Talk:Excavations at the Temple Mount

Merging the article

I think the article is growing up, and will go on growing up, merging it with another article might taboo it from becoming a mature/stand-alone article. I suggest that we remove the merge template and give the article a couple of weeks.

Thanks Yamanam (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Excavations

It would be useful to know the offical Israeli justifications for the excavations in 1970, 1977, and 1996. Thanks.

Kbk (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We need the Israeli "justifications". Forget about uncovering humankinds histroy. This is a mosque, third holiest no least. Hmmmmm. This article was written as propaganda. Chesdovi (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a Source

A source reagarding the Turkish team findings has been added, as well as some other findings. Modi mode (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellency?

Is the use of such words before "President", "Prime Minister" and the like considered proper in Wiki? I omitted them from the article, anyway. Modi mode (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, they are not appropriate, and what u did is the right thing. Yamanam (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The last edits

This page is about the excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque, not around and not constructions. Therefor, the last edits were removed. Yamanam (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Chesdovi's edit summary: The paragraph that you added and trying to put pictures of it the lead is really "irrelevant" and "minor" relatively to the article title. According to the source: the Waqf, urged by Israeli police, determined to make an emergency exit in the Marwani Mosque, Israeli archaeologists were angered at the Waqf's use of bulldozers.

That's it, it's not really significant or related to the article's title. Imad marie (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, the pic says, constructions by Wakf not excavations, and as far as I am concerned there is a huge difference between both. Yamanam (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, I shall proceed to remove all the material about "construction" at the site. Chesdovi (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why?! This article is about "Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque", do you think anything is wrong with that?Imad marie (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask Yamanam. Chesdovi (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yamanam's point was that you inserted material about "constructions", when the article discusses "excavations".

My point was that the events that occurred in 1996, when the Waqf performed the constructions (with the approval of the Israeli police), is really insignificant relatively to the Israeli excavations that has been happening since 1970 until now.

You did not reply to any point. Imad marie (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The "excavations" in Feb 2007 were in fact needed for re-construction of the pathway leading to the Mugrahbi Gate. Rather than just carting away stratas of history to the dustheap, the earth was carefully sifted for remains. I thereofore view this as "construction" and removed all instances of this in the article, after clarification from Yaman. Those February excavations were rather minor in comparision to the wholesale destruction of archeological artifacts contained within the compound that was disposed of in the most criminal of fashions for construction of two further unauthorised entrances to the new mosque. This removal of earth from this archeological site is termed "excavations" in the Archaeology magazine I provided. If this article is in fact about the excavtions at the mosque, where are the descriptions of what was found, who led the teams, and so on? This page currently just infoms us that they occured and provides a plethora of angry reactions from some Muslim countries and organisations? Why was mention of Charles Warren's excavations removed? They are probably the most significant here. I will remove the religious buildings info box for now, pending your response. Regards, Chesdovi (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, wikipedia doesn't work according to your views. I can't see a reason for removing the infobox! and I didn't get your other points. Yamanam (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Imad marie, what do you think? Chesdovi (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I do not object to inserting any material related to "excavations" or "constructions", because both operations are really very similar and can do similar damage.

But please mind WP:UNDUE, the operations performed by the WAQF in 1996 is really a minor event relatively to the operations performed by the Israeli government since 1970. What WAQF did in 1996 (as I understood from the source) was only building an exit door (with the approval and the recommendation of the Israeli police), so really I do not see it as a significant event that deserves to have its image in the lead, nor that it deserves to be mentioned in the lead, maybe in the following sections.

About the merge, I object to the merge as there is no justification for it. "Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque" is a significant subject that deserves to have an article of its own, and you haven't explained why the article would "fit nicely" into Al-Aqsa Mosque. Imad marie (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand from your response that you do not view that this page is about the excavations per se, but rather about the damage or threat they present to the mosque. That's why you view the Wakf construction as "minor." Please note that this page is called "excavations", yet it provided not detail whatsoever about the excavations themselves or the discoveries made. All this page did was highlight Israeli digging at the site and the angry reactions. This material has been put under the wrong title. Reaction to percieved threats against Al Aqsa Mosque is what you want. Chesdovi (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Mugrabi Gate ramp reconstruction

