Talk:Mughrabi Quarter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Things in 2005 are the same as they were in 1967.

This was one of the many acts ethnic cleansing carried out by the Israelis and Jewish extremists beginning in 1947 and still happening in the illegaly occupied Palestinian Territories. Ethnic cleansing of course refers to the removal of one ethnic group, in this case Palestinians, and their replacement with members of the occupying powers ethnic group, in this case Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.102.170 (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Like the ethnic cleansing carried out by the Jordanians against Jews in 1948 in the Old City, eh? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Jordanians may have temporarily evicted Jews from their homes in the Old City, but they didn't level their entire neighborhood.Shabeki (talk) 08:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you suppose that the Jordanians had the intention to let the Jews return?Urgert (talk) 21:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that that the buildings destroyed in the Jewish Quarter are mentioned twice in close succession in an article not on the Jewish Quarter but on the Moroccan Quarter? It invites comparisons. Should all ethnic cleansing that has happened therefore be mentioned? wont look good for Israel. Is this an excuse? Could not find mention of the fact that only one person - an old lady - was killed in the action (by an Israeli bulldozer).

I always thought there was one woman who died, but this interview (see Appendix 1) says there were at least three. I don't know what to make of that. I can't identify a newspaper called "Yorshalim". Zero^talk 14:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey this is really interesting, and there's a great photo, maybe this gets incorperated? http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/rare-photograph-reveals-ancient-jerusalem-mosque-destroyed-in-1967.premium-1.436593 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.220.197 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

How to move the page?

Recently someone tried to move this page manually. i.e. copy/pasting the code and replacing it with a redirect. If anybody wants to move this page, please start a Wikipedia:Requested moves and gain consensus from other editors. Tachfin (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Moroccan" quarter?

The quarters name is, i suppose, derived form the arabic مغرب, "maghrib". This designates, as is well known, not only the country of Morocco, but also the far larger area comprising Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia (ie the "arabic west"). As the name (and the quarter) was established far earlier than the actual modern state of Morocco, it seems almost certain that this is what the name originally designated. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article? Maybe not of huge importance, but it always puzzled me why there was a sudden "national" quarter, besides the religiously denominated ones (that is, up until I started studying arabic and came across this obvious explanation). 41.131.105.31 (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It actually is extremely important to mention this. The kingdom of Morocco was created in 1956 and took the name of "Al-Maghreb" previously the name of the whole region. This isn't the first time translation was done badly because of this change. In the time's context : Maghrebi wa's the inhabitant of the Maghreb (Region from the Nile to the Atlantic ) and no a "Moroccan". This is grave error that should be corrected ASAP. Alg01 (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that even though the common English name uses a word that doesn't have the same meaning in modern English, it is still the common English name. And that is what we are supposed to use. Personally I would prefer Maghrebri Quarter as in a majority of scholarly works, but the consensus here is against it. Zero^talk 02:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the following phrase from the section "Demolition": [...], at the request of Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion after he had accompanied Ben-Gurion to the Western Wall the day after Israel seized control of the Old City.

Reasons: 1. David Ben Gurion was NOT Israel's prime minister in 1967 and 2. this phrase is not supported by the sources given as references.

Gugganij (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I moved the page why?

Maghrebis' quarter is more correct, as Marocco is just another part of this Maghreb (extending from Libya to Mauritania). I also replaced this recurrent expression within the article. Regards. -Dzlinker (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

BUT WHY THE FINAL "S" ? ? ?

Magrebi Quarter.

or Mughrabi quarter (with a "u")

or Moghrabi quarter (with an "o" in the local dialect)

BUT SURELY, PLEASE GET RID OF THE FINAL "s"

--@Efrat (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the renaming wasn't discussed before it has been done, I reverted it and putted the former name.

First, most references call it "Moroccan quarter", not "Maghrebi quarter".

Second, the Arabic equavalent to "Maghrebis" is "Magharibiyun", not "Magharibah", which means "Moroccans".

I hope that this kind of actions will be discussed in the future instead of being unilaterally done, especially when it is not consensual.

