Jump to content

Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Name

Hi everyone, for the name of the article, It is wrong. the correct name should be Al-Qibli Mosque or something like that; because Al-Aqsa Mosque is equal to the Temple Mount. ِAlso, it is equal to al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf . In Islam, Al-Aqsa Mosque is consist of the two main mosque in al-Ḥaram al-Šarīf which are The Dome of the Rocket and Al-qibli Mosque and other small الرشيد (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC).parts between them. you can look to the Arabic articles for Temble Mount and what is called here Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Uh sorry, but the common name for this mosque is al-Aqsa. nableezy - 16:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The name al-Aqsa can refer to either the whole compound or just the building at the south end. This ambiguity dates from early in the Islamic period and continues today. However, this article is about the building and so the title should reflect the common English name for the building. That is al-Aqsa Mosque by a very large margin. Other names can be mentioned in the text if references are provided. Zerotalk 17:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam Look at this. الرشيد (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay I suggested this solution. Since Muslims deny any link between al-Aqsa and the Temple mount why do we link the arabic article ar:المسجد الأقصى(al-Aqsa mosque) to the temple mount article? Instead I think the al-Aqsa mosque article in Arabic should be linked to al-Aqsa mosque article in English wikipedia. I didnt find any article about the temple mount in Arabic wikipedia so no need to link it to Arabic Wikipedia

my suggestion

The Temple Mount article will have no Arabic article because I couldn't find an article in Arabic wikipedia about it--SharabSalam (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Alright I am gonna go ahead and change the links. There is an obvious mistake here.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam I am with you, but we should take into account that the content of the article will be about another thing. I think this article should be moved to Al-Qibli Mosque, for the rest I am with you as we remember other versions of wikipidia. الرشيد (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
الرشيد, al-Mussalla al-Qabili is not the same as the al-Aqsa Mosque even if there is some content here in this article is actually about Mussalla al-Qabili not al-Aqsa Mosque we should change it. If we moved the article then we wouldnt have al-Aqsa Mosque article. How about we create an article about al-Mussalla al-Qabili and change some contents in this article? Sorry for the delay in reply I have a very weak network connection.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
SharabSalam You are right, good job. الرشيد (talk) 01:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW I have changed the links but it is still linking to the wrong article in mobile version that is because it is still processing. It will change soon--SharabSalam (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
each one of these sites are different both the Dome of the Rock and Al-Mussalla al-Qabili are part of the Al-Aqsa mosque. However, Al-Aqsa mosque article in English wikipedia was linked to Al-Mussalla al-Qabili article in Arabic wikipedia. While Temple Mount article in English wikipedia was linked to Al-Aqsa mosque article in English wikipedia. I have fixed that problem. We dont have an article in English Wikipedia about Al-Mussalla Al-Aqbili and we dont have an article about the temple mount in Arabic Wikipedia.
This image shows the differece between Al-Mussalla al-Qabili, Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa mosque.
The Dome of the Rock is in the left, Al-Mussalla al-Qabili is in the right and Al-Aqsa mosque is the whole area(the square area)
Thats why I also change the photo because it only shows Al-Mussalla al-Qabili--SharabSalam (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I have to revert. It’s a unilateral change of something that is currently being discussed and has already been discussed years ago. None of what you have proposed changes the fact the consensus of sources describe the subject of this article as the “al-Aqsa Mosque” distinguishing it from the Dome of the Rock and the wider Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) that includes both the Mosque and the Dome and all the smaller domes, fountains, edifices, etc. I don’t see the relevance of Arabic Wikipedia frankly. I don’t see anything wrong with mentioning in the article the varying definitions of “al-Aqsa” and that the mosque is also referred to as al-Qibli (if reliably sourced) but nothing beyond that unless the consensus changes (which I highly doubt). —Al Ameer (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Al Ameer and Zero, the common English name for the mosque is Al Aqsa Mosque, meaning the structure discussed in this article. I dont quite know what is going on in the Arabic Wikipedia articles, and to be honest I dont actually care. nableezy - 03:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
(ec)I will try searching for sources when I am free. I was going to solve the problem of Al-Haram Al-Sharif later. I wanted to start with the ineffective edits first. Al-Haram Al-Sharif and al-Aqsa Mosque are the same thing. See even in Arabic Wikipedia ar:الحرم القدسي الشريف redirect to ar:المسجد الأقصى. I was going to request after one week that the article of al-Haram Al-Sharif name be changed to al-Aqsa Mosque while this article name be changed to Jama' al-Qalili or Mussalla al-Qalili. That if I found sources that support my proposal.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Nableezy, I am not saying that the al-Aqsa Mosque isn't the most common name.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. There is no article about al-Haram Al-Sharif which is the same thing as al-Aqsa Mosque and the same thing as Temple Mount. Al-Haram Al-Sharif is just an adjective that is used to refer to al-Aqsa Mosque. This article however shows that al-Aqsa Mosque is the Mussalla al-Qalili which I think is wrong. al-Aqsa is the same as the al-Haram Al-Sharif and the Temple Mount.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Sources please. nableezy - 04:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
In pages 96–97 of Guy Le Strange Palestine under the Muslims (1888) he describes "great confusion" over this question. Zerotalk 09:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I second that the naming is wrong and misinformed. The Aqsa mosque is all of the area which includes the Dome of the Rock, the Qibli Chapel, and other chapels and rooms. This misinformation must be corrected applying Wiki rules and guides. Ahmad Massalha (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