Yamanam has clearly stated that "This page is about the excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque, not around and not constructions". It follows that all material about the Mugrabi Gate ramp reconstruction in February 2007, (situated 60m away from the mosque), should be removed? Chesdovi (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The source explicitly uses the word "excavation". Nevertheless, as I said before, I really don't see big difference between "excavations" and "constructions". Imad marie (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Its 60m away from the mosque. Can it still be described as being an excavation of the mosque? Chesdovi (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's what the source says. Imad marie (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find this assertion in any of the sources, except for the reaction from Malaysia. Please direct me, thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 13:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source, it is used in the article, it explicitly uses the word "excavations". Please discuss your changes before reverting. Imad marie (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It also says "some 60 meters away from the Al-Aqsa Mosque". Meaning these are not excavations of the actual mosque and therefore not to be associated with this page. Chesdovi (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you can check WP:NOR and WP:RS. The source uses the word "excavations", so our opinion regarding the 60 meters thing is really irrelevant. Imad marie (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

But these excavations were not carried out at the mosque, as inferred by the page name. They were carried out 60m away, which is far away enough not to be considered part of the mosque. As Yaman stated: "This page is about the excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque, not around and not constructions". Also, if you do not object to the section dealing with the excavations at Marwani Mosque, probably located much closer, why have you not readded it? Chesdovi (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

About the Mugrabi excavations: regardless of the 60 meters distance, the relation between the Aqsa mosque and the excavations is evident, this is evident by the source and evident by the Muslim reactions that feared that the excavations would weaken the mosque structures.

About the Marwani mosque: you tried to insert a big paragraph with two images in the lead, about a really "minor" event relatively to the "Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque" (as I have explained above). Which is an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE.Imad marie (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the two are related, but the excavations carried out to facilitate the Mugrabi Gate ramp reconstruction, which consists of the bulk of this article, is not an "Excavation of Al-Aqsa Mosque", as the page name infers. I remember the media furore at the time and thought Mugrabi Gate ramp reconstruction controversy would be created. It wasn't. But this info does not belong under "Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque". It is plainly an untruth. Those works did not involve excavating the mosque. Charles Warren was the first in recent times to actually dig under the mosque, and reference to him in the article was removed. I want to know why. (I would also point out that in the source for the section about the UN school, it mentions that digging that had occured within the compound may have also been a reason for the collapse. This of course was censored out!) Chesdovi (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Am I to proceed to remove material relating to this? Chesdovi (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I added Mosha'sha' suggestion that there might have been excavations beneath the classroom.
• I really see a strong relation between the 2007 excavations and this article. Even if it "technically" did not mean "Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque", but the material is really relevant to the article, as I have explained above, it is "excavations" that might have affected that "Aqsa Mosque", so I find it very relevant to the article. Imad marie (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The page title needs to be changed then. Chesdovi (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to change the title to "Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque and any other excavations that might affect the Mosque"? I doubt you will get any support for that. Imad marie (talk) 07:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We could create Mugrabi Gate ramp reconstruction controversy and move the relevant material or rename the page to Excavtions at the Temple Mount which would include all digs in the vicinity of the site. Chesdovi (talk) 12:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing several material, I found out that Al-Aqsa Mosque refers to the whole area of the Notable Sanctuary (Temple Mount). So I think this revokes my previous remark concerning adding only material relevant to the Aqsa Mosque. As long as the excavations and digs are occurring at the Notable Sanctuary, then I think it is ok to be added here. This is my opinion at least, I am not sure if it is acceptable. Yamanam (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I remember that this view was discussed at length here. The problem is that the term Al Aqsa mosque commonly refers only to the mosque building itself, hence it has its own page and is not a section in the Temple Mount article. That is why I was so strict in making sure that all excavations under the current title (Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque) must be related exclusivly to that building, and not its surrounds. If this page is indeed to cover all excavations in and around the Haram area, a more apt page name would be Excavations at the Temple Mount. I know this title removes the Islamic conotations, but on English wikipedia we call the haram Temple Mount. Chesdovi (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Way forward

Well, I noticed that there are 3 main items we've been discussing here:

1. The excavations carried out at the Aqsa Mosque, whether by Waqf, British Mandate, or israel;
2. The excavations carried out at the Notable Sanctuary, whether by Waqf, British Mandate, or israel; and
3. The threats against Al Aqsa Mosque as result for those excavations.

I think that Chesdovi has raised a good point when he suggested creating a new article to deal with the third point above. And on the other hand, we can add 1) all types of excavations 2)occuring at the whole site of the Notable Sanctuary 3) carried out by any party >> to the current article, taking in mind that this title might need to be changed. I am not sure how valid my suggestion is, I tried to combine all of our opinions, please advise if I have missed any opinion. Yamanam (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything specific to al-Aqsa that doesn't apply to the Dome of the Rock (that's the one with the gold dome, by the way) as well. The issue here is Temple Mount/Haram as-Sharif (Noble Sanctuary) and excavation, rennovation and building in and around it, which may have implications both to the current structures and archeology underneath.

