding the tomb) can be found, that would likely be the best fit, otherwise, it would be best to use a photo of the interior entrance. Drsmoo (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Your description of those three who opposed the modern photo in the discussion four year ago include yourself and a now banned user. Huldra and I, and others, supported having a modern photograph. It was established that the opposing users objected to showing the fortifications, but that objection did not have consensus. A further discussion was held, two years were given for comment, and the current structure was implemented. Perhaps open an RFC? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

There was unanimous consensus against the garbage strewn picture you posted for this holy site. The existing image has been stable for four years, and a decade before that. When there is unanimous consensus against your image, to wait four years and then simply re-add it against consensus is disruptive. As is removing a reference to Judaism while keeping Christianity and Islam in the same sentence.

I would also like to remind you that recently you were warned, and very close to being topic banned due to this manner of tendentious editing. Drsmoo (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand this argument. Are those graves you are referring to as garbage? Zero^talk 13:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the garbage in the picture (plastic jug) is what is being referred to as garbage, not the graves. Notwithstanding the fortifications, which are obscuring the entire exterior of the tomb. The original picture that was submitted included far more garbage (not graves) as well as graffiti along the walls. This was then cropped, ostensibly to focus on the tomb, but a piece of garbage was curiously left in the frame. As it is, it is essentially impossible to see the Tomb at all, and the photo is useless. Re adding it against unanimous consensus, and after four years of stability, along with editing only Judaism out of a sentence on religious references, can only be viewed as disruptive editing. Drsmoo (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please adhere to WP:NPA. The word “curiously” in the above appears to be an implied attack.

Thank you for pointing out the jug, which I have now cropped from the photo.

I visited this place and can confirm that this is the only available view from ground level outside of the tomb from any direction, due to the high fortifications in all directions.

There remains consensus for a photo from outside, hence why this photo has been there for so long. Many years ago it was edit warred out by a banned user, together with two other users (Drsmoo and NMMNG), prior to a discussion being completed. A discussion was then held which confirmed consensus for the inclusion of a modern image.

If you have a better modern image we could replace it with, that would be great. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be more about the Muslim graveyard in this article as it has been a feature of the tomb for centuries. A photo showing the graveyard still in existence is valuable and should be in the article. I'm wondering if it would be better to put it down further where it can have a more informative caption. Zero^talk 00:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no “consensus for a photo from outside.” Could you explain how you drew the conclusion that there was/is? The only thing agreed was that your image was unsuitable. There was no edit warring either, and it’s problematic that you describe the consensus against your image as such. There was consensus to not use the photo you took, and all editors were opposed to it. Four years later you re-added it. The Wikipedia community will decide which photo to use.

I appreciate the described effort to crop the photo but it doesn’t appear to have been uploaded, so no way to see if it actually improves the photo.

Obviously no objection to including a photo and description/text of the Muslim graveyard within the article. Drsmoo (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

There were claims made that there was a consensus for a modern image, and a consensus for an exterior image. Both of those statements are incorrect, as can be seen in this talk page. What is undoubtedly true is that there was unanimous strong consensus against the readded image. There was also a claim that the image had been edited, which is clearly false as well. At this point, it’s clear this editing is tendentious. Drsmoo (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not right. The image was edit warred out by a user now banned for sockpuppet abuse. That user, together with two other users (Drsmoo and No More Mr Nice Guy) objected to the image. That was all. And all that happened four years ago. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide examples of the following things you’ve alleged: 1. Edit warring; 2. Consensus for a modern image; 3. Consensus for an exterior image. Ok the topic of consensus, could you also provide an example of another editor who supported your image? Drsmoo (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See the article history between 13-16 April 2018. Edit warring the image out of the article without consensus by Icewhiz, NMMNG and Drsmoo, against the wishes of other editors. This is a long time ago, but I remember finding the concerted attack frightening. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You’re referring to multiple editors, reflecting the unanimous consensus that the photo was poor, reverting out your insertion of terrible photo of a major holy site as a “concerted attack”? Notwithstanding the false allegation that anything was “concerted”, describing it as an “attack” is really indicative of a mindset not conducive in any way towards collaborative editing on Wikipedia.Drsmoo (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You was already warned multiple times for your violation of WP:NPA the usage of such terms like "concerted attack" are not acceptable Shrike (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: There is clearly no consensus in any direction, but the obvious, default position would be for the lead image to an accurate, up-to-date reflection of the site. It is the archival imagery that should be considered optional in the lead if anything, not the modern image. The present modern/historic composite seems like a good compromise. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As a starting point, the image should be in-focus, show the Tomb itself clearly, and not have plastic bottles strewn across the floor. Drsmoo (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The in-focus element is pertinent. The article is fundamentally about the tomb, not its surrounding environ, and the surrounding graveyard is ultimately not part of the principle focus of the article. Rubbish is what it is, and if the site is in filthy disrepair then that is the reality and an interesting piece of visual commentary in its own right. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

