Talk:Jobar Synagogue

Post-'48 Syrian discrimination

Valen, the source does not say they merely tried to damage the embodiments of the Jewish faith; it clearly says they had "seen to it"...that they were "obliterated". I have not found other sources verifying this. It would seem however, that unlike in communist Russia, freedom of religion for Jews was protected to an extent, albeit the many restrictions they were subjected to. Homes and businesses may have been confiscated, but what happened to the synagogues and other "embodiments" during that period. Did they remain open? If not, we can state that vestiges of the Jewish faith had indeed been obliterated. And we do not need to specify "police". It is quite common to use a country's name when describing actions taken by its police force who are empowered to enforce the law. Chesdovi (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the government of a country I don't think the police force represents the state enough to warrent simply using the name of the country. The source mentions the police, so if only to aid the inexperienced, we will mention it also. I am wondering why you mentioned "communist Russia"? ValenShephard (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If the source says "police", what is the problem with just saying "police"? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats true enough. I am actually also having a problem with the source. I am pretty wary of Google Books as sources. I would prefer something that isnt primary, and we don't know the credentials of the book or the author, or even what the context is. ValenShephard (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the source isn't "google books", its a book that happens to be viewable on google books. Just because something is written in a book doesn't mean that its true. I have a problem with this sentence: "After the establishment of the State of Israel, the Syrian police proceeded to try to destroy the Jewish faith in the country." Where in the book does it say: "After the establishment of the State of Israel"? and where does it say: "destroy the Jewish faith in the country."? In reality we know that there are several synagogues in good condition today in Damascus, Aleppo and Dura-Europos, so how is this possible? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

SD, you're the Syrian round here - you explain it to us! Chesdovi (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So you have no defense about adding incorrect information to the article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Things happen in 60 years. Chesdovi (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I made a mistake by saying my problem was with Google Books itself. But yes, it seems a little dubious what has been extracted from the source. We still dont know the credentials of that source. Why don't we just remove it? ValenShephard (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Jerrold Ballinger has been described as a "veteran journalist" who became known "for handling complex and controversial stories with unusual accuracy and sensitivity." (Veteran DM Journalist Jerrold Ballinger Dies, March 6, 2006.) His book was reviewed favorably by New York Senator Jacob K. Javits, a copy of which can be read in LIFE 9 Jul 1971. You can buy the book on Amazon for $0.99 if you want. Chesdovi (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In the article, if I click on the source and get linked to the book, I only see a few sentences which are not clear. For example Syria is not even mentioned. ValenShephard (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Syria is not even mentioned." I think that's taking it too far. Chesdovi (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well is it? When I click on the citation and go to the link, I dont see it. I see Damascus mentioned, so is this police response in Damascus of nationwide? ValenShephard (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationwide. Read up on the subject and you will get an overview of how Syria persecuted its Jews with even more ferocity after they failed to prevent Israel's establishment. Buy the book if you want to check the sources. Wikipedia is not restricted to viewing capability on GoogleBooks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Read up" is not a replacement for sources. And the article is not about supposed Syrian prosecution but of a specific please of worship right? Until someone else can verify the source, it should stay tagged as dubious. ValenShephard (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have found another source which, while not refering to the destruction of Jewish embodiments, provides other background material. In fact, it states that the synagogues remained open, where there were still Jews to fill them I suppose. Chesdovi (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is not specific to this synagogue, then I dont think it will be very appropriate. ValenShephard (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest we prefix "A religious centre in the neighbourhood was taken over by Palestinian Arabs and the synagogue was converted into a school for displaced Arabs." with? Chesdovi (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Which religious centre, the one in the article? If you can't show that it is referring to this particular one, it will be pretty dubious and I would suggest removing it. ValenShephard (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The religious centre was only mentioned by extension, as it was situated in Jobar. I do not know if it formed part of the synagogue complex or not. Chesdovi (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Then I do not think it would be right to make an assumption, it is not a fair extrapolation. I believe the statement in question should be removed them. ValenShephard (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okey so the source does not even identify it as a this synagogue or any synagogue at all. I showed this picture at the Jobar talkpage:[1] it shows no trace that the synagogue was converted to a school --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Away it goes then. I will remove the statement. ValenShephard (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Valen does not deem it appropriate to have an introductory line on the historical background and context of how and why the synagogue was taken over by interlopers. Chesdovi (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Valen, the source mentions both the religious centre and explicitly the synagogue! Chesdovi (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it does, you just explained how there was no way of knowing. ValenShephard (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, please post the exact quote from the book.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought you both had seen it! Chesdovi (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. I do not like having to use a source which cannot be independantly verified. If it wasnt so controversial it would probably be ok, but such big statement to make. Unless you can find another reliable source to deal with this exact temple, I dont think it should be included. Its too wide ranging anyway, we would have an argument to remove it because it is unappropriate to this article. ValenShephard (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Chesdovi, have you read the sentence in the book or are you making up things? If you have read it, post the exact quote from the book here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why’s it "controversial". Because you can’t stomach the fact that Arabs are actually just as bad as Zionists? Unless you can explain why this line is "controversial", I will have to assume all your editing here is seriously of a POV nature. The book says:

"A religious centre in Djobar 2 miles east of Damascus was now taken over by Palestinian Arabs and the synagogue where Elijah was said to have anointed Elisha had been converted into a school for displaced Arabs. Almost every trace of the Jews’ 2,000 years of existence in Syria, Eli wrote, had vanished."

I feel that what happened to the synagogue at this time is very relevant to the history of the building. There is no way we are just going to whitewash it. Chesdovi (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What do Zionists have to do with this? Do not assume any bad faith in my edits. So anyway, (a) this religious centre is not named (b) there is no mention of the Syrian nation being involved in eradicating the Jewish religion, or wanting to, or using force (in this excerpt) (c) we have no idea if he is referring to the same building. ValenShephard (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

a) I have removed reference to the religious centre.

b) The new version does not mention Syria wishing to eradicate Judaism

c) There was only one temple in Jobar and it quite clearly states the tradition about Elisha which is attached to this synagogue. (Have you read the rest of the article?) Chesdovi (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New references

For anyone who wants to work on this and the Jobar articles, here are the references I could find on the web:

Most of these have the Jews of Syria as a main theme, so they can be used in any corresponding articles.

• Iqtissadiya Weekly article. This is the best source I could find. The date of Issue 293 is 29 apr 2007. (in Arabic)
• Same article above posted on another site. Here are some photos missing from the original. (in Arabic)
• Article from chorouk online website (in Arabic)
• Article from Al Arabiya website (in Arabic)
• NY Times Article. Only vague reference to the synagogue here. (in English)
• Article about the synagogue and the ritual murder mentioned here in the synagogue article. But the link is not the original source, which I failed to find. (in Arabic)
• [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=330169 photos of various synagogues] in the Muslim world, some of which in Syria (including Jobar). (in English)
• Jobar facebook page (in Arabic)

This is all what I had the time to do. Further searching might return some better sources. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 18:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

New Encyclopedia of Islam as a source?

hmm. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm yourself ;). I can only see it used as an example of a source making an incorrect claim, which doesn't require it to be especially reliable. The wording is a bit odd though, especially for the first sentence. Zero^talk 00:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)