Talk:Church of the Holy Sepulchre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cppyvio and OrthodoxWiki

A see a cross-pollination between this article and the article at OrthodoxWiki. Since OW operates under a kind of "noncommercial use-only" license, I would kindly ask the authors to make sure that our article does not have copyvio. mikka (t) 20:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The OrthodoxWiki article was imported from this one on 10 February 2005 and at a quick glance it appears to conform very closely to this article as it stood at the time. Perhaps this is the "cross-pollination" you're seeing, but they have been diverging since. Copyright issues in this particular case have to do with the illustrations: those on the OrthodoxWiki article are all "by permission", those here are free and have all been added by the people who made them. Any text I have personally added here is my own work.

According to OrthodoxWiki's official policy on copyright material, Creative Commons is the default license for all content unless marked otherwise, and text incorporated by permission only will not be editable. Therefore, any OrthodoxWiki article that can be edited by the community is Creative Commons and has as good a chance of being free from copyvio problems as a Wikipedia article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I was worried about our possible legal problems, not theirs. So, you are saying we are OK. Thanks for the explanation. mikka (t) 20:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah. My point in the second paragraph, which I failed to actually state, was that even if there was any cross-pollination going on, that particular OrthodoxWiki article can be presumed to be Creative Commons licensed in the absence of any other notice. So if we have taken any content from it — I don't believe we have but if we have — we're still safe. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid, you are in error. Please re-read my first post; they do have "other notice" on their pages, that's my worry came from. mikka (t) 01:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

On that page? Where? I'm not speaking generally, I'm talking about this particular case, which is why I italicized this particular case in my initial response. Certainly other pages there might be encumbered somehow, but I don't see that this one is. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Why separate Ethiopian and Coptic presences?

Does anyone know why three different Oriental Orthodox denominations (Armenian, Ethiopian, Coptic) have presences in the COTHS? I mean, they're all in communion, so an Ethiopian could freely attend a service led by the Armenian Patriarch, right? I'm sure there would be language difficulties, but there would be if, say, an Orthodox Serb went to the Greek Orthodox service there as well. (And does anyone know what vernacular, if any, the Roman Catholic services are held in? Arabic?) --Jfruh 04:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just because they're in communion doesn't mean they don't want their own presence there. Certainly there are no theological problems between them, although their rites vary a bit. This is the holiest shrine in Christendom, with pilgrims from all over, and various churches will want to be able to accomodate their own pilgrims. A presence requires some "territory", and terriory is parcelled out by the Status Quo. It is now virtually set in stone. How each one got there exactly is a complex historical question that might be worth researching. But in brief: the Syriacs are native to the region; the Armenians have a sizeable presence in Jerusalem itself (there's an "Armenian Quarter" in the Old City); and Jerusalem was once under the control of the Caliphs who ruled from Egypt which may account for the Coptic presence. I'm not sure how the Ethiopians got there except that they were evident latecomers: all their territory is on the roof, that being the only place left for them at the time.

In the Holy Sepulchre itself, I can't find that any language other than Latin is used for the Catholic services. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

In the case of the Copts & Armenians, it's likely because since the beginning of Christianity they have obeyed different patriarchs: the Patriarch of Alexandria for the Copts, & the Patriarch of Antioch for the Armenians. For the Ethiopians, the matter is a little more complex.

Until the 20th century, the Ethiopian church was de jure part of the Coptic church; in fact, the two had a number of doctrinal differences, which obviously led to tension between the two. This tension was manifested in two areas, one being the Ethiopian community in Jerusalem. On one hand, the Ethiopian pilgrims who came to Jerusalem had no source of money to support them until the late 19th century, so they were dependant on the charity of their Coptic & Armenian brethern for food & perhaps even shelter; on the other, the Copts & Armenians understandably considered them eccentric freeloaders, & treated them as such. Add to this the usual bickering that exists amongst any group of peoples living together, & you understand some of the dynamics here. Chris Proutky, Empress Taytu and Menilek II (ISBN 0947895019) discusses this problem as it affected the Ethiopians in her chapter "Jerusalem and Ethiopia". -- llywrch 18:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

--Two Patriarchal Thrones--

An old guide book from the time when the Old City was still a part of the Kingdom of Jordan states that the northern patriarchal throne in the Catholicon is that of the Patriarch of Antioch, while the southern patriarchal throne is that of the Patriarch of Jerusalem. It is a small point, admittedly, and why the Patriarch of Antioch would have his throne in the Church was not stated in the guide book, but the explanation that the second throne is for visiting hierarchs makes even less sense to me.

Nuseibeh and Joudeh families

The key to the entrance is held by the Muslim Nuseibeh family who were entrusted with guardianship by Saladin in 1178 to keep the peace between the various Christian factions.

I think that year has to be wrong. Saladin didn't even capture Jerusalem until 1187, and therefore had no authority to entrust anything in the city to anyone in 1178.

The year was wrong according to [1], and I've adjusted it accordingly, at least as far as Saladin is concerned. But also according to this website, ancestors to the family were assigned guardianship of the church from the very earliest Muslim days.

According to this [2] the Joudeh family has had custodianship of the key since 20 Rajab, 1050 AH, which (according to [3]) is equivalent to 5 November 1640. I should have added this just now, but am leaving the information here as a note to myself (or to anyone who wants to do it instead.) I note this appears to contradict the existing text, which dates the involvement of the Joudeh from the 18th, not the 17th, century.TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Inspiration

I cut the following sentence from the article:

The church was an inspiration for churches in Europe like Santa Gerusalemme in Bologna.

It made no sense where it was, at the head of a paragraph on the later history of the church. It previously had stood alone as its own paragraph, but it's unclear that it belongs in the History section at all since it doesn't really bear on the subject except to the extent that copies of the church can tell us what it looked like in various eras. But that idea wasn't developed. Perhaps we should have a separate section on architectural influences? If so, there should be more than one sentence anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting, or word problem?

Both city and church were captured by the Khwarezmians in 1244.

But I just read an article on the Sixth Crusade on wikipedia that states that the Mamelukes took the city. So who did take the city or are the Khwarezmians the same as the Mamelukes? I thought Khwarezmians were Persian-Turkic peoples, and the Mamelukes slave soldiers of Egypt?Tourskin 21:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is one of those complicated periods of history where peoples were moving all over the place and it becomes hard to keep track of them. The Khwarezmian Empire had been destroyed about 20 years earlier by Genghis Khan, and much of its army fled west. There were hired as mercenaries by the Ayyubid Sultan, and it was while in his employ that they captured Jerusalem. Later on many of them hired on as Mamelukes. By then Mamelukes had progressed considerably from their slave origins and had become a power to be reckoned with, actually seizing power in Egypt in 1250.

So in one sense, no Mamelukes didn't capture Jerusalem. On the other hand, many of the same people were Mamelukes a short time later, and working for the same dynasty. You're not wrong to say it either way, but "Khwarezmian" is more precise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a different person to whoever wrote the above 2 paragraphs ^^ . I would just like to say: the Mamluks are from Eurasian tribes (Eastern Europe & Russia, not Central Asia), who were taken as slaves in preference to being killed when they lost duels on the battlefield, etc. Many were remnants of the Kipchak tribe, etc. I would guess the modern Circassian communities of the Middle East are descended from Mamluks. They were ones who turned back the Mongol advance when they invaded the Middle East (in the nick of time, they took over Egypt and then went on to defeat the Mongols at Ain Jalut).