That would be an interesting piece of visual commentary on the graveyard, but not on Rachel's Tomb, which, to the best of my knowledge, does not have garbage strewn across it. To take a photo of, ostensibly, Rachel's Tomb, but take it from a graveyard separate from the tomb, and have that photo contain garbage, with the tomb out of focus, calls into question what "visual commentary" the photo is intending to convey, and why that photo would be forced into the lead over the objections of multiple editors. As it is, the current photo is not actually an exterior view of Rachel's Tomb. It is a view of fortifications surrounding Rachel's Tomb, with the dome slightly visible (and out of focus). That may be interesting further down into the article, in a section detailing the fortifications, but not as a photo of the tomb itself. It's also questionable why anyone would insist on the necessity of an exterior photo for the lead, when the second paragraph of the lead states that it is built in the style of a traditional maqam. In other words, there is nothing unique or noteworthy about its exterior.

Given that Rachel's Tomb is entirely unremarkable from an architectural standpoint, and that visitors will primarily see it's interior, it makes sense for the lead to show the interior entrance, which exists in high-quality already across WikiCommons. What it definitely shouldn't be is a low-res, out of focus photo that doesn't even show the tomb, and, quite frankly, makes Wikipedia look bad.

Currently, the lead photo added by Onceinawhile fails Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Images for the lead, and I would personally consider it to be an offensive image

1. The image is not a "natural and appropriate" representation of the topic, and is not "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works"
2. It is not "of least shock value". The guideline states "an alternative image that accurately represents the topic without shock value should always be preferred. Drsmoo (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: From my experience in other image discussions, the bar set for images being considered offensive or of shock value is set considerably higher than this. If you read the guideline, "shock value" actually means things like showing corpses. These things are always a balance with WP:NOTCENSORED. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't really paid any attention to this until the recent kerfuffle, I tend to agree with "accurate, up-to-date reflection of the site" for the lead, exterior as well as interior, what it looks like now, personally I would be less concerned with what it looked like historically and there is no reason why such pictures cannot be in the body. Selfstudier (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The blue thing in the lower left, whatever it was, has been cropped out and if you still see it it is a caching problem. Now it is not true that there is rubbish in the image as I don't consider broken graves to be rubbish. I also consider the sharpness to be adequate. However, I don't think this image should be in the infobox as it doesn't show the tomb or the tomb building (I'm assuming the building in the background is new fortification). So I propose that the image be moved lower in the article with a caption something like "part of the Muslim graveyard on the south side of the tomb". The Muslim graveyard used to surround the tomb on three sides and is a major part of the Muslim claim, so it is clearly relevant. Zero^talk 06:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it provides useful context and would certainly be good to include somewhere. Are there modern images inside the 'fortification'? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that with the plastic bottle thing removed, the image no longer would be considered to have shock value. I do think there's a place for the image in the article, as an example of the fortifications, and also agree with Zero regarding it moving to lower within the article (it already exists lower in the article as well, though that image does not have the latest cropping, so we could swap it. Regarding photos of the graveyard and modern images from inside the fortification, I'm including three of each I think would be useful:

Photos of the Muslim cemetery near Rachel's Tomb that would benefit the article

• 
• 
• 

Photos of the interior of Rachel's Tomb that would benefit the article

• 
• 
• 

For an interior photo that could be suitable for the lead, I'm inclined to use the first linked interior image, which I would also prefer to crop. Drsmoo (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The cemetery photos show tombstones with dates in the 1980s. I didn't know it was in use so recently. Meanwhile I am trying to find out if the cemetery has a name. I saw "Al Khader Cemetery" on two maps, but it could be a mistake as there is another Al Khader Cemetery in Al Khader a few kilometers west. The biggest disappointment was a map from the Survey of Israel that labels it "Jewish cemetery". Dozens of splendid sources say it is Muslim and the photos confirm that, moreover it is halachically impossible to turn a Muslim cemetery into a Jewish cemetery. Zero^talk 01:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