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So, here are some sources I found after only 5 minutes of searching that refer to the quarter as a Moroccan one :

• Jerusalem: City of Longing, by Simon Goldhil [1], pages 76, 80 & 95 ;
• Khamissi & al., Jerusalem: The Old City - The Urban Fabric and Geopolitical Implications [2], pages 6, 11 & 41 ;
• Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy, by Stacie E. Goddard [3], p. 151
• The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, by F.E. Peters [4], pages 187 & 188

--Omar-toons (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

And besides, the Moroccan Quarter wasn't settled by Mughrabis including Mauritanians, Algerians, Tunisians and Libyans, so Mughrabi doesn't fit. But wait, Omar-toons, one of your refs (Khamissi & al. [5] on page 11) actually does call the quarter, "Al Maghariba". So its not so simple after all. That notwithstanding, if we're casting ballots, I vote to keep the English name with the most refs:"Moroccan Quarter" --@Efrat (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Still Arabic name for Marocco was Marakesh (it is still Marakesh in Persian [6] and Fas in Turkish!! [7] and derived Marakesh to Marocco in Latin) not Maghrib (Sunset!) different from Gharb (West). The historic Maghrib is the west-nile land, or Tamazgha if you want. You should look for arabic references, as the matter here is about understanding what Maghariba means. "Maroccan" people are called after there cities of origin el marakshi, el fassi, el casaoui (since the 21 c.) but never el maghribi. And Marocco was called mamlakat el morabitin or el mowahidin or el mariniyin, if i recall. And "maroccans" were certainly called after there king. - Dzlinker (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

All very interesting, Dzlinker, but this is after all English wikipedia. I would not desire that the name of the Arabic article, حارة المغاربة be changed to موروكين كوارتير. The preponderance of referencess in English use Moroccan Quarter, and so should remain the English article's name. --@Efrat (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as if the brits named it 10 centuries ago. Whatever - Dzlinker (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the British from Spanish and Portuguese. Changing the name now would be a political, nationalistic, chauvenistic, monumental task, though not necessarily without merits (eg, Ceylon to Sri Lanka). In the meantime, Moroccan it is. Still, "Hārat al-Maghāriba" appears in the article on the first line. By the way, in Chinese it's called "mwo-lwo-guh chu". No kidding! --@Efrat (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

My point is Maroccans were not called Maghariba at the time! but either Marrakshi or Fasi. So impossible for the city hall guy charged of naming jerusalem quarters at that time to name it maroccan because of its population. In fact Maghrebi designated the North Africans in General. - Dzlinker (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And what does it mean (the chinese world?) - Dzlinker (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

→WP:OR (But a real huge OR!) --Omar-toons (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Omar-toons u're not right sorry and u make a big big mistake. I explain :

First: in the arabic language Morocco is المغرب (Arabic pronunciation: [Al Maghreb]), and Maghreb is also المغرب (Arabic pronunciation: [Al Maghreb]).

Second: what about the article, at this time Morocco don't exist because there was many muslim dinasties in all the Maghreb Land (in arabic بلاد المغرب Arabic pronunciation: [Bilad Al Maghreb].

In the end: The quarter can't refer to Morocco because it don't exist,it's refer to all maghrebin people because all maghreb people is muslim at this time not only Morocco land and all had gone to visit Jerusalem.

Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Thanks to read WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS.

btw I find after 10 seconds on Scholar that:
- "tradition (...) reaches back to the origins of the modern Moroccan state in the ninth century Idrisid dynasty which founded the venerable city of. Fes", G Joffe, Morocco: Monarchy, legitimacy and succession, in : Third World Quarterly, 1988
- "The Idrisids, the founder dynasty of Fas and, ideally at least, of the modern Moroccan state (...)", Moroccan dynastic shurfa’‐hood in two historical contexts: idrisid cult and ‘Alawid power in : The Journal of North African Studies Volume 6, Issue 2, 2001 [8]

So, no matter what you think, according to WP:UCN, changing article's name should be based on that fact the "Maghrebi quarter" is the most used name in English, and that's not the case. Also, I don't need you to tell me if "I'm not right and making a big mistake" or not, I gave RS, you gave none ; come back when you'll get some.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat again Omar-toons, u're not right, u can't and it's impossible to have right. Morocco don't exist at this time and the more important is that in the arab language, Maghrebin people refere to all maghreb people not only to Morocco. So you think that only Morrocan people had gone to Jerusalem?. No sorry people from All the Maghreb had gone to Jerusalem and this quarter refer to all this populations. U can see here the definition. Greetings. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Again : please read WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UCN.
--Omar-toons (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Either you bring some new elements to the talk or just move on. Everyone knows wp policies. - Dzlinker (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that some don't.

You know policies? Cool! Then, bring RS or move on.