Link pruning and organizing

That list was unwieldy and had some deadwood. I removed (1) the Lancaster item because it is brief and contains no substantial information not already in Wikipedia article or more detailed in other sources; (3) the Trekker site because it too is brief etc.; and (3) the site of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, since, regardless of any connection between the church and the patriarchate, the actual website has nothing about the Holy Sepulchre. Bill 16:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Puzzling item solved

I'm dumping here, rather than in the text of the article, a link to a little page that explains why there are two (both legitimate) Moslem custodians of the church. Someone may want to do something with it. Here's the link to the 1999 news item: "Muslims to Lose Sole Control of Holy Sepulcher Keys". Bill 11:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this information is already in the article, at the end of the "Status Quo" section. Is it unclear in some way? I suppose it would be nice if it were cited. (Apologies, but I can't get over the feeling that your name is familiar to me for some reason. Doesn't mean I ever met you of course; there are no doubt other Bill Thayers in the world. But it's an odd feeling.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dumb of me! I read too fast. (Although the new key might be worth a mention.) Asfer Bill Thayer, it's a common enough name — but in view of your interests and the kind of materials on, and size of, my website, you've prolly prowled it a bit somewhere along the line. Tangential to Christianity, but hundreds of pages on churches, all kinds of stuff on Late Antiquity, a history of Armenia, etc. Best, Bill 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Languages

Stymphal, why are you so concerned with adding the French name? Your latest suggestion is a little puzzling; what evidence is there that the crusaders consecrated the church in French? What does that even mean? Where in the 12th century would any cathedral have been consecrated in the vernacular? And if you insist this is the case, then obviously it would have been done in Old French - but lucky for you, I suppose, it is spelled the same in Old and modern... Adam Bishop (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC link

The BBC is linking to this page. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Authenticity

Someone needs to think about getting some references for the assertion that it "has since been determined" that the site lay within the city walls at the time of JC's death. The statement suggests that a consensus has now been reached amongst experts in the field and this particular strand of the debate is firmly resolved. This claim requires broad supporting evidence with strong references, or as I suspect, revision/deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.124.23 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached. Everyone knows that the walls of the city at the time of Jesus did not extend around the modern church. They were extended around the Church centuries later. We know where the walls were at the time of Jesus' resurrection. That, plus a mountian of other evidence, supstantially proves that this is the site, and also prove that the Anglo site could not possible be the correct site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.47.143.129 (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference to the archaeological evidence that the site was a stone quarry previous to the first century. This would account for the various levels of the terrain of the site, making it less attractive as a building site in the early first century and thus less likely to be within the city walls. It would also help to explain why the site would have been chosen for the contemporary rock-hewn tombs.

Furthermore, there is the archaeological evidence of the Judeo-Christian synagogue traditionally identified as the site of the Upper Room with its cenatoph now venerated as the Tomb of David, i.e., the niche for the Torah Ark is orientated to the Holy Sepulchre site, not towards the Temple--which would be inexplicable unless the Holy Sepulchre site were not recognized as having superceded the Temple in holiness in the mind of those who built this synagogue. If this synagogue was built before Hadrian ban on all Jewish groups living in the vicinity of Aelia Capitolina then it antedates his building of the Temple of Venus.

unofficial dead link

I removed the external link: The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem official site because it is dead; and also because, even when it was working, it was not the official web site of the Patriarchate. MishaPan 18:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It was in fact rather a dodgy site. I had emailed the true Patriarchate my concerns at the time regarding the inclusion of a large section of the site on "Magick". It had a series of articles dedicated to the area, and they looked suspiciously not like some information on the problem of evil, but actually a full blown source dedicated to espousing witchcraft seriously as a way of life, replete with spells and methods. I suspected somehow that some charlatans had gained access to the editing of the site through convincing the authorities that they would produce a good one, and were never properly supervised. Thankfully this has now been redressed, but it still is chilling to note the dodgy things that go on in the Orthodox world. Eugene-elgato (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Importance

While this building is not very grand, it is of unique significance architecturally in inspiring round churches all over the world. Amandajm (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Yes that's right. The chapel of London's Inner Temple, Inn of Law, is in fact modelled on the Holy Sepulchre. Also possibly the round church in Cambridge. Eugene-elgato (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, as well, the Church within the castle of Thomar in Portugal, perhaps the best preserved Templar structure in Europe. Elements of the Holy Sepulchre are found in La Vera Cruz church in Segovia and throughout places of worship along the pilgrimage road to Santiago de Campostela in Spain. Grandcross (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)grandcross

In my X-mas Holiday I could write a short piece about other European Holy Sepulchre copies, as these churches are called for the section, that needs expansion. Some of these churches are from the 11th century and earlier, and I think I know about 15-20 of them. Jan Eskildsen87.57.198.129 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Patriarch Nicephorus?

The article says Nicephorus was Patriarch of Constantinople in 1048, but there is no Nicephorus anywhere near that date on the List of Patriarchs of Constantinople. In 1048 the Patriarch was Michael Cerularius. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

israel

Up until Preslethr added Israel on July 21 this article did not say the church is in Israel, and for good reason. the church is in East Jerusalem which is in the OPT, not in Israel. �Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.181.16 (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Israel is the de facto governing entity in East Jerusalem. Stop with all the nonsense and sockpuppetry.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stating that East Jerusalem is inside Israel without qualification is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV says that all significant views should be represented. The view that EJ does not belong to Israel is indeed a significant POV, as it is the POV adopted by the international community. --Frederico1234 (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no "other significant viewpoints" claiming that Israel is not the de facto governing entity in East Jerusalem. People that would like to reclaim Jerusalem from Israeli sovereignty should perhaps get a gun and try to conquer from the horrible Israelis. But changing the reality to a wikireality is just, uh ....... desperate. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. Noone has claimed that Israel is not "the de facto governing entity in East Jerusalem". The contested statement reads "Old City of Jerusalem, Israel" and that is what we are discussing here. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When readers want to know what county something is located they want to know who picks up the garbage, who issues a passport, etc. Not who really should have it or really wants it. The latter is a POV-push that only POV-pushers are interested it, not apolitical readers. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What the international community says is a significant view-point. Per WP:NPOV we have no choice but to include it. I'd argue that it's even more important than who picks up the garbage. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The readers viewpoint is the significant viewpoint, not the international community or Israel. If the reader wants to know the governing entity ruling over the area, it has to undertake more research then is required for any other area not related to the Israel-Arab conflict. Your deletion of the governing entity does a disservice to the reader.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. We dont use a pretend reader's ignorance to propagate ignorance. If a reader has the misconception that this church is located in Israel they will hopefully be informed as to the fact that it is not located in Israel when they read the articles and when the read the linked East Jerusalem. You are trying to make two separate arguments and then pretend that they have the same conclusion. "Governing authority of East Jerusalem" is not the same as "country where East Jerusalem is located". You are trying to say here that the "governing authority" is Israel and in the article say that East Jerusalem is in Israel. Some may call trying to pull a fast one over on us intellectually dishonest. nableezy - 22:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that someone does not agree with you does make their position wrong and certaintly not ignorant. It's this important concept that I think you fail to comprehend, which has led to all your blocks and bans. Perhaps you will understand this elementary concept one day and cease insulting editors who disagree with you as "ignorant" and "intellectually dishonest."