About interiors, I don't see a photo of the tomb itself (rather than the building housing it). Or is there no tomb? Excuse my ignorance, but if there is an actual tomb a photo of it would be the best. Photos of rooms with people standing around are not that informative. Zero^talk 01:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're looking for, Iskander323 asked for a modern image from inside the fortification. The images posted were of the entrance to the tomb from within the fortification, and my preferred one doesn't have any people standing around. The tomb itself, is a small domed room, and I presume some auxiliary rooms. Most pictures will likely contain people praying. Drsmoo (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

In the center of the oldest part of the building (the western room) there is a square stone structure about 2m on a side and (I think) fairly high. It is the place where a body would be if there was one and cloth is draped over it according to the occasion. A photo that shows it would be good and I don't see one in the article at the moment. Is there one linked on this page? Getting a good photo might be difficult as the room is very small. Photos of the larger, eastern, room (built by Montefoire in 1841 as a Muslim prayer room with a mihrab that is now plastered over) are OK but second best. Zero^talk 03:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Probably I mean this. Zero^talk 08:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are some:

Photos of the interior of Rachel's Tomb that would benefit the article

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Drsmoo (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree to the first one in the infobox (together with the historical external photo)? The other ones here are either blurry or a bit messy. Zero^talk 06:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree it seems like the clearest image we have of the actual focus of the whole complex. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that as well Drsmoo (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the first sarcophagus picture is good as a picture of the sarcophagus. It is not a picture of the tomb though; the word tomb in all sources I have seen for this topic refers primarily to the whole building.

I am not sure which photo Iskander refers to regarding the whole complex.

A comment on the question of showing the “fortifications” in the infobox. I think there may be a misunderstanding. The building has actually been expanded, these are not just “fortifications” but corridors and extra standing room. It is possible to see here how the original maqam arches have been opened up again into these corridors, and perhaps it is even more clear from this Aerial view.

So, is this new structure part of the “tomb”? When I visited, it certainly felt like it. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox image updated per talk. Iskander is referring to the "Actual focus of the whole complex". Ie., the sarcophagus containing Rachel's remains. The fortifications enclose and cover the tomb, they are not part of the tomb. "To protect Jewish worshipers at the tomb, the Israeli Defense Ministry commissioned an architect to enclose the centuries-old structure in a fortified complex of stone-faced concrete topped by guard towers. The $2 million project, overseen by the Religious Affairs Ministry, took a year and a half to complete. Now a solid wall of stone-filled arches covers the shrine, providing a large protected prayer space but hiding the familiar domed tomb whose picture has decorated Jewish homes around the world." https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/12/world/strife-claims-small-victim-as-rachel-s-tomb-is-reopened.html Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: At the risk of WP:NOTFORUM, why would they do this? It seems frankly bizarre to basically bury an iconic historic site from view in ugly outer walls. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

In response to attacks/riots there and at Joseph’s tomb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBT0jkVVC0M&t=255s Drsmoo (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