--Omar-toons (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Omar-toons, the problem is not WP, the problem concerne history and you false it. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the last edit of Dzlinker for 2 reasons : 1- Morocco existed since the 9 century (refernece given by Omar-Toons) 2- Ther's no reference that people from Algeria, Tunisia Libya or Mauritania participated in Djihad against crusaders in Palestine. --Yusuf ibn Tashfin (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the talk page 13 [9]

your revert is non constructive, edit instead

Dzlinker 08:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Page 13? The term "Moroccan quarter" occures more than once, while "Maghrebi quarter" is only cited one time, in a testimony, not given by a historian or anyone else that counts.

Btw, I approve the revert made by Tashfin since this edit is disruptive and POV. --Omar-toons (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

So you say there were 0 (zero) non maroccans in that quarter? a kind of china town for marocans in jerusalem? Is that it? Dzlinker 15:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You can still add the information stating that "some families trace back their origin to modern-day Algeria and Tunisia", without replacing the information stating that inhabitants were (mainly) Moroccans (as cited by refs) and that the link to the waqf was maintained Moroccan sultans, not by rulers of other parts of the Maghreb. Also, you shouldn't replace "Moroccans" by "Maghrebis" since scholars and refs (mainly) use the first one, not the second. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

actually both expressions are used, the first one is used 2x more (according to google insights), never the less, the second is more correct. ambiguous names shouldn't get translated. should be transliterated from the arabic word (which means westerner) to mughrabi. a matter of security to wrap that ambiguity of the arab word. in addition we have sources stating clearly that many of the concerned people have tunisian & algerian ancestry, and thus translation to maroccan quarter become really unsuitable. Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Who do you think you are to decide if an expression is more correct than another one?

And, no, per WP:UCN the most widely used one on English litterature should be used, which is "Moroccan Quarter".

Btw, you are getting closer to WP:POINT.

--Omar-toons (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

looks like i need your permission! you should read WP:UE mr policy, it says: Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 08:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:UE link, then you can refer to it directly : "(...) However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic" --Omar-toons (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Moroccan Quarter → Mughrabi Quarter – per WP:UE, from arabic harat (quarter) mughariba where mughrebi doesn't mean moroccan (false translation). Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 15:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose: per the whole discussion above. Also, per WP:ENG : references (see below) in English use the term "Moroccan Quarter", and so should remain the English article's name. Note that in the discussion above, user:Dzlinker was unable to bring WP:RS in favor of his view.
  Sources (cited above):
  - Jerusalem: City of Longing, by Simon Goldhil [10], pages 76, 80 & 95 ;
  - Khamissi & al., Jerusalem: The Old City - The Urban Fabric and Geopolitical Implications [11], pages 6, 11 & 41 ;
  - Indivisible Territory and the Politics of Legitimacy, by Stacie E. Goddard [12], p. 151
  - The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, by F.E. Peters [13], pages 187 & 188
  - T. Abowd, The Moroccan Quarter: A History of the Present, in: Jerusalem Quarterly File (Institute of Jerusalem Studies), no. 7 (2000), pp. 6 to 16 [14]
  --Omar-toons (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Provisional oppose - at first sight not just T. Abowd, The Moroccan Quarter: A History of the Present, in: Jerusalem Quarterly File (Institute of Jerusalem Studies), no. 7 (2000) but also the "repatriation" to Morocco would support the current title. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. WP:UE means use the English name, not the correct modern translation. -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: This discussion has gone on far too long. I suspect that those in favor of the move have ulterior jingoistic reasons. Ceylon successfully got itself renamed Sri Lanka in the English speaking world. But Burma and Cambodia have not convinced English speakers to call them Myanmar and Kampuchea. Moroccans have not convinced English speakers to call Morocco, al-Maghrab nor to call all things Moroccan, Maghrabiya. Until then, English wikipedia should remain English. BTW, I noticed this article exists in Spanish (Marroquí, not Maghrabí) and in Norwegian (marokkanske, not maghrabanske) This whole discussion belongs in a forum about changing the English language to satisfy political/nationalistic sensitibities. If that argument is won (as the Ceylonese argument was), then and only then should everthing Moroccan be renamed Maghrabiya. In the meantime WP:UE & WP:ON --@Efrat (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

clarification: this is all about the confusion of the original arabic name (maghrib means west and indicates north africa as well as morocco sometimes (it is in fact (for non lazy people) called مغرب اقصى in english extreme west). in addition maghrib is more general and thus less ambiguous. calling it moroccan means that only moroccans lived there. or moroccan settled there first. though it is totally false by the reasons given before. non english names should be transliterated if confusion is to be created (wp:eu). cheers Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 12:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to read WP:NPA : calling people who don't agree with you "lazy people" is a personal attack.

