# Talk:Mamilla

There is no reference to Mamilla pool and masacre of christian inhabitans of the city that was made by Jews in 614 year. Could somebody add this important factor of the hisotry? 128.103.33.145 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It says leased at $40 to $80 per square metre. For how long? A day? --Apoc2400 10:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming this refers to monthly, as in leasing. TewfikTalk 16:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure where/how to fit in this image. TewfikTalk 08:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Article doesn't seem complete, so I think it's lacking primarily on criterion 3. It mainly contains information on geography and history, and that's pretty much it. And it really doesn't tell much about geography with only one sentence in a main section entitled, 'geography.'
The sections on rehabilitation and rebuilding should either be merged into the history section, since they deal with events in the town's recent history. Or possibly combined into an economy section.
There is nothing in the article about the population demographics, governing bodies, transportation, schools, etc.
Hope this helps. Dr. Cash 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Originally posted at User talk:Derek.cashman#Re: Mamilla - TewfikTalk 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Derek,
Thanks for taking the time to review Mamilla for GA. However, I'm a bit confused by your comments. You mentioned that you though that the entry was narrow in its coverage (criterion 3) in that it did not deal with population demographics, governing bodies, transportation, schools, etc., and mostly focused on history. Perhaps the article did not sufficiently convey context (which would be its own problem), but the Jerusalem neighbourhood in question does not really have information about any of those points, as the gist of the article conveys, it did not really exist for much of the last fifty years. Rather it went directly from border slum to being perhaps the longest construction project in the city's history, and during all that time there were no population demographics, governing bodies, transportation, schools, etc. to speak of. So I would greatly appreciate if you could either clarify what you meant, or perhaps give it another read. Cheers, TewfikTalk 23:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I renominated to get a second opinion, as Derek hasn't yet responded. TewfikTalk 19:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
Back things like this up:

When deputy mayor Meron Benvenisti commissioned a more conservative plan under architect David Kruenker based on facadism, the mayor immediately filed it away without any discussion.
¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  00:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I had initially forgotten to copy over the references from the Hebrew language FA on which this is based, but I just added them, and I tried to make sure every other assertion was also clearly sourced, tough I would appreciate if you could specifically point to anything you are unsure of. Unfortunately almost every new source is in Hebrew, but I'll be glad to point to the specific text and you can have someone else check it if you like. Please let me know, TewfikTalk 06:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it's taken ten days, but I've been kind of busy. Why don't you renominate it? I thhink the changes are enough to warrant it. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!  18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about dropping the ball after my initial GA review. Things came up and I didn't get a chance to get back to this. Anyway, after reassessment, I see that I was incorrect in my initial assessment, and that this is not an independent city after all. So I think overall, it meets the GA criteria. There's a few minor things that need to be done to somewhat "clean up" prior to GA status, hence the 'on hold' tag. I think it's a little heavy on the images. The way I see it, there's six images at the right side of the page, starting just below the start of the history section, and going down, overlapping into the rehabilitation section. Two of these images are sized differently than the others, and it looks a little awkward. Because of this, there's multiple 'edit' links at the right side of the 'rehabilitation' section header, and, depending on how someone's browser is sized, these may overlap with text, making it hard to read. The solution would be to either (a) remove one or two of the image so that there's fewer there (some images might be able to be moved to the articles linked to in the 'main article' links), or (b) resize the images to a small size (although the two smaller images probably need to be enlarged a little). Not sure exactly what's the best solution here -- probably best to play around with it for a bit to see what looks best.
The other major problem is that the geography section is really too short, and really needs to be expanded a bit more, and referenced. I also don't see why the 'Jaffa Road' image/map is at the bottom, after 'external links', in a template box? I would recommend moving that image up to the geography section, expanding that section, and we'll be good to go. Since it's mainly maps and images, the referencing issue is less important for GA status, so I don't think I'd hold that against the criteria too much, but at least move the image. Providing a good overview of the area before going into the history and rebuilding would be a good thing for this article.
Lastly, a good copyedit would help. Overall, the prose is good enough for GA status, but I did find a few sentences that are sort of choppy, as well as a few run-on sentences that could be separated or rephrased. Fix these few things in the next couple of days, and I'll be happy to promote this article to GA status. Cheers! Dr. Cash 04:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Derek, and thanks for coming back :-)
I tried my hand at lengthening the geography section, but there isn't very much more I could write about, as the sources don't discuss the geology etc. As for the bunching up, I think it was caused by this edit, and I reordered the images in the hopes of fixing it. It looks fine for me, but do let me know how it works at your resolution. I'd rather not remove any images as possible, as I'm sure that we can fix this. As for the "Jaffa Road" box, I'm not sure that it is a good idea to move it up, both in terms of look and function, and the map there isn't very helpful for showing this actual compound. I'll try to get a better map from one of the WP mapmakers familiar with this subject-matter, but perhaps you can take a look at the Hebrew Wikipedia FA upon which this is based for an idea. In terms of copyediting, I'll try to go over it shortly, but perhaps you could point to any problem passages to make sure that I don't miss anything. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The image issue appears to have been resolved. It looks ok. After re-examining the Jaffa Road image, I agree that it probably isn't the best map to put in the geography section. Plus, the article appears a little top-heavy with images anyway, so an image may not be the best idea.
I went over the whole article again quickly, looking at grammar and copyediting issues, and made a few minor changes. Other than that, the article looks good, so I promoted it. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Epbr123 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are so many of the photos blanked out??--Gilabrand (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If this story is legitimate, it should be included in this article or linked to in this article. Kingturtle (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article lacks information about earlier history of Mamilla and especially about Massacre on Christians which took there place in 614
Vide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(614)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamilla_Pool
These are inportant historical facts which should have place in article the same as it was with information abour holocaust in Brzezinka vel Auschwitz
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brzezinka , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treblinka, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%C5%9Bwi%C4%99cim) or information about massacre on French Catholics in Wandea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vend%C3%A9e or about Lithuanian Nazi corps massacre on Polish -many jewish citizens of Poland too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponary ).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.42.142.9 (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Mamilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050326005705/http://www.02net.co.il:80/Site/Templates/inPage.asp?catID=5&subID=453&docID=13100 to http://www.02net.co.il/Site/Templates/inPage.asp?catID=5&subID=453&docID=13100
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Mamilla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928202132/http://www.5tjt.com/news/read.asp?Id=1239 to http://www.5tjt.com/news/read.asp?Id=1239
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

... except once (!) in the context of the controversy! Muslim mainly, with remarkable Mamluk mausoleum, but also Crusader. Also, remains of Christians butchered in 614, found in chapel now covered over by, I think, the mall's parking lot. ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mamilla. 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/20070928041317/http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFA%20Publications/Photo%20Exhibits/Encounters-%20David-s%20Village-%20Mamilla%20Jerusalem to http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFA%20Publications/Photo%20Exhibits/Encounters-%20David-s%20Village-%20Mamilla%20Jerusalem
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703183500/http://www.mamila-alrov.co.il:80/English/Default.aspx to http://www.mamila-alrov.co.il/english/Default.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505201837/http://www.lcud.tau.ac.il:80/lexicon/article/mamilla-project-jerusalem to http://www.lcud.tau.ac.il/lexicon/article/mamilla-project-jerusalem
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) 19:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted an edit which changed Israel to Plaestine in parts of the article.
If we go with the changes made we would need to make consistent - but is the change appropriate?

{{Short description|Neighbourhood of Jerusalem, Israel}} Lukewarmbeer (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)