Talk:Immovable Ladder

Myths regarding the ladder

The book Jerusalem: The Biography by Simon Sebag Montefiore briefly mentions some myths regarding this ladder. I'm planning to add this info later, but should I forget, someone else could look it up. Gabbe (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Gabbe (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

So when was it put there?

> The first account by mention of the ladder was related to a Firman or edict dated in 1757 [...] the first ladder appeared in the early 1840s.

So which is it??

Agreed. I really hate this crap. When folks put a claim, they should bother to actually read the article in order reconcile their new with any existing & competing claims, and the article should reflect this reconciliation. If folks can't be bothered to make their additions to an article non-contradictory, they might as well leave the article alone. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving an article in this state, and whoever is responsible for this should be ashamed of their laziness.72.29.61.245 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The article has been edited to clarify the dates. Without researching the original text, it would appear the earlier date was for textual documentation in which the ladder "appeared," the latter date with images in which the ladder appeared.

I suggest this issue resolved & can be removed from the talk page. 77th Trombone (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Where are the sources?

Where are the sources for this page?

• The ladder was mentioned in 1757?
• The ladder has never moved, then later in the article it has?
• It's made of cedar?
• Pope Paul VI gave orders for no one to move the ladder?
• A mason first placed the ladder where it stands today?

There is also a factual inaccuracy. Pope Paul VI may have participated in some kind of ceremony with the keys, but the keys to the church have been in the hands of two Muslim families since around 638 AD, when Caliph Umar I captured Jerusalem from the Byzantines. There may have been a brief, but temporary, interruption of this after the Crusaders recaptured the city in 1099. Hansgruber209 (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

And I wonder why Pope Paul VI is mentioned at all, since it is a matter, according to the article, of Greeks and Armenians. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I see the confusion. The article mentions 6 Churches having jurisdiction over the church, and having to agree. So the real problem is where the article says "Various key differences in rituals, liturgy, dogma and theology divide the two churches, rather than the dispute over ownership and use of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre": this should probably be changed to "Various key differences in rituals, liturgy, dogma and theology divide the churches, rather than the dispute over ownership and use of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre". Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"pontifical orders"

Could we have a reference for the "pontifical orders of Pope Paul VI in 1964"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Since New Testament?

This claim (on footnote 3)seemed odd. I read the footnoted source (although translated). The source said much of what the article said regarding recent centuries, but nothing in regard to the disputes in the New Testament.

The footnote seems to be for another claim. Not sure what the evidence (if there is any) for this claim is. Doobla98 (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Ladder being moved in 1997 and 2009

The 1997 move is sourced to https://coastdaylight.com/ladder.html where the website owner James E. Lancaster receives "an e-mail from someone named Andy" who claims to have personally moved the ladder, with Andy including a photo taken by "an unnamed accomplice" of him doing so. Lancaster considers this "a significant event in the history of the ladder".

The 2009 move is sourced to https://dannythedigger.com/who-moved-thy-ladder/, a tour agency blog by Danny Herman where he records how "recently one of my students told me she saw the ladder leaning against the LEFT window, and she has a photo to prove!" As a postscript Herman says that the blog entry was "one of my most popular articles ever" and he includes a scan of a short article he wrote about the ladder being moved for Biblical Archaeology Review.

Both of these were recorded as simple facts by Wikipedia (In 1997, the ladder was pulled in through the window, In 2009, the ladder was placed against the left window). I've rephrased these as reports, but even then, do they clear WP:SPS and WP:NEWSOPED? Belbury (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Going ahead and removing these, as self-published sources reporting (perhaps too credulously) claims from third parties. Belbury (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The 1997 move has been added back by User:UpdateNerd citing a 2022 piece in Prospect magazine, which says:

Every photo ever made of the façade of the church, over the entire history of photography, shows it in place—bar a couple of exceptions. In 2009 some prankster moved the ladder along the ledge, until the church authorities noticed and moved it back. Worse, in 1997 a tourist identified only as “Andy” snuck around inside the church until he located the right window, leaned out, pulled the ladder in and hid it. He wanted to make a point about how ridiculous he thought the Status Quo was. The ladder was found some time later and put back.

The short "one immovable ladder offers hope" article still reads as something of an WP:NEWSOPED to me, rather than a journalist's serious investigation into the stories around the church. Are there any better sources on the events? The coastdaylight.com source mentioned a "prior incident where the ladder had been removed as a prank" for a decade before someone called Andy emailed the website and claimed to have personally performed this prank, but it's not clear where they got the "prior incident" information from. Belbury (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't need to go into detail on a specific claim, barring further investigation. Only indicating that there's at least one case where the ladder, said never to have moved, supposedly actually has. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

When a historical object has supposedly been in place for 300 years, writing that it may have been moved once (and seemingly quite easily) is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL statement: we should be cautious around surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Belbury (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, "allegedly". That it's claimed is itself of encyclopedic interest, a claim which was backed by photographs. More details are desirable, but across three claims there's enough to call it alleged. That it was supposed to not move isn't being questioned. Even unreported moves could have occurred, so stating its special quality of never moving goes beyond objectivity. It is simply not known to have moved. UpdateNerd (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL says:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:

• Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [...]
• Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions [...]

We don't yet have multiple high-quality sources; we have two WP:SPS personal websites, a single magazine column that briefly repeats their claims (possibly having taken that information from the Wikipedia article at the time, which reported the 1997 move as "supposedly" and the 2009 move as fact) and a short piece from the second blogger in Biblical Archaeology Review where they repeat their belief that their student's photo of a moved ladder is genuine.

The sources don't seem high quality, and no single person here has written that they themselves saw the ladder moved. To me that suggests we should, at least on current sourcing, omit even the allegation. Belbury (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

A secondary source implies they don't have to be the one who saw it moved. We could attribute the magazine or whoever is making the claim so the words are in their mouth(s). Let the reader decide which sources are authorities, since this isn't about antiquity, but modern events. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Would you say that the Prospect and Biblical Archaeology Review articles were high-quality sources? Belbury (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Prospect seems fine but unfortunately reports the alleged 1997 incident as fact. Since they're a general interest magazine, I regard this as a simple oversight, as long as it's attributed properly and the wikivoice considers it only "alleged" (since we know the self-published source it originated from). The 2009 incident was photographed and BAR is qualified enough to judge whether they were Photoshop fakes, but we don't cite blogs.

To be clear, I don't really care if the incidents themselves are currently mentioned as long as we avoid stating that the ladder has factually never moved. I don't think the article does that right now so I'd consider this discussion, or my part in it, over. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2026 (UTC)