Otherwise, your demonstration is WP:OR and is inconsistent with the WP policies cited above.

--Omar-toons (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I agree 100% with Dzlinker. And I said that Morocco don't exist at this time, there was many muslim dynasties and people there were called Maghrebin (arab occidental) to differe to the middle east and arabia called Mashreq (arab oriental). Ahmed Mohammed al-Maqqari is an exemple of maghrebin people who lives in Maghrebin quarter. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a proove that Maghrebin quarter concerne all Maghrebin people not only Moroccans. Look at here "Maghrebin Quarter in Jerusalem .. story link between the east and the west (in Arabic)" by Al-Chorouk Parisien of french arab studies. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This introduction is inconsistent with WP policies : WP:EN/WP:UE. We don't discuss the origins of the inhabitants nor the History of Morocco (even if both subjects were mentioned and answers given to each), but the English title, as used by English WP:RS. --Omar-toons (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

History concern all people of Maghreb and the term Mughrabi refer to Maghreb wich is the english term sorry. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that you didn't understand what people wrote before: WP adopts English common names, it doesn't translate them from other languages per WP:ENG/WP:UE, and the English name found on English RS is "Moroccan quarter", no mater what does Arabic texts say. --Omar-toons (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it doesn't translate in other languages, so people of Maghreb are called Maghrebin or Mughrabi (in the middle age) not Morrocan (wich refere to Morocco only). You can found the complete english terme here on Google books. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. People arguing about translating from Arabic (where also Moroccan=Maghrebi) are strongly ill-informed (sensational anti-Moroccan sentiment?), even historically how many people referred to as 'Maghrebi' do you know who were not either Moroccan or from al-Andalus? Additionally Abu Inan Faris, 14th-century Monarch of Morocco was the de-facto founder of this quarter (hence the name), so you have no point either way really, but mostly the obvious common name policy. --Tachfin (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nothing happened between 1948 and 1967?

Seriously, the jump from the 48 war to the 67 war is glaring. What was the place like during that time? It's obviously a controversial place, with a history, so there should be something covering that gap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.228.11.168 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing problem

So here is an issue about the article. In the lead we have "... inhabited by the descendents of Moors who had been expelled from Spain in 1491 and Muslim pilgrims from North Africa." and later there is a similar statement. They are cited to Ben-Arieh's book "Jerusalem in the 19th century", which satisfies WP:RS. The problems are:

1. We have better sources that the quarter was founded in the 12th century, not the 15th century. This doesn't disallow that 15th century refugees joined the quarter, but it is misleading to suggest the quarter was founded by them.
2. The source, as I wrote, satisfies WP:RS, but it isn't a good source. Actually it is terrible. Mostly it is a random compilation of European travel stories, and a few Hebrew sources. As far as I can see, there isn't a single Arabic source, which is pretty amazing for a book that contains a lot on Arab history and 400 named sources. The origins of the Mughrabi Quarter are given in the Arabic sources, naturally. Not only that but the Western source used by Ben-Arieh doesn't say what he claims. Ben-Arieh's source is given on p. 157, namely an 1806 book of the French gentleman-traveler François-René de Chateaubriand. Here is what Chateaubriand wrote (English translation of Shoberl; [15]):

Harat-el-Magrabe, street of the Magrabins. These Magrabins, as I have observed, are the people of the West, or of Barbary. Among them are included some descendants of the Moors driven from Spain by Ferdinand and Isabella. These exiles were charitably received in the Holy City; a mosque was built for their use. and bread, fruits, and money are yet distributed among them. The heirs of the proud Abencerrages, the elegant architects of the Alhambra, are become porters at Jerusalem, who are sought after on account of their intelligence, and couriers esteemed for their swiftness. What would Saladin and Richard say, if suddenly returning to the world, they were to find the Moorish champions transformed into the door-keepers of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Christian knights represented by brethren of the Mendicant Order?