As for the substantive part of your comment, the general reader is not making a mistake (again, they are just disagreeing with you). The general reader does not care about politics and just wants to know who is the governing entity. You might think that who should be the governing entity (assuming that Israel should not be) is more important then who actually is the governing entity. Furthermore, to the general reader, the area is considered in the county that controls it. This is not ignorance, but a realistic and practical way of looking at things. By removing Israel from the article the reader may be misled into assuming that Israel does not control and govern the area. Hence the reality is being changed to a wikireality all because some editors care more about their POV then giving proper information to the readers.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Brew, this isnt about "POVs" or other such nonsense, this about simple facts. You cant disagree with a fact and call it a a "disagreement". I am not arguing about who is or who should be the governing entity. I am saying, and this is a matter of established fact, that being the governing entity of a territory does not make that territory part of the state of that government. A military occupation is where a territory is held, and governed, by a country outside of that country. To say that X occupies Y territory is to say both that X is the "governing entity" of Y territory and that Y is outside of X. You say "to the general reader, the area is considered in the county that controls it." If that were true then the general reader is simply wrong. Do you dispute that the majority view, by a wide margin, is that East Jerusalem is not in Israel? Would you like to compare the sources that say it is in Israel to those that say it not? The "reality" of the situation is that East Jerusalem is not recognized as being within Israel by almost the world as a whole. The "reality" is that the international community, almost without exception, considers East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory. The "reality" is that the view that East Jerusalem is in Israel is an extreme minority view that you attempt to assert as a fact, or, in your words, because you "care more about [your] POV then giving proper information to the readers" you try to change the "reality" into a "wikireality". nableezy - 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

the nonsense is you and hopefully acting adding Israel to a place NOT IN ISRAEL. Israel being the de facto governing authority in East Jerusalem does not make East Jerusalem in Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.118.181.16 (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The easiest solution here is just to say "East Jerusalem", no Israel, no occupied territories, no whatever. It is extremely unlikely that anyone reading this article would not already know where Jerusalem is, and if they are unsure, they can click the link to the East Jerusalem article. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Really?! In what county does the reader assume Jerusalem is located?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That is not the relevant question, the relevant question is where is East Jerusalem located. The answer, not surprisingly, is that East Jerusalem is not located in Israel but rather it is located in the Palestinian territories. That Israel holds that territory under occupation does not make it in Israel. You already know this though. nableezy - 22:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those questions are really relevant. Does it really matter where the reader thinks Jerusalem or East Jerusalem is located? Isn't this the origin of this argument? If I think it's in Israel, that is not going to be acceptable to anyone who thinks it is in Palestine. If a reader doesn't know that Jerusalem is disputed between Israel and Palestine, the link to East Jerusalem is easily clickable. Really, it's bad enough that different parts of the floor of the church are disputed. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant to ask where is East Jerusalem located if the text is going to specify where East Jerusalem is located. I dont really mind having it just say East Jerusalem though. nableezy - 16:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous; User:Hope&Act3! seems to be ignoring the talk page and has edited it to say “Israel” for a fourth time now. If East Jerusalem is not internationally recognised as being within Israel, and is internationally recognised as being part of the Palestinian Territories, labelling its status on a Wikipedia article should be pretty straightforward. - 82.17.238.199 (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Denial of the physical and political reality is disinformation and propaganda both must be kept out of an encyclopedia which pretends to be taken seriously: in order to achieve that it must be reliable.

There are on one side FACTS and on the other side WORDS (from the so called international community -including some reputed powerful political bodies or entities- which holds a strong anti Israel pov! ) just state the facts and the different opinions, it's the only way to give a neutral information.

WP editing has slowly been steered out of the encyclopedic ways toward political ends aiming to create a 'wikireality': wp is the first online encyclopedia consulted on any subject and the reader widely unaware of all the behind the scene disputes takes what s/he reads as 'truth'. Presently wp is actually siding with the anti Israel pov; it's highly time to correct that slant and offer the readers accurate data regarding both facts and words/opinions.

East Jerusalem / Jerusalem for all intent and purpose is situated in Israel, it has never been a Palestinian territory and it is still a disputed territory not a recognized Palestinian territory/capital, that's just a claim which needs to be addressed by the political leaders not solved here by the wp editors! Hope&Act3! (talk) 10:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that nuance is now overlooked by saying simply that it is in Israel. Why is it propaganda and misinformation to omit "Israel", but not propaganda and misinformation to include it, when you yourself have just found it necessary to give a lengthier explanation? How about "located in East Jerusalem, which is governed by Israel and claimed to be the capital of Palestine" (or whatever, I'm sure there would be an argument about the specific wording as well). Naturally we would have to say this every single time Jerusalem is mentioned on Wikipedia, which would be ridiculous. So why not just link to East Jerusalem and anyone who cares to know more about the status of East Jerusalem can click the link. (I'm not sure if reading that article will help at all, and I suspect it probably won't, but as I said, it's not particularly relevant to the Holy Sepulchre.) Adam Bishop (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That is, for the most part, nonsense. East Jerusalem is recognized as occupied Palestinian territory. See for example the Wall case which addresses "The construction of the Wall being built by Israel , the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory , including in and around East Jerusalem". Or see various reports from UN bodies on "occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem" such as this, or the near yearly condemnations by the UN GA on "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem". Or see Roberts, Adam (1990), "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967", The American Journal of International Law, 84 (1), American Society of International Law: 44–103. The idea that EJ is not recognized as Palestinian territory is a blatant falsehood. nableezy - 16:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC) 16:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This is getting into a much different issue, but it's a little naive to think that the UN is a neutral party here. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not when it is said that EJ is not "recognized" as occupied Palestinian territory. UN GA resolutions demonstrate the views of each of the member states and such resolutions are routinely passed with such margins as 162-8 with a few abstentions (A/RES/61/118). But fine, the ICRC also considers EJ to be occupied Palestinian territory. nableezy - 17:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Adam Bishop: I said we must just state the facts and the different opinions, it's the only way to give a neutral information. It's in Israel so no reason not to say that, those which want it omitted have a reason -which is to deny any right to Israel- but that's a distortion by denying the fact so I call that disinformation and propaganda, I oppose 'fact' to 'words of propaganda' they have nothing else but words to try to modify the facts, if you go around the articles related to Israel you will find plenty of these. Unfortunately I needed to make a case as the obvious plain fact is contested over and over again... instead of editing the articles which support the non neutral pov which as you can read above is declared neutral (Nableezy is of the opinion that the state of Palestine already exists with Jerusalem as its capital you see) so it's necessary to give lenghty explanations -if you have read all the posts above you've got the feel of it-! The links to Israel, and to East Jerusalem etc. provide the different opinions avoiding to add every time "located in East Jerusalem, which is governed by Israel and claimed to be the capital of Palestine" which as you said would be ridiculous. The Sacré-Coeur is in Paris, France and the Holy Sepulchre is in Jerusalem, Israel that's a physical fact but too simple for politics. BTW you would be surprised to know how many cities in the world are called Jerusalem. Only one here in Israel is the mother of all of them. Cheers, Hope&Act3! (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy does not hold the opinions that you attribute to him. Kindly dont do that. The reason to not say that the Church is in Israel is because it is not in Israel. I provided sources that flat out say that EJ is not in Israel. You have done nothing but say without any basis "it's in Israel". Your belief that EJ is in Israel is nice, but not consequential. EJ is recognized as occupied Palestinian territory, but nobody here is even trying to include "occupied Palestinian territory" as the location. Instead everybody besides you and brew agrees to just say "East Jerusalem". But instead of that being acceptable we instead have to go through this inane argument. You have said that EJ "has never been a Palestinian territory and it is still a disputed territory not a recognized Palestinian territory", that line is a blatant falsehood that can and has been demonstrated as false by sources. You have said that EJ "is in Israel", again something that countless sources say is not true. Instead of a simple solution of just saying, and providing a link to, East Jerusalem you try to push this extreme minority view that whatever Israel claims as being in Israel is in Israel. It does not work that way. nableezy - 18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