Le Strange book Palestine under the Muslims (1888) can be accessed in its entirety at Google Books. He argues that Muslims have normally used the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa as identically the same area as al-Haram ash-Sharif, what Jews and some Christians normally call the "Temple Mount".
al-Jami' al-Aqsa denotes the mosque in the southern end of the compound (which Westerners traditionally call "al-Aqsa mosque"). But Muslims have not been consistent through the ages.
What we really need is a clear and proper translation of the two concepts, masjid and jami' into English. Short of that I believe we are stuck with the terms al-Haram/Temple Mount and al-Aqsa mosque.
Calling the Jami’ al-Aqsa "al-Qibli Chapel" won’t fly and is simply degrading. A chapel is a small Christian place of prayer, usually part of a church or other non-denominational building (like a hospital) or a satellite site, removed from the mother church.
Then there is a third concept Musalla which I think should be translated Prayer Hall, which indicates that it's part of something larger. So the Marwani Prayer Hall.
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no debate no ambiguity regarding what's Alaqsa, what's the Qibli, and what's the dome of the rock. Musalla means chapel, a prayer hall. The three articles in Arabic are the most accurate on this matter. The name must be changed to Qibli Chapel/Musalla, as currently this article goes against Wiki rules by being misinformation. Ahmad Massalha (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add PBUH with the nmae of Muhammad Samarhayat1999 (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Samarhayat1999: Sorry but we don't do honorifics. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for an explanation of the policy in this particular case. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

Not an objectivewwriting. Its Misleading insomeplaces The mosque was not built on 38.13.0.225 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 01:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Confusion on Islamic tradition

There exist many Islamic traditions that emerged at different periods and had a different importance. The tradition of Jerusalem is One tradition, not the only one. This tradition gained importance in the 20th century. Same with the tradition with the western wall, it's one specific tradition. There has to be some historical datation and context if not you are distorting everything. Thank you.--Arthaud8 (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

What are you trying to say/imply? Need clarity! 103.44.0.221 (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W)

Please add to Name Muhammad (S.A.W) THIS --Mirzo2007 talk contribs‎ 19:25, 16 May 2021‎

Not done. We don't add honorifics anywhere. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

respect Mohammad ur rasoolallah

don't spread hate show more respect for Mohammad ur rasoolallah don't use that type of word (was or death) otherwise we'll stop using your Wikipedia and we'll spread it to every muslim to stop using that app 103.58.155.243 (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ and Wikipedia is not censored. That is not hate. The same rule applies to all beliefs. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

160.39.58.140 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


Within the definition: After the vandalism in El aqtza in 1969, Muslims in Israel refers El eqtza as the whole mountain.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