Lest we fret about the translation and your username starts with "N", here be the French original:

Harat-el-Maugrarbé , rue des Maugrabins. Ces Maugrabins, comme je l'ai dit, sont les Occidentaux ou Barbaresques. On compte parmi eux quelques descendants des Maures chassés d'Espagne par Ferdinand et Isabelle. Ces bannis furent reçus dans la ville sainte avec une grande charité : on leur fit bâtir une mosquée ; on leur distribue encore aujourd'hui du pain, des fruits et quelque argent. Les héritiers des fiers Abencerages, les élégants architectes de l'Alhambra, sont devenus à Jérusalem des portiers, qu'on recherche à cause de leur intelligence, et des courriers, estimés pour leur légèreté. Que diraient Saladin et Richard si, revenant tout à coup au monde, ils trouvaient les chevaliers maures transformés en concierges au Saint-Sépulcre, et les chevaliers chrétiens représentés par des frères quêteurs? [16]

Now here is what Ben-Arieh gets from it (pp 156–157):

Early in the nineteenth century (1806) Chateaubriand writes that the Mughrabi neighborhood was inhabited by Moors (North Africans) who had been expelled from Spain in the days of Ferdinand and Isabella. They were well received by the residents of Jerusalem, and had their own mosque. Their main task was guarding the holy places, for which they received bread, fruit, and a small amount of money.

Note how "among them are included" was changed into "was inhabited by" (!!). Then what Chateaubriand describes as (great largesse.Nishidani/)charity is turned into a pittance in return for service. Ben-Arieh's "main task was guarding the holy places" is based entirely on Chateaubriand's poetic "transformed into the door-keepers of the Holy Sepulchre", entirely ignoring the "are become porters at Jerusalem, who are sought after on account of their intelligence, and couriers esteemed for their swiftness" that Chateaubriand chooses to typify their employment. Altogether it is a complete distortion (which I have to say is typical of this book). On page 130–131, Ben-Arieh distorts the source even more without naming it (or any other reference); now it is "The ancestors of the North African Muslims (Moors) had been expelled from Spain in 1491..." What should we do about this? I don't buy the argument that we have to follow "reliable sources" that we know to be wrong when it is possible to provide a more accurate version without violating any rules. See WP:COMMON and WP:IAR. What I plan to do is cite a good source for the 12th century origin, and cite Chateaubriand for the 15th century refugees. Zero^talk 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Add to that 'Ces bannis furent reçus dans la ville sainte'(These exiles were taken in by/welcomed in/ the holy city') = 'They were well received by the residents of Jerusalem.' Unfortunately, at the time of Ben-Arieh's writing 'residents of Jerusalem' is Israeli code referring to the conditional status of the Muslims of East Jerusalem, who are not citizens of the city.

So, yeah, that's a condescending, pointy distortion, well-documented, and the rule should be to chuck out RS if we find them doing that. It's an encyclopedia, and the RS used to build it are not meant to be RS (rodents' excrement).Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Moroccan Quarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071228092511/http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/59a92104ed00dc468525625b00527fea%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/eed216406b50bf6485256ce10072f637/59a92104ed00dc468525625b00527fea%21OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.merip.org/joost.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301005737/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf?OpenDocument to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/85255a0a0010ae82852555340060479d/a8138ad15b0fcac385256b920059debf?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Source check required.

(1)while in 1320 Shuayb ibn Muhammad ibn Shuayb, a grandson of the endowed a second zaouia there to be funded by his lands at Ain Karim. In 1352, the Marinid sultan of Morocco, Abu Inan Faris, established a smaller waqf—a Qur'an donated to the al-Aqsa Mosque, together with a representative to ensure that it was read from regularly. {{sfn|Tibawi|1978|pp=10–15}}

This contradicts what Peters states on page 394. Since Peters uses Tibawi, the contradiction, attributing to other figures what Peters ascribes to Abu Maydan, is odd. For the moment therefore I have removed Tibawi per above, and given the details I can verify in Peters, who cites Tibawi with none of those details however.Nishidani (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The Moroccans, who regarded the Jews as infidels, subjected them to harassment and extracted payment in return for allowing them to pray undisturbed.<ref>''Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century: The Old City,'' Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi and St. Martin's Press, 1984 p.157</ref>