An aerial photo showing the modern complex would be lovely. I'm not opposed to an inside photo showing how the original arches were integrated into the modern building either; that would be more informative than a photo of a nondescript outside wall. There's nothing wrong with having a photo of the tomb's most essential element either; it is normal for articles to show important features at the head (think of an article on a village illustrated by an important building). Zero^talk 01:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I was unclear as to whether the 'fortifications' were a wall separate from the 'tomb' per se, or contiguous with it. Sounds like the latter, hence the lack of photos inside of the fortifications but still outside the tomb. Given this, and how potentially confusing (certainly for myself as an outsider) this can make things, 'fortification' is not really the right word if this is now just the 'outer wall' of the complex. I also agree with @Zero0000 that, if available, some sort of aerial view of the site would really be the most useful and illustrative in understanding the subject. But is that available? Million dollar question. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadly it is definitely not available. The site I linked to, Sonia Halliday, were contacted by Huldra a few years ago, to no avail. The only way to take a photo ourselves would be in conjunction with the Israeli army. Bolter once said he would see if he had any contacts but also to no avail. So after many years trying, I am certain the answer is that no aerial photos will be available in the near term. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There is more to the "tomb" than just the one room. The tomb was significantly expanded by Montefiore in 1841. The layout is described here: "The enclosing of Rachel’s Tomb inside a fortified wall, which took place soon after the establishment of the yeshiva, along with the presence therein not only of Israeli soldiers but also of armed settlers linked to the Gush Etzion movement, made it impossible for local Palestinians to access the Tomb, which was cut off from the surrounding cemetery...Since the Wall’s completion, visitors, having cleared several checkpoints and passed the armed soldiers at the external doorway, walk into a low, artificially lit passageway that eventually brings them to the two pillars which had previously marked the entryway to the Tomb from the once busy Hebron Road.51 These now signal the interior entrance to the men’s prayer room while the next opening, into the now conjoined vestibule and prayer room added to the Tomb by Montefiore in 1841, provides women access to their side of the Tomb. The internal spaces are crowded with gender-segregated Hassidic Jews; on the men’s side these read from the Torah, praying alone or in groups, while on their side the women talk quietly, holding babies, and touching and speaking to the tomb." https://www.palestine-studies.org/sites/default/files/jq-articles/sharing_and_Exclusion__JQ-58-4_0.pdf It's essentially a matter of semantics whether one considers the fortifications integral to the tomb or not. The archway for example, opens into the vestibule built by Montefiore. Multiple reliable sources, including the one linked above, describe the tomb as being "enclosed" by the wall. As an experience for the visitor, it is basically an older structure enclosed in a newer one. My view from the beginning was that the best way to convey this would be to show the previously external gate, which is now enclosed inside the fortifications. Drsmoo (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Rachel's Tomb diagram

Here is a diagram of the tomb. This follows: Denys Pringle (1998), The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, volume 2, Cambridge University Press, page 177. The subsequent additions follow this image. A photo of the late 20th century external gate inside the 21st century fortifications shows significantly less of the original structure than the available external photos. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This diagram is great, however, I miss some info. It is not obvious (to the uninitiated reader) what the green parts stand for. From my reading; the green parts corresponds with what was there in the 1500-1600? (Compare with Zuallart etc). Perhaps that could be made explicit? Huldra (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no original structure presently,"The earliest form of the structure was that of a pyramid typical of Roman period architecture. Improvements were made first by Crusader Christians a thousand years later, then Muslims in several stages, and finally by the Jewish philanthropist Moses Montefiore in the nineteenth century." https://archive.org/details/rachelweepingjew0000stri "by virtue of the fact that the building which had fallen into complete decay was entirely rebuilt in 1845 by Sir M. Montefiore" and "in 1615 Muhammad, Pasha of Jerusalem, rebuilt the Tomb". http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Status_Quo_in_the_Holy_Places The dome is one of the most notable things Montefiore rebuilt. "On the second day of their visit, Amzalak took Montefiore on a tour of communal institutions and Jewish holy places. Judith, meanwhile, set out on a day trip to Bethlehem, stopping at the Tomb of Rachel, which she visited in the company of a group of Jewish women. This desolate, solitary, crumbling ruin, its dome half open to the elements, was a holy site for all Jews." https://books.google.com/books?id=dGeM6r_YbocC&pg=PT67#v=onepage&q&f=false "In 1841, Sir M. Montefiore purchased the grounds and monument for the Jewish community, added an adjoining prayer vestibule, and reconditioned the entire structure with its white dome and quiet reception or prayer room." https://books.google.com/books?id=lew1z5RKW6kC. The image should be reflective of what viewers expect to see, as well as informative. The current photomontage supports that, as would an image of the gate, or an image of the sarcophagus, in my opinion. An aerial photo would be acceptable too, if a suitable one can be found. Incidentally, I don't actually have any fundamental objection to a clear photo from the graveyard. For example, this photo would be great, though I've been unable to determine the author or attribution requirements. As it is, there is support from Zero, Iskandar, and myself for the current photomontage. Drsmoo (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

When was the gate built?