New note

This temple al aqsa was in the Afghanistan been and it robbed long time ago. Idiots everywhere... Wikipedia lies 😂 By Special:Contributions/86.15.203.108. Moved by  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

2A00:A040:198:919F:7CFD:140D:3710:1FC6 (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◎ | melecie | t 09:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2021

2405:3800:84C:1C73:BFE8:1B92:BD8B:9896 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

<Al-Aqsa Mosque was built by King Solomon some David>

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 August 2021

In the section Definition, please delete these repeated words: "to the to the silver-domed mosque on the compound's southern side". 109.175.155.99 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding gates

@Aye1399: Thank you for your recent additions to the article. Unfortunately, I had to remove them as they pertain to the gates of the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. Although "al-Aqsa" may also refer to the entire Haram, this article is specifically about the mosque. You may want to move the material to the Gates of the Temple Mount. If you do so, please avoid adding any redundant material or information cited to non-reliable sources. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Naming

As far as I know, the predominant, prevalent, common English term for this structure is "Al-Aqsa Mosque". It is well noted in Academic sources, international media reports, and other publications. On the same time, the term "al-Qibli chapel" is virtually non-existent in English-language sources. In Google Scholar, I found 17,000 mentions of the term al-Aqsa Mosque, while "al-Qibli Chapel" is mentioned only 74 times, and most of the mentions do not refer to the site in question on the Temple Mount. Due to this, WP:COMMONNAME requires that this article use the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque" rather than any another term. We don't want to confuse our readers. Thanks Tombah (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that avoiding confusion is key. Per the lede at Temple Mount, and the discussion at Talk:Temple Mount#Naming, "Al-Aqsa Mosque" seems to be primarily used for the subject of our Temple Mount article. That is certainly the case for all the press surrounding the 2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque clashes. I am not sure about the primary name for the topic of this article, but it is clear that the name Al Aqsa Mosque needs disambiguation. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Temple Mount#Al Aqsa Mosque, where many sources have been provided which confirm this. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

These and more have now been added to the article.
Noone at the discussion at Talk:Temple Mount has yet been able to show that there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Al Aqsa Mosque".
Assuming we cannot confirm a primary topic, the question will be how to appropriately disambiguate this article with a minor amendment to the title.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: Do we need to consider having an Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) / Al-Aqsa Mosque (compound)-type disambiguation? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think those titles make a lot of sense. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"... the holy site or esplanade known to Jews and Christians as the Temple Mount"

@Drsmoo: thanks for the additional sources here. I don't object to the addition of the word "Christians", but it needs a caveat, as Hillel Cohen clearly explains that Palestinian Christians also refer to the compound as Al Aqsa: "The holy site known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif or al-Aqsa is central to both the Jewish and Palestinian Arab national movements… Al-Aqsa can thus be seen as the central symbol of Palestinian nationalism... One should bear in mind that since the emergence of nationalism in the Arab world, important schools have insisted on separation of religion and state. In addition, a degree of tension exists between al-Aqsa’s two aspects, as a national symbol uniting Palestinian Muslims and Christians, and al-Aqsa as an exclusively Muslim symbol. In other words, the intentions of Palestinians united under the banner of al-Aqsa are not all the same… For the Palestinians, al-Aqsa is a singular focal point of self-respect and religious destiny. This heightens their commitment to the site, without connection to their religious affiliation (Muslim or Christian) or level of religious belief and observance." Onceinawhile (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Not only Palestinian Christians - the Vatican itself, the largest Christian church in the world, refers to it as "the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound": https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2022-04/jerusalem-clashes-palestinians-israeli-police-settlements-al-aqs.html or simply as "Al-Aqsa mosque": https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2021-05/wcc-pope-francis-appeal-calm-jerusalem-palestinian-clashes.html Dan Palraz (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