@Nableezy, here some of your words:

You have made this argument elsewhere, but a state that has been recognized by over 100 other states is no longer a "non-existent state". And it is not just foreseen as the capital of a future state, it is the declared capital of an actual state. nableezy - 07:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)-the emphasis is mine-

Not really. Without recognition a state is not recognized as an international Person, it has no legal rights or responsibilities under international law. See here. There is no definition binding on all members of the community of nations regarding the criteria for statehood, and as long as there is no organ which could in casu reach a binding decision on this matter, the decision as to the statehood of an entity depends upon the other members of the community of nations. The governments of various states are the organs responsible for reaching individual decisions in a given case. The decision-making is called the recognition of states. The term signifies the decision of the government of an already existing State to recognize another entity as a State. The act of recognition is in fact a legal decision. States can "exist" without recognition in that they have a defined territory and government, but if they are not recognized by other states that "existence" is meaningless in international law. Palestine does exist simply because other sovereign states say it does. But all this is avoids the issue. Why would we not say that Jerusalem has been designated the capital of Palestine in the Palestinian declaration of independence? (hows this for evidence Okedem?) nableezy - 08:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is mentioned. What is not mentioned is that it has already been declared the capital of the current state of Palestine. nableezy - 19:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)-the emphasis is mine-

Uhh, the 100+ states that have recognized it as a current state? You know, the entities that actually have that authority? nableezy - 19:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In fact, why cant we just say "Both Israel and Palestine claim Jerusalem as their capital, with both making laws to that effect. The status of Jerusalem remains a heavily disputed issue within the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The entire city is under the control of Israel, with East Jerusalem recognized as occupied territory."? nableezy - 16:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem has been declared the capital of the State of Palestine, which declared its independence in 1988 (see Palestinian Declaration of Independence). Me thinks this merits mention. Something along the lines of "Jerusalem has also been designated the capital of the State of Palestine in its 1988 declaration of independence. Palestine exercises no sovereignty over the city." nableezy - 06:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't make up anything (as I am very much convinced we need to show facts not ideas in thin air) and even more so if it could offend someone. Fact is that my memory is more trustworthy than yours, Hope&Act3! (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "declared capital of an actual state" is accurate. The state of Palestine was declared and recognized as a state by over 100 countries. Palestine then declared Jerusalem its capital, much like Israel has declared Jerusalem its capital. Neither of those claims have any recognition by the world as a whole. You are failing to include a crucial word in your bolds a few times. Yes, I said, and say, that there is a state of Palestine. There is currently no country Palestine, but a state does exist. I dont think there is much of a point in trying to explain the difference to you, but there is a difference. A state exists in international law when other states recognize it as a state. As a result of being recognized by other states as a state, Palestine exists as a state. The text I proposed adding to the Jerusalem article said exactly that. Not what you dishonestly said above was my position, that Nableezy is of the opinion that the state of Palestine already exists with Jerusalem as its capital you see. Nableezy has read and cited sources that say a state of Palestine already exists. That part is true. Nableezy has not said that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine, Nableezy has said that Jerusalem is the proclaimed capital of Palestine. Do you understand the difference? None of that means anything here though, and your attempt to distract from the issue that you are attempting to assert a minority view as a fact in the article is not working. Here, as in other articles you have edited, you are attempting to introduce factual errors into an encyclopedia and are unable to cite sources for such errors, only insisting that people accept your lack of knowledge as gospel truth. nableezy - 21:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you come and visit Jerusalem so that you can see by yourself where it is, and find out where is situated the capital of the current state of Palestine; can you explain what according to you means 'actual' in that sentence it is the declared capital of an actual state if not that it already exists? factually you want to distort the physical reality as if it would diminish your claims to a future state of Palestine, you simply don't get that I live in Jerusalem in Israel and that's the daily reality even if you deny it, I am not speaking about the dispute regarding the status, this is an entirely other thing and they don't exclude each other as you seem to believe. Your knowledge of Israel out of books is found wanting. And I don't believe in such thing as gospel truth nor in any missionary duty, come to Jerusalem and enjoy the Israeli atmosphere of a mixed population! even though you're planning to have me blocked you're welcome. Hope&Act3! (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I wont explain, because this isnt the place for such a discussion. What is appropriate is to discuss where to say this church is located. Your personal belief that it really really really is in Israel is not relevant. You are inserting a minority view as though it were fact in the article. Your argument that EJ has "never been recognized as Palestinian territory" is demonstrably false. nableezy - 23:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Limited importance?