• 
  1944 (no wall or gate)
• 
  1950 (wall and small gate)
• 
  July 1967 (gate)
• 
  Close up of coat of arms

See these photos. The last picture is dated July 1967. Was the gate built in a matter of weeks after the 1967 war, or was it built during the Jordanian period? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Likely sometime between 1950 and 1968, but most likely before the six-day war as this photo http://www.lifeintheholyland.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Bethlehem_Rachels_Tomb_cf12-26.jpg, from Charles Feinberg was taken during that period (‘50-‘68). Possibly prior to 1967 as there is no Hebrew text, and 67 photo shown above is captioned with “immediately after the six-day war” and dated to July 1967. So unless the entrance was constructed in weeks as you say immediately after the war and Feinberg happened to take the photo right before Hebrew text was added, it seems unlikely it was built post-war in that small gap. (Also hypothetically possible Hebrew text was removed when photo was taken, but seems unlikely, the lack of traffic around the Tomb mid day may also indicate pre 1967). But this is speculation. Also of note per your diagram, describing any aspect as “original” is somewhat misleading as the dome was significantly rebuilt by Montefiore as well. Per this 1700s engraving, https://www.alamy.com/english-17th-century-dutch-engraving-of-rachels-tomb-bethlehem-1600s-joan-comay-444-rachels-tomb-17th-century-engraving-image189182301.html, the look of the tomb has changed quite a bit over time, notwithstanding it being a pyramid at one point. Drsmoo (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

That was my thought too. How the site was treated during the Jordanian period is a very interesting subject to add to our article, if we can find the sources. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Arabic on the gate

See this photo: [5], showing an Arabic inscription on the gateposts. So we can be certain that it is a Palestinian gate built prior to 1967.

I also added a close up of the coat of arms in the gallery above. Would be interesting to identify it. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: It looks a lot like a variant on the Hashemite/Jordanian Royal Crest, with the circular emblem, wings and possibly eagle head and distinctive set of spears, so between this and the Arabic calligraphy it looks exceptionally likely that the gate is Jordanian in origin, which would obviously make complete sense given the timeline of events between the different images above. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: as our resident expert on Jordanian matters, could you shed any light on this? There must have been local newspaper coverage when this was built. Particularly if it has the Hashemite crest on it... I found a postcard from 1961 which shows the gate was not built then, so it must have been somewhere between 1961-67. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I got a headache just trying to find a good close up of this gate, searching everywhere in both English and Arabic, and even social media sites. Got nothing until I found this on Wikipedia! [File:Sabil from Rachel Tomb.jpg] [File:Coat of arms of the Ottoman Empire (1882–1922).svg] It is an Ottoman coat of arms, and the structure is called a Sebil سبيل which is basically a public fountain. The reason why it suddenly appears is that it seems to be moved from the inside according to this dubious source, that also claims it was donated by banker Moshe Montefiori in the 19th century. Nothing Jordanian about it. Also the Arabic inscription could be Ottoman because I find it unintelligible, or maybe because the pictures aren't that fancy. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Well done! Great investigative work. I was doing the same in parallel but didn’t get there. I had just concluded that it looked like the remains of a tughra at the top, but didn’t get anywhere near Coat of arms of the Ottoman Empire. Now to find a source confirming they were donated by Montefiore, which makes a lot of sense.

And great photo too, which is from before the most recent renovation so some of the Arabic is still showing. Any chance you can read it?

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

By the way, some clever people figured this out at Sebil (fountain) a long time ago: [6][7] Onceinawhile (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually yes nevermind I just read it and it makes perfect sense: "وجعلنا من الماء كل شيء حي And We created from water every living thing" a verse from the Quran 21:30, which puts doubt on the Montefiore allegation. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any source, aside from the biblewalks one, which seems unreliable, attribute the gate to Montefiore. Per the sources we have in the article Montefiore reconditioned the tomb, most notably the dome, and added a Mihrab.Drsmoo (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess the Jordanian coat of arms borrowed some Ottoman elements. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't obvious that Montefiore had nothing to do with the inscription, though I don't have any evidence either way. If he was willing to add the mihrab, effectively converting half the building into a mosque, a Quranic inscription is not much of a stretch. Zero^talk 06:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede

Again, as typical for article of this type, the Muslim history of the tomb is a side story, and when mentioned, downplayed. For example, "The structure in its current form dates from the Ottoman period" is just a weird way of saying it is an Ottoman structure built by some Ottoman figure. Instead, the lede gives almost half of the attention to repairs by Montefiore. Needs to be fixed and I will edit it a bit in that direction. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)