None of the above sources make the assertions being claimed at all, let alone “clearly”. Which isn't to say it's not true, just that that source isn't discussing names/terms. As for the Vatican “The view from here is one of the best and most intriguing of the western part of the Holy City, its walls, famous Mosques built on the Temple Mount“ https://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_june-sept-1996_motta_en.html Drsmoo (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's sort of why it needs disambiguating, lol.Selfstudier (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The Vatican uses the term "Holy Basin" for the Temple Mount and the wider area. In Italian, the site is called Monte del Tempio, which conforms with https://www.google.com/books/edition/Where_Heaven_and_Earth_Meet/CW6U921i4fEC?hl=en&gbpv=0 "In Rabbinic tradition the area is known as "the Temple Mount" (Har ha-bayit; literally: "Mountain of the House"); the same term recurs today in modern European languages." Temple Mount is also, from my own personal research, the term used in Japanese, Korean, and Chinese. Drsmoo (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Drsmoo, I have have asked you before not to alter comments that have been replied to, this time you have even altered the time stamp as well as altering the comment so that it seems my reply is before your comment instead of after, guaranteed to cause confusion, so I altered my time stamp too.Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, save me some time trawling, in your most recent edit you say you are "restoring" material, when was it removed? And why? Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, unless I missed it, you've never made that request of me, perhaps you're thinking of someone else? Feel free to alter your time stamp. You can ask Dan Palraz, he removed the reliably sourced information that Jews and Christians both call the site Temple Mount. Drsmoo (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
4294 of text was "restored", Dan Palraz shows removal of about 1200 so that's not right somewhere, it's not just the Jews and Christians, is it? And there is also discussion of that aspect here as well. At this point I am tempted to revert.Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
That’s all that was restored. You know you can look at the diffs. Drsmoo (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Edit: Ah, the lead basically was duplicated. Drsmoo (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
So, it has been proved that we have Christians who call it Temple Mount, we have Christians who call it Al-Aqsa Mosque, we have Christians who call it other things. Will we have it all in the lead? There is no "Christian" name for it, so it's pointless adding Christians to the equation. Dan Palraz (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
There are also (presumably) Jews who call it Haram al-Sharif, and (presumably) Muslims who call it Temple Mount, etc. Multiple reliable sources attest to Jews and Christians calling it Temple Mount. I don’t think any person interprets that as every single human being. My question though is why you specifically removed Christians, despite it being attested to in very reliable and relevant sources? As to “no Christian name”, the King James Bible uses “Mountain of the House”, which is a direct translation of “Har ha-Bayit”.Drsmoo (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
One bible translation does not authoritative terminology make. Also, we very explicitly don't adhere to primary religious texts. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The question could be reversed, why include Christians? Pretty obvious attempt to relatively puff up the Temple Mount, just because something is true (in a limited sense) doesn't mean we need to include it, right? I'd be for removal because we are going to end up with a very cluttered lead sentence. I have no objection to it going in the body somewhere as additional detail. Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Per Iskandar's point above regarding "One bible translation", the term used in the Christian Bible is "Har ha-Bayit", and alternate translations used are all translations of Har ha-Bayit. The term Temple Mount is the term used in "modern European languages (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Where_Heaven_and_Earth_Meet/CW6U921i4fEC?hl=en&gbpv=0)", and also, in every non-Arabic derived/adjacent language I've seen (adding Hindi to the list) (I'd be curious to see alternate names in other languages, please let me know if you see one). That's not just "known to Jews", which is obviously a massive minimization of the actual usage of the term. Reliable sources state that it is known to Jews and Christians as the Temple Mount. Drsmoo (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, since it is not a religious site contested to a significant degree by Christianity, this is secondary information. If we include Christians, why stop there? Why not include the views of Samaritans? Druze? Other local minorities and religious denominations with different terminology and opinions? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Are there multiple reliable sources specifically dedicated to this subject that discuss the names used by those religions? Another relevant source The Temple Mount in Jewish and Early Christian Traditions "In English, it is commonly referred to as the Temple Mount, but the literal translation of the Hebrew would be the "Mount of the House." Judaism and Islam in particular, but Christianity also, still revere the site as holy." If "Jews and Christians" is too minimal, we could use the above source, along with Modern European Languages from the Heaven and Earth source. Drsmoo (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point here, editors are essentially stating that this is undue for the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