So I think the name should be changed to something like "Temple Mount/Haram as-Sharif excavations" (not sure what the rules are in the case of something with two popular names), and include any and all work that may have an effect on current and past structures. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

inaccuracies

this page is terribly mixed up, for ex. the § "In 1996 etc." (ref. 17) has a link to an article about the clashes over the ramp restoration... in 2007! it's the only reference that I checked
-Imad Marie you say that the waqf excavations is a "minor event" well reportedly 13,000 tons of rubble were thrown away -the muslims authorities said it's just rubbish since the place has no archaeological value- which have been rescued, examined and have yielded interesting finds (so far only 14% have been sieved) though because of this barbaric diggings which destroyed the settings in the datable layers they are not very valuable as far as archeological studies are concerned. so this is minor ?
-a lengthy list of reactions to the repair of the ramp and not a word about the works of the waqf (by the way they received permission for 1 emergency exit, not for those extensive unsupervised works) didn't you skip sth somewhere ? are you aware that the ramp is situated at the far south-west end corner of the Temple Mount, and only adjacent to it and not under any structure? (the Dome of the Rock stands in the centre of the northern quarter)
-if you want to keep this article, the whole of it must be redone, chronologically itemized, facts and sources checked and balanced (neutrality policy remember ?)
-and keep in mind that every time some muslim wants to dose fire on the so called arab street (and in countries laking freedom of speech the mobs are gvt organised) they scream that the Jews are destroying the el aksa mosque even when sth is happening say in northern israel and subsequentlly people get killed ; so choose carefully the sources, again check over every article
-accessorily, it's called the "noble sanctuary" not notable although it's indeed note worthy!
-apart from being a botched up job with no encyclopedic value what so ever this article is one more pro palestinian propaganda (which is actually not for the good of the palestinian people but plainly against israel and the Jews) I don't doubt the goodwill of the editors -I read the discussions-, unfortunately a biased stand point for a start doesn't help getting a good quality text wikipedia wise, try harder, may be it's possible to put some order in that messy page
-I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, sorry to have to write such a harsh analysis, I'll keep in touch, with love and respect Hope&Act3! (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

References

The statement "After 1967 Israeli authorities began unlicensed intensive excavation works directly beneath Al-Aqsa Mosque on the southern and western sides" is sourced to 2 references - one is to "ahram" , the other to a book by Gorenberg, w/o a page number. Neither of these is a verifiable reference per WP policy. Please provide proper references to verifiable reliable sources, or it will be removed. NoCal100 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NoCall00, I am afraid that eventhough you've been editing on Wiki for quite a long period, I think you'd like you to have a look here. The reasons are: 1) here you didn't revert my edits; instead you have added references to the places where "citation needed" tag was place since March: According to wiki policies this is not called reverting, it is called providing references. Because as you can see here in my edits (the one you said you reverted) there were no refereces whatsover. 2) Now here you made 2 faults A) you removed a source and added a "citation tg" in the place of the source, which is really weird, if you want the page number then you can mention that in the talk page of the article. and B) You removed a supported sentence by 2 sources without any clarification, which is totally not accepted. Happy editing. --Yamanam (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, why is Ahram considered a non verifiable source? --Yamanam (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me, especially when all my edits are perfectly according to policy. I have removed none of your edits - I replaced "non-references" with a request for a proper citation, and documented this here on the Talk page. What exactly is "Ahrmam"? If you wantto source something to the newspaper "Al-Ahram", you need to provide a reference to a specif issue. NoCal100 (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, you did remove some of my edits, I explained this with evidence - And you didn't replace "non-references" with a request for proper citation, you replaced a "references" with a request for citation (Another advise for you, doing a non legitimate edit to the article, and documenting the opposite at the talk page doesn't legitimize your none-legitimate edits to the article.) Secondly, you wrote in the edit summary that you are reverting my edits, while you weren't. Thirdly, please go back to the article, and whenever you see a sentence refering to the Ahram just click on the little blue number next to the sentence, this will move you to the Refernces sections and you will find a hyperlink next to the number you originaly saw in the text of the article, click on it and you will be redirected to the special issue of the Ahram dealing with this topic. By the way, this applies on almost all references at wikipedia. Thank you. --Yamanam (talk) 15:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I beleive the Ahram issue is my mistake, sorry! I will fix it right over. --Yamanam (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. The problem is that now you have taken two different sources, which talk about 2 different events, and conflated them into one sentence: The Gorenberg quote describes an unlicensed dig in 1967, which was not under Al Aqsa; The Al-Ahram quote talks about an extensive dig, in 1970, which was under Al-Aqsa, but not unlicensed. You edit makes it seems as if there was an extensive unlicensed dg under Al-Aqsa in 1967 I'll fix that. Since the statement attributed to the Gorenberg ref appears immediately after the lead in the history section I'll take it out, leaving just the Al-Ahram ref in the lead. NoCal100 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The whole article needs rewriting and possibly renaming too. Chesdovi (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