This requires verification because Ben-Arieh is known to have grossly distorted key facets of Jerusalem's history (see Ricca's book); the claim is odd in asserting Moroccan Muslims thought of members of a religion protected and recognized by Islam as kaffirs or infidels, when Moroccan Muslims had a very large and established community of Moroccan Jews in their midst, in Morocco. Further googling the book, I can find no result for infidel;(c)Ottoman law recognized Jewish rights to visit the Wall; (4) scholarly sources do not appear to endorse the remark (so far) and some can be cited stating that Muslim hostility to Jewish prayer only became serious with the onset of Zionism. There is no doubt incidents of harassment and violence occurred in the past. The whole Moghrabi quarter was turned upside down, and all houses ransacked for evidence of who might be the culprit, by Ottoman police after a Jew was murdered and his body tossed into a well nearby, to cite from memory (the Consular Diary of the 1850s). That is not in dispute. What is so, is Ben-Arieh's assertion this contempt or harassment was peculiar to the Moroccan Quarter, and in verifying his text, one should note what he cites in support. Unless that is forthcoming, he is just 'writing up' a convenient tale to put into focus a justification for what latter happened.Nishidani (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about all of Ben-Arieh Jerusalem work, but I have checked (much of) his work on populations in the Jerusalem district here: User:Huldra/Ben-Arieh, and that work is extremely sloppy, as anyone can check for themselves, Huldra (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Impressive work. He has to be accepted as Rs, which doesn't mean he has to be taken at his word on generalizations like the one I cited. Generally reviewers note his hostility to the Ottoman period, and of course he is making a Zionist case, not a scholarly history. One problem with demographics is that the ethnic categories conflate what are quite distinct cultural realities, here, under the word 'Jew', when as anyone who reads beyond blurbs, knows that there were rifts in the early period between Sephardic/Arabic-speaking Palestinian Jews and East European Ashkenazi Jews (the modern history of Hebron is a case in point). I noted the following for example:

Jerusalem’s relationship with Zionist settlers of the new Yishuv was not very harmonious. The eastern European settlers of the First and Second Aliyah looked disparagingly toward Jerusalem and its more traditional and religious Jewish inhabitants who still lived, to a large measure, from the charitable contributions (halukkah funds) sent by the Diaspora. The Eastern European Zionists had relatively less of an impact on the growth of Jerusalem than the Bukharan,Persian, Kurdish, Yemenite, North African, and other Oriental Jewish communities that began to form new neighborhoods at the end of the nineteenth century. The settlement of Oriental Jews in Palestinine hasa been lasrgely neglected in Zionist historiography until relatively recently, and Ben-Arieh’s study contains nimportant details on this question.'Daniel J. Schroeter,

Review of Aryeh in The American Historical Review, Volume 95, Issue 1, 1 February 1990, p.216

That kind of generalization has quite significant implications for numerous articles here. It is, I hardly need tell you, the specifics that make history, not hot-air sweeping omnium gatherum narratives.Nishidani (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, he is Professor Emeritus in geography at Hebrew Uni(link), so of course he is RS. That doesn't mean that I take his words as 100% truth...any more than I would take the word of Walid Khalidi, Benny Morris or Andrew Petersen(link) as 100% true (I have found clear mistakes in all of their works.)

As for lack of study; yeah.. (someone said that the age of the town that I am living in, depended on how many archeologist we were willing to fund.....), just like the end of the Byzantine era didn't mean the end of life in Palestine (but rather, up until recently: the end of the interests/study by historians/archeologist).

...just like Muslim thought after 12, 13th century have been very little studied.....making, by default, the earlier era "the golden age" of the Muslim world, so also have non-Ashkenazi Jews importance in Palestine been neglected, making the Ashkenazi Jews the "Jewish drivers of development", by default, Huldra (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Name change?? Mughrabi Quarter vs Moroccan Quarter

I see an editor in 2012 tried to change Moroccan Quarter to Mughrabi Quarter, and editors were negative (5 to 1); so it didn't pass. Now the same editor has unilaterally moved the article??

This is not the way things should be done. User:Dzlinker; please explain yourself. And User:M.Bitton; you might not have been aware of the failed mv-request in 2012? Huldra (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'm requesting it moved back to the Moroccan Quarter; Huldra (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Huldra: You're right, I wasn't aware of this. Dzlinker's cut-and-paste move and the IPs's botched revert didn't help either since it created a redirect loop. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Mughrabi Quarter → Moroccan Quarter – The original name, this name is against consensus above from 2012; no new consensus achieved Huldra (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support on procedural and policy grounds. This shouldn't have been moved against consensus, and 'Moroccan Quarter' is the commonly used English-language name; per WP:UE, that's the one we should use. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support on procedural grounds. I have not assessed the merits of either name. But this was a cut-and-paste move, which has messed up the article history and should be reversed. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  I didn't realize! I went ahead and reverted the copy-paste move, and as far as I can tell no history-merge stuff needs to happen. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Which explains why the IP's revert created a redirect loop and triggered the edit filter. M.Bitton (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.