|
|||
DYK for Bab el-Gasus
On 29 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bab el-Gasus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the largest intact Ancient Egyptian tomb ever found, with 254 richly decorated sarcophagi, was forgotten for almost a century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bab el-Gasus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bab el-Gasus), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Hook update | ||
Your hook reached 17,533 views (730.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Eshmunazar II sarcophagus
Hey Mr. Mischievous! I was wondering if we should nominate Eshmunazar II sarcophagus for FA. What do you think? el.ziade (talkallam) 15:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Elias Ziade, definitely. All the hard work has been done, it is one of the most important inscriptions ever found in Middle Eastern archaeology, and the article represents by far the best source of information on the topic anywhere. Happy to help with further drafting as you see fit. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Music to my ears! I have an ongoing FA, and a new article in the making. I will review this one and include you as nominator when I submit it for FA review. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- PS. I don't get to say this often, but you're doing an amazing job. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Eli. As are you my friend. The throughness with which you address the topics is magnificent. I particularly enjoyed the quality of the content (both factual and visual) that you have brought at Royal necropolis of Byblos. I remember visiting Byblos a long time ago having been told of its great historical importance, and feeling quite confused afterwards. So little of its historical significance is visible to the visitor. But with articles like this one, it is now so much easier for the world to understand what that great place is really all about. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- PS. I don't get to say this often, but you're doing an amazing job. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Music to my ears! I have an ongoing FA, and a new article in the making. I will review this one and include you as nominator when I submit it for FA review. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Ahiram
Hi buddy, thanks for the above. I'm hoping you have a good image of the sarcophagus of Ahiram. The ones on common are a bit blurry or taken from a bad angle. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I looked at the others I have but you wouldn’t like the angles. Best I can do is: File:National Museum of Beirut, Lebanon - 49573139338.jpg which improves alignment, sharpness and brightness. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:National parks declared by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories
Ahem, Golan Heights isn't "occupied Palestinian territories".... please see move-request on the talk-page, Huldra (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Busy?
Got time to whip up a quick article? Shouldn't take you too long :) Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Selfstudier: yes life is definitely busy (too busy at the moment...), but always happy to help. What is the topic? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include at Status Quo a new article Status quo (Al-Aqsa mosque) (2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes refers). Make sense? Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: it may already be covered by: Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Uh huh, that is what I mean, interesting that "Status Quo" is not really mentioned much in that, only this sentence "Leaders of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre issued a statement of support to Abdullah on 1 March 2018 after Israel shelved a proposed bill that aimed to propose new tax measures to churches in the West Bank. "Your defence of religious freedom and Your leadership, in ensuring that the Status Quo is respected and maintained, has been crucial in our ongoing attempts to guard and protect the Christian presence especially in the Holy City of Jerusalem" but that's the "other SQ", right? Maybe it needs a name change? (and an update).Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've created a redirect pending a change to the status quo ;) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ta, before I travel further down this road, I am a little confused about something and the talk page doesn't help, I have the same query as Arminden, essentially. Afaics, Holy Sepulchre is a subject of SQ (J&B) so it can't be a subject of the new SQ, right? Assuming that is the case, are there in fact any Christian sites subject to SQ new? Or is it just Al-Aqsa? Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I know, status quo is an informal agreement only relating to the Dome of the Rock in its entirety, and not just Aqsa mosque. SQ does not deal with Christian churches or other Islamic shrines in Jerusalem, some have their own non-IP-related SQs. Hashemite custodianship is part of the informal unwritten SQ, which for example includes a prohibition on Jewish prayer (but not visits) at the Temple Mount-excluding western wall. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK, then Status quo (Al-Aqsa mosque) is not an incorrect title? Or is Status quo (Al-Aqsa) better? Just to be clear, I want to distinguish Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) (which says Holy Selpuchre is covered). Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm. I need to do some reading. What I do know is that:
- Original Status quo: The "Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem)", as we name it, is a formal documented arrangement which evolved over two centuries to regulate the use of certain Christian sites, and later two Jewish-Islamic sites.
- 1967 Status quo: The "Status Quo" for the Al Aqsa Compound / Temple Mount is a much more recent thing, formulated in June 1967 (* Najem, T.; Molloy, M.J.; Bell, M.; Bell, J. (2017). Contested Sites in Jerusalem: The Jerusalem Old City Initiative. UCLA Center for Middle East Development (CMED). Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-21344-4.