if you have any valuable, relevant, supported, and accepted edits (as per wiki policies) then please don't hesitate to add them. Concerning the rewriting and renaming, could you please explain your reasons. --Yamanam (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the latter half of Mugrabi Gate ramp reconstruction. The "Way forward" needs external input, otherwise we will not get anywhere on this issue. Chesdovi (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

a couple of suggestions

1. The article talks about excavation in, under and around Temple Mount/Haram as-Sharif, not specifically Al-Aqsa Mosque. This should be reflected in the article name.

2. I think all this, which is well sourced relevant information, should be included in the article. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talk • contribs) 17:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Both suggestions sound good. NoCal100 (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Please see the latter half of Mugrabi Gate ramp reconstruction and Way forward and provide comments here. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Administrator noteSince no one seems to have objected to this proposal, I'll make the move.--Aervanath (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Temple mount works.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Temple mount works.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Temple mount works.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071030172252/http://saudiembassy.net:80/2007News/News/IslDetail.asp?cIndex=6889 to http://www.saudiembassy.net/2007News/News/IslDetail.asp?cIndex=6889

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Excavations at the Temple Mount. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721141312/http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations2.shtml to http://www.archpark.org.il/excavations2.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081115224345/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/832/re63.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/832/re63.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517100521/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/543/fo2.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/543/fo2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140726151231/http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?Id=20094 to http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=20094
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1084935859481

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Removed unrelated material

It immediately stood out as unrelated, based on the existing text. It was even placed in the lead and I provisionally moved it to the History section. Then I checked the RS source, DW, and - it said nothing about archaeology. I expanded the material based on a 2nd DW posting, to help it at least make sense, and moved it to this page. N.B.: Anadolu source didn't even manage to type the first name and surname of its own contributor correctly, in spite of her being from a quite famous family. Voila.

2016 UNESCO resolutions

In October 2016, UNESCO adopted a resolution introduced by several Arab states, accusing Israel for its occupation of East Jerusalem and allegedly restricting Muslim access to Al-Aqsa. The resolution failed to mention any connection between Judaism and the Temple Mount, which led Israel to sever its cooperation with the organization. Later that month, UNESCO adopted another resolution also introduced by Arab states. Its text criticized the Israeli excavations in the Old City, under the pretext of the Israeli aggressions on the Al-Aqsa compound, after Israel prevented UNESCO experts from accessing the holy sites there. Israel dismissed the accusations as ludicrous, again accusing UNESCO of completely failing to even mention Judaism's any connection to the site.

References

Arminden (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is a cheat

It stands under a misleading name, pretending to be what it isn't. The purpose and content of most postings is political, but it doesn't have the decency of using the right name, like "Conflict over Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa#Archaeology".

Named as it is, one expects to learn about the actual digs & finds from the compound, with some extensions regarding the outer perimeter. But where's Montagu Parker's fly-by-night graverobber dig? Where is Conrad Schick's work? Don't tell me his was just a survey, not a dig, otherwise why mention Warren's survey? Where's a mention (other than my brief one) of the Waqf archaeologist, and what can he show for his efforts? Where's the Islamic Museum, where did it get its artifacts from? Where the work done inside the Hulda Gates and the Golden Gate? Yes, even inside Solomon's stables? Where's even a mention of Finkelstein & Co.'s "tell on the hill" theory? Or of Ritmeyer's wall, now covered, which he identifies with the oldest T. Mt? Or even the finds made within the Mamluk buildings, like the recently restored Madrasa al-Ashrafiyya, the Tankiziyya, the Omariyeh School on the Antonia Hill, and so forth? Useless to ask, the only focus here is the fucking CONFLICT: show it to the other side, preferably the Israeli (as things stand right now). Great. Good luck with the encyclopaedia project, dear activists. Arminden (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)