More of an WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, there's no basis for claiming it's undue. The lead for Temple Mount already says it's been venerated as a Christian Holy Site for thousands of years. "The city as a whole is sacred to the three religions, and certain areas in it are venerated by all three, sometimes for very similar ideological reasons. The Temple Mount – the site of the Temple – and the Mount of Olives – the site of the resurrection and the Last Judgment – are obvious examples." - Sharing Sacred Space: Holy Places in Jerusalem Between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam Drsmoo (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
After all this discussion you found a few sources that say something you like and just shoved it in the lead, it's not even in the body so shouldn't be in the lead anyway. So, apart from undue, there's another reason. Selfstudier (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure you should get started on WP:IJDLI ... there's only so much pot kettle that everyone can take. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Verifiable does not mean due for inclusion. Confusing these things displays an extremely shallow grasp of policy. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
And now we see the usual personal attacks. The sentence relates to who uses the term Temple Mount as opposed to Haram al-Sharif. The answer is broadly "Modern European languages" (but actually even wider then that), and narrowly, Jews and Christians. You're saying it's not in the body, well neither is the relevance to Jews. The other idea, that the site is not of serious significance to Christians, is simply factually wrong. Drsmoo (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is not about the Temple Mount.Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Instead of reinventing the wheel here, why not just copy paste what's in the Temple Mount article? Selfstudier (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I fail to see how the Aqsa congregational mosque is of immediate prominence to other faiths. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
You've been shown the sources saying that Palestinian Christians refer to it as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, so which "Christians" exactly are you generalizing with respect to. I can tell you that Christians in Europe don't give a jot about the minutiae of Holy land geography. Is it bible bashers from the evangelical heartlands of the US? I don't see how a dubious blanket statement about Christians is of use here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Oops, yes, and the Vatican - and this is exactly how the conversation began: which Christians?! If you can't find a statement in a reliable, secondary source usefully caveating that information, then either we have contradictory information or synth. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Christians in Europe gave enough of a jot to create the Templars. The sacred esplanade book has a whole section on the Temple Mount in Christianity. How is using multiple reliable secondary sources that don’t contradict each other in any way “synth”? Is it synth that sources say Jews use the term Har ha-Bayit? Drsmoo (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction is where information clashes, such as the Vatican and Palestinian Christians using Al-Aqsa Mosque; Pentecostal Christians Temple Mount. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Which we would need to clarify, which would therefore not be a summary but massively off-topic from the real subject: Al-Aqsa (congregational) mosque. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Hahaha, templars. Dude. Did you really just go back to the crusades? Although, I guess in this particular conflict genre, two millenia is the blink of an eye. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
The Vatican does not use “Al-Aqsa Mosque” as their name for the site. Was that your impression? And the source above doesn’t even claim Palestinian Christians use that term as their name for the site. Btw, the whole scope of “Where Heaven and Earth Meet” is that the site is holy to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and gathering experts from the three religions to discuss its importance. Drsmoo (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Again, this is an article about the Al Aqsa Mosque congregational prayer building, and the space is contested at present between Jews and Muslims. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: please explain your reverts/moves of various “Masjid Al Aqsa” and “Farthest Mosque” redirects to this article? The sources here and at Temple Mount clearly support that these specific terms relate to the Temple Mount, and not to the southern building. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear about that as well (with reasons).Selfstudier (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