According to the arrangement formulated in June 1967, the Muslim Waqf - a local, Muslim, Palestinian institution tied to Jordan and, unofficially, since 1994, to the Palestinian Authority - manages the site. The Waqf controls the gates leading into the area (except for the Mughrabi Gate); employs guards of its choosing on the Haram/TM itself and at the entrances to it; sets the rules of permissible and prohibited behavior and dress; is responsible for general upkeep; and collects entrance fees from tourists and non-Muslim visitors to the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. The Waqf is also able to close the site to non-Muslim visitors in tense periods, as was the case between October 2000 and August 2003 (at which point Israel applied pressure to have it reopened). Israel prohibits the Wagf from hoisting flags on the Mount. Any renovations require prior coordination with Israeli authorities. Since the opening of the northern access to the Western Wall tunnels in September 1996 this coordination has ceased, with virtually no supervision over what goes on (even previously, supervision was not full).
) It was not shared at all for almost a millennium so there didn't need to be a status quo.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Dayan apparently imposed it after the war Everybody seems to just refer to it as the status quo, UN included.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hmm. I need to do some reading. What I do know is that:
- OK, then Status quo (Al-Aqsa mosque) is not an incorrect title? Or is Status quo (Al-Aqsa) better? Just to be clear, I want to distinguish Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) (which says Holy Selpuchre is covered). Selfstudier (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I know, status quo is an informal agreement only relating to the Dome of the Rock in its entirety, and not just Aqsa mosque. SQ does not deal with Christian churches or other Islamic shrines in Jerusalem, some have their own non-IP-related SQs. Hashemite custodianship is part of the informal unwritten SQ, which for example includes a prohibition on Jewish prayer (but not visits) at the Temple Mount-excluding western wall. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ta, before I travel further down this road, I am a little confused about something and the talk page doesn't help, I have the same query as Arminden, essentially. Afaics, Holy Sepulchre is a subject of SQ (J&B) so it can't be a subject of the new SQ, right? Assuming that is the case, are there in fact any Christian sites subject to SQ new? Or is it just Al-Aqsa? Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've created a redirect pending a change to the status quo ;) Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Uh huh, that is what I mean, interesting that "Status Quo" is not really mentioned much in that, only this sentence "Leaders of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre issued a statement of support to Abdullah on 1 March 2018 after Israel shelved a proposed bill that aimed to propose new tax measures to churches in the West Bank. "Your defence of religious freedom and Your leadership, in ensuring that the Status Quo is respected and maintained, has been crucial in our ongoing attempts to guard and protect the Christian presence especially in the Holy City of Jerusalem" but that's the "other SQ", right? Maybe it needs a name change? (and an update).Selfstudier (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: it may already be covered by: Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Include at Status Quo a new article Status quo (Al-Aqsa mosque) (2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes refers). Make sense? Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Some sources for an article focusing on exactly what happened in June 1967 on this topic, and what happened since:
- Friedrich Ebert Foundation, A National or Religious Conflict? The Dispute over the Temple Mount/ Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem
- JUBEH, NAZMI. “Jerusalem’s Haram al-Sharif: Crucible of Conflict and Control.” Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 45, no. 2 (178), 2016, pp. 23–37. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26378568.
- Inbari, Motti. “Religious Zionism and the Temple Mount Dilemma—Key Trends.” Israel Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, 2007, pp. 29–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30245660.
- [TBD whether RS] Kharroub, Tamara (2022-05-04). "Israel Is Stepping Closer to Controlling al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem". Arab Center Washington DC.
- [TBD whether RS] "The Status Quo on Jerusalem's Temple Mount Has Greatly Changed since 1967". Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. 2022-05-02.
- [TBD whether RS] Loewenberg, Meir (2016-05-05). "WHAT HAPPENED WHEN ISRAEL RECAPTURED THE TEMPLE MOUNT IN 1967?".
- [Non-scholarly] Halevi, Yossi Klein (2017-06-07). "The Astonishing Israeli Concession of 1967". The Atlantic.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will look at those (and some others). We do need an article on this, there is quite a lot gone and going on around the issue and people will most likely search "status quo" for it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- We need to find the text of the military orders promulgated by Dayan in June 1967 on the topic. They are referred to in the above sources but I haven't seen a clear citation to the original document yet. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- That book I linked up above says "Those questions wouldn’t really be settled by the Protection of Holy Places Law that Warhaftig presented to the Knesset, in a speech that still infuriates rightists because he spoke of the sanctity of the Western Wall instead of the Mount". So I looked that up and got http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/tx/lawofholyplaces1967.htm which doesn't help much.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kattan, Victor Matthew, The Special Role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the Muslim Holy Shrines in Jerusalem (July 2020). The Arab Law Quarterly 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15730255-BJA10031, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3850797 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3850797
- "The Status of the Status Quo at Jerusalem's Holy Esplanade". Crisis Group. 2015-06-30.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Great! That Kattan one looks quite promising, I will dig into that one first.Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- The second one, a 27-page report by the International Crisis Group, is quite widely cited too. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Right, Kattan cites it too.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have probably seen them by now, but these are the two main sources Kattan cites re what happened in 1967:
- Reiter, Y. (1997). Islamic Institutions in Jerusalem:Palestinian Muslim Organization under Jordanian and Israeli Rule. Springer Netherlands. ISBN 978-90-411-0382-6.