This item concerns the last sentence of the introductory paragraph. As a protestant, I want to know what the hell gives you arrogant catholics and orthodox assholes the right to claim that the church is of LIMITED importance to protestants and anglicans? Who the hell do you think you are to put such a degrading and derrogatory abomination in this article? I'm going to mark that statement with a "citation needed" until you arrogant bastards can prove that we don't care very much about Christ. I have relatives that have paid hommage at this church and thousands of other protestants do too. Just because catholics and orthodox have a monopoly on running the church doesn't give you the right to claim the location of Jesus' crucifixion is of "limited" importance to the millions of anglicans and protestants around the globe. Are we not also Christians? Do we not also visit the church? Last time I checked, catholics and orthodox are not the only ones who revere and worship Jesus, the son of God. I'll give you a few days to produce an academic source proving that we don't really care that much. If you can't provide one (and you won't) then I'm going to delete that awful and hateful sentence.70.240.48.205 (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For all we know a Protestant wrote that sentence. Perhaps it means that Protestants are less likely to find a building important, when after all, the point of Christianity is that Christ is not in said building. Maybe you feel should honoured not to consider such a building important, when those asshole Catholics and Orthodox get into fistfights about the placement of a ladder. In any case, the suggestion that there is some sort of Catholic conspiracy on Wikipedia is an amusing notion, like we're living in the 17th century. If it's a mistake, it can be fixed; no need to be offended. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Adam, in light of your dissenting opinion, it's hard for me to imagine a Protestant using the word "limited." However, as the world turns day in and day out, far stranger things happen, so I am open to the possibility. If a Protestant did indeed write that sentence, then I will gladly bestow him or her with the title of "asshole." But for all practical purposes, please understand for a moment that Pope Benedict XVI has proclaimed that Protestant churches are not true churches, thereby backtracking from the reconcilatory papacy John Paul II. So is it really amusing that many Protestants feel threatened by the Catholic Church? Can you actually call that notion amusing when the most powerful Christian in the world fires a cannonball straight out of the 17th century? Exactly who is being medieval here? 70.240.48.205 (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That is kind of amusing actually. (What do you care what the Pope says?) But anyway, I guess the article could be improved by stating what kind of Protestants were meant. There are hundreds of denominations, so how do you know all Protestants feel the same way about the Holy Sepulchre? (Which kind are you, if you don't mind me asking? Anglican/Episcopalian?) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We could just as easily ask ourselves, "Why do Muslims riot when a cartoonist draws Muhammed?" Or "Why does Russia throw a fit everytime an Eastern European nation alters its History books to identify the Soviets as invaders and not liberators?" Or my personal favorite, "Why do Americans get mad when Canadians teach their kids in school that they burned the White House in 1814 when the troops were actually British born and bred?" Fact is, I cannot explain why I get upset when I hear a verbal assault on my religion by a fellow Christian. I just do. And I'm not the only one either. We Protestants talk about these things among ourselves. And for your curiosity, I'm a Baptist.70.240.48.205 (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well, even then I'd have to wonder what kind of Baptist, since Baptists are a rather fragmented group. I'm not sure anymore if we're talking about the Pope or the article, but if it's the article, you shouldn't take it as an assault. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm using the Pope to give examples of why such a notion should not be amusing, and why the writer of the sentence was more likely not to be Anglican or Protestant. Not that any of that matters of course, but because you were amused by the notion. And if your insatiable curiosity is not already quenched, I am Southern Baptist by birth and Free Will Baptist by conversion. I also have a collection of Methodists, Diciples of Christ, and Jehovah's Witnesses in my family...all Protestants. Now I've been answering your questions for a long time now. Why don't you tell me something about yourself, something I wouldn't have learned from looking at your account.70.240.48.205 (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, well I'm interested in the Holy Sepulchre as an historical building relevant to the crusades, it's not religiously meaningful to me. I do know both Catholics and Protestants who find it important...I once joked that the most important thing about it was that it was built by crusaders, and a Protestant, I think he was also Baptist, was very offended. But I think most Catholics and Protestants (at least in North America) probably wouldn't even know such a building exists, or why it's significant. Anyway, I've been looking for sources to add to the article, and I did find one book that had surveyed pilgrims about the most important sites. For Catholics it was always in the top five, and Protestants didn't rank it at all. I don't know how reliable the survey is though. I'll keep looking for more info. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course they don't know it exists. 20% of the people in this country can't even find America on a map. And of course Protestants wouldn't rank it either. We aren't allowed to hold services there. The only thing we can do is pray silently and put a coin under the alter which will be collected by the Greeks. I'm not bitter about it. Maybe a little annoyed by the selfishness, but not bitter. We are heretics afterall, I guess. I only get bitter when I percieve self-rightiousness at the expense of others. Probably some Baptist would act the same way toward Mormons. Then again, Mormons believe the Garden Tomb is the real sepulchre. I've often wondered how Muslims manage to share the Kaaba, and if such a deal could be struck with the Holy Sepulchre. It's doubtful though. 70.240.48.205 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the book I was looking at, by the way. It surveyed Christian tourists, Catholic and Protestant, and there are some charts and figures about what sites they considered important and which disappointed them. I suppose the Protestants didn't visit, or didn't like, the Holy Sepulchre for the reasons you mentioned, they can't really participate in anything there. The conclusion also suggests that Protestants sometimes consider it inauthentic, or they are uninterested because it is more closely associated with Catholics. (Also this survey was apparently done during the Second Intifada, which might have made access to certain places more difficult.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is another book which talks about pilgrims through the centuries, including Protestant pilgrims of the 19th and 20th centuries who found the Holy Sepulchre distasteful (too ornate, too showy, etc - not representing the simple life of Christ). And another saying the same, and another. "The Landscape of Belief" by J. Davis is apparently also a good place to look, but it's not available on Google Books. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

References

Splitting the article

As the article is getting close to size limits, should we move some of the article out to a seperate article? I was thinking that the History of the Holy Sepulchre could be a good one to move and the History section here could be shortened. Or perhaps the Chapels of the Holy Sepulchre?

JASpencer (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't especially see the need - have you done a readable prose count? - but surely "Challenges to authenticity" is the obvious section to go? I'm surprised we don't already have an article pulling together the less implausible of the Category:Alleged tombs of Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Miracle of the Holy Fire

why doesn't this article say anything about the miracles that occur annually at this church regarding the holy fire and such? correct me if I've missed it, it doesn't seem to be clearly marked if it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.151.62 (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Israel categories

This church is not in Israel. This church is in the Palestinian Territories, in East Jersualem to be exact. Editors are edit-warring to insert false categories! Other people claim that they can revert because new changes must have consensus first, like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Martyr&diff=prev&oldid=480301245. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Quarter_(Jerusalem)&diff=prev&oldid=479603401. The same rule is here. You can't put false categories without any consensus! Stop, don't bully the article and make it wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nassiriya (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the church is in a disputed territory, I have added back the category "Roman Catholic churches in Asia", instead of "Roman Catholic churches in Israel". Also, the church was in the "Tourism in Israel" category, because it is one of the most visited sites; if the word "Israel" is causing a problem, what would be the appropriate "visitor attractions" category, then? --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the category "Visitor attractions in the Palestinian territories", in place of "Tourism in Israel". --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In Israel (again)

How is it in Israel? Since when is Brewcrewer allowed to apply WP:OR to assume that if you need an "Israeli visa" to visit the site? That kind of logic doesn't even merit a response. -asad (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

it is pretty much in israel and fully depends upon israel to continue being. 79.179.17.220 (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Challenges to Authority (Protestant Disapproval)

I deleted the sentence at the end of the first paragraph in this section that read, "Additionally many Protestants have often opposed the traditional location because it has previously received support from Catholics." This sounded pretty odd to me, so I checked the source. The author simply cited the "entry on Jerusalem" from the 1915 edition of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. A perusal of all 4 entries on Jerusalem in the ISBE mentions nothing of the sort. Adrift* (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Old Holy Sepulchre?

SInce there is an article on Constantine's St. Peter's in Rome (as apposed to the current one), why is there not a separate page on the old Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Is there a particular reason not to make one? Did there used to be one, but it was merged with this article? --Therandomfish187 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Most ancient & important Christian churches have had several rebuildings; only a few have enough material to justify separating the articles. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I suppose if there's not enough material there probably shouldn't be a separate article. Thanks, --Therandomfish187 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Exterior view

We could use some better exterior shots, such as one depicting both domes. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing reference

There are citations to "Morris 2005" but I don't see that identified anywhere. Zero^talk 02:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The ladder

From Jerusalem: The Biography, by Simon Sebag Montefiore, page 518:

The most famous sign of that open combat is a little ladder belonging to the Armenians on the balcony [...] which tour guides claim can never be moved without other sects seizing it. In fact the ladder leads to a balcony where the Armenian superior used to drink coffee with his friends and tend his flower garden: it is there so that the balcony can be cleaned.

Does this go against what the article says now? --Error (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just want to add this link which gives more information on the keys to the Holy Sepulchre.