My understanding had been that Masjid al-Aqsa and the english term al-Aqsa Mosque were synonymous. It appears they are not, I'll revert. Drsmoo (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Related to this topic, I don't see any results in Google, or Books, or Scholar, for "National mosque of palestine". However, putting it in Google Books did bring up this result: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Youth_Citizenship_and_the_Politics_of_Be/sMjoBAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=national%20mosque%20of%20palestine&pg=PT143& - "However, the mosque as a Palestinian national symbol is not inclusive of all groups and has not been taken up by Christian Palestinians. For example, when asked what the symbols of Palestine were for him, one Christian Palestinian man responded with strong emotion, "Bethlehem, Jerusalem and its Christian history. If it is only Al Aqsa mosque, it is disgusting for me."" Drsmoo (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The critical point here is 'one man' - we don't subscribe to anecdotal information (and certainly not anecdotal sectarian venom) for good reasons ... and thankfully. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
And rather than make one casual interview to buttress a personal opinion, one should read widely, s starting with Manuel Musallam. Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
An excellent example. Hillel Cohen (as quoted in note 27 in the current version of our Temple Mount article) explains this in a balanced way: "One should bear in mind that since the emergence of nationalism in the Arab world, important schools have insisted on separation of religion and state. In addition, a degree of tension exists between al-Aqsa’s two aspects, as a national symbol uniting Palestinian Muslims and Christians, and al-Aqsa as an exclusively Muslim symbol. In other words, the intentions of Palestinians united under the banner of al-Aqsa are not all the same… For the Palestinians, al-Aqsa is a singular focal point of self-respect and religious destiny. This heightens their commitment to the site, without connection to their religious affiliation (Muslim or Christian) or level of religious belief and observance." Onceinawhile (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Drsmoo. Some sense of method, please. As to your latest edit above, it would be like someone citing Yeshayahu Leibowitz's condemnation of 'kotelatry' as proof Jews don't think the Western Wall important. Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. For 20 years now, the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque" has been used on Wikipedia for only the mosque, not the entire Temple Mount. The prevalent Islamic term for the Temple Mount in academic literature has been for years "Al-Haram al-Sharif". This is the reason nobody called for disambiguation until recently. The following op-ed from the Jerusalem Post might shed a bit light on the matter: "Moreover, there has been a name change. The term “al-Haram al-Sharif” has all but disappeared, while “al-Aqsa Mosque” has become dominant. The Palestinian Authority’s denial that Jews have any connection to the Temple Mount or Jerusalem increases. Tayseer al-Tamimi, former chief justice of the PA Religious Court, said recently “the blessed Aqsa Mosque is Islamic and belongs to Muslims alone... and the Jews have no right to it... or the right to pray in any part of it.” And he added, “al-Aqsa Mosque includes all its courtyards... and specifically its western wall.” Wikipedia's editors should be able to tell the difference between reality and fashionable trends. Tombah (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Tombah: In a nutshell, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, WP:WINARS, and longevity on Wikipedia is not proof of veracity or accuracy. Wikipedia does not even make a claim to truth, WP:NOTTRUTH. Moreover, an op-ed will not shed light on anything, because opinion pieces are not reliable sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
The reality behind the themes the op-ed is mentioning are properly explained by Yitzhak Reiter in his 2008 article quoted above. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
As an aside, the bit that is missing from Reiter's work is an assessment of 19th and 20th century sources. Not just the scholarly sources which set out the formal position clearly (Robinson, Le Strange, Palmer etc.). But also the Palestinian sources. Tombah suggested that the Islamic position that “al-Aqsa Mosque includes all its courtyards... and specifically its western wall” is a "fashionable trend". Yet exactly the same claim was made by Palestinians a century ago, as recorded in the Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929: Great Britain. Colonial Office (1930). Palestine Commission on the Disturbances of August, 1929. Colonial (Great Britain. Colonial Office). H.M. Stationery Office. – it includes repeated references to the Western Wall as the "Western Wall of the Mosque of Al-Aqsa". Onceinawhile (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
It seems uncontroversial that many sources refer to the entire temple mount as the Mosque of Al-Aqsa or Al-Aqsa Mosque or something similar. So, these claims belong somewhere, perhaps in the article on the Qibli Mosque (by whatever name), citing these sources. Or alternatively they may be better in the Temple Mount article, again by whatever name, or perhaps the topic Al-Aqsa naming controversy even deserves a separate article. In any case, both the articles on the Temple Mount and the Qibli Mosque should contain or link to this content. The naming controversy is discussed in many sources and is encyclopedic.
So this content belongs somewhere! But these articles themselves are not reliable sources, and so this content does not influence our choice of article names. This is a subtle point easily overlooked. Andrewa (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque/Archive_5&oldid=1107995756"