- "Dangerous Liaison - Dynamics of the Temple Movements". Ir Amim. 2013-03-01.
- Onceinawhile (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Shall we go with Status Quo (Holy Esplanade)? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Kattan says "...include Christian shrines as well.50" and the note says "This reflects the special role the King of Jordan has in issuing berats to confer authority on the religious patriarchs of the Armenian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches."
- This] says "Under the terms of an Ottoman era treaty, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Israel must give a "Berat," or official edict of approval to the patriarch's election."
- I usually stay clear of religious things so I am a bit in the dark about all this, on the off chance, do you know of something that explains it? If not, no worries, I will find it eventually.
- Selfstudier (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- This explains what a Berat is. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- P 87 Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. So this 1951 proclamation still has legal force under Israeli law? Or Israel has not annexed the Holy Esplanade and thus Israeli law is not relevant? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Clear as mud, right? I'll let you know :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Raghib al-Nashashibi only managed 6 months in his role as custodian and was succeeded by Hussein Khalidi. Selfstudier (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Clear as mud, right? I'll let you know :) Selfstudier (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting. So this 1951 proclamation still has legal force under Israeli law? Or Israel has not annexed the Holy Esplanade and thus Israeli law is not relevant? Onceinawhile (talk) 15:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- P 87 Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- This explains what a Berat is. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- OK. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Shall we go with Status Quo (Holy Esplanade)? Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have probably seen them by now, but these are the two main sources Kattan cites re what happened in 1967:
- Right, Kattan cites it too.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- The second one, a 27-page report by the International Crisis Group, is quite widely cited too. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Great! That Kattan one looks quite promising, I will dig into that one first.Selfstudier (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- That book I linked up above says "Those questions wouldn’t really be settled by the Protection of Holy Places Law that Warhaftig presented to the Knesset, in a speech that still infuriates rightists because he spoke of the sanctity of the Western Wall instead of the Mount". So I looked that up and got http://www.bu.edu/mzank/Jerusalem/tx/lawofholyplaces1967.htm which doesn't help much.Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- We need to find the text of the military orders promulgated by Dayan in June 1967 on the topic. They are referred to in the above sources but I haven't seen a clear citation to the original document yet. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: has reverted the move to Status Quo (Holy Esplanade), so his silence here was apparently not agreement, idk if it bothers you sufficiently to discuss it with him but I am not going to take up his suggestion of a second (redundant) article myself. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- It would not be a redundant article, but a completely different one. For example, such a SQ article would focus on everything related to the 1967 status quo:
- first and foremost a definition of it, only Jewish visits no prayer except western wall, how Jordanians and Palestinians view SQ in a broader sense while Israel views it in a narrower sense (no. of visitors/guards/etc.), you can find a recent ToI article about this
- Sharon's entry, the intifada, Israel's attempts to change status quo and the Palestinian opposition to it
- And much more relevant information to such an article would be available there, rather than in an article that focuses on Jordanian role in Jerusalem over the past century. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently SQ refers to the policy that Moshe Dayan adopted when occupying the Old City in 1967. I believe the scope of that article can be 1967-present, with focus on that policy and its local and int ramifications. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- SQ = Status Quo (Jerusalem and Bethlehem) (Status Quo is a disambiguation) refers to those holy sites listed there that were disputed rather than those not so. At that time Aqsa was not in dispute.