According to Adeeb Jawad Joudeh, who holds the keys, they have been handed down from one generation to the next, since being given to the family in 1187 by Sultan Saladin. I find it hugely amusing that these Christian sects need to use Muslims as referees to decide who has access to the church. 04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewHart500 (talk • contribs)

References

Source cited requires payments to be read

One has to pay to read the Christianity Today article cited as source for the 2002 fight, which makes it unnecessarily complicated to verify the fact. That's pretty lame when there are other credible, free sources. I suggest a BBC article as replacement 91.182.218.219 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Who "believes" that Helena rediscovered Jesus' cross?

Under the heading "History: Building", it states "During the building of the Church, Constantine's mother, Helena, is believed to have rediscovered the True Cross..." Since the likelihood of her actually discovering the cross upon which Jesus was supposedly executed is somewhere between "slim" and "none", I move that the claim be changed to something more objective, such as "...Helena, is claimed by some Christians to have rediscovered the True Cross..." Thoughts? Occam's Shaver (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It should be attributed to the source where the story first appeared. Weasel phrase like "some Christians" just raise questions. Zero^talk 11:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

None of the sources you cited even mention Helena or the "true cross", so I fail to see their relevance. Regardless, it's not simply a matter of attribution to sources, but more fundamentally, of logic. The assertion is that "...Helena is believed to have rediscovered the True Cross". The phrase "...is believed..." is an assertion that needs to be sourced (it isn't). It's even more a weasel phrase than "some Christians" since it doesn't even specify the group of those who allegedly believe. It is only a subset of Christianity that believes such a story, and that should be made clear. If it can't be made clear who believes something, then the claim that something is believed must be removed. Occam's Shaver (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic pic

The photo presented at File:Aedicule which supposedly encloses the tomb of Jesus-LR1.jpg is unrepresentative of a visitors actual experience of visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and I think that this is well demonstrated by the fairly extreme blurring of the figure in the foreground. From entering into the Church from the typical sunshine (as is resultant of the areas moderately high altitude Horse latitude climate) the interior is frequently experienced to be relatively dimly lit. I don't consider that the current picture represents this. GregKaye 08:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying we should prefer a darker picture, which makes it harder to see anything, because it is more authentic? Seriously, should we ban blitz photos as unnatural too? FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity about the blurred guy, but I think the photo is ok. Zero^talk 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Eastern Orthodox" inflation

Folks, I understand that non-Greek Orthodox parishioners are unhappy about the official terminology AND ACTUAL POLICIES, but WP is NOT the place to fight these battles. The Patriarch is GREEK Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox, so is the Patriarchy of Jerusalem, etc., etc. Change the facts on the ground (good luck with that :-) ) and then come back and edit accordingly. So I guess we'll finish this thread in the 36th century CE - or after the Second Coming of Jesus, whatever comes first. Arminden (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Venus or Aphrodite

The temple built by Hadrian is first named as one of Venus, then later in the article as one of Aphrodite. Is there a scholarly use of just one name? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite 72.192.217.108 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You will also want links in this section to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_ancient_Rome#Prostitution_and_religion rumjal 21:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs)

Adjustments

I removed the {{fact}} tag from the statement that the site is venerated by "most Christians". The edit summary complained that most Protestants don't venerate the site. However, most Christians are not Protestants. A large majority of Christians are Roman Catholic and Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, and these groups do venerate the site as described.

Also, I for one am positively allergic to {{cquote}}. I can't see that it serves any useful purpose. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And I replaced the "mad" before the mention of Caliph al-Hakim. No, he wasn't really mad, which is the reason for the quote marks but that's how he was thought of in Europe. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Venerated ground

My feeling is that it would be better to say "many Christians" or "the majority of Christians" venerate the site rather than "most", but no matter. The central issuse is verifiability. I soon as I see statements in the Wikipedia like "most customers prefer Acme Corporations products", "most sports fans reckon that Somewhereville FC have been consistently strong performers over the past ten years", I look for the citation. It's no different here. I have put the {{fact}} tag back in and whilst the sentence might need re-writing, it may well be possible to find a credible source. Otherwise the sentence will need to go. Thanks. Greenshed 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No it won't. Of course there are credible sources -- I have several -- but I don't see why this is a problem. For one thing, the rest of this article isn't cited either, so to insist on a cite for this one sentence among all the rest makes no sense. For another, it's a patently obvious fact that the site is held to be sacred by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox, and there's no serious question that these groups together comprise "most Christians". Roman Catholicism alone is nearly (or maybe even more than) half. ("Most" is a simple synonym for "majority of", so I don't see your problem there either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I fear that I cannot agree that "most" is synonymous with "the majority". However, I certainly don't dispute that the site is held to be sacred by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox denominations. Whether each individual member of those churches actually venerates this ground seems more problematic. This may seem like a nice distinction but I am very keen that we get precisely written articles. If you can provide a credible citation then that would be a simple way ahead. In general, it would be good provide citations for the rest of the article. Also, I would be happy to put forward an alternative form of words for consideration. Greenshed 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "most". As for counting each individual member, I think this is not a useful distinction at all. If we were trying to characterize any other belief of a faith community, we have to do so by what that community officially teaches. It's functionally impossible to take the kind of survey you're insisting on, but to require it would mean that we cannot characterize any religion's beliefs at all. This would leave us with mostly empty articles on religions in general. I could come up with many alternative formulations myself. They are all more awkward and aren't terribly more informative. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Old argument, but I would hazard a (uncited) guess that most Christians haven't even heard of the churchTalltim (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Very old argument, and I am not a Protestant, but while it may be true that (due to not having a presence there, the atmosphere may to a Protestant mind be difficult, etc.) they do not put a specific emphasis on this Church, I guess a Protestant might quite possibly feel offended at the suggestion that they don't venerate it at all.--131.159.76.186 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes: see below for that.--131.159.76.186 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Does this Qualify as being on the Western Hill?

The Hill that today commonly called "Zion", the summit of which is where the Hagai Sion was built?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus

Could editors look at the "History" and "Connection to Jupiter Capitolinus" sections, which contain information directly contradicted by sources cited. These sections state or imply that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is built on the site of the temple to Jupiter which the Romans erected on the Temple Mount. Sources cited however say that the church is on the site of a different temple, one to Aphrodite/Venus, which was close to, but not on, the Temple Mount. See: page 156 of The Temple of Jerusalem: Past, Present, and Future by John M. Lundquist and the page on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre on the Sacred Destinations website. Also see the Venus or Aphrodite section above.     ←   ZScarpia   10:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

This is difficult due to divergent theories. Cassius Dio wrote that a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was built on the site of the Jewish temple, and tons of sources follow that. However F.E. Peters discounts this story on the grounds that people who visited the Temple Mount didn't report seeing a temple there. Peters (Jerusalem, Princeton Univ Press, 1985, pages 130 and 133) contends that the site was most probably where the Holy Sepulchre was built later. But at the same time he quotes Eusebius, Life of Constantine, that it was a temple to Aphrodite. Confusion. Zero^talk 12:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you think of the following hypothesis? Following the razing of Jerusalem, the Jupiter Capitolinus, a temple to Jupiter, was built on the Temple Mount, where the destroyed Second Temple had been. A separate temple, to Aphrodite/Venus, was built close by, but not on the Temple Mount itself. After Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th Century, the two temples were pulled down. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built on the site of the temple to Aphrodite/Venus. As Peters has discounted that a temple to Jupiter was built on the Temple Mount, he has adopted the nearby temple to Aphrodite/Venus as being the Jupiter Capitolinus, while reporting that Eusebius had written that that temple was in fact dedicated to Aphrodite not Jupiter. Might that fit in with suthoritative sources other than Peters? My understading is that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was supposed to have been built on Calvary, a different hill to the Temple Mount. Hopefully I've understood the gist of your own comment correctly, so that Peters was contending that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre replaced the Jupiter Capitolinus temple.     ←   ZScarpia   15:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the temple of Hadrian's, which Constantine built over, could have been to either Venus or Jupiter, as the article states. Until we know for sure, I don't see that any major change is in order.