- When the press and everyone is talking about "status quo" now, yes they are referring to the Dayan "adoption" (and I suppose Jordan's 1951 declaration) but that status quo dates back to well before then as per the history in Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites. In fact, I think there has been a waqf administration for hundreds of years per Jerusalem Islamic Waqf. Selfstudier (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Forget about the Jerusalem and Bethlehem status quo, that SQ is exclusively Christian. Here we are talking about the other status quo term, relating to Temple Mount. Status quo concept didn’t really exist pre-1967, it was just a policy that was formulated by Israel as the occupying power; meaning it wanted to convince everyone of its occupation by claiming that it wouldn’t change anything on the ground. Articles obviously interlap, but I think separate article for the the Israeli policy and its background and ramifications is both interesting and necessary. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I already indicated, I will not be taking up that suggestion myself.Selfstudier (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Forget about the Jerusalem and Bethlehem status quo, that SQ is exclusively Christian. Here we are talking about the other status quo term, relating to Temple Mount. Status quo concept didn’t really exist pre-1967, it was just a policy that was formulated by Israel as the occupying power; meaning it wanted to convince everyone of its occupation by claiming that it wouldn’t change anything on the ground. Articles obviously interlap, but I think separate article for the the Israeli policy and its background and ramifications is both interesting and necessary. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently SQ refers to the policy that Moshe Dayan adopted when occupying the Old City in 1967. I believe the scope of that article can be 1967-present, with focus on that policy and its local and int ramifications. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Tendentious editing at List of largest mosques
This edit saw you adding that the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa is in Jerusalem, State of Palestine. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy, according which East Jerusalem's status is disputed, as it is claimed by both Israel and Palestine. As you have been made aware before, I request that you refrain from further violations of WP:NPOV. Thanks. Tombah (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t feel strongly, but it is more complicated than this comment suggests. Legally it is in the occupied Palestinian territory, declared as the state of Palestine, unilaterally (i.e. illegally) annexed by Israel, but operating under a joint Palestinian-Jordan administration agreement under the status quo. That doesn’t fit into the tiny box in the table. The terminology “disputed” added in your edit is an Israeli government term, and is equally wrong. I don’t think it matters though as our readers would know what we mean, whether we say Palestine, Israel, occupied, disputed, or any other term. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- EJ is not in any more dispute as being in the occupied Palestinian territories than West Jerusalem is in dispute as being in Israel. We routinely say things in WJ are in Israel. See for example the country listed in Katamon. nableezy - 13:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- For choice, I prefer "claimed by" SoP rather than "in". Notice that Israel has no such claim as the territory is considered occupied and any "dispute" about East Jerusalem arises only by virtue of an illegal annex, in other words, (sovereignty) is disputed only by Israel. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
PEF SWP maps coordinate systems
Hello Onceinawhile! I would to ask if by any chance you know which coordinate system was used by the PEF in the making of their maps? I am in the process of georeferencing some maps made by the Government of Palestine and I want to also add maps from the PEF, but I couldn't figure out which coordinate system is used or what is their datum. I suppose it is some WGS but I don't know which.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bolter21: "based on a single Cassini-Soldner projection with a Central Meridian (λ0) = 34° 56' East of Greenwich. The ellipsoid of reference was the Clarke 1866." Somewhere I can't find just now says that the longitude is systematically out by a certain amount (half a minute?). Zerotalk 12:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Zero for saving me, because I did not know the answer. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bolter21: Also, "A cartotest on the P.E.F. map revealed a block shift of 19 seconds to the west and an average discrepancy of 1.1 secs. to the north in latitude, when compared with the 1 : 100,000 maps of the Survey of Palestine." Zerotalk 12:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- The registration between PEF and SofP is good at Palestine Open Maps. At Amud Anan it is good for most of the country but Sheet 4 (eg. Safed) is out by about 4 km. I wrote to them about it years ago but nothing happened. Bolter21, perhaps you can try to get their attention? Zerotalk 13:04, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Zero0000! I was actually about to ask you but then I remembered it was Onceinawhile who created the article on the SWP. Anyway I have tried to georeference a PEF sheet with several versions of Clarke 1866 but with no success. I gave up and decided to simply download someone else's work from ArcGis online. As for AmudAnan, I may try to contact them in the future about this, but I don't have much spare time for it. Thanks again!--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Zero for saving me, because I did not know the answer. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
DKY
Hello! Your submission of Mixed cities at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Lehmann source
Hi there buddy, I lost access to the below work. Can you help with this? I need to verify a few things.
: Reinhard G. Lehmann: Die Inschrift(en) des Ahirom-Sarkophags und die Schachtinschrift des Grabes V in Jbeil (Byblos), 2005, el.ziade (talkallam) 23:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Eli, I just looked and unfortunately I don’t have access at the moment either. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
DYK for West Bank Wall graffiti art
On 5 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article West Bank Wall graffiti art, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one Palestinian man criticized the beauty of West Bank Wall graffiti art (example pictured), telling Banksy: "We don't want this wall to be beautiful. We hate it. Go home"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/West Bank Wall graffiti art. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, West Bank Wall graffiti art), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)