However, it is definitely possible that Constantine was wrong about the Temple Mount's location, which is why the article uses phrases such as "according to tradition" when referring to this belief. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that Jupiter Capitolinus was the name of a Roman deity, not the name of a temple. So one should refer to the "temple of/to Jupiter Capitolinus", which the article does not do at the moment. There is a dispute over whether Hadrian's temple to Jupiter Capitolinus was on the Temple Mount or not. Zero^talk 06:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still trying to make sense of everything, but here are some interim thoughts:

The article, at least before I started meddling, stated or strongly implied the following sequence of events: the second temple was pulled down, the Jupiter Capitolinus temple was built on the Temple Mount in its stead; the Roman temple was pulled down and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre erected in its stead. Therefore, it was at least strongly implied that the Church had been erected on the Temple Mount, on the site of the Second Temple. That's clearly "not right".

Clearly, historical sources have led to a situation where there is a lot of confusion, theories abound and modern sources present contradictory "facts". In such a situation, the Wikipedia article should state that there is confusion and outline the competing theories and versions of the facts. It doesn't look to me as though it does.

The article states or strongly implies that the Church is built on the site of THE Jupiter Capitolinus temple, which is commonly supposed to have been constructed on the Temple Mount. The Construction (4th century) section states: "Constantine ordered in about 326 that Jupiter Capitolinus be replaced by a church." However, the cited source doesn't actually mention the god Jupiter or THE Jupiter Capitolinus temple at all. What it does say is: "Less than a century later, in 135 AD, Emperor Hadrian filled in the quarry to provide a level foundation for a temple to Aphrodite. The site remained buried beneath the pagan temple until Emperor Constantine the Great converted to Christianity in 312 AD. He soon showed an interest in the holy places associated with his new faith, and commissioned numerous churches to be built throughout the Holy Land. The most important of these, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, was begun in 326 AD." I'd say that the source is being used in an illegitmate way.

Lower down we have the Connection to Jupiter Capitolinus section, which begins: "The site of the church had been a temple to Jupiter or Venus built by Hadrian before Constantine's edifice was built." Probably because, at the start of the History section, the article describes the building of THE Jupiter Capitolinus temple (the one commonly thought to have been built on the Temple Mount), the title of the section leads me to assume that it is about the former. However, though the temple that the Church was built on may have been dedicated to the god Jupiter, it doesn't necessarily follow that it was THE Jupiter Capitolinus temple. Perhaps the section title should be changed?

At the beginning of the History section, a statement about how "a cave containing a rock-cut tomb be filled in" to create a temple dedicated to Jupiter or Venus, which is partially cited to the same source as above is immediately followed by a statement that that temple is "usually referred to as Jupiter Capitolinus. The latter is partially cited to the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on the city of Aelia Capitolina which refers to "Jupiter Capitolinus, to whom a temple was built on the site of the Jewish temple". The conjuction implies that the temple dedicated to Jupiter or Venus on whose site the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built on was the same as the major temple to Jupiter which was commonly thought to have been built on the Temple Mount, which is not necessarily true. We cannot state as a fact that the temple on which the Church was built on was referred to as Jupiter Capitolinus. Nor should the article be implying that its a fact that the Church was built on the site of THE Jupiter Capitolinus temple.

As Zero pointed out and the cited 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article confirms, Jupiter Capitolinus was actually a name referring to the god Jupiter, not the temple which replaced the Second Temple itself. At the very least, that should be amended.

Sources say that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built on the site of what had been a temple to Jupiter or Venus. Sources also say that a major temple to Jupiter had been built on the site of what had been the Jewish Second Temple. What a lot of my comments above boil down to is whether there are any sources which make a link between the two or state, as the article implies, that they were one and the same.

    ←   ZScarpia   13:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you're right. I'll have to check some of the sources I'm aware to see if there's any contradiction. I agree about changing the section title; perhaps Connection to Roman temple is more objective. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the great screed above. My thoughts weren't very clear as I was writing and I didn't know whether they'd become any clearer.

It looks to me as though there's not much dispute, if any, that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built on the site of a temple, though historical sources are contradictory about whether the temple was dedicated to Jupiter or Venus.

It's commonly held that the Roman's built a temple to Jupiter on the Temple Mount on the site of the razed Second Temple, though historical sources are again contradictory and there is also some dispute about whether the Jewish temple was actually on the Temple Mount.

What seems to me to be a bit shaky is, that unless source evidence exists to justify it, to connect the temples to each other, assuming that if the temple on the site of the Church was dedicated to Jupiter it must be the one thought to have been built on the site of the second temple.

I've been trying to dig up information on the name Jupiter Capitolinus. Unfortunately quite a lot of what I've found is contradictory. The more famous www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/capitoline-triad-0011333 Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus (the Capitolium) was on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.[4][5][6][7] From what I've found, it does look as though it's known as the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus because it is on the Capitoline Hill rather than that the Capitoline Hill is the Capitoline Hill because the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus is on it. See definitions of the word capitolinus here, here and here. I have been wondering whether the adjective 'Capitolinus' in Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus actually describes the temple rather than the god, so that the meaning is: temple on the Capitoline Hill dedicated to the god Jupiter. If that was the case, does that imply that the hill in Jerusalem on which the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus there was built was known to the Romans as the Capitoline Hill?

    ←   ZScarpia   12:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the word of the day is epithet. Roman gods had multiple epithets and those of Jupiter included Jupiter Capitolinus (also very commonly written Capitolene Jupiter), Jupiter Feretrius, Jupiter Pluvialis, Jupiter Ultor, Jupiter Elicius, Jupiter Hadad, Jupiter Latiaris, my favorite Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus. And plenty more. Some are derived from place names and some from perceived attributes. The place to look is in the Classics literature rather than the historical literature, as Classicists are more likely to be expert on the Roman pantheon. I notice that in the Classics literature even the temple in Rome is called the "temple to Jupiter Capitolinus". Zero0000 08:00, 23 September 2019

It looks to me as though, like Jupiter Optimus Maximus Heliopolitanus, Jupiter Capitolinus is a place-name epithet. In the former case, the Heliopolitanus refers to Heliopolis (Baalbek), where there was a majore temple to Jupiter; in the latter, it looks to me as though the Capitolinus refers to the Capitoline Hill in Rome where, as we've noted, there was also a major temple to Jupiter (and the two goddesses who, along with Jupiter, made up the Capitolene Trinity). What I'm curious about is the way that the placce-name epithets were used. Could it be, say, that it refers to the way the god is depicted, so that the temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem was the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus because it contained a statue of Jupiter which depicted him in the same way as the one on the Capitoline Hill in Rome?     ←   ZScarpia   09:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"Santo Sepulcro" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Santo Sepulcro and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 12#Santo Sepulcro until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 05:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing information (Joudehs and Nuseibehs)

I haven't worked on this article since the last time I logged on to Wikipedia in 2007. I expected lots of changes, but I can't imagine why information on the Muslim keepers of the keys and doorkeepers has been removed. Instead, the only remarks is on some cockamamie story about Georgians holding the keys at some unspecified time in the past.

Please replace the paragraphs on the Joudeh and Nussibeh families, which I came here specifically to look up. 2601:647:CA00:6A:91E9:AEE3:4235:E0C (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I've restored what we had a year or so ago, though it could do with better refs, & a bit more clarity. See also Nussibeh family. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem with the less-than-reliable sources remains, but at least I've put the text in accordance with those sources, to which I have added the Nuseibeh's own family saga as told by their own website (they clearly seem to be the origin of the "7th century" legend, not bought by anyone else). Murphy-O'Connor doesn't waste time on it, so don't look it up his Guide (I have). Arminden (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

Inter alia, see

• Hamilton, Bernard; et al. (2020), Latin and Greek Monasticism in the Crusader States, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–39, ISBN 978-0-521-83638-8.

which goes into detail on the medieval liturgy at this church as well as some of the annual rituals through the Crusader kingdom period.  — LlywelynII 09:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

"Archived" sources Syriac & Coptic chapels: broken

@Jstalins: hi. I see you introduced here a source for the Syriac chapel. I'm afraid you might have made some mistakes: the title has an obvious copy-paste issue, it can't be "Chapel of Joseph of Arimateaitled", the "itled" bit has been picked up elsewhere and doesn't belong. The bigger problem is, the URL you offered also has it:
https://www.churchoftheholysepulchre.com/single-post/2017/01/31/Chapel-of-Joseph-of-Arimateaitled

It seems to lead nowhere. I don't mean because it's a dead link, because I tagged it as such here and a bot added an archive.org URL here, however this link, at least today, also doesn't lead anywhere:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190415031843/https://www.churchoftheholysepulchre.com/single-post/2017/01/31/Chapel-of-Joseph-of-Arimateaitled

I tried to simplify it by just cutting the "itlead" apendix:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190415031843/https://www.churchoftheholysepulchre.com/single-post/2017/01/31/Chapel-of-Joseph-of-Arimatea

but that seems even further away from the truth. Correcting the spelling to Arimathea (with th) in the URL didn't bring any success either. UpdateNerd also did some retouching around here, but nothing substantial. So you left us here with a cuckoo's egg nobody knows how to fix. Maybe you do, after all? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Same story with the Coptic chapel link from the same old website, "churchoftheholysepulchre.com", also allegedly archived here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190225223553/https://www.churchoftheholysepulchre.com/single-post/2017/01/31/Coptic-Chapel

Leads nowhere. Arminden (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Elements of 1st (Constantinian) shrine

Zenobius' design: "built as separate constructs over the two holy sites": which two?

The Anastasis over the tomb, OK. The inner atrium/triportico contained in one corner the Calvary, under the open sky at first, nothing built over it. So probably meant as 2nd holy site: the place where the crosses were found. Or not? And to my knowledge, there's no consensus on whether the 2-level crypt with the site of the crosses is Constantinian/Byzantine, or just from the Crusader period.

Currently the paragraph makes no sense. Arminden (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Date of ship drawing

Chapel of St. Vartan: "a 2nd-century" drawing (ship, DOMINE IVIMUS).

Usually dated to the time of Constantine, so 4th c., not 2nd, between the demolition of the temple and the building of the basilica. What is the C2 dating based on? Arminden (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Catholic or Roman Catholic

There is a disagreement over whether the Catholic involvement in the church should be cited as "Roman Catholic" or merely "Catholic". The distinction rests mainly on whether the Eastern Catholic Churches are included (not to be confused with the Eastern churches like Armenian Orthodox). The Eastern Catholic Churches are liturgically connected to the Roman church but this doesn't mean they are automatically included in matters of property ownership or administration of sites. My understanding is that the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which answers directly to Rome, is the part-owner and administering body. So I believe that "Roman Catholic" is more precise, and it is also the most common name used in sources. Zero^talk 04:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

From Cust, The Status-Quo in the Holy Places, p12: "In all matters of principle relating to the Status Quo in the Christian Holy Places, only the Orthodox, Latin, and Armenian Orthodox rites are considered. This follows the arrangement under the Turkish Government,... By the Latin rite is invariably meant the Roman Catholic Church of the Latin rite as distinct from the Uniates, and moreover as regards the Holy Places, the Franciscan Fraternity of tlie Custodia di Terra Santa." Note that "Uniates" is a reference to the non-Roman Catholic Churches, so Cust is explicitly excluding them. Zero^talk 04:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't really see the relevance of this. The only Catholics there with Status Quo rights are the Roman Catholics, the only Armenians are of the Armenian Apostolic Church (or you can put it the other way 'round, the AAC is the only Armenian presence), and the only Greeks, as well as the only Orthodox, are those of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Once this is clearly stated at a prominent place, the constant repetition becomes unnecessary in my opinion. Arminden (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can "Greeks" be "Catholics"? Generally, yes; they might Roman Catholics (if "Greek" is read as is) or Orthodox Catholics (Greek Orthodox Church notes that the Greek Orthodox are synonymously called "Greek Catholic", and, more widely, that the Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself the "Orthodox Catholic Church", contrary to what you say about Romans being the only "Catholics" here). Contextually, in this article "Greeks" are never "Catholics", but the reader knows that because the article establishes the context first.

I don't think the adjective is overused here. It's not being used every single time in a repetitious way. The article, as it was/is, used "Roman Catholic" just 8 times in the main text, while it used "Catholic" 23 times. Particular uses here or there might be moved, pruned, or even added, based on the specific merits of doings so, but there's simply no need to indiscriminately reduce all the uses to 0. Peppering "Roman" in 8 times throughout does a fine job of establishing the context, and does so better than a single statement that would probably have to be longer than 8 words to be noticed by someone who isn't already looking in the right direction.

Simply using the adjective "Roman" where relevant is the most concise way of keeping things clear for readers. It's much more effective than expecting readers to first read a single brief statement in a "prominent place". What counts as a "prominent place" often depends on what a reader is paying a attention to, which may just be a single section which they skipped to or were linked to from another article. – Scyrme (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the unregistered editor's comment ""Catholic" encompasses all the churches in full communion with the Pope, not just the Latin Church", as I understand it the same is true for "Roman Catholic", which refers to the whole Roman Catholic Church not just the Latin Church.

This also clashes with Zero's comments regarding precision. If we want to emphasise exclusively the Latin Church, it would be better to delete "Catholic" not "Roman", since the "Roman Church" does exclusively refer to the Latin Church. To be clear, that's not a suggestion; I think the article's varied use of "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" is clear enough as it is. The point is that the adjective "Roman" isn't a problem here.

I also wouldn't recommend systematically replacing "Catholic" with "Latins", which this article also uses in places. As an aside, it may be worth reviewing how the article uses "Latins". Most uses seem to refer to the Roman Church or the Latin Patriarchate (some ambiguity there), but in at least one instance it links to Western Christianity, which, without checking the source I can't be sure is wrong; "Latins" is sometimes used that way, and perhaps that's what the source intended. – Scyrme (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)